Posted by: Koto Elessar | February 27, 2012

Alberta Justice, or the Lack Therof.

On Febuary 16th 2012, I sent a letter to several members of the Provincial Legislature of Alberta in regards to a criminal action committed against me. In August 2011 my landlord sent a letter demanding we pay him an additional $1000 dollars immediately or he would commence eviction proceedings. A letter was sent back to him informing him that his demands violated the law and we would not comply with his demands. He retaliated.

The documents prove what I say to be true, they are ready to be published at any time.

Calgary Police Services refuses to to take statements against the landlords in this matter.

An Open Letter to Premier Alison Redford: Re: Patricia Leahul suborns perjury, brings disrepute to the Residential Tenancy Dispute Resolution Service Hearing process.


  1. I, Kody Sippel, respondent/tenant in Residential Tenancy Dispute Resolution Service Case # C 12 – 8681 do hereby state the following to be true. As of this date, I am not currently involved in any legal proceedings. I have never received a “Notice to Terminate Tenancy.”

  2. On or about February 7th, 2012, I was served as a respondent in a Residential Tenancy Dispute Resolution Service Case Number C-12-8681 in a hearing that proceeded on Friday, February 10th, 2012, half an hour after I was summoned to appear. I was additionally served with two pieces of correspondence on or about February 8th, 2012.

  3. I understand that the Appellant, Andrzej Samusz twice visited my residence on Friday, February 3rd, 2012 after he filed his application, but he failed to post the hearing date on February 3rd. As a result, I was improperly served, leaving me with little notice to attend to this matter. Why did the Appellant not post on February 3rd, 2012 when he had two opportunities to do so?

  4. Twice on February 3rd, a pounding was heard on the door of my residence while members of my household slept. I work nights and we maintain a schedule of sleeping during the days. The first time pounding was heard on the door, by the time a member of my household, awakened by the pounding, went to answer the door, no one was at the door. The second time a pounding was heard on the door, it was after dark. We were not expecting anyone so the door was not answered after dark.

  5. Literature obtained on February 11th 2012 from the Residential Tenancy Dispute Resolution Service, herein referred to as RTDRS states that disputes are settled or mediated by an experienced Expert who has the title of “Dispute Resolution Officer.”

  6. Patricia Leahul came to the hearing identifying herself as a “Representative” of the Residential Tenancy Dispute Resolution Service, so for the purposes of this information, she will be referred to as the “Representative” of the hearing that took place on February 10th, 2012.

  7. In my first observations of the Representative, she was trying to explain to the Appellant that he needed to file an “Affidavit of Service,” before she, the Representative could proceed with the hearing. Representative Leahul coached Mr. Samusz multiple times on how to proceed in this filing, as if she was teaching a child. There is significance to the Appellant’s inability to follow the instructions of the Representative. The Appellant’s wife, Danuta Samusz, then led the Appellant to the filing counter.

  8. The Representative recorded her own proceedings and throughout treated the Appellant and his wife with every due kindness, respect and advocacy that the Representative could afford. She established a very pleasant atmosphere for Andrzej and his wife.

  9. Mr. Samusz’s filed his “Affidavit of Service,” and the document was brought to Representative Leahul. I have never been served with this “Affidavit of Service” filed on February 10th, 2012, nor am I able to view this document contained in the file at the RTDRS offices even though I am a principle in this case. The file is “Confidential.” The file is being kept a secret. I am not allowed to see what documents are in this file or what documents are missing from the file and I am a principle in that file.

  10. After this hearing, I obtained the “Landlord’s Filing Package,” from the Residential Tenancy Dispute Resolution Service. In the package, was a copy of the Landlord’s “Affidavit of Service.”

  11. The Landlord’s Filing Package’s “Affidavit of Service” clearly states that the Appellant must include in his service “the Canada Post Receipt with the “Tracking Number.” He must further swear that this document is included in the “Landlord’s Application” as “Exhibit ‘A’.”

  12. I know from Canada Post Tracking Information that the Appellant obtained the Canada Post Receipt on November 4th, 2011 at 13:11 hours, or at 1:11 p.m. Having personally sent registered letters, I know the receipt includes the address of the recipient of the registered letter. This information was deliberately excluded from my purview.

  13. I know from researching this tracking number given to us as, “LT689105301CA,” that the “Tracking Information” states there were addressing problems. The Appellant provided many examples of addressing problems in his correspondence that he did provide to the RTDRS hearing.

  14. I argued that these Post Office receipts are vital to providing “The Tracking Number,” and to which address the “Registered Letter” had been addressed.

  15. The Representative ignored the rules and procedures of the RTDRS for her conduct in the hearing by dismissing this very vital evidence. They are hiding where this “Registered Letter” was sent, because there were addressing errors.

  16. Even though the Appellant raised the issue of the “Tracking Information,” Representative Leahul refused to allow the available document I provided to be entered into the record. This was a clear indication that I could not have received a “registered letter” from the Appellant.

  17. The evidence from “The Tracking Information” clearly states that the sender had made addressing errors and that Canada Post “tried to correct” these errors. Canada Post documentation also clearly shows that the item was delivered on November 9th, 2011 contrary to the many incorrect assertions being made by the Appellant that it was delivered on November 11th, then on November 23rd.

  18. I served “The Tracking Information” upon the Appellant with more than 24 hours in advance of the hearing. In past hearings, I have seen many instances where this was not only held acceptable but common practice.

  19. The tracking information contained information vital to whether or not the package may have been delivered to the correct address and even though the Appellant brought the tracking information up, the Representative refused to accept all the evidence that I came to give.

  20. Representative Leahul, without expert testimony or the expression that she is a handwriting expert then determined, that the signature provided in “Item ‘C’” was mine.

  21. The signature appears to begin with the Letter “Y” then is illegible, but it is missing one letter that I always emphasize in my signature, the “S” that begins my last name. This signature in the item is not mine.

  22. I was not given any opportunity by Representative Leahul to question the questionable documents placed into evidence by the Appellant, even though Residential Tenancy Dispute Resolution Service literature states that I do have that right to question the evidence of both the Appellant and his evidence.

  23. The Appellant claimed that he also posted the contents of the “Register Letter” to our door, sometime during the day of November 4th, 2012. Following that day, the Landlord produced or could have produced five documents that prove this “service” of posting documents to our door on November 4th, 2011 never took place.

  24. The five documents that prove the Appellant did not post a Notice on my door on November 4th, 2011: Three of them are “Affidavits of Service,” from Andrzej Samusz that detail his postings of November 4th, 2011, on or about February 7th, 2012 and for the additional posting on February 8th, 2012 and two exhibits that must be marked “Exhibit “A” and “Exhibit “B.”

  25. I have never been presented with any “evidence by the Appellant that indicates that he posted any notice to our door on November 4th, 2011. The Appellant has made this claim for the first time during the hearing on February 10, 2012 without it being backed up by an “Affidavit” or any other evidence.

  26. Representative Leahul allowed this “NEW” evidence to stand without prior notification of this detail and the required documentation to either the Residential Tenancy Resolution Service or to myself. The fact that this document does not exist, does not mean that it should not exist. This posting was not sworn to in an affidavit by the Appellant or in an “Affidavit of Service.”

  27. The Appellant filed an “Application” to the Residential Tenancy Dispute Service and was required to list his November 4th, 2011 posting on page two of the four-page document and he did not. He did write that the “Registered Letter” was delivered on November 23rd, 2011. If he posted the door of my residence on November 4th, 2011, he was obligated to list that fact here and the Appellant did not.

  28. In this “Application,” the Appellant also states that the date that the “Registered Letter was delivered was on November 23rd, when in fact the Canada Post documentation states that the item was delivered on November 9th, 2011.

  29. Since both the Appellant’s pieces of correspondence were entered into the record, it can be shown that both these letters have addressing errors, errors in date, factual errors, and the hearsay contained therein ought to be considered libel.

  30. The correspondence marked as Items ‘D’ and ‘F’ make reference to the sending of a “Registered Letter” on November 4th, 2011 and receipt of a “registered letter on three different dates. Nowhere is there any mention that this “Notice” was posted to my door on November 4th or at any time by the Appellant.

  31. I can state that at no time did the Appellant or his wife post a “Notice to Terminate Tenancy” on November 4th, 2011 or at any other time. This assertion by the Appellant is perjury suborned by the Representative, Patricia Leahul.

  32. When I pointed out to the Representative that my current lease agreement with the Appellant expires on September 30th, 2012 The Representative then advocated for the Appellant, then gave and accepted her own evidence that our agreement was a month to month tenancy, when in fact, it is not.

  33. Instead of allowing the required information to be entered into the record, Representative Leahul chose to give weight to four pieces of correspondence, taken out of context with respect to other pieces of correspondence written between the two “disputing” parties. Two of the four pieces of correspondence marked Items ‘E’ and ‘G’ clearly indicate that they are written “W I T H O U T P R E J U D I C E” and as such, have no standing in any judicial proceeding, quasi-judicial or otherwise.

  34. Two pieces of correspondence marked as Items ‘D’ and ‘F’ are of great concern as they are filled with libellous hearsay information and need to be regarded with the same weight as those letters that are clearly written “WITHOUT PREJUDICE. The fair rule of law must be applied.

  35. Representative Leahul even used a line taken out of context from this correspondence to indicate on the ORDER “that the tenant has advised the landlord that they will refuse to vacate.” Nowhere during the hearing were these words ever expressed by anyone which illustrates that Patricia Leahul failed in her duties and read these letters that had no bearing on the case. Patricia Leahul failed to note that this line was in the context that I have not received a lawful “Notice to Terminate.”

  36. To be taken into context, all the correspondence from the Landlord proves that he has never had any intention to “move in a family member” or to do so just for show. His correspondence shows that he even tried to extort an additional $1,000 in security deposits, in addition to the $400 in overcharged security deposits that he admitted to charging in his application.

  37. In all the Appellant’s evictions of his tenants, some of them very recent, Andrzej Samusz has never moved a family member into one of his units nor does he have the intention of doing so now, especially since he just rented out two other units.

  38. I am the longest residing tenant in the Appellant’s units. I have always paid my rent, kept my premises clean and I have contributed more than $30,000 towards the Appellant’s property ownership and property taxes. I am the true taxpayer here and I am being treated like a second class citizen.

  39. I felt treated with discourtesy, disdain and with extreme prejudice as the documents that were or were not introduced at the hearing is clear evidence of the bias shown by the Representative. By what authority does Patricia Leahul have to both represent the RTDRS and act as an “Dispute Resolution Officer?” She has neither the experience or expertise in Residential Tenancies.

  40. I think that the Residential Tenancy Dispute Resolution Service ought to do what is right. Patricia Leahul’s outrageous ORDER must be set aside. Andrzej Samusz’s application must be reprocessed and the required paperwork must be submitted in the form of “Exhibit “A”,” and “Exhibit “B”, etc.

  41. While the stated aim of the Residential Tenancy Dispute Resolution Service is fairness, part of that fairness includes complete disclosure and the regulation of the documents that must be provided with the application taken on February 3rd, 2012, all that is suppose to make the process fair for everyone.

  42. This wrong must be corrected and the Appellant must provide a complete application with all documents necessary before proceeding to the hearing process. This “first line of defence,” meant to level the playing field to be equal for all was circumvented by the clerk who would only sign his name as “J.H.” and this must be accounted for.

  43. Without the completed application, there should not have been any hearing, let alone the one that Patricia Leahul so incompetently presided over.

  44. Once Andrzej Samusz has submitted the proper paperwork and given the proper notice, with an opportunity for me to properly file my response, then a fair and equal hearing ought to be given all sides of this “dispute.”

  45. Andrzej Samusz was once a bright and capable man. His behaviour over the recent past leads me to suspect that he may not be competent. Errors in judgment led him to buy the overpriced units at 112 – 28th Ave. N.W. Mr. Samusz thought he was buying an investment property, but instead he was duped into buying a money pit that he now wishes to unload onto unsuspecting others without repairing the problems. After severe flooding he installed a wooden “Retaining Wall” that will do nothing to retain the water in future floods and places future liability on any purchaser of the property. He displayed poor judgment when he lost money in a property scam in Costa Rica.

  46. It also should be noted that contrary to the Landlord-Tenant Act, Andrzej Samusz came to my residence on Sunday, February 12, 2012 and between 2:50 and 3:10 p.m., pounded on my door several times as I was sleeping, disturbing my Sabbath (it is theirs as well). Mr. Samusz then posted the Order of Patricia Leahul to our door on a Sunday. This Sunday posting was deemed unlawful, removed and thrown into the garbage. To this date, Patricia Leahul’s order has not been lawfully posted.


Kody Sippel

#2 – 112 28th Ave. N.W.

Calgary, Alberta

T2M 2K2

(403) 970-5207

(403) 966-1895 (alternate number)

Posted by: Koto Elessar | February 8, 2011

Not Dead [But Harper Wishes Otherwise]

Although I do have much still to say I have been silent the past three months. This has largely been due to confidentiality agreements, privacy concerns, family concerns, depression and the poinsettia lobby [which tries to tell people that poinsettia’s are safe and human friendly and totally not causing that crippling depression you are feeling] Thankfully I don’t keep poinsettia’s in my home and the last of them have finally been removed from work [hopefully they went in the trash but I suspect the posties are taking them home with them] and all my lights are the compact fluorescent that simulate natural light [light therapy and a heavy regimen of vitamin D do wonders for Seasonal Affective Disorder]

I am a security guard [yes, yes, imitation bacon, yadda yadda, get it out of your system now, I’ll wait…] I work for one of the large Security firms though I decline to say which one [and don’t ask or bother guessing] as my views and opinions are solely my own [and any labour lawyer will tell you that being politically active is emboldening that particular corporate value and would result in very bad publicity [and generous cash sett settlement} if corporate thought otherwise] My firm is contracted to provide national services to Canada Post, which means that members of my firm are stationed at sites all across Canada.

I tell you this in the interest of full disclosure and so that it is known that there are subjects that I can not talk about in regards to Canada Post and their operations. I am however still a tax paying, voting citizen [there are many who do one or the other or neither at all] and as such I do have a right to comment on our Crown Corporation. There are many on the right who say we should sell it off and contract out all the jobs and let the market take it’s toll. I am not one of them.

At this time I would like to direct your attention to the Canadian Union of Postal Workers [CUPW] website were information such as submission of notice of bargaining can be found [submitted in October, strike could happen anytime at this point] I would also like to introduce you to Canada Post’s side of things [found by clicking “I’m an Employee” at the bottom of their main page] and I would like to welcome Deepak Chopra [not to be confused with Dr. Deepak Chopra MD whose site is far more interesting] and wish Moya Greene all the best as CEO of [recently privatized] Britons Royal Mail Service.

Moya Greene is famous for her stance that it is the senders responsibility to ensure that our mail gets to us, causing much confusion between Canada Post and the various Law Enforcement agencies as to whom the buck should be passed to. Indeed, even if local LEO’s catch a person stealing your mail, unless the sender asks for charges to be laid there is nothing you can do. This is beside the point [if there ever was one]

So let’s get to it, despite the deficiencies in the post in ensuring that our mail actually arrives at our door we still have a public post office that is staffed by unionized workers who make a rather decent living: A Strike or Lockout in this day and age could very well kill the Post Office. This may not seem like a bad idea to some after all we have the internet [for now…] who needs the post?

Well for one thing, I do. I no longer have magazine subscriptions as the publications I subscribed to have decided that online media is the way of the future but I still like to receive my bills delivered to my door on a monthly basis [despite their insistence I switch to online billing and direct withdrawal] I suspect that my utility company is not sending a bill just to force me to switch to online billing, of course thanks to Ms. Greene I have no recourse if that is the case.

I prefer email because it is instantaneous and I know if the recipient has received it, the post used to be reliable but slow and now it is only slow. If job action occurs the post will become irrelevant. Canada Post is one of the Countries biggest employers with 72000 employees. Economists say we cannot afford to keep the post but what will happen if 72000 people hit the unemployment roles?

From what I understand Canada Post is asking that the union cut benefits for the next contract, the union is right to stick to their guns and fight for their benefits [benefits the majority of Canadians do not receive]  but if negotiations fail Canada will lose more then just their mail service.

Posted by: Koto Elessar | November 19, 2010


The month of November has entered the final half and approaches my birthday [I am a Sagittarius; for those who do not believe in astrology, to say your sign over your birthday is more intimate] the month thus far has been one filled with emotion:   Election Day, Guy Fawkes Day and my Grandfathers Birthday, [the two on the same day] and lastly Remembrance Day. It is logical to feel emotion for these days.


Election Day came early this year on 10/11/02 Americans voiced their displeasure at being fleeced, by electing representatives of their fleecers though many voted their conscience on the issues at hand. It is possible that these freshmen to the house believe what the espouse and will actively seek what the voters supported them for but I think the voters will have to be actively vocal with there representatives to serve their interests. Presidential Elections are 12/11/06 and it is up to the voters to decide the fate of the republic.


Guy Fawkes Day though not actively recognized in the Commonwealth’s Capitol is recognized by those who wish to remain anonymous and those who wish for a republic. The rest of the world is not the United States though we may have a form of democracy the attempts to imitate it. Remember, Remember the Fifth of November, the Gunpowder Treason and Plot. I know of no reason the Gunpowder Treason should ever be forgot. A familiar ode to a soul all but legend and decreasingly vilified. The date remembers the the attempt on the king when a group of conspirators  plotted to and nearly succeeded in blowing up parliament. Guy Fawkes was not the leader of the group but the provider of the black powder that was to be the explosive. Fawkes was caught after the barrels had been placed but before he could light the fuse.


Which brings us to my Grandfathers Birthday on that same day, though I doubt he held to the holiday either. From what I understand of him [as much was kept from me] he was an engineer who came to Canada from Germany, his father died in the second world war when an allied shell hit his panzer tank. My father told me a story once of how my grandfather was offered a job for a very eminent Turkish man who needed air conditioning installed in his palace. My grandfather was unwilling to move to Turkey so instead trained one of his Eminences sons to be able to build and install such an item. My father received a Turkish Delight treat as a gift from the son. It is an odd story but it is essentially all I know of my Grandfather. I can not even tell you if he is still alive.


Remembrance Day is the day we honour our veterans who have served, our soldiers abroad and our sons and daughters who return in spirit only. I know of three of my family who fought in the great wars; For the French, For the English and For the Germans. I know nothing about the fourth set of Grandparents though it is believed they were German as well. My Fathers Mother died when he was a teen and spoke of her rarely if ever. Next year will be 11/11/11, an auspicious date if ever there was one.


All these days lead up to my Birthday as I have already said. I usually take my Birthday off treating it as a holiday as well as the weeks surrounding it and after a month of remembrance the time to reflect is usually much needed. I was surprised by the American election and see great prospects rising in the next two years, I genuinely believe the new session will orient the Republic in a direction not anticipated by the voters. The memory of Guy Fawkes has become a beacon for those seeking a republic and a reminder of the cost of tyranny and I see him being remembered by more. It is future Remembrance Days that I do not look forward to, our soldiers will continue to fight under the Commonwealth for the Republic as they should but we must not allow their fight to give excuse for tyranny as it has.


You must remember that the rest of the world is not America, that we are not a part of the Republic but a dependant on their strength. We suffer from taxation and it is our American friends who must elect representation for us all. For those of us who seek a Republic our fate lies with the health of the current one with repercussions that effect all of us.

Posted by: Koto Elessar | October 14, 2010

Does Safety Exist?




The source for this missive is from a Strong friend of mine and fellow blogger Mike Thomas. Mike was fired from his job for blogging about and posting pictures of living conditions at Alberta Oilsands Workcamps.


Some clarifications:

Oilsands, not tarsands; They are strip mining oil, not tar. This makes a difference to those who want to obfuscate the issues.

Workcamps are staffed by paid employees not slaves or prisoners. Just in case this was not obvious.


With that being said the firing of Mr. Thomas by his employer is retaliation at the very least and though possibly criminal in behaviour it raises an interesting point. Suncor is not the only company to do this to their workers, in fact I see the workcamps as microcosms of how the poor live in Calgary, which is in and of itself is a microcosm of how the poor are portrayed in America. Living in squalid conditions with horrible food, kept awake all night by more important business concerns and uncertain if they will have the same roof over their head tomorrow.


In conditions where people are forced to live under “someone else’s roof” and though renting may be cheaper the landlord may not be delivering on services promised: People become ill, stressed and in fear of their very existence in these conditions. People die because of these conditions and for what? The workforce becomes less productive causing the company to become less productive resulting in layoffs, except this is a commodity that everyone needs so there is always a need for workers. It doesn’t matter what “it” is that they are producing so long as everyone needs it they can keep throwing workers at it regardless of the quality of the product.


This Environment means the company can treat their workers poorly as the alternative is unemployment and few would choose to challenge the company. Mike Thomas challenged Suncor and will fight for what he believes is right. He is likely going to be black balled form working as an electrician and faces years in court to win justice for his fellow workers and bring vindication to his name. He is the one of the most courageous men I know.


The people of Calgary face similar problems though many will deny it. As housing costs have sky rocketed above sustainable or even actual value, it is cheaper to rent and though there are those who make more the $50k a year who can make their bills there are many whose jobs leave them struggling, forcing many to make a choose between food and shelter. Many live in squalid conditions as it is all they can afford and the landlords know it, taking advantage of those in a destitute situation. Many citizens work multiple jobs to afford their meagre accommodations  and are forced to choose between earning enough to live and the ability to earn a restful nights sleep. Fast Food and premade foods become the staple of these families diets.


Though I now live in a modern home with reasonable landlords this is my third permanent residence in Calgary since moving here five years ago. There are many who are forced to move every couple of months from slum to slum as it is all they can afford and the slum lords know how to make three months rent off of two months occupancy. Experts tell us it is cheaper to rent, Cheaper for Who? The cost of moving is measured in more then dollars and cents, the stresses placed upon tenants in this unregulated system have citizens living in fear. Yet the troubles Calgarians face is only a fraction of the problems for the poor of the US of A, where even if you own your home you don’t.


We should all know by now the story of the past thirty years, how Regan and W and Newt and Limbaugh have manipulated America to bring it to the edge of destruction. Greed, that is what drove these men to impoverish millions, corporate greed. For those in America who have mortgages on their home I pray for you as America has become the Workcamp for corporate interests.


Mike Thomas is a courageous person who is standing up to the corporate greed but cannot stand alone, courage alone is not enough to defend our rights, United We Stand, do not give in to fear and hate and the stresses imposed upon you, Speak Up and defend not just your right but the right of every single citizen to Life, Liberty, Freedom and Happiness. Rise and and become active to help those in need stand strong against corporate interests, You, Me our Brothers and Sisters are what make our country great and companies like Suncor or Koch Ind. need remember why they are in business. If Suncor is allowed to this to their workers how long before we all are asking, Does Safety Exist?

Posted by: Koto Elessar | September 22, 2010

Crime Does Not Register!

The standard assertion of Law and Order is usually that crime does not pay, however the main issue over the long gun registry is the fact the registry has not prevented a single crime. Which brings us to why we have laws to begin with, to punish someone who has committed a crime.

Law in and of itself is not a deterrent for crime, this has been eloquently demonstrated by the United States penal system. Tough on crime does not mean a reduction of crime but an exponential increase to the convicted felon population living off the public purse.

Of course having the Torie government championing the defeat of the long gun registry is consistent with their view of lower government spending, they [metaphorically] shoot themselves in the foot by championing the tough on crime stance. I will leave the Central Securities Regulator for another article.

Regardless of inconsistencies in the Torie platform their championing to abolish the registry is the correct one. The registry has not been used for their stated purpose of preventing crime, in fact the only effect I have seen of the long gun registry is the harassment of law abiding citizens.

A close friend of mine is a gun collector, he is fully licensed to own and fully trained to operate and care for any gun, rifle or other miscellaneous firearm. He stores his armoury in [far] better then the minimum prescribed safes, uses individual trigger locks for each of his weapons and only buys enough ammunition for what he would take to the range that day.

He doesn’t go to the range often either, ammo being expensive and he on a limited income.

I will say that one of his weapons was a Thompson sub machine gun, a fully automatic weapon. For a boy who grew up watching the stars of silver screen wield the Thompson or Tommy Gun as it is colloquially known as, he had always wanted to own one. With at least 16 films prior to 1946 featuring a Tommy Gun not to mention the radio and television appearances, it makes an impression on a young man.

Side note: There is an internet movie Firearm database. Found here:

So when he had the opportunity to buy one he did.

Now this was under the Liberal government when the registry came into effect and as a dutiful citizen he registered his weapons. The government then asked that he file additional paperwork about his weapons, he did. The government then asked that he fill out additional paperwork, so naturally the paperwork was filed. Well, as he had fully complied with everything the government had asked of him, the government naturally asked him to meet a representative of the ministry to finalize all the paperwork.

He met with and filled out everything to the satisfaction of the government proving his absolute compliance with the law. The Government then petitioned the court that his weapons be taken away from him submitting the now mountain of paperwork that my friend had submitted as well as a greater amount of paper for the legal reasons why his full compliance with the law earned him the loss of the right to bare arms.

For my friend it is too late, the abolishment of the registry will be little compensation for his lost Tommy gun. He was told to sell it within x days or take it to the foundry to be melted down at his expense: a buyer could not be found, the foundry was fed. The outcome of the vote today will be watched intently by many Canadians for different reasons. It is possible that the vote may suddenly become a confidence issue.

If the registry is saved the NDP will be bring forth legislation to amend the bill. I would support an amendment to change the bill perhaps, only registering the sale of a weapon instead of the possession of one but I and my fellow like minded Canadians would have preferred the long gun registry to have been shot down in first reading.

Posted by: Koto Elessar | September 21, 2010

Imbuing God Earns Jail Time


If you have not clicked the source I will try to explain the headline, if you have I will try and explain the headline.

Quentin Martin Brown, serving time for robbery [statutes convicted on not given] was sentenced to four extra months for possession of illicit drugs. He was found in the possession of a bible soaked in hash oil, his plan was to smoke it, one page at a time.

Mr. Brown had a plan to reflect on his crime[s], he would turn to his bible when times got rough, he would turn to his bible when times were good, and perhaps he was more then willing to share.

The judge who sat on his bench, could not believe this mensch, who would dare to defile this book of god. A Sacrilege! Cried the judge, and noted the Pastor who sought to burn in Florida. Though the reference was largely a non sequitur.

The judge believed that Mr. Brown was actively seeking to defile his bible instead of seeking the comfort it brought him. Mr. Brown plead guilty to possession and the judge sentenced him for taking comfort from his bible. Yes Mr. Brown found comfort in his bible just not in the same way the Judge did.

Now this is largely my imagination as to how this happened as the source for my source is not easily or freely public: did the judge by Mentioning Pastor Jones and the sacrilege of the act make the very act an issue of religion.

Mr. Brown is obviously a disadvantaged person, having to serve time for his crime[s] and rehabilitate his ways: he sought comfort from his bible as many a Canadian Judge expects of any convict. Since the Judge raised his own personal religious objections in a charge that is still under constitutional question it infers a bias that has no place in law.

Editorializing the verdict instead of focusing on the merits of the case under the law, questions the law. If the law alone were enough to convict Mr. Brown the judge would not have to rely on his own religious belief, though it was likely not the Judge’s intent.

Perhaps, like me, the judge begrudges anyone the right of burning a book.

Posted by: Koto Elessar | September 19, 2010

Lorem Ipsum


Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. This is latin, though that may be self evident. Ponder, for what mood this is to bring up latin in and I hope I have not lost you. Like I, you likely do not speak it fluently. Which brings us to Johh, who likely does not speak latin either Kelly and where I may have lost you.

As you may have heard [likely not] Mr. Kelly was arrested for posting libellous and inflammatory statements about past and currently serving members of the Calgary Police Services including those who are acting in an ongoing murder investigation and the Current Chief of Police. I will not be citing any of John Kelly’s statements here or mentioning the content of his website, it is now for the court to decide.

The subject  of Mr. Kelly’ website  is inconsequential as it is his intent that will be put on trial. If Mr. Kelly set out to activly impune the reputation of these officers and the Calgary Police Services then he is guilty of an indictable offence: liable.

Some may be pointing to free speech and actively engaging for the respect of the 1st Amendment rights to freedom of speech he justly deserves. You are also forgetting that this is Canada and though you are free to speak you do not have a constitutional protection to free speech about your government. For that matter you do not have a constitutional right to petition the government.

The United States Bill of Rights does not apply to Canadians living in Canada. The confused look is hopefully about the apparent fact that I have forgotten Section 24 so let us compare: to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. This is the last line of the first amendment, Section 24 reads:

24. (1) Anyone whose rights or freedoms, as guaranteed by this Charter, have been infringed or denied may apply to a court of competent jurisdiction to obtain such remedy as the court considers appropriate and just in the circumstances.

(2) Where, in proceedings under subsection (1), a court concludes that evidence was obtained in a manner that infringed or denied any rights or freedoms guaranteed by this Charter, the evidence shall be excluded if it is established that, having regard to all the circumstances, the admission of it in the proceedings would bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

I have expected many of you to jump over that and urge those that have to go back and read it again. The US Bill of rights made it dead simple to understand that they could go to any branch of their government to seek any redress. The Canadians have made it self evident that evidence has to be presented  by a learned individual of the bar who can fully demonstrate the properties of your case within the confines of the law.

Mr. Kelly must prove his intent is other then stated in the crown’s application in order to successfully defend himself in court. For which one may be inclined to think that Sections 11 & 13 apply except all the crown needs to prove guilt is the very documentation that should fall under free speech.  This leaves Mr. Kelly to prove his actual intent as case law has already defined that liable in this manner allows for a limitation to free speech to be applied.

Though I had not thought of it till now why do sections 11 & 13 not apply in this case? The answer being that Mr. Kelly does not speak latin and cannot articulate his case in the necessary manner to the courts. I fear I have lost you again, for what Mr. Kelly needs to be able to do is speak legalese, a form of half english interspersed with latin words that is favoured in most if not all legal proceedings.

If Mr. Kelly had been able to speak legalese he would have been capable of bringing an application to the attention of a lawyer who, for a fee, could intercede on his behalf with a jurist of the appropriate body. In doing so Mr. Kelly’s concerns could have been reviewed to their merit within the law and if Mr. Kelly’s application was declined he could proceed, for a fee, with an appeal to a higher body up to but not exclusively to, the Supreme Court of Canada. Is it any wonder Mr. Kelly published online instead: by opting for this choice however he precludes his evidence to be brought forward on their merits until it can be proven whether or not he did so with malicious intent.

For you see it is the Crowns duty to bring this matter to the courts to present to a respected jurist the evidence for which one might be tried. The Crown however, relies solely on the evidence brought to them from members of the Executive branch and may not perform due diligence in ensuring the accuracy of the evidence presented to them. For that matter the Executive branch may not send an investigator but a member of a paramilitary force to investigate.

I would like to just say Robert Peel and be done with it. The fact remains that the ideas for the modern police force as espoused by Robert Peel was not that of a paramilitary force, as such a force begins to view citizens as the enemy. This results in a cycle where the Force interrogates for the information they want and Citizens largely refusing to answer causing further resentment in the Force. Respect being a two way street this convoluted process of interactions is more of an eight direction interchange.

Did Mr. Kelly have a right to free speech according to law, maybe. Can the government prosecute Mr. Kelly for his statements, definitely. Should the Government prosecute anyone who speaks out about the way the government operates, well I thought we fought a couple of wars about that, or was it just that France was occupied, twice.

This matter could largely have been dealt with if Mr. Kelly was able to freely express his grievances and concerns at their earliest opportunity instead of having charges filed against him for interfering with a police investigation. Which brings us back to redress, if Mr Kelly was unhappy with the way the Force had dealt with him why did he not seek redress through a lawyer  as implied by the charter?

[I think I lost myself in all this, our legal system is definitely convoluted  and obtuse and full of latin]

Oh, right,he was probably just as confused about everything I just mentioned and angry at the hoops he had to jump through to be heard. His points may have merits but as he has no redress to petition the government, knowledge of legalese with which to do so or the freedom of speech to inform others about his feelings towards the government he is likely guilty of a crime as defined by law. Too bad only lawyers and jurists understand it otherwise he might receive a fair trial.

Lorem Ipsum, I would like inform you, is from a block of text by Cicero that is commonly used by printers to test typeface and spacing.  The book is “de Finibus Bonorum et Malorum” (The Extremes of Good and Evil) and was written as a treatise on the theory of ethics in 45 BC. {BCE for those who have been to university and know better}

Posted by: Koto Elessar | June 19, 2010

The state of Religious Rights in Canada

Read more:

From the National Post article comes thoughts on the current state of religious rights in Canada.

The court challenge in Ontario is largely seen as a battle over marijuana, the church of the universe as an over-glorified pot club seeking to gain the legal right to smoke their weed:

The federal government is arguing that the Church of the Universe is a “parody” of a religion. “Most people turn to religion as a moral guide. The Church of the Universe offers no teachings in this crucial realm beyond a single platitudinous tenet: Do no harm,” state federal Crown lawyers Nicholas Devlin and Donna Polgar. “The Church of the Universe offers only a single-point of belief, namely that people should use marijuana,” the Crown writes.

The government offers that the only path to god lay in the strict teachings of one to another that only through the priesthood can one have access to god.  I do not believe this is so. Buddhism is centered around the enlightened ascension of Siddhārtha Gautama’s life. The path his life took him to Arahant is a singular one, it is not the only one.

In my life I was given freedom to discover religion if I chose to. My father was an atheist and mother was raised catholic though chose a singular path herself in the presence of my father’s atheism. I had several copies of the bible; Protestant, Catholic, Mormon: Read into ancient religions; Norse, Egyptian, Greek…

I absorbed much of the world’s religious beliefs, but it was tempered by scientific method, formulas, programs. As I searched out in knowledge of the spiritual I researched and studied computer programming. I have a shelve of books in my library dedicated to some of the finer programs of the 70’s, 80’s and 90’s [sounds like a music compilation pitch] and as a result I have a working knowledge of how computer programming evolved to today’s standard and am capable of writing code in any of today’s modern languages [after going over the command sheet]

Growing up with knowledge of programming commands [on, off, if, and, or, not, then, what, when, where, why, how…] it made it easier to asses and act on situations and was aided by two concepts that adults have trouble with; Logic and Occam’s Razor. I see myself as a functional living computer complete with firewall’s, Graphic User Interface, and learning protocols. Weird, perhaps but I found that the Mr. Spock like influence[s] in my life became instrumental in my ability to remove emotion from a situation allowing me to be objective.

Then I found Buddhism and though I largely saw myself of Christian descent I had found through my own quest that Joshua ben Joseph of Nazareth, known to be the Christ, was also known as Issa a disciple of the Buddha. The implications of this blew my mind: I saw this as the culmination of the War of East vs West with the Scions of Ibrahim [Judea, Christian, Islamic beliefs] and the Teachings of the Buddha coming together.

I know the atheists would see the pursuit of  Arahant as a disillusion and distraction from the problems of the real world but the peace they have made with themselves to come to that belief is in and of itself a religious experience.  Marx wrote that religion is the opiate of the masses and though I agree with the statement I disagree with the conclusion that all religion should be abolished as that would be infringing on the individuals right to belief.

The right of the individual to belief is fundamental in any society. To say I must seek from others truths knowable only to me is anathema to my beliefs.  If the government seeks to oppose the Church of the universe on the grounds that the government can dictate what is religion and what is not, then the religious rights of every single Canadian is at stake in this constitutional challenge.

Do not support the Church of the Universe because of their Quest to seek freedom of persecution, rally against the loss of Religious rights of every single Canadian at the hands of your Government.

I am reminded of one more quote…

“THEY CAME FIRST for the Communists,
and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Communist.
THEN THEY CAME for the trade unionists,
and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a trade unionist.
THEN THEY CAME for the Jews,
and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Jew.
and by that time no one was left to speak up.”

Posted by: Koto Elessar | June 10, 2010

Open Letter to Minister Prentice

My name is Kody Keir, I am a constituent of yours and on May 26th I posted a question on your Facebook Fan page. I have not heard back from you and today, Thursday June 6th, when I went to check your fan page I found my question had been deleted. As I did not keep a record of the original question I will have to ask again using new words. I am disappointed that instead of answering a question of national importance that it would be summarily deleted.

Minister Prentice I am concerned about the future of the Canadian Space Agency. As you should know by now President Obama plans to privatize the space industry and cancel the Ares Heavy Lift Rockets along with Constellation Program. The cancellation of the Ares Rockets in favour of private industry developments leaves Canada without a reliable means of transportation to the International Space Station. NASA has a history of reliability and safety that is unparalleled.

I am aware that Russia and China will allow us access to space on their rockets but I and my fellow Canadians feel that this would be unreliable and an insecure way to access our commitments in Space. Waiting for private industry to develop a Heavy Launch vehicle is equally unreliable. A Heavy Launch Vehicle is already in production by NASA, the Ares I and V rockets.

Will Canada have the courage to speak out against the privatization of space programs?

Posted by: Koto Elessar | May 13, 2010

Pardon? No, Records Suspension.

Recently the government has announced that they will be changing the way our Pardon system works; If the legislation passes both houses criminals will no longer be seeking a pardon but a Records Suspension. As the issue that raised the subject is universally accepted as a “should not have happened in a civilized society” I will only comment that their is a special place in hell for Sexual Predators and the Sadistic Detritus that has brought about this review of the Pardon system.

What concerns me with this proposed legislation is that it does make it harder for a person to receive this “records suspension”.

“Koto” you’re saying “that’s the point of the legislation.”

Well, yes it is but follow along with this train of thought; Records Suspension implies to me that a person seeking such will no longer have their record wiped clean as under the current system and the legislation is written so that offenders who have shown a pattern of continued behavior after their release will be denied a Records Suspension.

“Duh, whats the problem”

Let us say you are a young activist, old enough to not be covered by the youth criminal justice act [or whatever they have changed the name to] but still young enough to think that putting a pie in the face of a local politician will help achieve real social change. There was a complete breakdown of security and the pie achieved it’s desired target [the pie is lemon meringue, funniest of all pies] and said local politician is broadcast internationally for getting a pie in his face.

The politician is humiliated and enraged but wisely shrugs it off to the press. The politician then persues assault charges with the youtube video of the public humiliation as exhibit “A” and you are convicted and sentenced. Regardless of whether it’s probation, community service,  jail or prison time you server your due and are largely seen as a hero to your peers and fundamental extremist to the government.

As time goes on you realize that only meaningful conversation and socially conscious actions can bring about real change though you remain politically active. Your conviction however limits career and mobility options and now that your older and wiser you apply for a Records Suspension. The Parole Board reviews your case; they see you remained politically active after your release and see your politics and world views as being a continuation of past behaviour. The Parole board denies your Record Suspension.

“WTF?!? That would never happen”

Perhaps not, but if the legislation is not properly scrutinized the government could slip in a requirement that you have to walk on your hands for a year just to do everything to make getting a Records Suspension impossible.

Another thing that concerns me is the name itself, Records Suspension implies that they could fully restore your criminal record under certain conditions.  Using the example above where you did indeed succeed in having your Record Suspended and you ran for public office. You find yourself up against the same politician whom you humiliated all those years ago and you win; The politician then has you disqualified under an obscure regulation outside of the statutes that few are aware of.

This is only a probability of minor consequence as worse could happen. Decry it if you must but be aware that even if the legislation is passed to be fair and representative of the people, that legal regulations that most people are unaware of will be used to distort the law.

I agree that the law needs to be changed, we need to stop the rubber stamp system currently in use but we need a system that is fair to both the victims and the felon. Tough on crimes laws do not work, the United States has proven this, if we go down this path we will give up rights we didn’t know we had or needed.

I draw parallels with the current administration and the Nazi Party Playbook frequently, so I do not need to point out that going after the rights of those most reviled in our society is the knocking of fascism on Canada’s door.

Older Posts »