A website critical of Calgary’s police chief and his senior managers has been shut down, after the chief used a rare legal tactic to seize a computer from a private home.
Chief Jack Beaton obtained a civil court order this month to enter the home of a civilian police employee and seize the computer.
A sweeping gag order issued at the same time prevents anyone from talking about the case or reading documents related to it, which have been sealed.
CBC and other city media are arguing against that order.
You read that right – seizure of property and gag order in a civil case.
All I can say is… Yay for Google!
This is not an anti-police website.
In Memoriam
By now, you have all heard about the recent tragedy in Mayerthorpe Alberta, where 4 members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police were murdered in cold blood while performing their lawful duty.
We, at Code 200, wish to offer our sincere and heartfelt condolences to the families of the slain officers, the wounded and to their colleagues during this horrific time. Police officers are a very large family and when even one of us goes down, we all feel it. There are probably a great number of issues involved that will eventually be addressed sometime, somewhere down the road, but for now, the only real issue is the grief and anger at the loss of 4 outstanding Canadians who lost their lives serving their nation and the community in which they were assigned to protect and serve.
We can presume that there is a special place in Heaven for these members, just as there is undoubtedly a very special place in the unquenchable flames of Eternal Hell for James Roszko. He has received his final sentence from the ultimate judge.
Constables Brock Myrol, Nicholas Johnston, Peter Schieman and Tony Fitzgerald will be added to the ever-increasing list of the law enforcement officers in Alberta who died doing the job they loved. It is unfortunate that this list keeps growing with every passing year. We hope that the public will never forget what their police, 911 dispatchers and support staff do on a day-to-day basis.
We mourn with our brothers and sisters in the RCMP, and we will always treasure their memory. We shall not forget their sacrifice.
To those who are affected by this tragedy, you will be in our thoughts and prayers always. God be with you.
�Gloucester: �Say that I slew them not.�
Lady Anne: � Say then that they are not slain? But dead they are, and devilish slave, by thee.��
– Shakespeare: Richard III, Act 1
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
CPS Stalling Tactics?
About a week ago, we reported to you a certain issue with regard to The Calgary Police legal counsel and their dealings with the Alberta Human Rights Commission. It seems that Human Rights appears to keep getting stonewalled with endless red tape when it comes to investigating allegations of human rights related misconduct reported by CPS members (sworn and civilian) against those in positions of authority.
Mr. Robert Fenton, lead counsel for the Chief, responded to our report and made the accusation that our reporting was �inaccurate� and �grossly defamatory� in its content. As it has been tabled as being inaccurate, we have included a case- example of a factual incident where an Alberta Human Rights investigation has been hampered by CPS management tactics.
In May of 2003, a police constable made a formal complaint to the CPS Internal Affairs Unit, the office of the Chief, and the Alberta Human Rights Commission regarding several incidents of workplace bullying and harassment that he was subjected to between August 2001 and November 2002. This harassment included allegations of racism, verbal threats, the pointing of a loaded firearm at the complainant (and others), as well as various forms of administrative harassment and intimidation committed by supervisors, other police officers and members of management within his assigned district. The behaviors exhibited were of such severity that the complainant was forced to go on medical leave.
The Human Rights portion of the complaint was submitted through the complainant�s legal counsel and covered almost every section of the Human Rights code, with exception of that which pertains to marital and gender issues. The Calgary Police legal counsel was officially served with copies of the human rights complaint no later than June 2003 (as was the Calgary Police Association and the Office of the Mayor). A lawsuit was filed against the Calgary Police Service, which included several named parties, including the Chief of Police, Jack Beaton.
The Alberta Human Rights commission commenced their investigation into the allegations and made several requests to CPS for information to assist in this investigation. CPS had a LEGAL obligation to respond to Human Rights. Instead, CPS legal counsel gathered and constructed a large binder containing reading material concerning Calgary Police policy and procedures. AT NO TIME DID CPS EVER DENY ANY OF THE ALLEGATIONS MADE. What the legal department DID do was to try to elude the human rights investigators by claiming that Alberta Human Rights had NO JURISDICTION over several matters and that some matters contained in the complaint were �exceeding the statute of limitations� (this was false). CPS counsel REFUSED to provide investigators with pertinent evidence, such as witness statements, results of interviews and results of their internal investigation into the matter (as CPS is required to do by law).
Several times during the course of the investigation of the complaint, CPS failed to respond to or comply with the lawful requests from Human Rights. There were four specific times when Alberta Human Rights asked CPS to respond with a defense to the allegations made in the complaint or give an explanation for their failure to comply with the lawful requests of Human Rights within a reasonable time frame. CPS still would not respond.
CPS legal counsel also failed to inform Alberta Human Rights that, after an over ONE YEAR INTERNAL INVESTIGATION, CPS had concluded on 10 June 2004:
(a) there were no grounds for any criminal charges against the complainant�s supervisor for pointing a loaded firearm at the complainant, BUT ; (b) there were to be charges laid under the Police Service Regulations for firearms offences and racist/ tyrannical behavior on the part of the supervisor (Sergeant).
Internal charges were also to be laid against another constable and an internal disciplinary hearing would be held sometime in the future. Instead, there is a documented instance where Human Rights was told that �the investigation was STILL ongoing� and that CPS would not (make that REFUSED to) provide Human Rights with any further information, thereby inhibiting the Human Rights investigators� ability to proceed.
One disciplinary hearing was held in October 2004 and the constable involved in the firearms related incident(s) plead guilty to the internal charge. The constable was demoted several pay scales to 4th class constable. The Sergeant/supervisor has in fact been charged but, as of February 2005, has STILL NOT HAD A DISCIPLINARY HEARING TO ANSWER TO ANY OF THE CHARGES, GOING BACK TO THE ORIGINAL COMPLAINT OF MAY 2003!
To this day, the Alberta Human Rights investigators have NOT been duly informed by CPS legal counsel of the internal charges or their outcome/disposition. Human Rights, after two years, is still NOT receiving any information from CPS regarding the reported incidents of violations of the Human Rights Act/ Regulations despite their many requests. Information just doesn�t show up, even after several months. The last claim made by CPS was that their internal investigation �is still ongoing�. Thus, there is still no resolution of this complaint because of CPS legal counsel�s lack of cooperation or response to Alberta Human Rights.
Conclusion:
This is just but one of the examples of the appearance of �stalling� on the part of the Calgary Police Service when dealing with Alberta Human Rights. There are others documented. There are some pertinent questions to be asked here:
1. If in fact CPS is stalling, would this be to avoid any civil liability resulting from any of these complaints being �founded�?
2. How can CPS legal counsel argue that Alberta Human Rights has �no jurisdiction� over these types of matters when, being a federal agency at its heart, and having such a mandate, clearly DOES have jurisdiction?
3. Will CPS legal counsel ever be held to account for what appears to be a clear violation of Human Rights legislation requiring cooperation within a reasonable time frame, or their apparent refusal to respond to lawful requests of Human Rights?
*Also of note, why has the supervising sergeant in this case not had an internal hearing yet (February 2005), even though the allegations in the internal investigation were SUSTAINED in June 2004???? Could this not be perceived, by a reasonable observer, as another form of �stalling�?
Our contention is that CPS is not behaving appropriately and it is incumbent on us to respond to Mr. Fenton. This is our opinion, we can base it in documented fact and no one has any business making erroneous accusations that we are being �defamatory�.
Mr. Fenton, if you would share the software that you are using that does not allow you access to the message boards with us
we will see if we can have our technical group find a workaround to accommodate that need.
++++++++++
(Prime Time Crime exclusive Oct. 13, 2004)
Time to go for Chief under fire
By Leo Knight
In April I told you of the Staff Sergeant in the Calgary Police Service who had a number of civil suits filed against him by fellow cops who claim he defrauded them of hundreds of thousands of dollars. Calgary Chief, Jack Beaton had decided not to suspend the senior officer, Kirk McCallum, while internal investigations were continuing.
That, in itself, was unbelievable. Beaton, and all police chiefs, need to maintain public confidence in their departments. This is crucial to their job. In doing nothing in this matter, Beaton failed.
After referring the CPS investigation to the RCMP, criminal charges of fraud have now been laid against McCallum and Beaton has finally acted. As I said at the time, it doesn�t have anything to do with the guilt or innocence of McCallum. That will be decided in due course by a court. It has everything to do with public confidence and the higher standard that police are held to. The allegations against a senior member of his department were serious enough that McCallum�s ability to do his job and lead his subordinate officers was compromised. And with that, Beaton should have acted. But he didn�t.
By all accounts Jack Beaton is a nice man. But nice is not a pre-requisite for the job. Last week several other allegations bubbled over into the local media.
Beaton is now reaping what he has sown. Last week a newly retired officer, Tim Goodwin, wrote a letter to the Solicitor General asking for an investigation into the �lack of responsibility and accountability� present in the Calgary Police Service.
Goodwin referred to an incident where another Staff Sergeant, this time Carl Desantis, arrived at the scene of a fatal motor vehicle accident with booze on his breath while operating a police car. According to Goodwin, the investigators at the scene contacted the duty inspector who in turn contacted a Deputy Chief Constable who directed no action be taken.
The backlash that resulted after the Calgary Sun ran the story without identifying those involved, wobbled the Chief. Deputy Chief Rick Hanson issued a memo to the department saying he had never received such a call from a Duty Inspector and consequently had never issued a �make it go away� order.
Hanson demanded an independent inquiry be conducted by the RCMP. Another one. The Mounties should probably start leasing some office space at CPS headquarters.
At any rate, Hanson is quite right, according to my sources. He didn�t receive that call. Even though Hanson is nominally responsible for the Traffic Section, the duty inspector called another Deputy Chief for instruction. The same Deputy, I�m told, who apparently protected Desantis from racism and harassment allegations made by former CPS officer Shon Marsh.
Marsh has made his allegations in complaints to the Police Commissioner and in a civil suit filed against the Chief and the Department.
Interesting.
Ironically, another police officer, Taufiq Shah, has also filed a complaint of racism and harassment against the Department and filed a civil suit too. One of the people named by Shah is none other that Kirk McCallum.
Shah�s claim alleges some pretty disgusting behaviour by supposedly professional police officers. Shah alleges he was called names like �sand nigger� and �terrorist� by his Sergeant, Darwin Pearce. He also alleges Pearce pointed his service weapon at him and engaged in a weapons drawn �show down� in the briefing room of the police station.
One of the officers involved in that was a junior constable, who has since been tried in service court, found guilty and suspended. But hey, what about Pearce or his boss, Kirk McCallum?
If I didn�t know better, I�d say they had a well-placed rabbi. Perhaps a Deputy Chief Constable? One who takes phone calls late at night?
With the media heat turned up in Calgary, outside inquiries being done by the RCMP into actions by his most senior officers and apparent cover-ups of something as insidious as blatant racism, the Chief Constable is facing a credibility challenge and a significant loss of public confidence.
For Jack Beaton it remains to be seen if he can regain that confidence. Unfortunately, a survey done last month by the police association and released last week, showed he had already lost the confidence of the men and women under his command. Seventy per cent of police officers in his city think he should go.
And so he should. It�s long past time.
++++++++++
Tim Goodwin�s letter as it is referred to in the text above:
2004 September 23
Attention: Honourable Heather Forsyth, Solicitor General
Dear Solicitor General Forsyth:
I have a genuine responsibility to the members of the Calgary Police Service and to the citizens of Calgary. Consequently, I direct this correspondence to your attention.
Members of the Calgary Police Service are aware of the after described incident that demonstrates alcohol abuse continues to be a problem within the Calgary Police Service.
The practice of conveniently ignoring the problem for reasons of political expediency is an issue that should be properly addressed before further tragedy and unnecessary death occurs.
I refer to the tragic death of Constable Brian Hanson, wherein Hanson, after leaving a Traffic Section Unit party, hosted by the Traffic Section Sergeant, was involved in a fatal motor vehicle accident that also claimed the lives of two young Calgary citizens.
Investigations determined that Hanson was impaired by alcohol and well in excess of the legal limit of alcohol in his blood at the time of the accident.
Notwithstanding the aforementioned tragedy the Calgary Police Service continues to place members and citizens at risk by failing to address the issue of alcohol abuse in a responsible fashion.
The following incident not only demonstrates a lack of prudence and due diligence, but also a total lack of responsibility and accountability.
The Traffic Section Staff Sergeant, operating a Calgary Police Service vehicle while under the influence of alcohol, drives to the scene of an injury accident. Enroute to the injury accident scene the Staff Sergeant is involved in a motor vehicle accident. Upon arrival at the scene of the injury accident, Investigators observe that the Staff Sergeant is impaired by alcohol to operate a motor vehicle.
The opinion formed by the Investigators prompted the Investigators to contact the Headquarters Duty Inspector for authority to take the appropriate action.
The Headquarters Duty Inspector contacted a Deputy Chief for direction in the matter.
The Deputy Chief contacted the Investigators and ordered the Investigators not to take any action.
Justice, and the spirit and intent of the law, was obstructed for reasons of political expediency on this occasion.
The citizens of Calgary have a rightful expectation of a greater standard of integrity from the Calgary Police Service.
The problems of alcohol abuse and the associated issues of responsibility and accountability cannot be addressed within the community until these issues are addressed within the Calgary Police Service.
Failing to take the appropriate action in the aforementioned incident, the Calgary Police Service committed a serious breach of public trust.
I respectfully request that the Office of the Solicitor General for the Province of Alberta investigate the aforementioned incident and take the appropriate action to make the Calgary Police Service accountable to the citizens of Calgary.
I request that the Solicitor General employ the integrity and authority of the Office of the Solicitor General to facilitate an investigation into these matters by another law enforcement agency such as the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.
,
Respectfully yours,
Tim Goodwin
cc: Attorney General Canada
Suzanne Wilton, Calgary Herald
Editor, Calgary Sun
Calgary Police Association
Calgary Police Commission
Police Federation, c/o John Netelenbos
M.A.D.D.
Jack Beaton, Chief of Police
So are you breaking the rules by discussing it?
And is Canada ever going to create a constitution with “free speech” mentioned somewhere in it?
Our socialists neigbors to the north and you wonder why the maple leaf on their flag is RED
Funny you should mention that timberdoodle. The Libranos claim initial ownership to that flag. We gotta dump both them and that flag if necessary, along with the totally left leaning justice system.
Careful down there, the legal/justice system is what started all this up here, and we’ve been noticing a slight left turn in yours lately as well.
Pressure from the bloggers to counter this crap is our only saving grace. They can react within minutes, and the justice system can take months.
Stasi in Calgary eh….geeze. Ah what the heck, who needs freedom of speech and the rule of law anyway. We gots our social programs eh…And geeze, I can’t recall my income for 2004 so I’ll just make something up on April 30th eh…Seems to work for Corriveau eh…
Oh geeze…I think I hear a knock on my door eh…Oh heck eh…it’s the thought police eh…
Jay,
The constitution will mention “free speech” about the same time it mentions “property rights”. Don’t hold your breath waiting. Remember the current constitution is about “Canadian values”.
using taxpayers money to pursue a civil case,is that legal in itself? I dont know Im not a lawyer.
Maybe he should be paying his own bills on this one.
Sadly enough, the Charter DOES mention free speech, in #2 Fundamental Freedoms. But I guess that’s not the “important” part of the Charter, like #2 Fundamental Freedoms, the interpretation of which allows for gay marriage?
Ah yes Candace but you are forgetting about the “notwithstanding” clause 33(1).
http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/charter/
33. (1) Parliament or the legislature of a province may expressly declare in an Act of Parliament or of the legislature, as the case may be, that the Act or a provision thereof shall operate notwithstanding a provision included in section 2 or sections 7 to 15 of this Charter.
Which basically wipes out all of this at the whim of government….
2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:
a) freedom of conscience and religion;
b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;
c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and
d) freedom of association.
Now I agree with Morris Manning’s interpretation of the notwithstanding clause:
“If our freedom of conscience or religion can be taken away by a law which operates notwithstanding the Charter, if our right to life or liberty can be taken not in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice, what freedom do we have?”
http://www.parl.gc.ca/information/library/PRBpubs/bp194-e.htm
and….
Eugene Forsey who said:
“The notwithstanding clause is a dagger pointed at the heart of our fundamental freedoms, and it should be abolished. Although it does not apply to the whole Charter of Rights, it does apply to a very large number of the rights and freedoms otherwise guaranteed. …
Clearly, then, it gives federal and provincial legislators very wide powers to do as they see fit in limiting or denying those rights and freedoms. The Charter would not have protected the Japanese-Canadians who were forcibly interned during World War II. Nor will it protect anyone advocating an unpopular cause today.
Perhaps none of our legislatures will use the notwithstanding clause again. But it is there. And if this dragger is flung, the courts will be as powerless to protect our rights as they were before there was a Charter of Rights.”
And finally Herbert Marx
“the danger of having a �notwithstanding clause� will become evident when we need protection most – we will not have it.”
Basically this means that when the s—t hits the fan, you don’t have any constitutional protection of basic freedoms under the charter…
Step one toward true democracy in Canada:
Write to Stephen Harper and your CPC MP/Candidate to urge the CPC to publicly commit to having the ‘notwithstanding’ clause stricken from the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Thanks for the explanation, Alix, I’ve never really understood the “notwithstanding” issue.
Scary concept.
Not until property rights are inshrined.
Scared of the notwithstanding clause?
I myself am scared of having all our rights at the mercy of judges appointed by John Chretien, and having no right to vote to correct them.
But of course I have no fear whatsoever of honest, honourable men like Stephen Harper, whereas dangerous violent gangsters like Alphonso Gagliano scare the hell out of me. I take it you feel exactly the opposite.
In my view, neither should there be the ‘notwithstanding’ clause or unilateral, unvetted appointments to the Supreme Court bench. The PM should, perhaps, be able to make recommendations for appointments but nominees should have to be vetted in some sort of public venue.
One either has rights or doesn’t and the ‘notwithstanding’ clause makes them conditional and conditional means they could be suspended under circumstances when they would be required most such as advocating a cause that might be seen to be inconvenient to those in power or to some in whose pocket those in power might be.
The fundamental problem with the Canadian system of government, again from my perspective, is that too much power is entrusted to too few people in the belief that they will exercise that power with honesty and integrity. Current events and history are demonstrating and have repeatedly demonstrated respectively, the folly of that lofty ideal of human behavior. The Canadian system of government needs to be much more transparent and publicly accountable in my opinion.
It doesn’t matter who is in power, CPC, Liberal, NDP or other, too much power will corrupt any and all as it always has and always will. That is the nature of human beings. I don’t say this as a condemnation of humanity, it is just the way humans are wired. Democratic systems of government need to acknowledge this fundamental human trait and set in place the necessary checks and balances that minimize the potential for abuse. If the chances are pretty high that one is going to get knabbed for putting one’s hand in the cookie jar and that there will be consequences as result, most folks are going to think twice about jacking the chocolate chips.
Again, just my opinion
“The fundamental problem with the Canadian system of government, again from my perspective, is that too much power is entrusted to too few people in the belief that they will exercise that power with honesty and integrity.”
Wow, you’ve described the current Canadian judiciary to a tee, but you’re advocating abolishment of the only constitutional tool that might keep them in check? Colour me confused!
firewalls’r us AKA nope@dope.com
Would be grateful if you would please explain how you believe you are protected by the ‘notwithstanding’ clause?
Might want to refer to:
http://www.parl.gc.ca/information/library/PRBpubs/bp194-e.htm
Thanks
I am feeling like a do-over here on this whole Canada thing. First, let’s let that yoke called Quebec just slide right off. Then, we will have to draft a new constitution for what remains. Freedom of speech. Freedom from unreasonable search and seizure. Checks and balances. An elected upper house. Separate executive, legislative and judicial branches. Property rights. Abolish Crown corporations. Abolish the Crown. Get a new flag. No sense doing thing in half measures. Our current system of government has corruption built in. Add some power-hungry cleptomaniacs, a lap-dog press, state-run media, a pompous wonk with a wannabe crown and a dark hand using our retirement savings to fund their world adventures and you have Canada of today. But I guess I’ll just settle for an election.
Oltx wrote:
“Would be grateful if you would please explain how you believe you are protected by the ‘notwithstanding’ clause?”
I don’t think I’m protected by the NWC because our useless politicians don’t have the cajones to use it and salvage the shredded remains of our democracy. However, it remains the only reasonable hope of wresting our society back from the “progressives” occupying the SCC and other appellate courts.
Your beef with the NWC appears to derive from the ostensible power it gives politicians to override “fundamental freedoms”. No fan am I of Cdn politicians, but I think even less of the marxist Lieberal hacks that for the most part occupy the superior court benches in this country. Politicians you can always punt – justices are there forever.
Read the Cdn chapter of “Coercing Virtue” – Judge Bork describes the value of the NWC better than I ever could.
Point taken firewalls…book ordered from Amazon
I don’t want a corrupt judiciary any more than I want corrupt a legislature. My point is that people’s rights need to be clearly defined and it is the job of the judiciary to uphold those rights. If the judiciary can arbitrarily circumvent or manuipulate those rights then they are corrupt and there needs to be means to give them the boot as well. Again too much power in the hands of too few people without sufficient public accountability.
Do you realize that it is only the notwithstanding clause that gives any public accountability to the system? Without it the pubilc has no say.
OK, I guess I am just thick in the head on this one.
My paranoia allows me to picture scenerios where an Act of Parliament or a legislature might suspend Rights and Freedoms as per sections 2 and 7-15 of the Charter, say in a real or perceived national calamity but I need someone to spell out for me the opposite possibilities by which the NWC would restore/preserve the Rights and Freedoms of one or more persons which had been curtailed/abused by a judicical decision.
Thanks
oltx wrote:
“…I need someone to spell out for me the opposite possibilities by which the NWC would restore/preserve the Rights and Freedoms of one or more persons which had been curtailed/abused by a judicical decision.”
The purpose of the NWC is not to “restore/preserve” rights or freedoms – it is to maintain a balance between the parliamentary and judicial branches of the Canadian system of governance. In particular, it is intended to ensure that, in matters of legislation, the elected and accountable branch, and not the unelected, unaccountable “appointed for life” branch, that retained ultimate authority.
That, at least, is the theory. What has actually transpired in the 20 odd years since enactment of the Charter is that our feckless politicos have essentially allowed the judicial branch free reign to use the Charter to remake Canadian society in their own “progressive” image. Your fear that the NWC represents a means by which politicians can stomp over rights is baseless – even King Ralph was scared off from using the NWC to prevent ambulance chasing lawyers from gouging their clients.
The NWC is a grossly underused “check and balance” against rampant judical activism. Given the appellate courts are festooned with Lieberal hacks and bagmen (and women – Screeching Annie’s 2000 campaign chair, a lifelong Dipper, got appointed to the Alberta QB a month after her election) who serve for life, I for one will NOT vote for Harper unless he promises TO invoke the NWC.