PART SIX: TOWARDS A FIRST ENDING

I was never able to collect unemployment Insurance, which is now called Employment Insurance, because I had been dismissed. I had written a letter appealing my situation, but my letter was ignored. I tried every angle to be informed of my case. I even tried long shots. I chastised my parents several times for not having told me about my court case. They denied that there was even a case about me being tried. Behind my back, though, I heard them pondering how I knew about my case. In July 1988, the judge, who was presiding over my case in the Supreme Court of Canada, phoned my father and chastised him for not having told me about my case. This embarrassed and infuriated my father. He blamed me for this imposition. This rebuke from the judge was a source of extreme amusement for my mother. She spent hours on the phone telling different people how the judge had told my father off: she said that she wished that she had that much power over my father to tell him off. At this point, it was not a crime not to inform someone of his or her trial in my province. Provisions for such a law were not made until a little more than a year later. I had hoped that the judge would appoint proper representation for me in my case and make certain that I was informed. The other option, which I favoured less, was for the judge to declare a mistrial and restart the trial with me being given fair and proper representation. Neither option was ever exercised.

About four of five months after I came home from Smithers and underwent mental murder at my parents' hands, my family started to push me to find a job. My father threatened to pile all my belongings at the curb in front of his house, if I did not get some form of employment very soon. At this point in my life, I was not well enough mentally to do any job let alone function normally. My mother suggested that I apply at the radio station in Abbotsford, which is a city about six miles or ten kilometres from Mission.

I started a part-time job at CFVR in Abbotsford in September or October 1988. CFVR's parent station was STAR FM in Chilliwack and most of what I produced for CFVR was aired on both stations. I was paid four hundred dollars per month for ten 60-second to 90-second stories per week. I had to drive my own car all around the listening area, which was about 100 miles or 160 kilometres in length, to get many of my stories: I had to pay for my gas. Needless to say, I used the phone a lot in order to save money and time. I was chastised for not interviewing in person all the time.

My mother phoned the radio station and gave the radio station management the idea of the Eaton's game. The top people of CFVR and STAR FM decided not to hire me until I had gone to bed with someone. In all truth, I was too upset to be working and I was too upset to even really think about women. I was also still pining for the former receptionist of CFBV and I felt committed to her.

I came to know what CFVR and STAR FM were doing to me and I quit in about February 1989.

I appealed to my senator and she told me to appeal to the federal Minister of Justice. Senators in Canada are not elected yet and, at that time, they were appointed by the Prime Minister. To make matters worse, there has been and may still be a Canadian law that allows the Prime Minister to appoint up to ten new senators at one time and at any time. The political party, to which a Canadian senator belongs, was and likely still is unknown or not readily ascertainable. Needless to say, Senator H. Bell was not at all helpful to me. I wrote a letter to the federal Minister of Justice, who doubled as the federal Attorney General at that time.

The federal Minister of Justice, Mr. Douglas, did not contact me, nor did he do anything productive for me. He had many federal underlings spy on me. He instilled no sympathy for me or for my plight in anyone. In fact, he turned many people against me.

Canada is a unique country in many ways. The true head of state is the British monarch. Largely, the policy employed by the British monarch is one of trust with the Canadian politicians. It is generally a hands-off approach. This is not out of complacency, but rather a belief by the British monarch that inefficiencies on the part of the Canadian politicians will be reported to the British monarchy via the proper channels. Having said this though, the Prime Minister of Canada wants everyone to believe that the Prime Minister reigns supreme and there appears to be an atmosphere of collusion among all offices in Canada to allow all politicians to have free reign. To illustrate this point, let us take a look at one incident in Canadian history and compare it with two different perspectives on it.

In 1982, Prime Minister Pierre Elliot Trudeau fashioned what he named a new constitution for Canada and he made it law. He presented only part of it to Her Majesty, Queen Elizabeth II as a new Charter of Rights. Depending on which reference book, that one is using, the caption under the picture of this signing with the Queen and Prime Minister shown may either read that it was the signing of a new Charter of Rights for Canada or that it was the signing of a new Constitution for Canada.

I spoke to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II on March 3, 2003 and she told me that she signed what she was told was a new Charter of Rights for Canada. A copy of this document appears at the end of the Canadian Funk and Wagnall's Dictionary. This document is merely a rather short Charter of Rights. I did actually look at a copy of the "Constitution" in the public library in the 1980's. This document was lengthy and it did incorporate the Charter of Rights.

Incidentally, when France lost Quebec to the British in the last half of the 1800's, the British fashioned a constitution-like document, which is called the British North America Act. This document protected the linguistic and religious of the people of Quebec. It is stated that the Quebecois were nervous that they would lose the right to practice Catholicism and to speak French. The British rulers of that time promised to guard the rights of the Quebecois. The British North America Act survived and kept most Canadians reasonably content until Trudeau's new constitution of 1982! The original draft, that Trudeau made of his constitution, failed to mention Quebec's linguistic and religious rights. People in Quebec were alarmed. Separative sentiments of the Quebecois were given impetus. Trudeau revamped his constitution and made Quebec a 'distinct society'. Lots of English-speaking Canadians were insulted and angered by this new wording. Trudeau had created a rift between Canadians. Trudeau had played God and had come away looking like a Satan.

I wish to illustrate by this historical note how Canadian politicians often try to lord it over the citizens of Canada and how they often create new laws without due democratic process. To most Canadians, most Canadian politicians appear to be hypocritical power barons. Many federal politicians have seemed and do seem to despise Quebec and Western Canada: many actually admit their intolerance and disgust for both these regions in Canada.

Each province in Canada has a representative for the British monarch: this person is called a Lieutenant Governor. There is a federal representative for the British monarch, too, and this person has the title, Governor General. When my appeals to the various levels of the Canadian government turned out to be ineffectual, I decided to appeal to Queen Elizabeth II through the Lieutenant Governor of my province, British Columbia. His name was Robert Lamb (or Lam). Based on historical records and usual protocol for this office, it would have been standard procedure for my appeal to have been passed on to the Queen and Her Majesty's lawyers. I received a letter back from the Lieutenant Governor of British Columbia. He said that it was not the place of the Lieutenant Governor to become involved in private citizens' court cases. He said that the Lieutenant Governor made recommendations only on general laws and general legal procedures within the province of his or her jurisdiction. I was certain that this was partly a lie. I knew that a citizen could use that office to appeal to the British monarch. I did not get the chance to prove my belief until I spoke to the Queen on March 3, 2003. Her Majesty was furious about the weak and erroneous response that I had received from the Lieutenant Governor and stated that it was her representative's responsibility to forward such appeals to her. It seemed to me at the time and it still seems to me that most Canadian politicians support only themselves and sometimes might even exploit ordinary citizens.

I received the response from the Lieutenant Governor in March 1989 and decided against appealing to the Queen directly as I thought that the situation was too dangerous for Her Majesty. I began to worry about the safety of the former CFBV receptionist, who was my principal witness, and about her family. I sensed that many government officials were angry with them and me. I knew that the federal Canadian government was angry enough to kill any one of my main witnesses and me.

I made a calculated risk at this point: I appealed to the United Nations in New York. I wanted to get out of Canada legally with my principal witness and her family. My plan was simple. I wanted to make contact with someone on the phone and arrange this miniature exodus from Canada. I was prepared to move all my belongings out of Canada by myself and into America making sure that the American government knew my intentions and approved. Nevertheless, I did not want just anyone to know this simple plan. I wanted to speak to someone on the phone, discuss my plan, make the necessary preparations, and leave Canada without very much delay. I phoned the New York office of the United Nations from within the state of Washington and was asked to write a letter of appeal to a certain Mr. Dayal. I virtually pleaded with the person on the phone to transfer my call to someone, with whom I could discuss my complaints concerning the Canadian government and plan my fairly speedy departure from Canada. I told the person on the phone that my parents were against me, as well, and that it was a risk to my life to be caught in possession of such an appeal or a even part of it within my parents' house and within Canada. Furthermore, I said that it would have been impossible to receive a response to such an appeal at a Canadian address. These simple facts seemed incomprehensible to the person on the other end of the phone line. I was told that I had to submit a written appeal.

I wrote my appeal to Mr. Dayal on the sly and mailed it from Sumas, Washington, USA. I found a mailbox service in Sumas: its system was such that the user paid by the piece received. The only drawback was that mail was held only for two weeks and then it was returned to the sender. I was delivering newspapers at the time and was not making very much money, so therefore this type of mail service was the best for me. Needless to say, I missed the arrival of the response from the United Nations and it was sent back by the service. I had told the people at the mailbox service about the importance of the letter and had asked them to hold it longer, but they did not.

I phoned the United Nations again and explained what had happened. I was told that I had to write another appeal. I gave up and prepared myself mentally for my certain death at the hands of the Canadian government. The United Nations expertly extracted my principal witness and her family from Canada. This made the Canadian government even angrier with me and I was left to be gunned down. It seemed that the Canadian government was fully aware of my appeal to the United Nations against them.