Downtown Eastsider who sent Obama a Threatening Letter Arrested

Photo: George stands in front of the UBC Learning Exchange. He asked a Downtown Eastsider with a camera to take this photo; I think it was taken in early 2009 but I haven't had a chance to talk to the photographer. George was wearing his Alaska t-shirt but did not yet have his Sarah Palin glasses.

I asked Dale, a homeless guy with a shopping cart who hangs out in front of McDonalds restaurant at Terminal & Main, where George was. "You know George, the guy who wears the navy blue t-shirt with FBI on the front," I said, prompting Dale's memory. "The cops picked him up," said Dale who used to sleep in the same spot as George under a bridge. "He was threatening people."

Don't get me wrong, George wasn't threatening his friends and acquaintances around the Downtown Eastside. He was actually quite affable, always quick to call out, "Hi!"

Downtown Eastsiders had cautioned George, who was a fixture around the Downtown Eastside with his shopping cart -- "my carriage," he called it -- that he couldn't go around threatening people. You just can't send President Obama a letter warning him,"You're dead", he was told when he showed the letter with the fax receipt stapled to it. You can get arrested for that; you can do jail time, people warned him. But George would remind people of the reason he was immune from prosecution. "I'm George Washington incarnate."

George had recently been notified that he had inherited money from his half-brother. He showed the will to people on Whopper Wednesday at Burger King, and at other places too; it had an official red seal in the upper corner. He said that when he got the inheritance, "I want to get a room in a rooming house." On the front page of the will was the name of a Montreal law firm, along with their address and telephone number. George said he phoned them and threatened them.

Long before George learned of his inheritance or threatened Obama, he had been regularly dropping into the University of British Columbia Learning Exchange on Main St. near Keefer to use the free phone. He would phone the Canadian Security Intelligence Service [CSIS] and threaten to bomb them. Once CSIS returned the call and spoke to a staff person at the Learning Exchange, according to George. The staff person told George not to use their phone again.

But George needed access to a telephone on another day, so he told staff at the Learning Exchange that he just needed to make a quick call. He made it quick, the call to CSIS, threatening them.

UBC Learning Exchange staff banned George from the premises. I know that because I was walking past with a couple of friends in the spring when George, standing out front on the sidewalk, asked a woman with us if she would do him a favor and go inside and fill up his coffee cup. The Learning Exchange provides free low quality coffee to attract the poor, keep the sign-in numbers up, and keep the funders believing they are helping ahelluvalot of down and outters turn their lives around.

UBC President Stephen Toope who helped himself to $565,000 in income and perks last year will never mention George, the guy they kicked to the curb. All the networking these UBC povertarians do at their catered openings and socials at the Learning Exchange -- Toope gave a speech at one last November -- you would think they would have a few names in their Rolodex like homeless advocate Judy Graves to call and ask, "Is there anything you can do here?"

Standing on the sidewalk out front of the UBC Learning Exchange, George was always friendly, stopping people to chat, most recently about his new Sarah Palin rimless glasses that he got a kick out of wearing with his Alaska t-shirt. Dionne, the Learning Exchange Co-ordinator, a white woman who likes to remind people that's she's really Black -- a sort of Michael Jackson in reverse -- would stand just feet from him when she ducked outside to stand in the sunshine on her breaks, taking long drags from her cigarrette, escaping into her novel.

"They were looking for him," Dale said. Vancouver Police spotted George standing with Dale last month on Hastings St. across from the First United Church. They grabbed him. They told him they were sending him back to where he'd come from; George had always claimed he had been born in the U.S. and had Canadian status. The police took the cheap handcuffs George carried with him -- he claimed to be an under cover FBI agent, which would explain the handcuffs -- and handcuffed his shopping cart to Dale's, creating a headache for Dale. The police told George, "You've been threatening people," Dale recalls. "The cops were laughing at him."

Obama Flubs Lines of Presidential Oath, but Chief Judge John Roberts is to Blame

(Photo: I found this photo of Obama, who is reportedly a closet smoker, at Covenant Zone blogspot.)

When listening to Barack Obama swearing the Oath of Office this morning, I felt embarrassed for him when he muddled the lines. But when I read the transcript, I realized that it was Chief Judge John Roberts, showing off by using no notes, who first flubbed the lines and threw Obama off.

The Constitution prescribes the text: "I do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States and will to best of my ability preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States."

Here's a transcript of how it was actually recited this morning:

ROBERTS: I, Barack Hussein Obama...
OBAMA: I, Barack... [Obama may have jumped in too early here to repeat his name, but Roberts then interrupted him.]
ROBERTS: ... do solemnly swear...
OBAMA: I, Barack Hussein Obama, do solemnly swear...
ROBERTS: ... that I will execute the office of president to the United States faithfully... [Roberts makes two mistakes here: the word "faithfully" should come before "execute", and the word "to" the United States should be "of".]
OBAMA: ... that I will execute... [Obama repeats Roberts' mistake of failing to say the word "faithfully" before "execute". Obama nods at Roberts at this point, like a teacher prompting a student to try again.]
ROBERTS: ... faithfully the office of president of the United States... [It should be "faithfully execute" the office...]
OBAMA: ... the office of president of the United States faithfully... [Now Obama echoes Roberts' earlier mistake, saying "faithfully" after "United States".]
ROBERTS: ... and will to the best of my ability...
OBAMA: ... and will to the best of my ability...
ROBERTS: ... preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.
OBAMA: ... preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.
ROBERTS: So help you God?
OBAMA: So help me God.
ROBERTS: Congratulations, Mr. President.

Such muddling of the oath could lead a listener to, as George W. Bush would put it, "misunderestimate" these men.

CUPE Boss Asked to Settle with Secretary

Paul Moist, President of CUPE National, sent a letter to striking Vancouver civic workers on July 23, 2007 in which he stated:

“In short, we want fairness and to date this has not materialized….”

With the language Moist was using, he could have been a secretary.

For years, a former secretary to two CUPE Presidents in Vancouver has been saying all she wants is “fairness” in her grievance against CUPE. In Dec. 2002, CUPE called police on this secretary after she exposed the fact that for years, CUPE had been operating what she alleged was a “non-union sweatshop” inside Local 116. Vancouver Police Constables M. Herrmann and K. Ng – who did not even have jurisdiction at Local 116; the RCMP did – visited her apartment and left voice mail instructing her that CUPE wanted her to silence herself about unfair labor practices.

The secretary left CUPE with two glowing letters of reference but she knew too much. She had seen secretaries working for CUPE Local 116 -- the Local was staff exclusively with non-union secretaries -- fired after speaking up about excessive workloads, chronic verbal abuse from a CUPE Vice President, and the fact that CUPE had reneged on a promised pension. She saw a 12-yr veteran secretary take CUPE to court for a pension. She saw a long term book keeper fired when she became less efficient after getting cancer. "I was a credible witness corroborating other women's stories," says the secretary, "and CUPE didn't like that." Another secretary who had attempted to pursue the issue of unjust firings got a Cease & Desist letter, the secretary recalls. She believes that CUPE sent police to her home to throw a scare into her, to weaken her resolve.

“CUPE members across Canada applaud your solidarity and your resolve.”
Paul Moist, in his letter to members

The secretary has written to Paul Moist, President of CUPE National, in Ottawa to ask that he settle her case. She would like Moist to reverse what she alleges was CUPE's "hypocritical stance" in the case, that stance being that writing to labor leaders about unfair labour practices is “evidence” of criminal activity. She would like him to have CUPE lawyers remove from the police Property Office the letter she sent to CUPE National in 2002 about unfair labour practices inside Local 116, as well as the one she addressed specifically to Barry O’Neill at CUPE BC, and the one she addressed to Jim Sinclair of the BC Federation of Labor.

And while CUPE is taking back letters filed in the Police Property Office, the secretary says they should also take back one written by Paul Cooke, Vice President of CUPE Local 116 (he left not long afterwards after considerable in-fighting.) Cooke had written the 2002 letter on union letter head and sent it to a long list of people – but concealed it from the secretary -- falsely claiming that the secretary had merely been a “part-time” worker at CUPE and had never mentioned excessive workloads before leaving. She has pay stubs confirming that she was a full time secretary. And she has a handwritten letter from Paul Cooke apologizing for “working you too hard”.

Not only would the secretary like Paul Moist to acknowledge that writing to labor leaders about unfair labor practices is not criminal conduct, but that it does not constitue the specific offence of "harassment". The police report reveals that the secretary, at the request of CUPE, was investigated for “WORKPLACE HARASSMENT” and the case labeled “CLOSED”. The secretary attempted to have this defamatory phrase adjacent to her name on the police computer expunged but the VPD responded in writing that it would remain on file for “99 years”. The secretary then wrote to O’Neill and Sinclair informing them that as long as this label remained on her record, she would ensure that it remained on their public record as labour leaders -- as they should be protecting people speaking up about working conditions, not smearing them. After that, something mysterious happened. She discovered that the offence for which she had originally been investigated, the one at the top of the police report she had obtained through Freedom of Information shortly after CUPE called police, had been altered. It was now, “HARASSMENT/OBSCENE COMMUNICATION”. It was fraudulently altered roughly a year after the case had been labeled “CLOSED” by the VPD. She wants this retroactively altered “offence” to be removed from police files.

The above issues are just two of several that the secretary has been asking CUPE for years to deal with in a fair way.

“There are many issues . . .and these must be dealt with in a fair way….”
Paul Moist, in his letter to CUPE members

Before and after the police complaint was lodged against her, the secretary says that CUPE never made even one attempt to deal fairly with the issues. A CUPE lawyer, Ian Aikenhead had contacted her in writing and she had responded in writing, only to discover later that her polite response letter had been filed in the police Property Office. (She also discovered through the police report that Aikenhead had released to police confidential information – albeit exaggerated and misrepresented -- that he had in his possession as a result of his wife, Catherine Aikenhed, being an NDP-appointed public representative to a dental regulatory body.) When she asked O’Neill and Sinclair to personally ensure that her letters addressed to them were removed from the police Property Office, they completely ignored her. They had ignored her prior to the police complaint as well. CUPE leaders resort to smear and intimidation, in the secretary's view, instead of dealing with the real issues. “I often hear CUPE use the term ‘good faith’ in bargaining,” says the secretary, "but in my case I’ve never seen CUPE show any sign of good faith”

“Lower Mainland employers have to date refused to bargain in good faith and to address the real issues….”
Paul Moist, in his letter to CUPE members.

The secretary says she would like Moist to put a stop to CUPE’s double standard: one standard for how dues-paying members deserve to be treated and a much lower standard for how their own employees deserve to be treated. She believes that resolving her case would be a good starting point.

Related article: CUPE Strike Haunted by Secretary Scandal

Evidence-tampering in CUPE police complaint

CUPE members in Vancouver are on strike and a stench can be detected. It is not the stench of garbage left uncollected, it is the stench of CUPE's dirty laundry.

A former secretary to two CUPE Presidents is talking.

The secretary continues to talk about the police complaint CUPE lodged against her after she complained of the "non-union sweatshop" they were quietly operating at Local 116 at UBC. VPD Constables Megan Herrmann and Kevin Ng -- who don't have jurisdiction at UBC -- left voice mail and showed up at her home. Their message: muzzle yourself about unfair labour practices inside CUPE.

When the secretary got a copy of the police report, she was shocked to discover that letters she had sent to CUPE President Barry O'Neill and BC Federation of Labour President Jim Sinclair about unfair labor practices inside CUPE had been submitted as "evidence". Copies of these letters were enclosed with the police report. This fact has been discussed in a previous post, "CUPE Strike Haunted by Secretary Scandal". What is new is that the DTES Enquirer has learned that the police report pertaining to the CUPE complaint was retroactively altered roughly a year after the case had been labelled "CLOSED".

The alteration of the police report occurred after the whistleblowing secretary contacted CUPE President, Barry O'Neill, and BC Federation of Labour President, Jim Sinclair, in writing in 2003. She informed O'Neill and Sinclair that as long as the unfounded "WORKPLACE HARASSMENT" notation remained adjacent to her name in police records, she would ensure that it remained on their public records as union leaders. Speaking up about workplace conditions did not constitute "WORKPPLACE HARASSMENT", she reminded them. It was then that the term "WORKPLACE" disappeared from the police report -- even though the case had been labelled CLOSED by the VPD the previous year. The secretary doesn't know who changed the "offence" for which she was investigated but she can prove that it was changed in the police file long after the case had been closed.

It was quite by accident that the secretary stumbled upon the change. It was when she received documents from a second Freedom of Information request, that she noticed that the Vancouver Police had retroactively changed the offence for which she had been investigated. The offence was changed from "WORKPLACE HARASSMENT" to "HARASSMENT/ OBSCENE COMMUNICATION". She suspects that the term "WORKPLACE" was dropped as a form of damage control, to reduce potential embarrassment to union leaders -- but she can't prove it.

What she can prove is that there was nothing harassing or obscene about her communication with labor leaders. Her letters, which remain on file at the VPD Property Office, can be used to confirm this. "What was obscene about this situation was the way people who worked for CUPE were treated", she says.

The fact that the whistle blowing secretary had been investigated for the specific offence of “WORKPLACE HARASSMENT” and not "HARASSMENT/ OBSCENE COMMUNICATION cannot be disputed. "WORKPLACE HARASSMENT" is clearly typed at the top of the police report she obtained through Freedom of Information shortly after CUPE called police on her. And the fact that the case had been "CLOSED" in Dec. 2002 is also typed on the police report. Further, the DTES woman has preserved correspondence from the VPD informing her that the “WORKPLACE HARASSMENT” notation would remain on the police PRIME data base permanently. It did remain on the police data base until after she contacted O'Neill and Sinclair in 2003, after which time the "WORKPLACE" angle for which she had been investigated disappeared.

The whistle blowing secretary sees this retroactive alteration of an investigated "offence" in a closed police file as a form of evidence- tampering. She speculates that it may have been prompted by the fact that she was requesting a criminal investigation into labor leaders involved in this case. It was "no secret", she says, that she wanted union leaders criminally investigated for public mischief for lodging what she considered to be an unfounded police complaint. [Context: When CUPE lodged their complaint in Dec. 2002, the lodging of unfounded criminal complaints to silence vocal Downtown Eastside residents was an epidemic problem. Inspector John de Haas stated in one case involving the Vancouver School Board that bureaucrats lodging unfounded police complaints against political adversaries could justifiably face "public mischief" investigations, if a victims requested them. An advocate on the Downtown Eastside was advising residents to seek public mischief investigations in such cases.]

The whistleblowing secretary says CUPE and police were well aware that she had never visited or telephoned her CUPE "WORKPLACE" after leaving her job there. There was no workplace harassment and that fact was just too obvious so, in her view, somebody arranged for the "WORKPLACE" element to get retroactively disappeared. "I e-mailed Jim Sinclair in 2004 and I asked him if he had any idea who that somebody was," she says. He didn't respond. But she did preserve a copy of her e-mail to him.

There was no workplace harassment. There was no harassment, period. That's the position of the whistleblowing secretary."I have as much right as CUPE members [currently] on strike to protest about working conditions."