PREVENTION: HOW CAN IT BE LAWFUL

PREVENTION: That seems to be a good idea. Stop dangerous and damaging events from happening. Broaden the nature of prevention and the categories of the dangerous and the damaging and stop more bad things from happening. Categorize some citizens or their property or projects as; well let us simply put those people and properties and projects into a MUST BE PREVENTED designation. 

 

The methodology of prevention is continuing confrontation, intimidation and invasion of homes and property; citizens are badly psychologically damaged by elected representatives, authorities, civil servants and enforcement officers as their demeanor, statements and actions destroy all confidence in and all faith in the obtaining of a just outcome. When there is no evidence of a serious danger and the powers of prevention are unleashed on a citizen a property or a project the only danger is and damage caused is by the exercise of punishment to achieve prevention. Rather than being prevented from being a danger or injuring someone or doing damage, some persons are badly damaged by the punishments inflicted as profoundly disturbed authority callers and civil servants unleash their toxic agenda on citizens who have not damaged anyone or anything nor do endanger anyone or anything.

 

Citizens and the economic viability of properties are easily damaged by contrived charges and fines and prejudices arrived at without evidence or due process. Take home pay and particularly disposable income, if there is any from rental businesses, are diminished or eliminated by fines  and the loss of revenue from contrived administrative punishments such as "Entire Building civil servant ordered Evictions". Why must law abiding citizens bear the costs of bogus enforcement procedures and the terrible fear and anguish created by being chased off of or dragged out of ones business or home despite scrupulously obeying laws and regulations to avoid that intervention?

 

Projects are even more fragile.  Just one "Shut Down" can permanently end a project and repeated 'punishment by intervention' actions are intended to do just that despite the necessity for and benefits of most projects. Projects are not undertaken by property owners to damage anyone or anything nor to endanger anyone. Project owners do not need the supervision of hostile neighbors or toxic By-Law and Police enforcement. Project owners want to improve their property;additionally, the supervision and demands of banks and insurers are very stringent and comprehensive. Projects should be subject to regulation only if some effect of a negative nature which is real, not imaginary impacts other property and persons. It is hampering to try to curb or end projects, all hampering is malfeasance and thus it is criminal.

  

CAPRICOUS JUSTICE: COSTLY AND DAMAGING

Capricious Justice is a short description for a long hard road which is the path that I have had to travel through Canadian Society and even out here at my rural acreage,  Fifty Kilometers from the city, Twelve Kilometers from the nearest town. I have had my property repeatedly invaded by trespassers, by-law officers, British Columbia Special Provincial Constables and Police. The result of repeated unnecessary and fabricated interruptions is that my personal productivity is severely reduced. I am forced to be vigilant at all times when I should be able to kick back and relax at my rural acreage. I was employed or attending University every week of every year from the age of 16 on. I had been injured at work at the Canadian National Railroad and I was injured in two motor vehicle accidents a few years apart, there was nothing I could have done to prevent my being injured in the accidents. I was a passenger in the motor vehicle accident in 1970 which ended my ability to work for five years and in order to reduce liability an insurance company lawyer had me declared accident prone. In 2017 surely there is no one who could believe that there was some affinity between being injured in accidents caused by other people and somehow being "prone" to being in accidents. Ever since then I have been unemployed or struggling at self employment and worse forced to work at my wife's business without being paid and then I had to pay her business loses with money I inherited. The loss of productivity and earnings does not affect just myself. It also affected my children, persons who might have been employed by myself, and the Government of Canada which does not receive revenue in any significant amount from persons who are unemployed or under employed. 

 

Capricious Justice, that would be the irrational use of Police, By-law Officers and other enforcement personnel in a manner which protects no one, does not protect any property, does not protect the natural environment but is the use of the power of the Crown to intimidate or dis- accommodate or to unsettle someone. Those purposes are not a lawful use of enforcement. 

THE COST OF UNNECESSARY TRIPS BY ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS THIS FAR FROM THEIR JURISDICTION IS VERY HIGH. A SINGLE BOGUS ENFORCEMENT CALL CAN INVOLVE THREE JURISDICTIONS AND OFFICERS FROM ALL OF THEM GENERATE EXPENSES WHICH DEPLETE TAX REVENUES. IT IS MY UNDERSTANDING THAT MOST OF THE MONEY FROM MY PROPERTY TAXES IS USED TO PAY POLICE, BY-LAW AND THE MUNICIPAL AND REGIONAL EMPLOYEES. UNLESS YOU ARE  IN THE HABIT OF SWATTING YOUR NEIGHBORS MUCH OF YOUR TAX MONEY IS WASTED. 

 

WHY DOES MY GOVERNMENT REPRESENT ITS SELF TO ME THROUGH SURLY MENACING THREATENING CIVIL SERVANTS AT MY APARTMENT BUSINESS IN THE  CITY OF VICTORIA AND AT MY RURAL ACREAGE ? 

 I will admit that it is necessary to have Police Protection and the regulation of By-laws. That necessary protection particularly when it comes to By-law enforcement should require that one would be engaged in an activity that was damaging someone's  property or damaging the environment or wild life. Forests and Wetlands must be protected. But its a priority with me to protect the Forest and the Wetland and the animals who live here. I abhor damaging other persons property or even the damaging practice of triggering enforcement against other persons. 

Every time I have required the protection of the Crown in anyway I have been denied, dismissed and disregarded. I would follow all of the procedures required, for instance in a case of a gross violation of the British Columbia Water Act which seriously damaged a water course and some of the only flat usable land on my property. More than ninety percent of my property is composed of steeply sloping forest and a equal amount of peat bog wet land.

I am not ever able to obtain a protective response and instead I am attacked with bogus complaints, defamation and even raids and invasions of my property and false imprisonment. NONE OF THE DRAGGING ME OUT OF HERE OR RAIDING HERE RESULTED IN A CONVICTION.   I find my self being referred to complaint commissions ; I thought those would be for persons who had been convicted and had not been treated correctly. The simple demand for enforcement and protection of a sensitive and heavily populated by animals Forest and Wetland should suffice to get the job done. Enforcement Officers arrived many years ago in response to my letters which at that time were being sent to British Columbia Provincial Cabinet level officials and chided me "Don't you be telling us how to do our jobs".  It might have been that time or another time that a Conservation Officer said " This Watershed is not worth saving" about Larulla Creek, a Salmon Enhancement Watershed tributary to King Creek.