Archive | Crime RSS feed for this section
March 9, 2015

A Small Measure of Justice for Sarah Jones


sarah-jonesSarah Elizabeth Jones died on the set of “Midnight Rider”, a film directed by Randall Miller, just over a year ago. The director wanted to “steal” a shot on a railway trestle without obtaining any permits or permission from the railway. When a train came through it hit a bed the crew had placed on the tracks for the shot, which in turn hit Sarah Jones and knocked her into the oncoming locomotive.

Sarah Jones died on the spot. Eight other film technicians were injured.

CSX Transportation, the company who owns the railroad where Sarah Jones was killed, denied the production access to the train tracks twice. Filming went ahead regardless.

Instead of facing trial on criminal negligence and manslaughter charges the director of the film, Randall Miller, pled guilty to those same charges. In exchange for his guilty plea the prosecutor agreed to drop charges against Miller’s wife, the producer of the film, as well as charges against his business partner.

Randall Miller was sentenced to 2 years in prison, 8 years of probation when his prison term is complete and a $20,000 fine. He said in court that obtaining permission was “not his job” and therefore not his responsibility.

Jay Sedrish, the executive producer of the film, managed to avoid jail time with his guilty plea and will serve 10 years on probation.

No one won anything today,” Richard Jones, Sarah’s father, said.

It’s just a great deal of loss for everyone involved.”

Asked if he was happy with the result, he said:

“I hesitate to use the word ‘happy.’ We are content with the terms of the agreement.”

He also said that he hopes that Sarah’s death will not be in vain and that “the sacrifice of our daughter will change the industry for the better.”

After the guilty plea by Director Randall Miller, Sarah’s mother, Elizabeth Jones read her victim impact statement for the court. It is reprinted, in part, at the end of this article.

sarah-jones-the-vampire-diaries-and-the-originals-remember-dead-crew-memberBoth of Sarah’s parents have fought for better safety on set since their daughter died, but it is a long, uphill battle. They launched, a website devoted to ensuring safety on all film sets, and is supported by IATSE, the major film union representing film technicians.

This tragedy has brought together the film making community in a way that I have never seen. Much of that is due to the person Sarah was… hard working, fun, and a friend to very many people. What happened on that train trestle in Georgia horrifies us all. It can never happen again.”

–Mike Miller, Vice President, IATSE

Elizabeth and Richard Jones also created a Public Service Announcement advocating for better safety on film sets. That video can be viewed on YouTube:

A second PSA was created with their blessing, and it too can be found on YouTube at:

Thankfully those responsible for safety on set, those who failed their crew so tragically that day, are being held accountable for their actions.

The First Assistant Director, or 1st AD, is the designated safety person on a film set. The 1st AD on this film, Hillary Schwartz, just pleaded guilty to the charge of manslaughter. All that remains to be seen is the sentence she receives for costing Sarah her life. I doubt her sentence will be as harsh as it should be given she agreed to testify against the others facing criminal charges.

In her favour is the fact her agreement to testify is the primary reason director Randall Miller pled guilty in a deal that saw his wife walk free.

It is reprehensible that the executive producer received only probation, but this just shows us that a good lawyer can be very effective at saving your butt when the chips are down, dead crew member be damned.

It is atrocious that costs the life of a vibrant young woman must be lost before anyone will address safety concerns on film sets. Film crew work in dangerous conditions on an almost routine basis and nobody says a word, primarily for fear of losing their jobs because they are not “team players“.

The needless and senseless death of Sarah Jones seems to have changed all that, and that’s a good thing. She may well be remembered as the woman who changed the way safety is handled on film sets forever.

What is certain, however, is the pain and loss suffered by Elizabeth and Richard Jones will never go away. They lost their daughter for the most senseless of reasons: a director wanted his shot and he didn’t care what it cost anyone else.

Hollywood is filled with directors just like Randall Miller. Perhaps now those directors will now value the lives of their crews just a little bit more knowing that if they do not, they too could spend time in a prison cell.



Victim Impact Statement by Elizabeth Jones, Sarah’s mother.

“To tell of the character of Sarah Jones, one must first understand in every sense of the word, Sarah was a character. She was distinctly her own person. To discover what was behind her effervescent smile or her bubbly giddiness was to discover such a positive life force that nothing could or would stand in her way of achievement. She was happy, she was content. For every known word that could characterize Sarah, there is none more distinct or accurate than the word ‘genuine.’ Sarah always gave you her better, her uncontested presence of who she was and you knew where you stood on most any subject. She was genuine. She was down to earth.

“Give Sarah any topic of conversation and one knew where she stood. She invited others into her world. There were no boundaries, no barriers, no circles. She loved people.”

Talking about going through her daughter’s belongings, Elizabeth Jones said that she has a crate of her daughter’s things.

“The crate that sits before me is labeled ‘costumes.’ As I open the lid, I halfway smile. Her tutu outfit, her cowboy outfit, her cowboy hat, killer bunny slippers, and a plastic sword. More outfits, more costumes, as a kid Sarah loved dress-up. Pipi Longstocking, Dorothy from The Wizard of Oz, Minnie Mouse. I discovered that as an adult, Sarah still enjoyed dress-up.”

“Her friends tell me that Sarah was quite adept at taking on a character and how much fun Sarah could make any occasion. I put the lid back on the crate. That box can wait. Even after one year of her being gone, I find I am not ready to deal with this. I go to the next box. ‘Writing, Thoughts, Meditations.’ I open the box and find spiral bound notebooks, tablets, pieces of paper, all with quotes or inspiration or some phrase I remember her once talking about. She would write what inspired her, she would write the things she questioned, and she would write what she had just learned. Sarah was a deep thinker, wise beyond her years. Together now, stored in a box, is a summation of her inner self.

“Sarah was big on communication. ‘If something is on your mind, say it.’ She was all about putting yourself out there. Life is too short to leave things unsaid. Not always fun to face the facts or deal with ‘What is’ but more often than not, she was right. Her life was too short. I decide to wait on this box. It brings on emotions of sadness. Sarah had so much to offer.

“The next box is labeled ‘Books.’ I open the lid and find titles that amaze me. ‘The Once and Future King,’ a book of poetry, Thoreau, Hemingway, ‘The Cinematographer’s Manual.’ She enjoyed reading and usually had a book with her just in case she would find herself with a few spare minutes. It was not uncommon that she sometimes read two, maybe three books at a time. I once asked her how she could read multiple titles at the same time. ‘It depends on how I feel at the moment as to what I want to read,’ she said. The diversity of her interest was in a box. I took her books and made room on our book shelf. One day I may read them myself.

“Next crate … ‘Gear.’ Inside I found her adventures. Scuba gear. She had just acquired her advance PADA certificate while on a trip to Belize. She thought that one day she might enjoy filming underwater. Dirt bike boots and a helmet. A year earlier, Sarah had earned her motorcycle license. She loved adventure and she was fearless. Now her adventures are packed away, in a box, stacked with the rest of her life. Too many boxes for such a short life.

“Boxes of Sarah still sit in my living room. I think about it and smile. This was her favorite room. She would sit on the couch, bundled with a blanket wrapped around her and listen to her father play the piano. She love hearing his music. ‘When I get married,’ she would say, ‘I hope my husband can play the piano.’ We will never know. It seems only right that for now, the content of the boxes of her life remain in the room with her father’s piano. One day we’ll sort through her things. But for now, the boxes remain.”

If you enjoy the articles I write here on, how about buying me a coffee to show your appreciation?

January 19, 2015

Racism Encouraged by Canadian Museum for Human Rights

Racism-Encouraged-by-Canadian-Museum-for-Human-Rights PFTR
Pete Snelson liked this post

Racism-Encouraged-by-Canadian-Museum-for-Human-Rights PFTR

Of all the places one would expect all races and creeds to be treated equally it would be a museum dedicated to Human Rights, yet that supposedly august institution is, shockingly, the very place instituting racist admission policies.

According to the Merriam Webster dictionary, racism is defined as

  1. poor treatment of or violence against people because of their race
  2. the belief that some races of people are better than others

The “poor treatment” is applied to anyone who cannot prove First Nations heritage. The “belief that some races are better than others” appears to be that First Nations people are better than the rest of us “mere citizens“, since only First Nations citizens are entitled to free admission.

Everyone else must pay full freight.

Giving preferential treatment to one race and excluding all others is the very definition of racism. Why Canada’s Human Rights Museum would institute racist policies boggles the mind, and it won’t be long before the very institution that is supposed to promote racial and cultural equality for all will find itself the subject of a human rights complaint.

The Winnipeg Sun carried an article by Tom Brodbeck that made an interesting, if disturbing, observation.

They can’t really tell us why they have this policy. When asked why one group of people has free access to the facility based solely on their race and culture and not others, museum officials were unable to provide a coherent answer.

The admissions policy at the CMHR was developed, in advance of our opening, to align with that of other national museums such as the Canadian Museum of History, where Indigenous Peoples are also admitted at no charge,” museum spokeswoman Maureen Fitzhenry wrote in an email. “It is intended to help ensure Indigenous People have access to expressions of their culture.”

That’s not really an answer.

Brodbeck then pressed Ms. Fitzhenry for a more coherent answer and this was her response.

This policy is one way that we are striving to foster a respectful relationship between the Museum and Indigenous Peoples that acknowledges Indigenous rights relating to cultural heritage, traditional knowledge, and traditional cultural expressions.”

Creating a negative stereotype based on race is a horrendous precedent to set for anyone, let alone Canada’s Museum for Human Rights! Saying that Aboriginals have no ability to pay and therefore should be allowed free admission is both hypocritical and condescending, plain and simple.

I can’t see how condescending to Aboriginal Canadians in any way advances Human Rights, nor do I comprehend how advancing racism in the name of equality makes any sense at all.

Neither does Canadian Human Rights Museum spokeswoman Maureen Fitzhenry, which is why her answers are so absurd and disingenuous.

Equality means treating all people equally regardless of race, not treating one race as “more special” than others, be it better or worse.

I expect far better than hypocrisy from our Museum of Human Rights.

For reasons I do not fathom this institution is thoroughly unwilling to correct its racist policy. It cannot even admit its hypocrisy let alone change it.

I refuse to support racism and hypocrisy at Canada’s Museum of Human Rights. I, for one, will vote with my dollars and they will never see a penny from me.


If you enjoy the articles I write here on, how about buying me a coffee to show your appreciation?

November 30, 2014

Milwaukee Police Chief Edward Flynn Speaks Truth To Stupid


There are times when race baiters and reporters are so caught up in their own agenda they can’t see what’s going on around them.

Milwaukee Police Chief Edward Flynn recently put these morons in their place after being accused of not caring enough about the subject of the press scrum in front of him.  He was on his cell phone, you see.

Unfortunately for the stupid ones Chief Flynn was on his cell phone receiving updates about a 5-year-old child who was killed in a drive-by shooting.  He was not remotely “politically correct” in dealing with the stupid people asking even stupider questions.

Well done, Milwaukee Police Chief Edward Flynn!  We need more chiefs of police speaking Truth to Stupid.  Maybe then things will change.

Watch below.


If you enjoy the articles I write here on, how about buying me a coffee to show your appreciation?

August 23, 2014

Racism is Alive And Well in America, but not like the Race Hustlers claim

Robert Bailey, Ryan Steacy liked this post


Racism is alive and well in America. It’s thriving, in fact.

Just ask Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, Eric Holder or Barack Obama. They will all confirm racism is at an all-time high, despite Obama’s election pledge that his America would be colorblind; that racism would be nothing but a footnote in history.

Obama’s America is anything but colorblind.

Facts be damned… white on black racism is at an all-time high, says Obama. White on Black violent crime is epidemic, even if you can’t find any news stories to back up the claim.

There is a reason you can’t find those news stories, of course. They don’t exist.

There is a reason they don’t exist, of course, but it’s not that the media refuses to report them. It’s because the epidemic of white on black racism is a lie presented over and over again by the four Black race hustlers I mentioned earlier, Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, Eric Holder and Barack Obama.

If you tell a lie often enough (and with enough media coverage) it becomes the truth, even in the face of overwhelming statistical evidence to the contrary from the Obama administration’s own FBI statistics.

As Bill Whittle explains with simplicity in his video “Ferguson and the Real Race War”, using FBI statistics there were 406,217 robberies in 2009. That is, on average, one robbery every minute, 24-hours a day for an entire year, or roughly 1,000 times per day.

Given that level of crime and making the asinine assumption that every single robbery in America in 2009 was committed by a black perpetrator, if there is an epidemic of white cops executing black criminals you would think we’d hear about it, right?

We hear about the killing of a young black man by a white cop so rarely because, (gasp!) it happens so rarely. We only hear about it then because the race hustlers Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, Eric Holder and Barack Obama are desperate to peddle their lies and thereby increase donations to their cause.

“If this is an epidemic, where’s the epidemic?” Bill Whittle rightly asks.

According to the National Crime Victimization Survey in 2010 white perpetrators committed violence on black victims 82,593 times. During that same year black perpetrators committed violence on white victims 320,082 times, or 5 times as many. When you take into account the size difference of the black and white communities you learn something very disturbing (if you’re interested in the truth): 38 million black Americans commit violent crimes on 197 million white Americans.

What these numbers mean is that black perpetrators attack white victims 25 times more often than the other way around.

Looking at a single type of violent crime, aggravated assault, the number of black on white assaults is 200 times higher than white on black assaults.

But you’ll never hear those numbers on the mainstream media. It doesn’t fit the President’s agenda, therefore it cannot be spoken out loud.

Yes, there is an epidemic of racial violence in America, but it’s not what the race hustlers Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, Eric Holder and Barack Obama want you to believe.

It’s precisely the opposite.

If you were a President interested in the truth you would do everything you could to stop this racial violence. But Obama isn’t interested in stopping it at all. In fact both he and Eric Holder continue to peddle their lie at every opportunity.

Obama should go back to the golf course and take Eric Holder with him. He does a lot less damage to America when he’s only paying attention to his golf swing.


If you enjoy the articles I write here on, how about buying me a coffee to show your appreciation?

August 12, 2014

Largo High School Principal Angelique Simpson-Marcus: Racist and Proud of it

Robert Bailey, Attila Vaski liked this post


Largo High School Principal Angelique Simpson-Marcus is a racist. She doesn’t fit the Obama mold, of course, since she’s black and her racism targeted a white teacher. It’s precisely the opposite of the “racial epidemic” that Obama spews about.

Jon Everhart was a good teacher. A good white teacher. He taught honours English to both juniors and seniors. He consistently received excellent evaluations and was named Teacher of the Year.

Then along came Angelique Simpson-Marcus.

She told Everhart if she ever became principal he would be the first teacher she fired.


Because he was white.

Jon Everhart filed a union grievance against Angelique Simpson-Marcus for her racist remarks, but because he is white and she is black nothing was done about it. Or at least that’s how it looks from the outside.

Had their colors been reversed the case would be a slam-dunk, but in Obama’s America we simply cannot admit there is Black Racism against Whites.

Angelique Simpson-Marcus became the principal of Prince George County High School.

That’s when Jon Everhart’s real nightmare began.

She immediately pulled him from teaching honors English. She told others Everhart was “poor white trash” and, according to Everhart, said this to students:

“[The] only reason a white teacher teaches in [Prince George’s] County is that they can’t get a job elsewhere.”

She continued her racial persecution of Jon Everhart by downgrading his evaluations from excellent to poor. She denied his transfer request to another school. In fact she was not satisfied until her continuous actions against the white teacher resulted in his being fired and his teaching certificate revoked.

Jon Everhart immediately filed a $5 million lawsuit against Simpson-Marcus and the school board for racial discrimination and, astoundingly in Obama’s America, he won.

What is baffling, however, is that despite awarding Everhart $350,000 for compensatory damages the jury in this case refused to say Everhart was forced to teach in a hostile work environment.

If your boss tells the world she will fire you “because you’re white” and consistently backs up that statement with actions damaging to your career that is a hostile work environment. I don’t care what color you are.

But… this is Obama’s America and being a white man oppressed by a black woman only gets you so far.

Had the roles been reversed and it was a white man firing a black woman in these same circumstances the result would be very different. Five million dollars is probably the tip of the iceberg of cash that defendant would receive.

But this is Obama’s America… and whites don’t suffer racism from blacks, right?

Read the entire court decision here:

If you enjoy the articles I write here on, how about buying me a coffee to show your appreciation?

June 26, 2014

Canadian Judges and their Love Affair With Pedophiles

Mike Ackermann liked this post


Justice Nick Borkovich is one of the few Canadian judges I have any respect for when it comes to sentencing sex offenders. In 1993 he sentenced serial pedophile James Alfred Cooper, who committed the most heinous crimes imaginable, to 30 years in prison after telling him,

“You are a lowdown, mean, despicable, evil manifestation of a human being that preys on little children.”

It was Cooper’s “bad luck” he was convicted and sentenced in 1993. Had he evaded detection another couple of decades he too could skate with just a few years in prison.

Take the case of John Leonard MacKean.

John MacKean is a sexual predator. I don’t know what other term accurately describes a man who would drive to a remote cabin and pay money to another degenerate sex offender, David James Leblanc, so he could rape a boy chained up in the basement of Leblanc’s cabin.

Justice Richard Coughlan sentenced John MacKean to just 2 years in prison for this crime, but he alone is not to blame.

Crown attorney Lloyd Tancock is equally despicable, for 2 years in prison is the sentence Tancock asked for, even though he described MacKean’s crimes like this:

Just the age of the youth, the disparity in ages between the young fellow and the accused, the fact that it was under horrendous circumstances, that he knew what was going on, that it had been prearranged – it was all atrocious.”

Apparently not “atrocious” enough to keep this sexual predator behind bars for a sentence that reflects the severity of his crimes.

There is no such thing as “mitigating circumstances” in a case like this. That John Leonard MacKean was never caught before now means nothing. A 65-year-old man simply does not wake up one day and say to himself

“I think I’ll pay some jerk so I can anally rape the boy he kidnapped and chained in his basement.”

That just doesn’t happen and I will not be surprised when more kids come forward and identify this man as their offender.

Lest we forget… there is the high-profile case of former hockey coach and serial pedophile Graham Michael James, convicted in 1997 for sexually abusing Sheldon Kennedy.

His sentence: just three and a half years.

He served only 18 months.

Graham James then faced new charges for sexually abusing Theo Fleury and one other young man.

His 2 year sentence is a slap in the face to all victims of sexual predators.

One wonders what Justice P.J. Carlson thought, handing down such a pathetic sentence for a repeat sexual offender.

James, ever the scumbag, refused to accept his “harsh sentence” and appealed. Fortunately the Manitoba Court of Appeal contains judges with a little backbone. Together Madam Justice Freda M. Steel, Madam Justice Barbara M. Hamilton and Mr. Justice Alan D. MacInnes raised his sentence to 5 years.

So clearly not ALL Canadian judges have a love affair with pedophiles but it is equally clear many of our Canadian judges do. Why else do these degenerates continue to get slap-on-the-wrist prison sentences?

When the Conservative government introduces another mandatory minimum sentence for sexual predators it will be these very same pedophile-loving judges who complain loudest their precious powers of discretion were stripped away.

If they used discretion in the first place they would sentence sexual predators appropriately and we would not require Parliament to go where our pedophile-loving judges refuse to tread.

If you enjoy the articles I write here on, how about buying me a coffee to show your appreciation?

June 25, 2014

Father Shoots, Kills Thugs Who Kidnapped his Daughter and used her as a Human Shield During Home Invasion



The story is terrifying.  A man, faced with two large black men invading his home, must choose how to deal with the thugs holding his daughter captive as a human shield.

Dialing 9-1-1?  Clearly not an option.

The setting: St. Louis, Missouri, 11pm.

The 17-year-old daughter is at her car grabbing stuff to bring into the house.  Two masked thugs grab her, put a gun to her head and, using her as a human shield, force their way inside the home.

The girl’s father watches this go down and grabs his own gun.

He fires at the masked home invaders, killing one and seriously wounding the other as they entered the front door.

Terrell Johnson, 31, was killed.

His accomplice, Cortez McClinton, 33, received multiple gunshot wounds to his chest and thighs. He is expected to recover.

Cortez McClinton, charged with second-degree murder, kidnapping, burglary and armed criminal action, was released from jail this past January when prosecutors dropped the murder charge against him when nobody would testify against him.

Clearly a model citizen, I have no doubt Cortez McClinton would not harm a soul inside the home he just invaded using a 17-year-old as a hostage while holding a gun to her head.

It was all for show.

Or so his family and friends will no doubt assert as they whine about his being shot and his accomplice now lies on a slab in the morgue.

On the bright side the 17-year-old daughter was completely unharmed even though her attackers suffered fatal and serious injuries, respectively.

Nobody else in the family was harmed inside the home either.

Only the masked home-invading scumbags were killed or injured, exactly as they ought.

Given the record of Cortez McClinton it seems a shame he will survive his injuries, but given that record it is also highly unlikely he will learn from the error of his ways.

With previous convictions for drugs and vehicle tampering and a dropped murder charge due to lack of witnesses, McClinton (right) does not appear to be a candidate for rehabilitation.

He will also face felony murder charges for the death of his accomplice as his actions led directly to Terrell Johnson’s death.

How appropriate.

Police say there are no charges against anyone inside the home as this is a clear-cut case of self-defense.

Again, how appropriate.

There are times when dialing 9-1-1 simply isn’t an option.  Everyone in that home would be dead long before police could ever arrive.

The only thing that kept them alive was a father who owns guns who possessed the willingness to use deadly force to save the lives of his his daughter and the rest of his family.

NOTE: His wife also shot at the intruders holding her daughter hostage. Now there are two parents I’d be proud to know!

If you enjoy the articles I write here on, how about buying me a coffee to show your appreciation?

June 23, 2014

MacKay’s Bill C-36 Proposes Change to Definition of “weapon” in Criminal Code



Todd Brown recently examined Justice Minister Peter MacKay’s proposed Bill C-36, An Act to amend the Criminal Code in response to the Supreme Court of Canada decision in Attorney General of Canada v. Bedford.

What he found scared the crap out of him.

The proposed change to the criminal code definition of “weapon” is not thought out properly. It leaves Canadians open to prosecution for all kinds of benign objects should police decide to get creative with the law. As we know all this happens in Canada far more regularly than we would like.

The unintended consequences of this definition change are serious and I join with Todd Brown in asking you to write your own MP, Prime Minister Stephen Harper, Justice Minister Peter MacKay and Minister of Public Safety Steven Blaney to educate them about the pitfalls of the proposed legislation as it stands today.

Here is why.

Under Bill C-36, The Protection of Communities and Exploited Persons Act, Minister of Justice Peter MacKay proposes to revise the definition of ‘weapon’ in the Criminal Code of Canada.

First, the current definition of “weapon” in the Criminal Code of Canada:

“weapon” means any thing used, designed to be used or intended for use
(a) in causing death or injury to any person, or
(b) for the purpose of threatening or intimidating any person
and, without restricting the generality of the foregoing, includes a firearm;

In Bill C-36 Peter MacKay proposes to add the following:

“for the purpose of sections 88, 267, and 272, any thing used, designed to be used or intended for use in binding or tying up a person against their will;”

So the entire definition of ‘weapon’ would read;

“weapon” means any thing used, designed to be used or intended for use
(a) in causing death or injury to any person, or
(b) for the purpose of threatening or intimidating any person
and, without restricting the generality of the foregoing, includes a firearm and, for the purpose of sections 88, 267, and 272, any thing used, designed to be used or intended for use in binding or tying up a person against their will;

To understand the unintended consequences of this new definition you must realize the current definition of “weapon” is based on how an object is used, not what it that weapon is, with the exception of firearms. (Todd Brown already wrote an excellent analysis of “weapon” vs “firearm” in Weapon vs Firearm – Definitions from our Criminal Code, Part 1 and Weapon vs Firearm – Definitions from our Criminal Code, Part 2)

A weapon is defined as an object used with criminal intent. It does not specify the object itself.

This is a critical point. Any object is a weapon if used with criminal intent.

MacKay’s proposed change would define a ‘weapon’ as a specific group of objects that could be used in ‘binding or tying up a person‘, potentially criminalising everything from handcuffs to zip ties, including rope, twine, computer cables, or even extension cords. This is where unintended consequences rear their ugly heads.

As Todd Brown wrote on Facebook,

Imagine this logic brought into divorce court proceedings, or being arrested for having rope or zip ties in your possession, ‘possession of a weapon’, then having to prove to a court that you had no criminal intent. The possibilities for legal persecution are endless.

While the intent of this change may be based on good intentions, “the road to hell is paved with good intentions.”

Todd Brown has a solution to solve this problem.

It is simple, elegant and consistent with Minister MacKay’s original intent. It removes any defined ‘objects’ from the definition of ‘weapon’.

Here is Todd Brown’s proposed change:

“weapon” means any thing used, designed to be used or intended for use
(a) in causing death or injury to any person, or
(b) for the purpose of threatening, intimidating or restraining any person
and, without restricting the generality of the foregoing, includes a firearm;

As you can see, Mr. Brown added just 2 words to the existing definition of “weapon”.

This simple wording change accomplishes the goal Peter MacKay set out to solve yet does not open up Canadians to unintended consequences and possible malicious prosecutions.

As I said at the outset of this article, write your own MP, Prime Minister Stephen Harper, Justice Minister Peter MacKay and Minister of Public Safety Steven Blaney to educate them about the pitfalls of the proposed legislation as it stands today.

Ask them to amend Bill C-36 to reflect Todd Brown’s solution to the definition of “weapon”.

Criminal law should be specific. It should capture the narrowest field possible. The current version of Bill C-36 casts a very wide net and will, like Canada’s Firearms Act and other poorly written laws, catch a lot of people Minister MacKay never intended.

Todd Brown’s solution solves that problem.

Please send me a copy of your letter to our politicians. With your permission I will post all letters I receive to the Canadian Rights and Freedom Blog so others can use them as examples when drafting their own letters to Justice Minister MacKay, Public Safety Minister Steven Blaney, Prime Minister Stephen Harper and their own Member of Parliament.

We can solve this issue but we must act now.

If you enjoy the articles I write here on, how about buying me a coffee to show your appreciation?

June 22, 2014

Crown Prosecutors Drop Breach Charges Against Convicted Murderer Keith Wiens


In a move that stunned family and those following this case, as I have, Crown prosecutors dropped charges against convicted murderer Keith Wiens for breaching his bail conditions prior to his conviction for murdering Lynn Kalmring.

Keith Wiens is a lowlife – a convicted murdering lowlife.  At no time from the day he shot Lynn Kalmring until today has this pathetic excuse for a man ever taken responsibility for his actions.

This ex-RCMP corporal shot Lynn Kalmring in the face. He then blamed his fiance for her own murder at his trial, saying she tried attacking him with a knife.  All evidence showed this to be precisely what it was: a flat-out lie designed to blame the victim for her own death.

What annoyed me most was the statement by Crown counsel spokesperson Neil Mackenzie claiming it is not in the public interest to prosecute Keith Wiens for breaching his bail conditions.

“We are taking into account a couple of factors. Bail was revoked on the murder charges and he was subsequently held in custody. He is now convicted and serving a life sentence. Even if he was convicted of a breach offence it would be concurrent to the life sentence. Taking into account the various factors, we concluded that the breach of conditions charge was not required,” said Mackenzie.

That is absurd.  This piece of crap openly flaunted his bail conditions and now, in the wake of Weins’ non-stop whining about how unfair it is, Crown prosecutors give him exactly what he wants: a stay of proceedings for breaching his bail conditions.

MacKenzie’s statement “Even if he was convicted of a breach offence it would be concurrent to the life sentence” is equally absurd.  This is a separate criminal offense and any sentence should be served consecutively, not concurrently as is the common practice in Canada.

I don’t care that, after the RCMP finally arrested Wiens for breaching his bail conditions, the murderer sat in a prison cell until the completion of his trial.

It’s precisely where he ought to be after violating the terms of his bail.

Any penalty for this additional crime ought to be paid, not waived off because it might be too inconvenient for the Crown to prosecute.

Sending the message to criminals that breaching bail conditions comes without additional cost is the wrong message.

What Crown counsel spokesperson Neil Mackenzie forgot in his rush to drop the charges against Keith Wiens is Lynn Kalmring’s family.

They deserve justice.

They’re not getting it.

That is flat-out wrong.

Keith Wiens is a selfish, self-centered murderer.  According to this convicted murderer the world owes him and he will not rest until he’s worked every angle possible in our so-called Justice system.  He’s already filed a complaint against Crown counsel John Swanson, claiming that Swanson somehow violated Wiens’ Charter Rights.  It’s a joke, a mockery of justice that anyone takes this complaint seriously.

The only satisfying result of this entire case is that Weins current sits in a cell in Kent Prison.  At least until some moronic appeals court decides his conviction should be overturned for some perceived slight to his Charter Rights and Freedoms.

You can read the full sentencing statement by Justice Barrow online at

Previous articles on this case:

Lynn Kalmring was murdered by her fiance, ex-RCMP Corporal Keith Gregory Wiens

Lynn Kalmring was murdered by her fiance, ex-RCMP Corporal Keith Gregory Wiens

I’ve corresponded with family members many times over the course of this case.

My heart goes out to them all as they suffer through more and more torments at the hands of the self-adsorbed killer who steadfastly refuses to take any responsibility for his own actions.

Please know I stand with you. My fervent hopes are prayers are that justice will prevail in this case and that ultimately this worthless scrap of humanity will finally take responsibility for his actions.

If you enjoy the articles I write here on, how about buying me a coffee to show your appreciation?

June 10, 2014

Degenerate sex offender Charles Mzite finds favour with BC Court of Appeal


Charles Mzite is a convicted sex offender. In 2009 his trial on 4 counts of aggravated sexual assault resulted in a conviction and a 10-year prison sentence.

This depraved HIV-positive immigrant from Zimbabwe came to my attention about a year ago when his human rights complaint was tossed by BC Supreme Court Justice Harry Slade.

Mzite deliberately lied to at least 4 women, assured them repeatedly he did NOT have HIV and had sex with them. He successfully infected one of the women with the disease.

As I wrote in September 2013 in my article about the degenerate Charles Mzite:

He repeatedly violated the rights of four women, placing them all under a potential death sentence, and he did so willingly. He gave no thought to the consequences to those women or the catastrophic effect his selfish acts would have on their lives.

He misled and outright lied to these women to convince them he was not HIV-positive, and kept denying it until he was arrested. At that point he finally admitted he knew he was HIV-positive and had known it as far back as 1995.

What an utterly depraved specimen of humanity and a repulsive example of manhood.

That article also contains the full depth and breadth of the depravity of Charles Mzite, taken directly from court records in case you think I’m overstating his crimes.

While Justice Slade tossed Charles Mzite’s human rights complaint and ordered him deported, the BC Court of Appeal it its infinite stupidity just decided Mzite’s 2-year delay in filing his human rights complaint is no big deal and that the 6-month deadline for filing a complaint should not apply to Mzite.

There was some basis in this case for the decision to accept the complaint after the expiry of the six-month period afforded by the [human rights] code,” wrote Justice Peter Willock in the ruling.

It cannot be said that the decision was patently unreasonable. I would allow the appeal, set aside the order made by the judge and remit the substantive complaint for consideration by the tribunal pursuant to the code.

I can find no confirmation that Charles Mzite was ever deported, so presumably Canadian Taxpayers are still on the financial hook for feeding, housing and clothing the degenerate sex offender.

Now, thanks to the BC Court of Appeal and their lack of common sense, we are on the hook for another expensive human rights complaint where the BC Human Rights Tribunal will do what it does best.

They will undoubtedly for the complainant, hand him a massive cash settlement and leave his 4 sexual assault victims wondering why they even bothered to come forward to prosecute Charles Mzite for his heinous crimes.


If you enjoy the articles I write here on, how about buying me a coffee to show your appreciation?

May 27, 2014

What Kills More Canadians Each Year – Knives or Guns?

Attila Vaski, Mike Ackermann liked this post


In what mainstream media harpies call a mass stabbing in Calgary last week they unwittingly revealed an interesting fact: knives kill or injure more people annually than any other weapon. Yes, including those much-despised firearms folks like me, and perhaps you, own. Legally and safely, I might add.

Statistics Canada reports knives are used in one third of all homicides and homicide attempts, making it the most-used weapon annually.

I’m not minimizing the deaths of 5 innocent people in Calgary last week. Not for a second. It is a tragedy that Matthew de Grood stabbed 4 men and a woman to death for no reason, and my sincere condolences go out to the families of each one of these slain individuals.

However it’s precisely this type of tragedy legislators, supposedly our employees, use to push new (stupid and useless) legislation upon us.

In what now passes for social conscience, Twitter users called for knife bans and one Calgary knife store owner agreed, citing his support for Canada’s Firearms Act in the process.

Kevin Kent, owner of Knifewear, a Calgary shop that sells handmade Japanese chefs knives, said he supports Canada’s gun restrictions and wouldn’t be opposed to knife regulation “as long as it makes sense.”

Kevin Kent made no friends in the firearms community with that moronic utterance.

It was just such a senseless tragedy as this multiple stabbing in Calgary that ushered in Canada’s gun restrictions. Calls of “as long as it makes sense” fell on deaf ears since government, as always, must be seen to be doing something, even if it’s something useless like tracking and harassing Canada’s most law-abiding citizens.

While it would please me greatly to see Kevin Kent suffer and lose his business under stupid and useless legislation like we law-abiding firearm owners do every day, I do not support a knife registry or a knife ban. Such feel-good government interference doesn’t make any rational sense, just as it made no sense for firearms in 1995.

“I call it moral panic,” said Janne Holmgren, director for the Centre for Criminology and Justice Research at Mount Royal University. “Sometimes fear drives a lot of legislation, unfortunately.”

Very well said.

Most Canadians today believe there were no restrictions at all on firearms before the Liberal Party finally saved us from “gun violence” in 1995 with Canada’s Firearms Act.

That is simply not true. They neither “saved us” nor stopped “gun violence” as the front pages of newspapers herald repeatedly.

The Firearm Acquisition Certificate system in place before Gamil Gharbi’s anti-women tirade cost 14 female engineering students their lives cost far less and was, at a minimum, at least as effective as current legislation on firearms. I would suggest it was far more effective as local police made decisions on firearms acquisition under that system, not bureaucrats staring at computer screens in New Brunswick.

Lest any forget, we’ve registered handguns in Canada since 1934, so the Liberals’ Firearms Act didn’t change a thing for them. Handgun registration hasn’t stopped a single gang member from obtaining and using illegal handguns in 80 years, and it never will.

Criminals don’t obey laws. It’s a maxim legislators ought to have tattooed on their foreheads lest they feel the need to manufacture more criminals out of we law-abiding citizens.

A knife ban will never pass in Canada for the same reason we will never ban cars no matter how many people are killed with them: “Everybody” uses them.

It would be too much of an inconvenience to the sheeple of Canada. Like Hockey Night in Canada and Beer, there are sacred cows in this country.

Driving a vehicle and using knives are two of them, no matter how many people they kill every year.

If you enjoy the articles I write here on, how about buying me a coffee to show your appreciation?

May 5, 2014

Ken Thompson Loved His Children by Brian Bedard

Ryan Steacy, Mike Ackermann liked this post


I admit I never gave much thought to Family Law. Like many people looking from the outside in, I figured our court system was designed to serve justice, and I thought that people who complained about it were probably just disgruntled about their own obligations. I was brought up to take responsibility for my actions and to respect authority. Of course, once I myself was thrust into the family courts, I quickly learned that not all authority respects me.

Now that I find myself part of the growing cry for the reform of our Family Court system, people often share emotional stories with me about how this system has treated them. I always try to remind myself that for every story there are two sides. But in fact, there are more than two sides whenever children are involved.

And I am seeing more and more of the impetus for reform coming from the very children who were left to grow up with the decisions of our dysfunctional system. They are realizing what was taken from them, and they are asking questions.

Ken Thompson Loved His Children by Brian BedardTrena Thompson, now a mother herself, is one of those children. She has been speaking out in honour of her late father, Ken Thompson. She is not only talking about systemic abuse, she has the documents to prove it. After his death, Trena discovered that her father had hidden over 500 of his documents amongst her own files. It is a paper trail which tells clearly the story of one of the worst cases of abuse of power orchestrated against a man whose only wish was to be a dad.

Trena wants her father to be honoured and recognized as a hero to all other parents who have endured such oppression.

He saved his files for a reason, stuck them in with mine to help us all. I want to see that it is used as a perfect example as to how flawed the current system is.

The systemic collapse of justice in the town of Sarnia is more than evident in the fact that Trena’s father was given two different identities. Two names were submitted: Kenneth John Thompson and John K. Thompson. And this led to two different case numbers being created by the Family Responsibility Office, which in turn resulted in the demand for two different child support payments from the same man. His attempts to correct this deceitful error went on for years.

The Family Responsibility Office was relentless in its efforts to collect the extra payments, disregarding what should have been a simple clerical error, and sending him back to court where lawyers and judges failed to question or prevent the ongoing disparagement of his character.

Every time Ken Thompson took steps to free himself from the dysfunctional system, he was punished. Lawyers filed documents suggesting that he was mentally ill when he wrote letters asking to visit his own children.

Trena grew up being told

“Your dad is going to steal you… you should run away whenever you see him.”

Furthermore, false allegations of sexual abuse were put forward, effectively discrediting him.

Ken Thompson died of a myocardial infraction, which is a technical term for a heart attack, but I think it really is as simple as calling it a broken heart.

Without a doubt in my mind both heart attacks were induced by the stress, false allegations and fraud the courts were putting him through. The oppression of it all is enough to make the strongest sick. My dad used to always ride a bike, ate healthy, and had his black belt. His first heart attack came a year and a half after the first allegation of him sexually abusing me. Breaks my heart because I know my dad didn’t do that,” says Trena, in a video she made to courageously share his story.

She is determined to continue his struggle for justice, because even after all these years, the system has not changed.

As I consider Trena’s case, I have questions I cannot answer. How does something like this happen? Why are good parents treated like guilty deadbeats?

Ken Thompson loved his children. He worked earnestly to provide for them. Plenty of good people face divorce. And good people want to take care of their children. When they go to Family Court seeking resolution, why are they served with retribution?

When the Family Responsibility Office was mandated to enforce court-ordered family support payments, it was handed exceptional power. As long as their procedural requirements are met, FRO employees are allowed to blindly disregard basic human respect and compassion. And they will be the first to tell you that it is the Family Court that hands them the paperwork needed to wield this power. It is much like a bulldozer set in motion without consideration as to what may be in its path.

But who takes responsibility for the effects of a biased court ruling? Is it up to a cash-strapped parent to siphon more of their funds into the system and away from their children? Where does someone turn when mistakes are made? We have no checks and balances. There is nothing to protect a parent from being villainized by an emotional ex-spouse. There is no way to ensure that the court’s decisions are fair.

Judges and lawyers too often benefit from motivation that has little to do with the well-being of the children. Make no mistake: children are hurt when the very people that should be keeping them safe from harm are allowed to use them as a possession.

Personally, I have asked more than one Family Law lawyer whether they feel our current system is flawed. “Off the record”, they readily agree that it is. But when I’ve asked them why they don’t speak up and become a part of the solution instead of the problem, the conversation always ceases. I guess, after all, lawyers thrive on conflict. It’s a plain fact that the more complicated the case, the more money the lawyers make.

Judges are not motivated to make changes either. A cookie cutter approach facilitated by no-fault divorce seems to have made their job simple.

And this is another question I cannot answer: If the divorce act is a no-fault system, why are allegations even considered in Family Court to begin with?

Indeed, if a serious allegation such as sexual abuse has been put on the table, does this not deserve to be addressed in Criminal Court? And then if a conviction is made, such information can be entered into the Family Court case with true authority to protect the innocent.

On the other hand, where is the protection from a parent who is committing the offence of false allegations? Should mere allegations be all that is required for a child to be taken away from a parent?

Parental alienation creates lifelong scars. From Trena Thompson’s perspective, the Family Court ultimately alienated her from both of her parents. She was deprived of her father because of unsubstantiated allegations and her mother was taken from her by the adversarial approach that our Family Court thrives on.

I hope this whole situation is used as a example as to why they must stop creating and enabling conflict within families,” she comments.

Trena also recalls her dad’s integrity through it all.

“In all the years my mom hurt my dad he never spoke ill of her, just honestly. He would always tell me that she was not always like that.”

If you enjoy the articles I write here on, how about buying me a coffee to show your appreciation?

February 23, 2014

Should Arthur Topham Have Sexually Assaulted 23 Women Instead?



That may seem a strange title for an article about our legal system, but after reading about Campbell Ernest Crichton, the former Duncan, BC, physiotherapist who faces charges he sexually assaulted at least 23 of his former patients, it seems to be the correct title.

A February 21, 2014, article in The Province started thus:

A hearing has been ordered in the case of a former physiotherapist who successfully argued he was too poor to pay for a lawyer to defend himself against charges he sexually assaulted 23 female patients.

Last year Campbell Ernest Crichton of Duncan, B.C., had his charges temporarily set aside after a judge found he was indigent and needed a government-funded lawyer for the complex criminal trial.

Anyone following my writings on Freedom of Speech will be well familiar with the case of Arthur Topham, the Quesnel, BC, publisher of, and alternative news website.

Mr. Topham currently faces criminal charges under Section 319(2) of the Criminal Code of Canada for “inciting hatred” against an identifiable group.

What, you ask, is the connection between Arthur Topham’s Freedom of Speech case and an [alleged] degenerate serial sex offender?

Quite simply, neither man can afford legal counsel for their criminal trials.

In the case of the [alleged] sex offender B.C. Supreme Court Justice Keith Bracken said there was a “real and substantial” risk to Crichton’s right to a fair trial if if did not have legal counsel. As a result of that “real and substantial” risk Justice Bracken ordered Crichton be provided a government-funded lawyer.

Arthur Topham is facing criminal charges for exercising his Right to Freedom of Speech. There is no “victim” here other than a few people whose actions lead me to believe they self-identify as victims. Topham sexually assaulted nobody. He physically harmed nobody. He never forced a single person on Planet Earth to read what he wrote.

Despite those facts Arthur Topham’s right to a fair trial with adequate legal counsel seems unimportant to the very same judiciary that ruled an [alleged] serial sex offender ought to have a government-funded lawyer.

Arthur Topham is not a wealthy man. He’s a modest man living on modest means in his rural home outside of Quesnel, BC.

His application for legal aid was denied. His application for government funding under what is known as a Rowbotham Application was similarly denied.

By these standards it is far more important that a sexual deviant’s rights be safeguarded than a man who dared write a few words someone found objectionable.

That is a very dangerous precedent to set.

Sending a man to prison for the words he writes out to scare the crap out of every single writer in Canada. Sure, today it’s Topham’s views that are “politically incorrect” and therefore fair game for our legal system, but what about tomorrow? Whose views will be deemed “incorrect” then? Who will stand up for you?

Campbell Ernest Crichton is charged with sexually abusing 23 human beings. That is real, substantial physical and emotional trauma all for one sick man’s own sexual gratification.

There are real human victims.

Arthur Topham wrote an article someone didn’t like. For that the BC Hate Crimes Unit of the RCMP and the BC Attorney General want to send Mr. Topham to prison, while refusing him any chance of a true legal defense.

Shouldn’t we be far more concerned about sexual predators?

Nope. We’ll happily pay their legal fees and send that darned writer to prison.

After all, ideas are far more dangerous than sexual predators, right?

If you enjoy the articles I write here on, how about buying me a coffee to show your appreciation?

September 29, 2013

Convicted Murderer Keith Wiens Appeals Both his Conviction and Sentence for Murder of Lynn Kalmring


Lynn Kalmring was [allegedly] murdered by her fiance, RCMP Corporal Keith Gregory WiensOn August 16, 2011 Keith Wiens shot and killed Lynn Kalmring. That is a fact undisputed by Wiens himself, who admitted to killing his common-law spouse in court.

He claimed the killing was in self-defense, a claim that was ultimately rejected by the jury as they took little time, just a few hours, to convict Wiens of second degree murder. Clearly they didn’t believe anything he said.

The sentencing hearing after his conviction made it clear Wiens ought to spend a considerable length of time in prison.

[1] THE COURT: Keith Gregory Wiens has been convicted by a jury of the second degree murder of his common law spouse, Lynn Kalmring.
[2] During the trial, Mr. Wiens testified in his own defence. He maintained that he killed Ms. Kalmring in self?defence. The jury rejected his evidence.
[3] Following the return of the verdict, the jury was asked, as required by s. 745.2 of the Criminal Code, for their recommendation as to the length of time that Mr. Wiens should serve in custody before being eligible to apply for parole. They unanimously recommended that he serve 20 years.
[4] The Crown argues that I should impose a period of 15 years of parole ineligibility. They argue that there are several aggravating circumstances. The first is that because Ms. Kalmring was Mr. Wiens’ common law spouse, killing her necessarily amounts to an abuse of her, and by virtue of s. 718.2(a)(ii), that is an aggravating circumstance. Second, the Crown argues that the fact that Mr. Wiens used a handgun, a handgun that he kept fully loaded and ready at hand, is an aggravating circumstance. Support for that proposition is said to be found in R. v. Jojic, 2012 BCCA 101 (CanLII), 2012 BCCA 101. Third, the Crown argues that the fact that Mr. Wiens shot his spouse in the face at close range and then attempted to manipulate the scene in an effort to avoid responsibility is an aggravating circumstance. Finally, the Crown argues that the unanimous recommendation of the jury is a clear signal of their view of the moral blameworthiness of Mr. Wiens.
[6] Because Mr. Wiens has been convicted of second degree murder, the sentence I must impose is one of life imprisonment. The issue now is whether the minimum period of imprisonment that he must actually serve before being eligible to apply for parole should be increased from 10 years, which is the minimum requirement set by the Criminal Code.

Ultimately the Honourable Mr. Justice Barrow decided that the minimum time for parole eligibility should be increased from the minimum to 13 years.

[33] Mr. Wiens, would you please stand up, sir.
[34] I sentence you to a period of imprisonment for life with no eligibility to apply for parole for a period of 13 years. I also order a lifetime weapons prohibition under s. 109 of the Criminal Code, and order that you provide a DNA sample under s. 487.051.

The convicted murderer is now claiming that 13 years before being eligible for parole is “excessive” given his “unblemished past.”

In addition to his claim that 13 years is “excessive” he is also appealing the conviction on the grounds Justice Barrow did not give proper weight to certain pieces of evidence.

Where is my barf bucket?

Justice Barrow was not impressed with Wiens either.

[29] I am satisfied that Mr. Wiens’ action in killing Ms. Kalmring was impulsive and was borne of anger fuelled by alcohol.

Keith Gregory Wiens ought to be grateful the judge granted him protective custody as he certainly doesn’t deserve it. He should be placed in general population with all the other wife-beaters and murderers.

Since I first wrote about the senseless murder of Lynn Kalmring her sisters have reached out to me numerous times to thank me for covering the case and for standing up for their sister. From my own personal contact with each of them I can say without hesitation the entire family still mourns the loss of Lynn.

They are justifiably angry that her killer tried (and thankfully failed) to blame Lynn for her own death. That pain and anguish also came through loud and clear in court, as they were present throughout the trial and even testified in the case.

Justice Barrow does an excellent job of honouring Lynn’s sisters, their pain and loss, and the consequences they still suffer as a result of one man’s heinous and selfish act.

[32] I have not made mention of the consequences of this senseless killing for the family of Ms. Kalmring. I have not ignored those consequences. Although no victim impact information has been provided to me, I heard Ms. Kalmring’s sister and her daughter testify. The pain and the sense of loss they both so profoundly feel was palpable. The consequences of this senseless killing do not end with Ms. Pertelson and Ms. Cummings. Ms. Kalmring’s sisters have been present throughout this trial, and the emotional cost that the killing and the subsequent attempts to avoid responsibility for it are and have been obvious. I acknowledge that sense of loss and those consequences.

I hope and pray the BC Court of Appeals refuses to hear this appeal, or if they do, they increase the time Wiens spends in prison before he is eligible for parole. With a single gunshot to Lynn Kalmring’s face this murderous ex-RCMP corporal sentenced Lynn’s family to a life of pain and torment and I see no reason whatsoever for him to be shown any more leniency than he showed Lynn or her entire family.

You can read the full sentencing statement by Justice Barrow online at

If you enjoy the articles I write here on, how about buying me a coffee to show your appreciation?

September 28, 2013

Hypocrite and HIV-Positive Charles Mzite Complains His Rights Were Violated in BC Prison


Charles-Mzite-convicted-of-aggravated-sexual-assaultHuman Beings are a strange and hypocritical lot. Zimbabwe immigrant Charles Kokanai Mzite drove that point home when he filed a human rights act complaint against BC’s Wilkinson Road Jail for treating him unfairly.

Why does that make Charles Mzite a hypocrite?

Mzite is currently serving a 10 year prison sentence for knowingly and intentionally having unprotected sex with four Victoria area women when he knew he was HIV-positive.

He repeatedly violated the rights of four women, placing them all under a potential death sentence, and he did so willingly. He gave no thought to the consequences to those women or the catastrophic effect his selfish acts would have on their lives.

He misled and outright lied to these women to convince them he was not HIV-positive, and kept denying it until he was arrested. At that point he finally admitted he knew he was HIV-positive and had known it as far back as 1995.

What an utterly depraved specimen of humanity and a repulsive example of manhood.

In 2009 he was tried and convicted of 4 counts of aggravated sexual assault and sentenced to 10 years in prison. The full weight of his crimes are hard to fathom, although Justice Simon Noël does an admirable job.

[6] In May 2001, the Applicant came to Canada with the assistance of a Canadian woman he had met in Zimbabwe. He was initially planning on staying in Canada for six months. His relationship with this woman lasted two weeks. They formed a dance troupe in Victoria, B.C. His group acquired notoriety and it was invited to perform for Oprah Winfrey in 2007.

[7] In July 2001, the Applicant tested positive for HIV in Victoria, B.C. but never attended at the clinic for the results. The Applicant submits that he phoned the clinic and that they told him everything was fine and that he was asked to come in for post-test counselling, which he did not do.

[8] Six months after his arrival, the Applicant claimed refugee protection on the basis of his political opinion. The Applicant had refused to join the ruling political party in Zimbabwe, the Zimbabwe African National Union-Population Front [ZANU PF]. He stopped attending meetings of that political party and started to attend meetings of the opposition, the Movement for Democratic Change [MDC] party. He believed that his absence from the ZANU PF meetings was noticed as he is well-known in Zimbabwe because of his membership in a popular dance troupe. The ruling party wanted him to publicly support it.

[9] In November 2001, the Applicant married a woman (Complainant #1) who he met at the airport in Canada in May 2001. He denied being HIV positive and had unprotected sexual intercourse with her. Their relationship ended in May 2002.

[10] In April 2002, the Applicant began a relationship with another woman (Complainant #2) who also asked him if he was HIV positive. He said that he was not.

[11] On October 7, 2002, the Refugee Protection Division determined that the Applicant was a Convention Refugee. On April 3, 2003, he applied for permanent residence.

[12] In the summer of 2003, the Applicant began a relationship with another woman (Complainant #3). Again, he was asked if he was HIV positive and he answered that he was tested for immigration and that he was not.

[13] In the summer of 2004, the Applicant began a relationship with yet another woman (Complainant #4), and again, he told her that he was HIV negative.

[14] In August 2004, Complainant #3 tested positive for HIV and told the Applicant the following month. In November 2004, the Applicant tested positive for HIV again.

[15] In July 2006, the Applicant apologized to Complainant #3 and told her that he had tested positive in 1995 when he had applied for a visa to China.

[16] On September 6, 2007, the Applicant was arrested and incarcerated and has remained incarcerated since then. When questioned by the officers, he admitted knowing to be HIV positive since 1995. He was charged with four counts of aggravated sexual assault to which he pleaded not guilty.

At the end of that sordid history this degenerate has the nerve to say prison officials violated his rights. It’s laughable and absurd, and thankfully BC Supreme Court Justice Harry Slade agrees.

The BC Human Rights Code requires all complaints to be filed within 6 months of an alleged violation. Mzite waited much longer than that to file his complaint, over 2 years.

[54] As an adjudicator of the particular claim before it, the investigation of practices at VIRCC that resulted in interruptions of medication would be directed to the period of Mr. Mzite’s incarceration. If a discriminatory practice was found to exist at the time, it could not be assumed that any remedy individual to Mr. Mzite would have remedial consequences for others in his circumstances after a lapse of two years from the date of Mr. Mzite’s release from VIRCC. The weight given to the allegation of systemic discrimination in determining the public interest in accepting this extremely late-filed complaint suggests an improper purpose, namely an investigation into the practices of the provision of medication to prisoners at VIRCC as of December 2010 and later, at least twenty months after the discriminatory acts alleged by Mr. Mzite. This, coupled with the aforementioned errors in assessing the reason for delay, I find is patently unreasonable.

Mzite’s original complaint alleged that prison officials denied Mzite access to anti-viral drugs repeatedly during his 2-year stay there while he as awaiting trial on multiple charges of aggravated sexual assault.

True to form, BC Human Rights Tribunal member Marlene Tyshynski allowed the complaint because she felt it was “in the public interest to do so.” In her written decision Tshynski said the following:

[56] Mr. Mzite’s complaint raises a novel issue by a uniquely-positioned and very vulnerable individual, that is, a prisoner who is HIV positive and reliant on VIRCC Staff for Medication. I agree that this complaint offers the Tribunal a rare opportunity to address this novel and serious allegation. The systemic component of Mr. Mzite’s complaint alleges that there are currently other prisoners in the custody of B.C.

Corrections/the Ministry who face an interruption in their access to Medication. In my view, the individual and the systemic allegations in this complaint raise an issue that, if proven, could advance the purposes of the Code, in particular, preventing discrimination prohibited by the Code, and identifying and eliminating persistent patterns of inequality associated with discrimination prohibited by the Code. I consider these factors exceptional and that they weigh strongly in favour of the public interest.

[57] Considering and weighing all of the factors, I find that Mr. Mzite has established that it is in the public interest to accept his late-filed complaint.

Uh huh.

If his complaint was so “novel and serious” then there is no reason why Mzite couldn’t file it within the allotted time period, is there? Making exceptions to these deadlines, such as Marlene Tyshynski did, serves no purpose other than, perhaps, pushing a personal or organizational agenda.

In brighter news, Charles Mzite will be deported from Canada.

He attempted to have the decision reversed by judicial review, but the man convicted of 4 counts of aggravated sexual assault clearly misdiagnosed his value to Canada and the revulsion the Honourable Mr. Justice Simon Noël would have with the heinous and callous disregard Charles Mzite has for women’s safety.

[3] The facts of this case speak for themselves. The Applicant had a private relationship with four different women and despite being asked by each of them whether he had HIV, he answered negatively and proceeded to have sexual relations with each one of them. One of these encounters even lead to him contaminating one of the women with the virus. He was convicted of four counts of aggravated sexual assault.

It was CIC’s opinion that he still constitutes a danger to the public in Canada. For the purposes of a judicial review, I see no reasons in law or in fact to disagree with this finding.

In addition, CIC found that country conditions in Zimbabwe have changed considerably, that the Applicant’s profile has changed over time and that his past political affiliations no longer exist. It was also determined that the quality of HIV medical care available in Zimbabwe was adequate. Therefore, CIC concluded that it is unlikely that the Applicant would face a risk to his life, a risk of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment, or a risk of torture upon his removal to his country of birth.

I have identified no flaws in the analysis made by CIC to arrive at this conclusion.

Finally, CIC also found that the Applicant did not demonstrate a degree of establishment in Canada, be it social or economic, that would cause a disproportionate hardship should he be ordered to return to Zimbabwe. Again, the analysis followed by CIC is in accordance with what is legally required in such a situation.

There is no reason for this Court to intervene.


Send this degenerate back to his homeland. Canadian taxpayers shouldn’t pay the tab for this depraved scumbag’s medication or his incarceration.


If you enjoy the articles I write here on, how about buying me a coffee to show your appreciation?

July 27, 2013

Justice for Lynn Kalmring — Ex-RCMP Member & Convicted Murderer Keith Wiens to Serve 25 Years


Keith Wiens is a despicable specimen of humanity. He brutally murdered Lynn Kalmring and then blamed her death upon Lynn herself.

Wiens attempted to claim self-defense for shooting Lynn Kalmring in the face from approximately 2 feet away, according to expert testimony. He placed a knife in her hands after she was dead to make it look like Kalmring was the aggressor and the cause of her own demise.

Thank God common sense prevailed and this liar and murderer’s version of events were not accepted.

Donna Irwing, Lynn Kalmring’s sister, had this to say after the sentence was pronounced by Justice Geoff Barrow:

“It’s a good day, we’re all going to sleep well tonight, go back to our homes, try to pick up the pieces and get on with our lives because that’s what Lynn would want.”

The jury took less than 6 hours to find Keith Wiens guilty of second degree murder. That time span includes time they took off from deliberating to have dinner.

Clearly they didn’t buy into his lies.

“It’s not going to bring Lynn back, but maybe she can rest in peace now,” says Kalmring’s sister Maggie Leslie.
“Going into this we didn’t know what to expect. We didn’t know how we were going to feel or what we were supposed to feel or how long it would take. But at the end of the day it’s brought out the good in our justice system.”

The jury recommended 20 years before Wiens could be eligible for parole and Justice Geoff Barrow went even further.


If you enjoy the articles I write here on, how about buying me a coffee to show your appreciation?

January 7, 2013

San Antonio – The One Theatre Shooting You’ve Never Heard Of



Does anyone aside from me find it bizarre that the mainstream press utterly ignores shootings where the would-be mass killer is stopped by a good guy with a gun?

The restaurant and theatre shooting in San Antonio, just 2 days after the school shooting tragedy in Connecticut, is basically a ghost story as far as the mainstream media is concerned. Outside of “pro-gun” circles, it’s practically unheard of.

Those of us who comprehend the only thing that stops evil in its tracks is a good guy with a gun, or in the case of the San Antonio theatre shooting, a good girl with a gun, believe this case should be front page news in every newspaper in the nation.

An unidentified woman was on guard at the Santikos Mayan Palace 14 theater complex the night of the shooting so when the armed moron, who had just shot his ex-girlfriend in the restaurant next door, entered the theatre to see who else he could shoot, he found his own body riddled with bullets instead.

Needless to say, he didn’t shoot anyone else after that.

Why not?

Because a trained woman with a firearm in hand refused to allow any more innocent bodies drop that night.

No-Handguns-AllowedThat’s also why you won’t hear this story anywhere on the mainstream media… there was no trail of dead bodies for the news cameras to follow; no spilled blood for the newscaster to bathe in while she weeps, wails and whines all while proclaiming “the gun” caused this awful tragedy.

The heroic woman, an off-duty Bexar County police officer, is being honored for her brave and life-saving actions but, as I said, you won’t hear about her or the award she is receiving on the evening news.

A woman stopping a mass shooting isn’t news. Only a high body count that gives a biased news media a platform to advance their anti-gun agenda is news. Only another thoroughly preventable tragedy inside one of their glorious Gun-Free Zones is worthy of the national media’s attention.

This woman and her story should be front-page news across America, but it is not. Sadly, the only people who will ever even know about her and what she did that fateful night in December are the good citizens of San Antonio honoring her, and good folks like me and perhaps you who are reading this article.

The mainstream media will continue to totally ignore this woman and her heroism… all because there is no body count and therefore no story… at least in their sad and pathetic little minds.

You’d think the fact that there was no body count, that a mass murder was avoided, would be proudly trumpeted from the rooftops, yet it is not.

Instead we glorify mass murder and vilify or ignore those who prevent it.

That truly is a national tragedy and a disgrace for the profession of journalism across America.

If you enjoy the articles I write here on, how about buying me a coffee to show your appreciation?

Go To Top
Get Adobe Flash player