Private Corporate Takeover Of Canadian Government? Can It Be True? A View From

We have watched with puzzlement totally unnecessary police killings of ordinary citizens “taken into custody”. Are they – whether by accident or design – used to prepare the population for a fascist state? We are witness to the barely concealed uselessness of the Canadian Judicial Council – oversight body to assure independent and principled higher courts in Canada. With alarming frequency the CJC replies to complaints about the conduct of judges that the complaints cannot be examined because, you see, they are not really about conduct … when complainers believe there is no doubt that they are precisely about conduct. Have we seen the Commission for Public Complaints Against the RCMP made, a matter alleged by many, into a pliant tool of the RCMP brass and the government in power? Since at least the APEC police violence in 1997 at UBC, the Commission may have embarked upon a program to protect RCMP wrong-doers. Its position as the highest appeal body almost certainly blocks the possibility of discipline, good order, and reform in ”the national police force”. Is it to assure that the obstructive role of the Commission for Public Complaints Against the RCMP will not be disturbed that the Stephen Harper cabinet appointed as the new Commissioner of the RCMP (after Juliano Zaccardelli was removed in disgrace) a civilian employee from the Stockwell Day federal department? William Elliott has done almost nothing to clear the publicly obvious corruption in RCMP headquarters. The present Commissioner for Public Complaints Against the RCMP, Paul Kennedy, has made almost no progress in shaping what most Canadians would recognize as a responsible body. The complaint to his Commission that follows will test, one more time, the honesty and integrity of that body. It will, at the same time – because it is being sent to all MLAs in Alberta, all MPs in the House of Commons, and all Senators in the Canadian Senate, as well as to many others – be a test of the public’s determination to investigate, to affirm, and to assure the tranquility of ordinary people, such as Kelly Marie Richard and her two sons about whom the complaint is written. Examinations of the role played by lawyers and judges in the alleged debasing of the lives of Ms. Richard and her sons will follow. They will reveal even greater and more vicious alleged degradation of the democratic freedoms of ordinary Canadians. Paul Kennedy, Chair, and all members, Commission for Public Complaints Against the RCMP, Post Office Box 3423, STN D, Ottawa, Ontario K1P 6L4 Dear Mr. Kennedy and others addressed: The complaint I am formally filing with you today relates to particular, named RCMP officers in precise circumstances. The matters – in addition – involve what appear to be failures in trust among Canadian lawyers, judges, and government bodies as well as supervisory and oversight review agencies. Indeed, the seeming failure of some of those last named – in a milieu in which the freedoms and security of ordinary Canadians were normally protected – might be described as criminal by reasonable people and, if that were the case, would be confronted by the full force of the law. The failures – if they are proved to be that - are so serious in this case we are delivered evidence of the major collapse of democratic institutions providing for the reasonable, peaceable, and just conduct of Canadian society. Because the substance of this complaint to the Commission for Public Complaints Against the RCMP reaches through law enforcement, judicial, government, and review structures to what may be wilful, criminal acts undertaken by persons employed by a large, major private corporation – connected to many of the other structures named - you cannot begin to place the complaint into perspective without knowing its history, however briefly recounted. The very brief history I present – that now follows – as Introduction to the complaint, is the history alleged to be true (and backed very generously with evidence at all key points) by the parties claiming to be directly injured in the matter. My complaint recognizes that where such a major combination of breaches of the Public Trust are seriously alleged to have been committed, all Canadians become interested parties and, if the allegations are born out, injured parties. The allegations of the parties claiming to have been directly injured have not been found true under Canadian law for one reason only as far as I can determine: some lawyers, courts, police officers, and government agencies appear to have worked – perhaps under instruction from a person or persons in a large private corporation to frustrate the reasonable efforts of and, increasingly, to victimize, harass, and inculpate the allegedly innocent, injured parties. In late 2001 and early 2002 Kelly Marie Richard and her two sons, Ryan and Justin Trigg, were treated by an orthodontist in the city of Calgary, Alberta, Canada. The work of the orthodontist proved, the family alleges, to be seriously inadequate and damaging. As perfectly reasonable, Ms Richard sought emergency care from orthodontists/dentists. Only one replied and referred her to someone – not, allegedly, in fact a dentist but a psychological professional posing as a dentist, and allegedly acting for the private corporation CGI in order to frustrate any malpractice claim (not even yet filed) on a basis to be claimed of Ms. Richard’s falsely alleged unstable mental health. From the beginning of this case a reasonable and prudent Canadian might well believe some persons perhaps connected to CGI: some of counsel, some judiciary, some police, and some others have worked (a) to have Kelly Marie Richard fraudulently named mentally incompetent and, if possible (b) to have her shut away in an instutitution of some kind. Here CGI must be partially described because it is alleged to be the core and activating force connected to almost all other alleged acts of wrong-doing connected to Ms. Richard and her sons and to the substance of this complaint to the Commission for Public Complaints Against the RCMP. The orthodontist who treated Mrs. Richard and her sons apparently very early contacted ING, the corporation which represents all dental professionals in Canada. ING, it is alleged, referred him to CGI. CGI represents the financial interests of many major Canadian insurance companies, it is said, handling all their claims and litigation relating to claims. CGI is, itself, apparently, also an insurance business. CGI represents the Defendants in the dental malpractice case set on foot by Ms. Richard and her sons and is, it is alleged, partner with ING, the Defendants’insurance company. CGI is allegedly under contract with ING to manage and defend against all claims involving ING and to handle litigation on behalf of ING. Without unnecessarily protracting information here, the Commission for Public Complaints Against the RCMP must be informed that CGI has contracts to manage records and/or otherwise to service and assist the RCMP, Alberta Health and Welfare, Calgary Health Region, City of Calgary, Alberta Justice, and at least twelve other Alberta government departments; to do the same for many departments of the federal government including the Department of Justice; to do the same for Canada Post, and to provide similar services with many institutions, firms, and individuals in Canada. This paragraph barely scratches the surface of the enormous network CGI manages, reaching into the most sensitive areas of government, law enforcement, and judicial information and records. Ms. Richard writes: “when I applied for CPP Disability benefits and many very suspicious and unethical things occurred, I immediately questioned the staff handling my application about involvement with CGI and was told no, that CGI had nothing to do with the federal government department handling my application for CPP Disability benefits, at the time Human Resources Canada … only to find out later that CGI had extensive contracts with this department which involved more than 3000 CGI employees working in this federal government department….” Let me provide you with one example of the possible adverse effects of CGI’s presence in Canadian life. In a letter to Associate Chief Justice Wittmann, Court of Queen’s Bench, Calgary, Sept. 8, 2007, alleging serious infractions by court and counsel, Ryan Trigg refers to the suggestion put forward by counsel that the presiding judge ask the Public Trustee of Alberta to represent the interests of 17 years old Justin Trigg, Ryan’s brother. Pointing out that Kelly Marie Richard, mother, is the proper and legal guardian of Justin Trigg with power to decide his legal representatives, and, that, under other circumstances he, Ryan Trigg, would likely have those powers, Ryan Trigg wrote, in addition: “It is a fact proven by the evidence that CGI, who represent the Defendants in our dental malpractice case and are partners with ING, the Defendants insurance company, and are under contract with ING to manage and defend against all ING’s claims and to handle all litigation on behalf of ING. It is also a fact that CGI employ the Counsel for the Defendants and that the Counsel for the Defendants and their law firm [Macleod Dixon, Calgary] represent CGI, and that CGI are involved in a major partnership with the Alberta government who appoint Public Trustees, and further to this that CGI have a contract relationship with Alberta Justice, also involved with Public Trustees of Alberta, therefore it is clear beyond any doubt that a very significant conflict of interest exists and that we can not be reasonably expected to trust an Alberta Government appointed Public Trustee to represent my 17 year old brother’s best interests. There is no way we will ever accept anybody involved in any way with CGI….” Kelly Marie Richard alleges, moreover – claiming clear supporting evidence – that CGI has a records contract with Health and Welfare Alberta. She alleges further that her Alberta Health and Wellness Statement of Benefits Paid was fraudulently altered in favour of the Defence in the dental malpractice lawsuit, including the removal of the records of sixteen medical appointments concerning injuries and the addition of two non-existent charges. She alleges that CGI has major contracts with Alberta Health and Wellness and with the Alberta Health minister who awarded the contracts. She alleges that after writing the Alberta Dental Association and the Alberta Health minister, “pleading for help finding a dental professional to treat our severe dental injuries” as a result of the disputed orthodontic work, Alberta Children’s Services “showed up” at her sons’ junior high school “to initiate fraudulent child protection” investigations, on the grounds that Ms. Richard was “too injured to care for” her sons. She alleges her sons were taken from class and were interrogated and threatened that if they didn’t answer all questions they would be removed from their mother. She alleges telephone calls to her house followed, harassing and threatening, “centred around trying to get us not to file a lawsuit”. Apparently callers from Alberta Children’s Services, they refused, Ms. Richard alleges, to provide any help to treat the dental injuries. When she confronted Alberta Children’s Services with the fact she had audio recordings of their calls and their harassment – sending them a few copies – Alberta Children’s Services, she alleges, “quickly closed the file in my favour, without ever meeting me in person, admitting in writing that the evidence proved I was an excellent mother”. Ms. Richard was, however, denied, she alleges, a copy of the file and transcripts of the abusive interview with her sons at the school. She notes that CGI controls – through contract – that material. I will not do more than report here the existence of material for complaints to other Canadian review bodies. It is germane to this complaint, however, that throughout almost all of the processes, Ms. Richard and her sons allege repeated and almost unbelievable instances of malpractice by counsel and judges connected to the matter. The family possesses a large array of evidence to support its allegations. To attempt to report in any detail that part of the history here, now, would require far too many pages of information. Suffice it to say that reasonable and prudent Canadians might conclude that – examined in a fair and impartial light – some judges and counsel appear to have repeatedly violated trust to the point of engaging in what might be criminal actions in matters involving Ms. Richard and her sons. THE COMPLAINT: The lawyer acting for Ms. Richard apparently believed that “evidence of CGI doctoring health records “was “so strong that we should request police to investigate.” In March of 2006, Ms Richard visited the RCMP Commercial Crime website (RECOL: reporting economic crime online) which encouraged people to report what they believed were possible crimes - the site assuring them that all information would be held in confidence and used only for investigative purposes. Ms. Richard filed her complaint on that website that her Alberta Health and Wellness Statement of Benefits Paid had been fraudulently altered in favour of the Defence in the dental malpractice lawsuit. Ms Richard’s complaint only named CGI and the CGI employee in charge of the file, described the type of crime as fraud, if – as alleged – CGI unlawfully used its government contract position to serve private financial interests by interfering with and adjusting government records to defend against legal claims. Whether or not Ms. Richard correctly named the violation is irrelevant. She gave sufficient information for RCMP Commercial Crime, Calgary, to guard confidentiality, to investigate the records allegation, and to consult her carefully and in confidence about her alleged evidence. The matters I now describe form a part (only) of the substance of my complaint to the Commission for Public Complaints Against the RCMP. In a network of crossing events and highly suspicious actions members of RCMP Commercial Crime, Calgary, it is alleged, broke confidentiality, informed CGI’s Defence lawyer in a very short time (a day or two) of Ms. Richard’s complaint. The RCMP did not contact Ms. Richard. But two days later the lawyer for the Defence (employed by CGI) in the dental malpractice suit called the lawyer for the Richard family – in Ms. Richard’s words - “reporting ‘they’ (CGI) are up in arms about the complaint” that Ms. Richard “filed with the RCMP and are demanding I be forced to submit to a psychiatric exam for filing it….” Ms. Richard continues: “We were never contacted by the R.C.M.P. about our complaint beyond sending us a letter [2006 – 03 – 31] that they had not chosen to investigate it [signed by W.J Ralstin, S/Sgt, Calgary Commercial Crime Section] and referring us to the Calgary police…. “ R.C.M.P. never interviewed the Richard family or asked to see evidence or acted in any way to check with them about the complaint. Important that you note that the alleged crime of CGI reported to the RCMP Commercial Crime Section was not as S/Sgt Ralstin reports it after saying the Section had reviewed the complaint. “Your allegations are civil in nature and your current malpractice suit is the most appropriate legal arena to address this matter.” The alleged crime would, I believe, be a criminal offense. (1) I request a full investigation of the Commercial Crime unit in the city of Calgary in relation to any and all connections it has or has had and/or that the larger RCMP force has or has had to CGI in relation to the Commercial Crime structure and, specifically, in relation to the fact that counsel for CGI had knowledge of Ms. Richard’s confidential communication with RCMP Commercial Crime, Calgary. (2) I request the person signing the letter to Ms. Richard choosing not to investigate, referred to – W. J. Ralstin - be himself investigated and asked to provide a sworn affidavit identifying the person or persons who contacted CGI through their counsel about the complaint of Ms. Richard. (3) I request that the Commission for Public Complaints Against the RCMP investigate any and all communications between Calgary RCMP, Counsel for the Defence, and any related judges in the matter of the Richards’ dental malpractice suit specifically in relation to the desire of Defence counsel to have Ms. Richard undergo forced psychiatric examination (with implications of seizure and incarceration). Defence counsel for CGI, Alan S. Rudakoff, wrote, March 31, 2006, to Stephen B. Nelson, lawyer. He wrote that he had been telephoned by Cpl. Archer, RCMP Commercial Crime unit. Cpl. Archer, Mr Rudakoff alleges, “informed me that the complaint [by Ms. Richard] was for the crime of child abuse and attempted murder.”…. “Cpl. Archer explained he was conducting an investigation into this complaint….” (3) I request that Cpl. Archer be investigated, that he provide evidence of his statement to Alan S. Rudakoff, a statement Ms. Richard declares to be wholly false. I request that all of Cpl. Archer’s contacts, whatsoever, with Alas S. Rudakoff be investigated and recorded. How – one must ask – would it be possible for Staff Sergeant Ralstin to write to Ms. Richard on the same day, March 31, 2006, informing her RCMP had reviewed her complaint, chosen not to investigate, and writing that the Commercial Crime Section of the RCMP, “has reviewed your complaint regarding CGI. Your allegations are civil in nature….” How can crimes – as allegedly reported by Cpl. Archer to Alan S. Rudakoff allegedly present in the complaint of Ms. Richard – “of child abuse and attempted murder” - be described as “civil in nature”? Mr. Rudakoff uses the stated allegations to act against Ms. Richard in court, demanding she undergo a psychiatric examination. In addition, Mr. Rudakoff falsely reported to the court, Ms. Richard alleges, that the RCMP had investigated and had dismissed her claim “as pure poppycock”. The RCMP, as explained above, wrote it had “reviewed” her claim, and refused to proceed with investigation, a letter to her to that effect being available. Ms. Richard insists her complaint asked RCMP “to investigate the significant evidence we have proving CGI used their government contract positions to alter my health records….” She insists (and her declaration is born out by the reply to her by Staff Sergeant Ralstin) that any statements about child abuse and attempted murder were written in a general introduction to the complaint and were clearly not a part of the complaint. In writing to RCMP Commercial Crime, she – plainly – would not be “reporting child abuse and attempted murder”. In discussing the lead-up to the complaint she repeated something her lawyer had said about the implications and the seriousness of interference with health records. Corporal Archer (Alan S. Rudakoff told the court) reported to him by telephone that the complaint alleged child abuse and attempted murder, and Rudakoff, it would seem, did not have the complaint before him. He apparently accepted hearsay, and made requests of the court based on that, allegedly, false information. Your investigation and examination of all the documents in question will clarify that matter, once and for all. Reasonable and prudent Canadians might well see these bizarre events as an an attempt to name Ms. Richard, in the court, by the presiding judge, finally, mentally incompetent. To move to Request #5 in this complaint, I must record matters of substance that are so bizarre they appear to be actions of a police state sunk in random lawlessness. Finding herself not only frustrated, but, she alleges, attacked and victimized by RCMP Calgary, Ms. Richard made a complaint to the Commission for Public Complaints Against the RCMP. Her complaint to the Commission was not the one she made to RCMP Commercial Crime, Calgary, concerning the alleged interference by CGI with her health records. Her Commission complaint – in her own words – requested “they investigate why the RCMP violated their publicly proclaimed commitment to the public to keep any information provided to them private and to only use it for the investigation of economic crime”. Why they refused action in the way they did, and why they “contacted CGI and Alan Rudakoff and told them about our complaint” and gave permission to “further share information” were the only matters included in the complaint she alleges. The Commission for Public Complaints Against the RCMP contacted Ms. Richard by e-mail and by telephone, during which time she assured them of the clear limits of her complaint to that organization. After that, Ms. Richard was contacted by Sergeant Smail (a close colleague of Archer and Ralstin) who had prevented Ms. Richard – more than once – she alleges, from making telephone contact with Cpl. Archer. Sergeant Smail called Ms. Richard early in the morning, inconveniently and insistently, to inform Ms. Richard that she (Sgt. Smail) was investigating the complaint filed with the Commission for Public Complaints Against the RCMP. Audio recording of the call in the possession of Ms. Richard indicates Sgt. Smail was hostile and insistent, Ms. Richard alleges. Then Smail sent a fax to Ms. Richard, purportedly to summarize the complaint made to the Commission, requiring Ms. Richard sign it immediately. The fax sent by Smail was, Ms. Richard alleges, incorrect and mischievous. She called Sgt. Smail, and in Ms. Richard’s words,” “only to have her tell me I had to do what she told me to do, that I had no choice and that she could investigate my complaint to the Commission any way she pleased … and caused me to withdraw my complaint to the Commission immediately to avoid the RCMP/Smail’s harassment….” After her call to Sgt. Smail (July 4, 2006), and after Ms. Richard had (a) refused to sign Smail’s fax and (b) had made clear to the Commission for Public Complaints Against the RCMP that she was discontinuing her complaint because of harassment, Ms. Richard received a letter rom M.P. Martin, RCMP Inspector, Commercial Crime, Calgary, apparently acting for the Commission for Public Complaints Against the RCMP, it being named above Martin’s signature. In the letter – “RE: Public Complaint –S/Sgt. W. Ralstin & Cpl. Archer – CPC#PC 2006-0789”, July 31, 2006”, RCMP Inspector Martin declares that after the fax sent by Sgt. Smail (containing false and mischievous information, Ms Richard alleges) Ms. Richard telephoned Smail and “began to yell and curse at Sergeant SMAIL, stating that you did not trust her and did not want her to investigate your complaint.” He also stated that investigation of her complaint would cease. Ms. Richard, however, declares she has an audio recording of her conversation with Sgt. Smail that proves Inspector Martin’s statement is false (and can be proved false), and that the circumstances of Smail’s call and fax are highly suspicious if not outright damning. Plainly, a reasonable and prudent Canadian, believing the foregoing information to be true, might well conclude that either Sgt. Smail was attempting a forced and wholly inappropriate investigation on her own and/or with the approval of close colleagues (complained against) at RCMP Commercial Crime, Calgary; or she was attempting to undertake the “investigation” with the full approval of the Commission for Public Complaints Against the RCMP. Ms. Richard then complained to the Commission and to upper management of the RCMP about Smail’s behaviour. In Ms. Richard’s own words: “the Commission told me they had never heard of Smail and knew nothing about her being assigned to investigate our complaint but did nothing about Smail’s inappropriate actions and took no action to properly investigate, leaving me no choice but to just immediately withdraw the complaint….” Make special note. (1) The Commission for Public Complaints Against the RCMP allegedly declared it knew nothing about Smail and her attempting to investigate on its behalf. (2) RCMP Inspector Martin writing for the Commission assumes unequivocally that Sgt. Smail was conducting the investigation for the Commission – writing that “Sergeant SMAIL received a phone call from you on July 4 , 2006” etcetera. Sergeant Smail (almost certainly unfitted because of her close relation to officers complained of in Commercial Crime, Calgary) appears to have been both investigating for and not investigating for the Commission For Public Complaints Against the RCMP. The “confusion” involved in this matter and her alleged behaviour towards Ms. Richard suggests incompetence and/or malign behaviour. And so: (4) I request a full investigation of Sergeant Smail, her connection with Ralstin and Archer, her role and behaviour in the “investigation” of Ms. Richard’s complaint, her role in producing a fax account of Ms. Richard’s complaint alleged by Ms. Richard to be false in factual material, and Sergeant Smail’s conflict of interest as a close colleague of the officers named above. (6) I request a full investigation of RCMP Inspector M.P. Martin, the basis upon which he alleges verbally violent behaviour on the part of Ms. Richard and the familiarity he had with the facts in order to send copies of his letter to Staff Sergeant Ralstin and Corporal Archer - both allegedly involved in the conveyance of confidential information, apparently communicated with alleged added falsification to CGI through its counsel, Alan S. Rudakoff. (7) I request a full investigation of Staff Sergeant R. Munro, “K” Division CAISS manager; Sergeant R. Chartrand, Manager Public Complaints – HQ; Carson Turncliff, Enquiries & Complaint Analyst and Tony Hamori, Calgary, Complaints and Internal Investigations – all of whom received copies of the letter from Inspector Martin – to determine what they know and knew at the time of all the facts of the case; what documents, letters, or other materials they produced internally; what faxes or e-mails they sent; and what advice they gave in any way concerning Ms. Richard and/or her interests. CONCLUSION: This is a complaint which exposes allegations of the most serious kind regarding the conduct of RCMP police officers – their connection to their position of trust, their alleged involvement with counsel and judges engaging in allegedly highly questionable activity, their alliance with CGI and its alleged attempt to invade and alter confidential health records prepared by the government of Alberta, and their apparent inability to supply the Commission for Public Complaints Against the RCMP with officers or an officer of objective and unquestioned integrity to conduct investigation of a complaint to the Commission. Because of the alleged on-going harassment of Ms. Richard and her sons by all the forces alleged to be in league, it would seem, with CGI – among them very possibly the police complained against – the Commission for Public Complaints Against the RCMP must act with speed and efficiency to investigate this complaint. To fail to do so must, inevitably, implicate the Commission in the wrong-doings alleged and in the alleged continuing persecution of Ms. Richard and her sons. Yours faithfully, Robin Mathews