DID THE RCMP MURDER JEFF HUGHES?

Written by Paul Fromm

Sunday, 13 December 2009 08:43

*DID THE RCMP MURDER JEFF HUGHES?* ** *VANCOUVER, December 12, 2009*. There is strong evidence that RCMP, who are "out of control in British Columbia," murdered Jeff Hughes an unarmed Whte Nationalist in a confrontation in Nanaimo, October 23, Paul Fromm told an angry rally in Vancouver tonight. Fromm, the Director of the Canadian Association for Free Expression, called for an immediate and independent investigation of the slaying of computer technician Hughes. Jeff Hughes was known to the RCMP. Several years ago, Sean McGowan who heads the BCB "hate squad" visited him and publicly reproached him for handing out literature critical of immigration and of interracial sex. Jeff suffered from a medical condition, a nerve disorder, that prevented him from holding down a full time job. He lived in poor circumstances in a rough section of Nanaimo. Two of his neighbours were drug dealers and users who played loud rap music late at night. Jeff's noise complaints to the RCMP went unanswered. There was so much traffic coming to his neighbours that Jeff even posted a sign on his door advising that he neither sold nor had any drugs in his apartment, Around midnight, October 22, the drug pushers werte playing loud music. Jeff phoned in a complaint that was ignored. He later got into a confrontation with the drug dealers as he asked them to turn down the volume and was severely beaten. Jeff may have retaliated by cranking up his stereo. Around 5:00 am another neighbour, a native Indian, returned drunk and phoned in a complaint about the loud music. This time the RCMP responded with, apparently, four officers, the canine unit and ominously, an ambulance. Jeff refused to come out of his unit. At some point later he did and was shot dead. At first, the police asserted that Jdeff was armed. They now seem to have retreated to the position that he had what "appeared" to be a weapon. There have been two investigations known to us. One was conducted several days after the shooting by Odin Patrick, a senior moderator at STORMFRONT. The other was conducted some weeks later by Victoria lawyer Douglas H. Christie who will be represented an "interested party" at any inquest or inquiry. The two investigations do not agree on all details. * A woman quoted by the press as saying she saw a gun, emphatically denies this and has complained to the B.C Press Council about the coverage in the Nanaimo newspaper. A brief correction has since appeared. * Odin Patrick learned that 10 shots were fired, all by the female RCMP officer. [Was she an affirmative action hire who panicked?] * Doug Christie believes that several police officers fired their guns. Bullet impacts were found alongside the building where Jeff Hughes lived and, at least one, across the street. * A witness heard the investigating medical officer say: "Turn the body over. [Jeff was lying on his back on the terrace outside his apartment.] I want to see the entry wounds." This would suggest that Jeff was shot in the back. The shooting suggests an utter lack of police judgement. Why were four armed officers and a dog unable to restrain or deal with a slight, unarmed man? "The RCMP in BC are out of control," Mr. Fromm told his Vancouver audience. "They tasered to death a disoriented Polish immigrant two years ago at the Vancouver Airport. He was distraught and disoriented and lost. They made no effort to calmn him down or find an interpreter. Their first response was to have a three month rookie, a Negro named Kwame, repeatedly taser the helpless Pole until the died." ------------------------------ JEFF HUGHES POSTED THIS ON STORMFRONT THREE YEARS AGO *sean mcgowen and three of his cohorts came to my door here in Nanaimo some time ago. They said they wanted to talk about some flyers; specifically the one about not having sex with blacks. I told them i had nothing to say and closed the door in thier face. They spent a good ten minites on the porch talking in a loud voice about my being a racist, about the flyers I put out. After they left i went straight to my lawyer and he drafted a cease and desist order that he sent off the RCMP HQ. I have not seen them since. Now, if they arrest me, it is on record that they have been harrassing me-and that just might take the wind out of thier leagle sails. Jeff hughes hail Victory* *REPORT BY ODIN PATRICK (Senior Canadian Moderator of Stormfront)* This is what happened and it's from more than one eye witness and from my own personal interactions with him. Jeff was not a drug dealer. *He was beat up by 2 drug users/dealers from suite 104 within 2 hours of him being shot dead by RCMP though.* Long Story: Jeff Hughes Lived at suite 101 on 531 Selby street in the "ghetto/indian" part of town in Nanaimo because that is all he could afford due to his debilitating nerve disorder that kept him from working full time. *He was a proud White Nationalist, and like any upstanding White Nationalist he tried to get along with everybody even his non-white neighbours as best he could. From time to time he even would get milk and other items for a disabled Indian/Cree woman that was one of his neighbours. He was a certified computer technician part-time when his disorder allowed him to be, he received a degree from the Carleton University in Ottawa. He was not a drug dealer *and even had a sign on his door stating this so people would stop banging on his door at 3am looking for drugs(Image of his door sign attached in this post) Why did people bang on his door for drugs? *Because his neighbours were drug dealers.* Jeff was suffering from a constant state of sleep deprivation most times because people kept banging on his door for drugs and because his neighbours in suite 102, and 104 and building 525 were constantly playing their loud rap music between 11:00 PM and 8:00am most nights and mornings, including the Friday morning he was shot by the RCMP. This is what started the whole chain of events. On Friday morning between between 12:00AM and 6 am, his neighbours in suite 102 and 104 were playing loud rap music and the police did nothing because his other neighbour in suite 103 was away. Why is that important? The Police would not resolve a noise violation if Jeff Hughes was the victim, only if he was one of the people committing a noise violation. The RCMP, including Sgt.McGowan of the anti-hate squad had harassed and knocked on Jeff's door before for handing out literature promoting European Canadian Values and expressing his anti-immigration views. The RCMP did not attempt to resolve the noise problem when the people in suite 102 and 104 were playing loud rap music that morning. This meant that Jeff was forced to resolve it himself. Now when* his neighbours in suite 102 and 104(who are drug users, and highly likely dealers as well) played their loud rap music between 3-6am in the morning, Jeff confronted them and urged them to stop. That is when the two males from suite 104 assaulted and viciously attacked Jeff Hughes.* Jeff Hughes then retreated to his house, and most likely was thinking how helpless he was because the RCMP already had a history of not coming to resolve issues if he was the victim. So yet again, Jeff had to deal with the problem the best he could alone, and he may have prepared himself for a home invasion by the drug dealers that had already assaulted him between 3 and 6am on the Friday morning. Jeff had no help from the RCMP when his neighbours assaulted him and continued playing their loud music, so he sat at home, cranked up his stereo to get back at them. If he was violent and armed, why wouldn't he have just shot the the violent drug dealers instead of turning up his music and sitting on his couch? He may or may not have been armed, it's unknown. So , he had a stereo battle with his neighbours who had caused him at least 48 hours of sleep deprivation and assaulted him viciously. Now, unfortunately, the tenants in suite 103 came home intoxicated and reported that the people in suite 101,102, and 104 were playing their music excessively loud. Only then did the RCMP decide to resolve the issue because the person making the complaint was not a "white nationalist", but instead a drunken Indian. The RCMP did not come out because the neighbours in suite 102 and 104 were playing their music excessively loud, they came out only because now they were in a position where they could yet again harass and intimidate Jeff Hughes for being a thought-criminal. Now, when 2 members of the RCMP came in 1 squad car around 6am, Jeff refused to come out and talk because the RCMP had a history of intimidating and harassing him. He at that point was under no obligation to leave his premise, but he may have said something offensive to the RCMP that resulted in 1 more squad car with 2 more RCMP coming to 531 Selby. In Jeff's sleep deprived and possibly concussive induced delirium* state, he may have thought the drug dealers were trying to trick him into opening his door up so they could assault him again for playing his music loud. Home Invasions are commonly done by people dressed as police officers and is the common method of invasions in United States, especially the state of texas. Though, when Jeff retaliated in a non-violent acoustic manner, with his words or his stereo, that's when the police came out. After the other two officers arrived shortly after 6am, making a total of 4, that is when the shooting occurred. But, right before the other two officers arrived, they had called an ambulance first. They had no intention of using less-lethal force, and came in with bad intentions from the start and fired 10 shots at Jeff the moment they saw him. If they just let him be he would have fallen asleep most likely. Now, if he was on his balcony when shot rather than in his suite, then they must be good shots and hit him 10/10 times, because there were no gunshot holes on the outside of the building. Also, that means he did not fire any weapon from inside his residence towards the police outside because his window and door had no damage either. If Jeff did have a weapon, why didn't he use it against the 2 drug dealers that assaulted him? If he had a weapon, why didn't he fire any shots as his residence was being broken into by the RCMP? Why didn't the RCMP have tasers or tear gas to neutralize a sleep deprived and physically injured person? Jeff only had 30 percent feeling in his hands due to his medical condition. Also, if he really was a threat, why was it only 1 female RCMP officer of the 4 that fired all the shots? Did she have a moment of panic? Did her partners not fire because they recognized Jeff was not a threat? Another question, did the police at the time know Jeff had been assaulted? *Jeff could have been suffering from concussive delirium from the assault an hour earlier.* If they had time to wait for 2 more RCMP members to arrive why didn't they make sure they brought a taser,pepper spray fogger, smoke grenade, flash bang grenade, tear gas, bean bag gun, or a net so they could subdue him in a less-lethal manner?

 

CANADA DOES NOT NEED IMMIGRANTS LIKE THESE!

Written by Paul Fromm

Thursday, 10 December 2009 07:37

*CANADA DOES NOT NEED IMMIGRANTS LIKE THESE!* Look at the FACTS of this article and please THINK. Canada dose not NEED immigrants like these who only TAKE OUR MONEY AND ABUSE OUR HEALTH AND SOCIAL SYSTEMS without contributing anything to the country. SIX OF YASMINE'S DAUGHTERS SHARE THE SAME BEDROOM (Her 12-year-old lives in a hospital) -- Max Harrold, *THE GAZETTE* Yasmine has 8 children under age 17. Seven of them live with her and her husband in a cramped 3-bedroom apartment on the West Island. But it's the one child who doesn't live at home, her 12-year-old disabled daughter, who preoccupies Yasmine the most. That child lives at the hospital because of her many ailments, which stem from having been born prematurely at 29 weeks. "She has problems eating, she barely talks, she can't sit on her own," Yasmine, 41 said. This year: the girl had surgery to repair her malformed spinal cord, and the 4-month recovery was especially painful. Yasmine doesn't have a paying job. She cooks and cleans for her family and spends time at the hospital with her daughter: her husband, a landscaper, doesn't work in the colder months. Their welfare child allowance cheques total about $3,000 a month. "It's tough to stretch that out for a family of 10," Yasmine said. Yasmine is among thousands of people who are to receive $125 cheques from the *Gazette* Christmas Fund this year. The money helps make the holiday season a bit more cheerful for needy families and individuals. Six of Yasmine's daughters share one large bedroom, which is the basement level of their apartment Her 15-year-old daughter helps out a lot, but her 17-year-old son spends a lot of time away from home and his mother doesn't know where he is most nights. How does Yasmine find the strength to get through it all? "Honestly, I don't always," she said. "I suffer a lot. My daughter is not here.. She's always sick. My other children don't like to visit her in the hospital, so they don't really know their own sister. ... I'm proud of the way my husband and I have tried so hard to raise our children to be good people." [Well, except for the 17-year-old boy who disappears at night] While she doesn't celebrate Christmas because she is a Muslim, Yasmine said she appreciates the intentions behind the Christmas fund and she will use the money to pay bills. "It's a great thing to help," she said. "If I had money, I would help too FACT: She and her husband have 8 children under 17. FACT: One child LIVES in a hospital! While we feel sympathy for the sick child, we still ask HOW MUCH DOES THIS COST US??? FACT: "Yasmine" doesn't have a paying job. No one in her family WORKS! FACT: Her husband, a "landscaper" doesn't work "in the colder months!" WHY NOT? Landscapers are physically fit. Why doesn't the bum do some OTHER kind of work? FACT: Their welfare and child allowance checques total about $3000 a month! About $36,000 A YEAR! FACT(?): Six of her daughters share one bedroom in the "basement level" of their "apartment". (Since when are there "split-level" apartments?) FACT: Her 17-year-old son spends a lot of time away from home and his other "doesn't know where he is most nights". WHY DOESN'T HE WORK? FACT: She "volunteers" at a thrift shop. FACT: She says she is "proud of the way she and her husband have tried so hard to raise their children to be good people? What does her SON DO WHEN HE IS OUT ALL NIGHT? FACT: They are Muslims and don't celebrate Christmas. In other words, they don't believe in Christ, but THEY DO BELIEVE IN TAKING MONEY FROM CHRISTIANS. ADD UP THE FACTS: She and her unemployed husband have 8 CHILDREN, one who LIVES in a hospital. (HOW MUCH DOES THAT COST CANADIANS?) They get $36,000 a year in WELFARE and CHILD ALLOWANCE CHEQUES. (How much do they also cost us in MEDICAL AND DENTAL CARE?) CANADA DOES NOT NEED IMMIGRANTS LIKE THESE!

 

FAILED IMMIGRANT SPONSORSHIP: ANOTHER HIT FOR TAXPAYERS

Written by Paul Fromm

Tuesday, 08 December 2009 09:34

* Failed Immigrant Sponsorship: Another Hit For Taxpayers* "When someone sponsors a family member to immigrate to Canada, they promise to financially support him or her during the initial years in Canada. If welfare money is paid out during that period, the sponsor must reimburse the government, said *Richard Kurland*, an immigration lawyer. The obligation varies. A spouse, for example, has a sponsorship period of three years, and it is 10 years for most others. 'The idea was to control abuse, because before this mechanism existed, there was a tendency for a small number of people to import family relations to Canada for the express purpose of taking undue advantage of our welfare system, chronic care homes, what have you,' said Mr. Kurland. The sponsorship system made sponsors share the overall economic burden, which curtailed this kind of abuse. [Quick! someone stamp out this dangerous outbreak of common sense! Accordingly,] an Ontario court has ruled in favour of a group of residents who said *they should not automatically be made to pay for relatives they sponsored to immigrate to Canada, despite having pledged to do so*, in a decision that could have costly implications due to the number of such immigrants who seek social assistance. *[By 2004, almost 7,500 sponsored relatives were on social assistance in Ontario, costing provincial taxpayers $70 million annually.*] So far this year, about 5,000 sponsored immigrants have applied for social assistance in Ontario, according to the *Ministry of Community and Social Services*, with a cost of about $56-million. ... The landmark ruling by the *Ontario Court of Appeal* says the provincial government must consider the circumstances of immigrant sponsors and use 'case-by-case discretion' when deciding whether to demand sponsors pay back the money their family members collect. *Appeal Court Justices Janet Simmons*, *S.E. Lang* and *John Laskin* wrote that Canada and Ontario '*owe sponsors* a duty of procedural fairness when enforcing sponsorship debt.' ... The ruling hinges on language in the legislation that says sponsorship debt '*may* be recovered,' and *which the judges believe grants the government discretion*. There is 'strong argument that the governments' discretion extends to forgiving sponsorship debt,' the judges wrote. *[Richard Kurland]* said the creation of a 'case-by-case determination system' would create 'humongous administrative overhead' and weigh down any collection system. ... 'Could we be a little smarter, and adopt the Quebec system where the sponsor gives a 100% guarantee to pay, with no excuses possible?' said Mr. Kurland." (*National Post*, November 18, 2009) If the same 15% failure rate applies across the country, that's another hit of $100-million or more to beast-of-burden taxpayers. This is a particularly perverse decision as one dictionary definition of "may" is, "*To be obliged; **must**. Used in statutes, deeds, and other legal documents*." Would it be too much to expect Canadian jurists to know this? There was evidently no confusion about "may" 100 years ago -- the *1906 Immigration Act* (*Section 28*) stated, "any person landed in Canada who, within two years thereafter, has become a charge upon the public funds, whether municipal, provincial or federal, or an inmate of or a charge upon any charitable institution, *may* be deported." In other words, Canada's robust young government understood that it was empowered to deport paupers -- not to seek their permission. Because the young country did not relish the idea of a growing population of undesirables, back then an unemployed man was normally deported with his wife, even if she was earning. Still, there is hope. Judges are the highest paid professionals in Canada. In Ontario, they rake in $200,000 on average. What a lovely good faith gesture if these three Ontario judges were to roll up their sleeves, clear out a spare room and set another place at the table whenever they heard of a newcomer sponsorship breaking down. [This article appears in the November, 2009 issue of the *CANADIAN IMMIGRATION HOTLINE*. Published monthly, the *CANADIAN IMMIGRATION HOTLINE*is available by subscription for $30 per year. You can subscribe by sending a cheque or VISA number and expiry date to *CANADIAN IMMIGRATION HOTLINE*, P.O. Box 332, Rexdale, ON., M9W 5L3.]