A North American Essay on Justice and Politics

(The Birth of a Police State)

Blindfolded, Lady Justice holds up the scales of justice as fair and balanced. But such faith in a stone statue may not be practical when the sculpture’s judicial decree has been written by mere mortals. Control over any society, past or present has never come easily, especially when people are smitten by power. Authoritarian leaders use armies to rule by fear, while elected governments, more restrictive out of necessity, seek more subtle means of control. Unlike the “Obey or Else!” demands of despots, who face no opposition, in a free society, citizens have the ability to ask: …Who is in control? …Are elected officials an illusion of power? …Do politicians work for the people or are they obedient servants to the demands of government agencies?

Turning a blind eye to totalitarian rule by bureaucracy is like watching grains of sand sift through an hourglass: You know it’s happening, but feel helpless to stop it. The fact is, “People in positions of power; protect positions of power!” In Canada and the United States, bureaucrats and politicians, working together, have taken democracy down a dangerous path of unaccountable elitist rule. Detached from the working class, these elected and unelected regulators of society use their positions of power to produce legislation which enhances agency control over society.

In Canada, judicial demands for this enhanced level of control had its largest expansion in 1966, when the Solicitor General’s Office created a new and unanswerable department, similarly called, “The Department of the Solicitor General.” This underling department, working beneath the banner of the Solicitor General is where the growth of the police state in Canada planted its deepest roots. The department was given control over four agencies, each self-regulated with unchecked power. (1) The R.C.M.P—The Royal Canadian Mounted Police. (2) C.S.I.S. —The Canadian Security Intelligence Service. (3) C.S.C. —The Correctional Service of Canada. (4) N.P.B. —The National Parole Board.

Of the four, the last two, C.S.C. and the N.P.B. routinely engage in deliberate abuses of incarcerated and paroled citizens without fear of reprisal.The secrecy attached to the Departments of Corrections and Parole, along with the others, make these agencies virtually unanswerable to the Canadian public. Clouded in bureaucratic red tape, in 2005 the Department of the Solicitor General was renamed; “The Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, which added two new agencies to its portfolio: (5) The Canada Border Services Agency, and (6) The Canadian Firearms Center. Today, all six remain distant and aloof to public oversight.

Separate from these powerful institutions, the Minister of Justice in Canada, (A Cabinet Post) also holds the title of Attorney General and oversees prosecutions in Canada. Working with provincial counterparts, this prosecutorial arm of the justice system is as hard to penetrate as the six federal agencies mentioned above. It is also the area where criticism of the justice system is most warranted. Sadly, by protecting rather than deleting the institutional corruption which is prevalent in the courts and in the legal profession, the sancity of due process remains nothing more than a distant promise resting in the arms of a stone statue.

In the United States of America, judical abuse has become so visible that it can no longer be denied by the average citizen. This nation’s two major political parties have engaged in episodes of deception and betrayal at different times throughout its history. The Watergate scandal in the early 1970’s was a republican escapade which saw elected officials, bureaucrats, and U.S. intelligence agencies engage in clandestine criminality. More recently it has been the democrats deceptive demonization of a political foe that has brought this corruptive manipulation of democracy to the forefront. Referred to as the Russia Hoax, the President of the United States, Donald Trump was falsely accused of being a Russian Agent. This absurd manufactured political ploy was supported by the nation’s most powerful bureaucracies, including the C.I.A. and F.B.I. The deception was maintained for three years to deceive the American people before it was exposed as a lie. And as in Watergate, again it was the bureaucratic state, led by intelligence agencies and judicial officials who controlled the destructive narrative, doing so in an effort to hold onto power, or, as in the latter case, to fix an election for the purpose of maintaining control.

Most recently this ongoing abuse in the U.S. justice system has been linked to colliding ideologies and judicial bias. The recent Trump saga, despite it being manufactured to create a political scandal, should therefore be looked at through a judicial lens more so than a political one. A nation’s bureaucracy, and most certainly its judiciary, should never be allowed to choose one political ideology over another. For that reason, the responsibilty for the abuse in the Trump saga, and all the dangers that arose from it, rests with the U.S. justice system, where unrestrained power and corruption within the legal community has proved to be the biggest threat to the world’s most powerful democractic republic.

Canada’s bureaucracy, likewise, is not exempt from engaging in the protection of judicial overreach. The upheaval involving the trucker’s convoy in Ottawa in 2021 showed how quickly the fear of losing control of a public narrative can encourage a group-think mentality among politicians and bureaucrats. The trucker’s challenge to covid restrictions were maligned repeatedly by government officials and a compliant media who sought to demonize the convoy and gain public sympathy, done with the goal of driving the truckers into compliance. However, when this tactic proved unsuccessful, the government; knowing it was losing control of a desired narrative, used the highly controversial Emergency Measures Act to quell the protest. (Note: soon after this excessive use of power, the government wrote legislation which allows the Canadian Military to use force against its own people, doing so under the alledged guidance of domestic law enforcement)

Fighting an overbearing government and its bottomless cash register is not something that most citizens in Canada and the United States can do. In the states, Donald Trump is a rare exception. In my book, “Poor Man’s Justice,” (my personal story) the reader is shown how a lack of monetary support can encourage judicial abuse, including a refusal to provide fair and honest legal representation. Donald Trump’s financial circumstances, (personality likes or dislikes set aside) were much different than my own. And his ability to defend himself against judicial abuse, to the dismay of those in control, exposed the destructive ability of an overbearing bureaucracy to the extreme.

While this wayward approach to justice is an attack on individual rights, politicians and elitist legal scholars in Canada and the United States continue to protect the manipulative abilities given their justice systems. Leaders in both countries insist judicial officials are beyond reproach and that the process’s in place should not be questioned. However, if fairness and integrity is the goal of administering equal justice to all of society, rich and poor alike, you would think authorities would write legislation that curtails avenues of abuse. On the less affluent side of the society, plea bargains and waived hearings for parole suspensions (both of which were abused in my case) a document requiring mandatory signatures by all parties is needed in support of any agreement. This would protect the justice system’s integrity and bring fairness to a process of sentencing and incarceration where it is currently lacking. However, In Canada, an offer of enhanced accountability through signed plea-bargains was dismissed by the Attorney General of Canada, who called it unnecessary, while falsely declaring that the justice system was honorable in its administration of justice, a declaration which “Poor Man’s Justice,” clearly shows is untrue.

A lack of accepting responsibility on the part of the Canadian judiciary brings about a constant rewriting of rules and regulations inside agency portfolios, and I suspect the same can be said for those in the United States. Keeping a step ahead of criticism is important to government bureaucracy when it is attempting to avoid scrutiny. In Canada for instance, the Appellate Court has several self-serving presumptions of fairness inserted into documentation titled: ACCESS TO THE COURT RECORD

1.1 Presumption of Access

The court of Appeal recognizes openness and accountability to the public as critical to democracy and the rule of law.

The open court principle is of crucial importance in a democratic society. It ensures that citizens have access to the courts and can, as a result, comment on how courts operate and on proceedings that take place in them. Public access to the courts guarantees the integrity of judicial processes in as much as the transparency that flow from access ensures that justice is rendered in a manner that is not arbitrary but is in accordance with the rule of law.

Let’s highlight the relevant inclusions that followed this alleged presumption of access that the justice system added to the description after this declaration: “A right to access to court records is thus prsumed. However, the presumtion of access to court records must be balanced with protecting the rights related to the protection of the dignity of individuals involved in the court proceedings and with the ensuring of the proper administration of justice: Providing automatic access to court records in all cases would not thwart the court’s jurisdiction and obligation to protect important social values.

It appears that the hidden protections for the justice system are not so hidden!  Ask yourself, what values, who’s dignity, and who’s need for security is the court trying to protect. The courts ending statement reads: “Potential breaches of privacy related to the protection of personal dignity and security are risks that may require the restriction or denial of access to court records in certain circumstances.”

The following is the Courts summary:

In summary, as guiding principles the Court of Appeal:

1. 1. Recognizes the open court principle as a fundamental constitutional protection by providing a “presumptive” right of access to court records.

1. 1. Recognizes that restrictions on access are justified where serious risks to privacy or other important interest such as the proper administration of justice, outweigh a presumptive right of access, and,

1. 1. Recognizes that where restrictions on access are necessary, such restrictions should minimally impair the presumptive right of access.

In short: inferences of open access to court records, despite the justice systems attempt to hoodwink society, are in fact, a farce!

When you have a judicial system that maintains strict control over court proceedings, and the production of documents, the truth can be easily hidden. The fact is, almost all judicial rules and regulations give more protection to the trappings of the court than the individual. In my case, in doing research for my book, I discovered court transcripts had been altered and deleted, including the disappearance of transcripts and recordings of my first hearing before the Appellate Court where I expressed reasons for an appeal. Those reasons included the manipulation that had been used by the lawyeres and courts to gain a plea which covered up the mitigating circumstances of the case and hid evidence that led to a lengthy period of incarceration that went well beyond the offered sentence I had agreed to.

In closing, let’s look at where free society in North America is currently headed. It is no secret that the middle class in Canada and the United States is a shrinking population. For the most part, citizens of both countries go about their daily lives, pay their taxes and carry on without government intrusion, not knowing, or even worrying about the rules and regulations that define their existence. This quiet citizen I talk about, defines the first forty-one years of my own life. A husband and a father of three children, with a good job, a comfortable home, two family vehicles, not to forget, a cat and a dog. It was a life that all changed when my future was put into the hands of judicial officials who chose to define my life, not as it was, but to degrade it into one that suited their purpose.

Before I came into conflict with the justice system, the question of legal and correctional abuse on matters relating to due process never crossed my mind. Awakened to the truth through this personal experience, I sadly admit that is no longer the case! Throughout history, uprisings have risen out of the pain and suffering that governments have inflicted upon its people. To offset public discourse today, nation leaders seek power through a new world order that they hope will make it easier to hold onto power when the time comes. Not to be over dramatic or alarming, but it is worth noting that the purging of individual rights is already under attack in several countries. Combining nation state laws with global declarations are presently underway throughout the world, including attempts to bring forth global taxation.

I want to make it clear that societal demands for fair and equal justice should not be linked to violent protests initiated by extremist ideologues. Some unrests on display today are in fact a direct result of globe trotting elitists who are promoting hatred and dissent. These people use willing participants while they sit back and wait for the time to come when they can, quote; “Save society,” with rhetoric like, “These new and necessary restrictions, rules, and regulations, are for your protection.”

Penalties for dissent of elitist rule has already begun. Societal banishment, personal demonization and degradation are used to promote public humiliation. Shouts of saving democracy by politicians and bureaucrats are issued as rallying cries to silence anyone who expresses a perspective that goes beyond that of the elitist narrow mindset. Blinded by a need to be right, many of these people who are engaging in any form of strict political ideology have lost sight of their humanity. Striving to hold onto positions of power and control has proven to be a dangerous drug, and sadly, those who enter public service are easily intoxicated by its overpowering scent. If we are to survive in a free and open society, we need to go beyond demands of simple accountability. We must seek unfettered access to government records, which in a true democracy, belong to the people. Any politician asking for a vote, should receive support only if he or she signs a pledge to support legislation that gives every citizen the right to look through public records without fear of reprisal by bureaucrats and the courts, who protect the system and block access to buildings and documentation paid for by the people.

The justice system, more than any other government agency, discourages prying eyes from making such demands; Why? The most polished floors in the world are found in the halls of justice, and despite the government’s insistence that these public institutions are open to all citizens, their corridor’s are rarely scuffed. The most secretive of all public buildings, the courts, with Lady Justice guarding its entrance, is the place where oversight is needed most. This essay, OBEY or ELSE!—raises a multitude of questions about the harm that unchecked power can bring to a free society. As you think about the pros and cons of what you have read, and how it relates to the power and control of your nation’s judicial hierarchy, it is my hope that you will search for, and find the answers needed to protect due process and acquire true and honest justice for all.

David H. Mitchell

dhmitchellbooks.com