we don't cover krishna here - statement from Saskatchewan human rights commission

Bhakta Don Muntean · February 1, 2007

Donald,

I urge you to seek out the counsel of a trusted devotee friend who may be able to speak some unpalatable words to help you understand how you come across to people. Judging by the correspondence you have posted in this thread, my sympathies are fully with the authorities who have judged against you.

I am not saying those authorities are right; I am merely saying that from the way you have presented yourself, you come across as substantiating the conduct of which you have been accused.

Our acharyas have taught us that "the environment is friendly." We have been taught that true religion is to find fault with ourselves, not with others.

I am not saying you are at fault of what you have been accused of. I am saying that your correspondence appears to have been written by a very scary man, who I would not want to leave alone with vulnerable family members. Surely this appearance is not accurate, so I urge you to get some good counsel regarding how to modify how you come across to others, so your legitimate grievances can be heard without you sabotaging them by your own unwitting conduct.

Please resist the temptation to lash out at me for this concerned reply; I beg you to take it to heart and make the changes that will make all the difference in how people perceive you.

Nice for you to hide in the shadows of the guest feature - who are you?

Quote:

my sympathies are fully with the authorities who have judged against you...you come across as substantiating the conduct of which you have been accused...your correspondence appears to have been written by a very scary man....who I would not want to leave alone with vulnerable family members...

Reply:

Before I reply to anymore of this odd posting - cut and paste [even] a couple of examples of this above noted point.

Paste nothing out of context either - please present some examples that I - "come across as substantiating the conduct [which is what in your mind?] of which you have been accused...your correspondence appears to have been written by a very scary man".

You cannot just 'say' that and not present examples for discussion. [if there are any]

If you expect to post such judgements - the way you have - and - as a guest within the shadows of anonymity - then - you're comments are that much more 'suspect'...heck how do i know that you're not from around here - right?

Bhakta Don Muntean · February 1, 2007

If you can't say it in two sentences, then it is psychosis. Are you afraid you'll sound crazy?

A man at the store stopped you from chanting and you complained to the Human Rights Commission. They told you they 'don't do Krsna complaints".

The police threw you in jail for chanting on your porch and you complained ...... "we don't do Krsna ..."

The Mounties murdered your daughter and .... "we don't do Krsna ..."

Like what is the story? Are you really psychotic? That is their perception. We have no story. What does 'Krsna" have to do with all this legaleeze? Do you really expect anyone here to sift through screens and screens of this stuff to try to piece together some sort of cause and effect? I usually avoid all that political maya stuff that drowns your consciousness, but this seemed different. Maybe it's only one clerical dead-head in the Rights office who doesn't handle Krsna, or maybe it's in the statutes.

Maybe you said "Hare Krsna" to all Staples' customers and they fired you. When you complained to the Rights folks some dingbat there said "we don't do Krsna ..."

There's two sentences.

Quote:

Do you really expect anyone here to sift through screens and screens of this stuff to try to piece together some sort of cause and effect?

Reply:

Well i hope that some people would - they read reems of pointless postings on other threads. If you read what i've posted [it's not that long] you would have the gist of it.

Here is your short end of it:

We engaged the job-placement services of a private employment agency before long - we noted evidences - of a differential treatment - ending [months later] with the director of the employment agency asking inappropriate questions - about our religious affiliations [superciliously asking "what is this krishna thing you're into"]- [as per SHRC's instructions] a letter of demand was sent to the employment agency and a resultant complaint had to be filed - we were then told - “we don’t cover Krishna here” by SHRC intake - SHRC was/is biased.

Oh and you could lose the insults - why are you insulting me?

February 1, 2007

Before I reply to anymore of this odd posting - cut and paste [even] a couple of examples of this above noted point.

Paste nothing out of context either - please present some examples that I - "come across as substantiating the conduct [which is what in your mind?] of which you have been accused...your correspondence appears to have been written by a very scary man".

You cannot just 'say' that and not present examples for discussion. [if there are any]

If you expect to post such judgements - the way you have - and - as a guest within the shadows of anonymity - then - you're comments are that much more 'suspect'...heck how do i know that you're not from around right here?

I will keep it simple, by quoting only from the lines you quoted from the SHRC communication:

"…communications of this nature are not helping your case..."

I urge you to meditate deeply on this wise statement that was made by these people who are trying to help you in spite of yourself. Somehow, your self-perception is at grave odds with the perception others have of you. Until you are willing to consider the possibility that you share responsibility for how others perceive you, there is little likelihood that the situation will improve.

“…we have now consulted with the Regina Police Service and would like to inform you that we will be pursuing an investigation with the police if these types of harassing phone calls do not stop…”

Most sane and rational people are able to use the telephone sensibly and not find themselves accused of making "harassing phone calls." If your phone manner is anything like your written manner, it is easy to envision you "ranting" over the phone and not making your communications clear enough for people to help you, causing them to feel "harassed." I am not even saying you were deliberately harassing others; merely that your lack of wisdom and social acumen may have led to a perception that you were making "harassing phone calls." The way you present the matter, it is easy for the reader to wonder, "what else isn't Donald telling us" -- if these quotes form your best case, yet they raise such red flags about Donald's instability and poor presentation, there must be "more to the story" that would make SHRC's conduct perfectly understandable.

She says she had previously done some quick research on the Internet after receiving those emails and discovered his website on Chakra

In your response, you attack the uninformed lady who doesn't know the "right" terminology to describe your articles on Chakra, and you seem to miss entirely the point that she was following up on your communications with her, trying to find information that would help her understand you. For example, you gave a nice helpful explanation of some of your background in an article: 2002/01/25/new.to.chakra.by.don/index.htm (still available on the oldchakra.com website).

It's easy to envision the SHRC wanting to understand your religious perspective, especially if you came across as confused in how you presented it. For example, even in your current posts on this forum, your sig is a quote from the Old Testament book of Lamentations, rather than from any of the myriad Vedic scriptures. To give such prominence to Lamentations yet present yourself as a Krishna-bhakta is unusual enough that it's easy to understand someone wanting to learn more about your particular perspective, and thus being glad to find your online descriptions like the above-mentioned Chakra note. Yet your hostility toward the SHRC woman and her search comes across plainly and uncomfortably.

Donald would be referred for the Staples position in Customer Service

Generally, those who work in customer service are expected to develop "empathetic listening" skills -- to learn how to understand a customer's needs and upsets, and work to resolve them for the mutual benefit of customer and business. Customer service representatives are expected to leave customers feeling good about their interactions with the company, so they will come back again and do further business. Frankly, the long-winded rants and apparent failures to empathize, much less to listen, to the people who were trying to understand and help you, make it easy to imagine how you might fail at a customer service position, quite apart from any consideration of religious discrimination.

He told us…that he was starting to be afraid of Mr. Muntean…he received some e-mails from Donald about SGI and the KGB, which scared him.

What on earth does the KGB have to do with anything pertinent to your case? If indeed the KGB is relevant to your situation, I trust you realize that you need to explain it with great care and sensitivity, since I am sure you realize that 99.9 percent of North Americans who complain about KGB harassment are in fact mentally ill. I'm not saying the KGB isn't pertinent to your case, but simply that you must surely realize the necessity of presenting the matter with great care to allay the common (and reasonable) suspicion that you are a crazy man. From the SHRC correspondence that you quote, it's clear that you didn't do that... and I can only wonder what else the SHRC told you that you haven't posted here that would even more fully explain their concern.

"…He says he felt so threatened by Donald and the harassment he was receiving that he almost considered looking for another job. He says there were times that he was fearful to leave work in case Donald was outside…"

Look at the way you are conducting yourself on this thread. There is a belligerence and failure to listen, even in this simple online medium. Generalizing from that, it is easy to understand how others might feel threatened by you in person. Surely you aren't as dangerous as these people fear you are, but when your conduct makes other people feel this way, wouldn't a wise man look for ways to moderate his conduct for the good of all concerned?

Having previously quoted only from the SHRC statements that you included in your earlier communications, I will conclude with one statement you wrote in your last message:

heck how do i know that you're not from around right here?

What does it matter where I am from? Your statement comes across as hostile and/or paranoid -- neither quality which will impress the SHRC folks who you need to win over to succeed at your cause.

I'm sorry, Donald, but while you may indeed have a just cause, your writings in this thread demonstrate that you are doing a wonderful job of sabotaging that cause. Please get counsel from some devotees you can trust to give you honest criticism -- it may wound your ego in the short-term, but it could only help you in the long term.

Bhakta Don Muntean · February 1, 2007

I will keep it simple, by quoting only from the lines you quoted from the SHRC communication:

"…communications of this nature are not helping your case..."

I urge you to meditate deeply on this wise statement that was made by these people who are trying to help you in spite of yourself. Somehow, your self-perception is at grave odds with the perception others have of you. Until you are willing to consider the possibility that you share responsibility for how others perceive you, there is little likelihood that the situation will improve.

“…we have now consulted with the Regina Police Service and would like to inform you that we will be pursuing an investigation with the police if these types of harassing phone calls do not stop…”

Most sane and rational people are able to use the telephone sensibly and not find themselves accused of making "harassing phone calls." If your phone manner is anything like your written manner, it is easy to envision you "ranting" over the phone and not making your communications clear enough for people to help you, causing them to feel "harassed." I am not even saying you were deliberately harassing others; merely that your lack of wisdom and social acumen may have led to a perception that you were making "harassing phone calls." The way you present the matter, it is easy for the reader to wonder, "what else isn't Donald telling us" -- if these quotes form your best case, yet they raise such red flags about Donald's instability and poor presentation, there must be "more to the story" that would make SHRC's conduct perfectly understandable.

She says she had previously done some quick research on the Internet after receiving those emails and discovered his website on Chakra

In your response, you attack the uninformed lady who doesn't know the "right" terminology to describe your articles on Chakra, and you seem to miss entirely the point that she was following up on your communications with her, trying to find information that would help her understand you. For example, you gave a nice helpful explanation of some of your background in an article: 2002/01/25/new.to.chakra.by.don/index.htm (still available on the oldchakra.com website).

It's easy to envision the SHRC wanting to understand your religious perspective, especially if you came across as confused in how you presented it. For example, even in your current posts on this forum, your sig is a quote from the Old Testament book of Lamentations, rather than from any of the myriad Vedic scriptures. To give such prominence to Lamentations yet present yourself as a Krishna-bhakta is unusual enough that it's easy to understand someone wanting to learn more about your particular perspective, and thus being glad to find your online descriptions like the above-mentioned Chakra note. Yet your hostility toward the SHRC woman and her search comes across plainly and uncomfortably.

Donald would be referred for the Staples position in Customer Service

Generally, those who work in customer service are expected to develop "empathetic listening" skills -- to learn how to understand a customer's needs and upsets, and work to resolve them for the mutual benefit of customer and business. Customer service representatives are expected to leave customers feeling good about their interactions with the company, so they will come back again and do further business. Frankly, the long-winded rants and apparent failures to empathize, much less to listen, to the people who were trying to understand and help you, make it easy to imagine how you might fail at a customer service position, quite apart from any consideration of religious discrimination.

He told us…that he was starting to be afraid of Mr. Muntean…he received some e-mails from Donald about SGI and the KGB, which scared him.

What on earth does the KGB have to do with anything pertinent to your case? If indeed the KGB is relevant to your situation, I trust you realize that you need to explain it with great care and sensitivity, since I am sure you realize that 99.9 percent of North Americans who complain about KGB harassment are in fact mentally ill. I'm not saying the KGB isn't pertinent to your case, but simply that you must surely realize the necessity of presenting the matter with great care to allay the common (and reasonable) suspicion that you are a crazy man. From the SHRC correspondence that you quote, it's clear that you didn't do that... and I can only wonder what else the SHRC told you that you haven't posted here that would even more fully explain their concern.

"…He says he felt so threatened by Donald and the harassment he was receiving that he almost considered looking for another job. He says there were times that he was fearful to leave work in case Donald was outside…"

Look at the way you are conducting yourself on this thread. There is a belligerence and failure to listen, even in this simple online medium. Generalizing from that, it is easy to understand how others might feel threatened by you in person. Surely you aren't as dangerous as these people fear you are, but when your conduct makes other people feel this way, wouldn't a wise man look for ways to moderate his conduct for the good of all concerned?

Having previously quoted only from the SHRC statements that you included in your earlier communications, I will conclude with one statement you wrote in your last message:

What does it matter where I am from? Your statement comes across as hostile and/or paranoid -- neither quality which will impress the SHRC folks who you need to win over to succeed at your cause.

I'm sorry, Donald, but while you may indeed have a just cause, your writings in this thread demonstrate that you are doing a wonderful job of sabotaging that cause. Please get counsel from some devotees you can trust to give you honest criticism -- it may wound your ego in the short-term, but it could only help you in the long term.

Quote:

Your statement comes across as hostile and/or paranoid -- neither quality which will impress the SHRC folks who you need to win over to succeed at your cause.

Reply:

With all due respect - this proves you have not read anything clearly - if you had you would see that the SHRC are now 'respondents' in an impending court hearing next week - pray tell how I have to 'win them over' - you have a reading comprehension problem as is evident by your out of context pasting.

You've taken it all out of context - as you were asked to not do - i shall address each point - later. Of course - I think you're here with a 'damage control' [for your socialist commrades] motive whomever you are......right?

Quote:

even in your current posts on this forum, your sig is a quote from the Old Testament book of Lamentations, rather than from any of the myriad Vedic scriptures. To give such prominence to Lamentations yet present yourself as a Krishna-bhakta is unusual enough...

Reply:

Now your real bias is evident. [danny?] The word of God is the word of God - i think you just have an issue with the total clarity of that HEBREW Lamentations quote. Is there any reason I aught not quote the HEBREW bible? I love the HEBREW scriptures does that make me less of a hare krishna?

You talk of clarity and you clearly have none.

Quote:

Yet your hostility toward the SHRC woman and her search comes across plainly and uncomfortably.

Reply:

If you read it correctly you would see that it wasn't the "SHRC woman" who did the search - it was the director of the employment agency and - in that - such persons do not have a right to ask people about their faith - no matter the reasons - that is the point of human rights legislation. Simple enough to understand now?

Quote:

"…He says he felt so threatened by Donald and the harassment he was receiving that he almost considered looking for another job. He says there were times that he was fearful to leave work in case Donald was outside…"

Look at the way you are conducting yourself on this thread. There is a belligerence and failure to listen, even in this simple online medium. Generalizing from that, it is easy to understand how others might feel threatened by you in person.

Reply:

I'm a good listener. Ever been frustrated? How about after years of difficultly with an issue such as this?

As for that nasty lie from that individual - it can [and shall be] be proven that there were no such fears - this was only advanced much later - in the human rights process. All this is clear in the letters you misquote....

February 1, 2007

Quote:

Your statement comes across as hostile and/or paranoid -- neither quality which will impress the SHRC folks who you need to win over to succeed at your cause.

Reply:

With all due respect - this proves you have not read anything clearly - if you had you would see that the SHRC are now 'respondents' in an impending court hearing next week - pray tell how I have to 'win them over' - you have a reading comprehension problem as is evident by your out of context pasting.

You've taken it all out of context - as you were asked to not do - i shall address each point - later. Of course - I think you're here with a 'damage control' motive whomever you are......right?

Don't you get it? I'm using only the context you provided, yet I came to the above-mentioned conclusions about you, using only the words you provided. You say I have a "reading comprehension problem" yet you have utterly failed to comprehend your own responsibility in how you come across in presenting your claims.

Look. You creeped out your co-workers at a previous job, to the point where they say they were not only troubled by your rantings about the KGB; they were even physically afraid of you. Yet you seem to accept no responsibility for how you came across to these people.

As you know, different religious traditions have different workplace requirements, yet you seem to have taken grave offense when you were asked about your religion in a workplace context. If you lost one job where your co-workers were made uncomfortable by your strange mix of KGB/Krishna/Bible rants, which don't correspond to what she may previously have understood to be Hare Krishna / Hindu beliefs, it's quite reasonable that an employment agency might want some clarification that would help them serve you better and find you an appropriate job.

I hope things work out well for you, but I really hope you will use these circumstances to engage in some self-analysis and introspection that will serve you well long after the SHRC's inanities are but a distant memory.

Bhakta Don Muntean · February 1, 2007

"…communications of this nature are not helping your case..."

I urge you to meditate deeply on this wise statement that was made by these people who are trying to help you in spite of yourself. Somehow, your self-perception is at grave odds with the perception others have of you. Until you are willing to consider the possibility that you share responsibility for how others perceive you, there is little likelihood that the situation will improve.

“…we have now consulted with the Regina Police Service and would like to inform you that we will be pursuing an investigation with the police if these types of harassing phone calls do not stop…”

Most sane and rational people are able to use the telephone sensibly and not find themselves accused of making "harassing phone calls." If your phone manner is anything like your written manner, it is easy to envision you "ranting" over the phone and not making your communications clear enough for people to help you, causing them to feel "harassed." I am not even saying you were deliberately harassing others; merely that your lack of wisdom and social acumen may have led to a perception that you were making "harassing phone calls." The way you present the matter, it is easy for the reader to wonder, "what else isn't Donald telling us" -- if these quotes form your best case, yet they raise such red flags about Donald's instability and poor presentation, there must be "more to the story" that would make SHRC's conduct perfectly understandable....

Reply:

These two points - in context from the letter you misquote:

Receipt of your [registered] letter dated February 19, 2004 is acknowledged.

Please do not misinterpret this correspondence as – angry, rude or anything like that.

Your threat is certainly displaced - through this letter:

“…we have now consulted with the Regina Police Service and would like to inform you that we will be pursuing an investigation with the police if these types of harassing phone calls do not stop…”

With all due respect - the communications to which you refer - were not harassing calls.

To be ‘prosecuted’ as harassing calls - SHRC would have to prove that I had - “no lawful excuse to call” – and that is simply not provable by SHRC under the present circumstances – further – what you wrongly label as “rude and disrespectful” is a matter of motivated opinion.

There exists no evidence that any of these calls were prompted by anything other than a desire to get legitimate answers.

During my attempts to get answers - your staff was creating a pattern of inducing me into deep frustration in these interactions – to which I reacted by being ‘un-forbearing’ with SHCR staff – actually - I explained to these staff that I intended no disrespect – and if SHRC intends to prove otherwise – you better be in possession of actual audio recordings of these calls.

For example - we were calling you seeking a copy of the investigator’s ‘case report’ – as we were told by the investigator that we would be provided a copy of this.

Of course, ultimately - I was forced to ask your staff - to ask you - to place it into an envelope and send it to us – not at all a harassing call.

Additionally - when calling the Saskatoon office - I was seeking to speak with you – you indeed appear to encourage telephone communications - in providing your telephone number in the correspondences you’ve sent to us.

SHRC staff are quite well aware that I informed them [at the onset of the calling and each time I called thereafter] – that we have no telephone and it is an undue hardship for me to have to travel to the ‘pay phone’ - hour after hour and day after day - only to be told each time that you are on the telephone – this happens every time I call – and apparently your offices cannot place any callers on hold [i was told this by your staff].

So, in any case - you knew that I had questions and you clearly did not wish to answer them.

Some examples of these questions do include [but are not limited to]:

It must be noted that the investigator attempted to fabricate a scenario, in which she had us so-called ‘refusing’ to be personally interviewed in the investigation.

We learned of this absurd situation - when we received an email from her supervisor [Rafoss] on March 11, 2003 - wherein he attempts endorse this ill-motivated effort:

"…I understand you do not wish to be interviewed personally, only in writing. This is highly unusual, but that is your wish...".

Then when we informed the supervisor [on that same day] that that was not the case [our letters to SHRC prove this] - he never replied - why?

Thus a false scenario of our so-called 'refusal to be interviewed' was left hanging.

Later, after additional letters to the investigator - informing her that there was no such 'refusal' - we received this problematic reply:

"…I understand that you and Ron now wish to come into the office to give a statement. I realize that there have been some miscommunications in the past regarding your preference of interview style, however…I'm sure that you can appreciate my busy schedule, and an in-office interview would have to have been penciled in my calendar a long time ago…" [Friday April 25, 2003]

The record evidences that we were REFUSED investigation interviews by the investigator - all the while - faulting us for it!

When we questioned the supervisor regarding this investigators objectivity – [especially considering the events documented at intake] - he then wrote to us [on May 13, 2003]:

"…communications of this nature are not helping your case..."

The supervisor’s questionable reply begs further inquiry – as do the matters initiating it.

The supervisor never once - neither in writing nor, during telephone discussions - attempted to answer to these concerns.

[...]

So in that it is simple to understand? You have it totally out of context and I'm sure the unbiased readers can figure it out - despite gHari and his insults and suchandra and his insults and of course you and yours.

Quote:

You creeped out your co-workers at a previous job, to the point where they say they were not only troubled by your rantings about the KGB; they were even physically afraid of you. Yet you seem to accept no responsibility for how you came across to these people.

Reply:

There is that reading comprehension issue again! Where did you get this that it was "co-workers at a previous job" and that "they were even physically afraid of you" - where did you get that? That is total fabrication on your part.

If you read correctly you would have seen that it wasn't "co-workers at a previous job" which is being spoken of - it was the recruitment employee at the employment agency.

You read something which was clear and you fabricated a whole different scenario out of it. How did you do that?

Again from the same letter noted above - in context:

The profiling, aspersion and disparagement advanced by the respondent [without any objective supports] as a defense is further embellished and endorsed within your dismissal letter:

"…He told us…that he was starting to be afraid of Mr. Muntean…he received some e-mails from Donald about SGI and the KGB, which scared him. He says Donald referred to the e-mails as his way of showing his transferable skills. He says he did not request examples of transferable skills. He says he then forwarded the e-mails to Linda, or thought he did, until Donald notified him that he actually sent them to him…"

Many questions beg to be asked here:

In what fashion, did these SGI emails “scare” the recruitment officer? Have you seen these emails?

Considering that the recruitment officer did in fact agree to receive/review these emails – as clearly evidenced by comments within the email sent to me [by the respondent] following this.

The respondent’s attempt at defamation as a defense - becomes egregious and is accepted [without question] as fact within your dismissal letter:

"…He says he felt so threatened by Donald and the harassment he was receiving that he almost considered looking for another job. He says there were times that he was fearful to leave work in case Donald was outside…"

Clearly the respondent has presented an atrocious and libelous material as a defense - without any objective supports!

Is it not surprising that being profiled without just cause would cause indignation?

What type of reaction would you expect from one who abhors violence – should SHRC not expect some resentment from me for SHRC’s having endorsed this flagitious fabrication?

Just what reasons underlie why has the respondent has NOT presented [nor SHRC requested] a police complaint [filed at that time!] - in this connection?

Why were these erroneous fabrications - NOT - recounted within the respondent's September 20, 2002 questionnaire? [...]

Just a small example of where you're not presenting as being aware of what you read...

Bhakta Don Muntean · February 1, 2007

<big>Just for an example of the >government issues< we're dealing with I want to share this - The following is an actual 'Oxford' file folder from my SGI auto-injury file - it was obtained in 2002 through Freedom of Information legislation - note the word "Dummy" under my name - it was SGI who wrote that!</big>

<embed src="

" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" height="350" width="425">

<big>The <big><big>audio sequence included on this video</big></big> - was recorded on August 07, 2002 - from a phone discussion with a senior SGI lawyer regarding this file folder.

[sorry about two youtube links in this - I cannot delete one]

</big>

<embed src="

" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" height="350" width="425"><big></big>

gHari · February 1, 2007

It sounds like a flame war began when a head-hunter questionaire asked job seekers to state their religion. Don complained to the Human Rights people when he thought he wasn't getting the job offers he should get, but the person who handled his complaint initially said "we don't cover Krsna here" over the phone when Don complained about religious discimination.

Who knows? Move on, Don. There are other jobs. If that person wasn't fired yet, I am sure someone even themselves has wised them up by now about the Indian religion - even in the redneck prairies.

Bhakta Don Muntean · February 1, 2007

It sounds like a flame war began when a head-hunter questionaire asked job seekers to state their religion. Don complained to the Human Rights people when he thought he wasn't getting the job offers he should get, but the person who handled his complaint initially said "we don't cover Krsna here" over the phone when Don complained about religious discimination.

Who knows? Move on, Don. There are other jobs. If that person wasn't fired yet, I am sure someone even themselves has wised them up by now about the Indian religion - even in the redneck prairies.

Yes that's getting closer - as for giving it up - not a chance.

The human rights commission has to learn from these things - they must compensate us and - with humility - become circumspect and see that they can [and did] act in bad-faith...again and again.

Bhakta Don Muntean · February 1, 2007

I hope that this thread stays on topic and doesn't end up locked....be back later.

gHari · February 1, 2007

So you are looking for a pay-off? Not a chance. That's why you're so irrational.

I said it in two sentences. Reduce it to two sentences in your mind so you can see it in perspective. And move on.

Bhakta Don Muntean · February 1, 2007

So you are looking for a pay-off? Not a chance. That's why you're so irrational.

I said it in two sentences. Reduce it to two sentences in your mind so you can see it in perspective. And move on.

Our Notice of Motion sets out what we're after - and - at the end of the day - they shall have to pay with money that isn't their's or - with reputation and position that is...why am i irrational for wanting compensation? Is this not the west anymore?

We're seeking....an order that:

(a) Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission [herein after to be referred to as SHRC] remit access to our human rights complaint’s file with proper regard to every applicable provision of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act [herein after to be referred to as FOIPP]

(i) establishes bad-faith determinations on SHRC violations of s. 25, s. 26 and s. 27 FOIPP – standard of accuracy/manner of collection

(ii) establishes bad-faith determinations on SHRC violations of s. 53(3)(b)(i) FOIPP – attempted unauthorized access to representations to privacy commissioner

(iii) establishes clear juristic explication of s. 17(2)(b) and s. 24(2)© FOIPP - consultations/deliberations within adjudicative and discretionary files and ‘opinions and views given in course of employment’ recorded within consultations and deliberations within adjudicative and discretionary files

(iv) establishes bad-faith determinations on s. 66(1)(a) FOIPP – SHRC withholding access to records and information

(v) invokes s. 58(4) FOIPP – reporting SHRC statutory violations to federal justice

(vi) SHRC cover the costs of bringing forward this application

(vii) any other remedy/penalty which the court sees fit under the circumstances

Those are clear points and we have a good basis for advancing these points to the court in this fashion. We shall see next week!

February 1, 2007

In the uplifting spirit of Bhakta Don Muntean's Lamentations 3:35-36 sig, here's another interesting and pertinent passage from just a few verses later in Lamentations 3:

"Is it not from the mouth of the Most High that both calamities and good things come? Why should any living man complain when punished for his sins? Let us examine our ways and test them, and let us return to the LORD" (Lamentations 3:38-40).

gHari · February 1, 2007

Yet you can't speak sensibly about it, and attack devotees, devotees!, when asked to state the story simply. I hope you will show more respect and rationality to the judge. If you come off as a kook you will serve neither yourself nor Krsna well. It could get ugly.

Be simple. Talk simple. Learn what is the real issue. Speak only about that, simply. Don't cloud the issue - it all gets too emotional, and frankly starts sounding pretty irrational to me.

You could have used all that energy to get a job instead of fuming in the flame war.

You want an audience, get something done - newspapers and your Member of Parliament will listen - if you become simple and sensible. But it does sound like you were off the wall long before the 'Krsna' comment.

Bhakta Don Muntean · February 1, 2007

Whatever - I know how to handle this and - I also know how to handle people like you guys here...

Bhakta Don Muntean · February 1, 2007

In the uplifting spirit of Bhakta Don Muntean's Lamentations 3:35-36 sig, here's another interesting and pertinent passage from just a few verses later in Lamentations 3:

"Is it not from the mouth of the Most High that both calamities and good things come? Why should any living man complain when punished for his sins? Let us examine our ways and test them, and let us return to the LORD" (Lamentations 3:38-40).

...and so?

Bhakta Don Muntean · February 1, 2007

Well I got some papers from the SHRC lawyers today - they are trying for an 'ex parte' and claiming that the court has no jurisdiction in most of this matter - I doubt that the court shall agree...just see - this neo-communist government STILL thinks that it is infallible - just like in Iran and China

Bhakta Don Muntean · February 1, 2007

A glitch...why all the multiple postings?

Bhakta Don Muntean · February 2, 2007

In the uplifting spirit of Bhakta Don Muntean's Lamentations 3:35-36 sig, here's another interesting and pertinent passage from just a few verses later in Lamentations 3:

"Is it not from the mouth of the Most High that both calamities and good things come? Why should any living man complain when punished for his sins? Let us examine our ways and test them, and let us return to the LORD" (Lamentations 3:38-40).

Your quote is out of context!

Are you saying that human rights abusers should be seen [especially by themsleves] as agents of God's 'punishment for sins'?

Are you saying that you think that means that one can pervert the rights of others and then say 'don't complain as I'm only acting as an agent of God'? Just see.

You take a verse about humility and twist it into an excuse to abuse others!

The 'statement' which I use as my signature quote - is clear '<big><big>To turn aside the right of a man before the face of the Most High, To subvert a man in his cause, the Lord approveth not</big></big>' - so - how can you use that as the excuse you have?

Bhakta Don Muntean · February 2, 2007

There is such a pretence in our system today and - it is undermining everything - too many of our civil servants have an extreme sense of infallibility and with that they make so many foolish and harmful discretionary and/or adjudicative decisions.

It is interesting that their noted 'ex parte Motion' is asking the court to disregard these points from our motion [where we are seeking an order that]:

"(ii) establishes bad-faith determinations on SHRC violations of s. 53(3)(b)(i) FOIPP – attempted unauthorized access to representations to privacy commissioner

(iii) establishes clear juristic explication of s. 17(2)(b) and s. 24(2)© FOIPP - consultations/deliberations within adjudicative and discretionary files and ‘opinions and views given in course of employment’ recorded within consultations and deliberations within adjudicative and discretionary files

(iv) establishes bad-faith determinations on s. 66(1)(a) FOIPP – SHRC withholding access to records and information

(v) invokes s. 58(4) FOIPP – reporting SHRC statutory violations to federal justice"

How can they argue that the court is 'without jusridiction' in this connection?

Of course they aren't asking the court to disregard it - as vexatious and frivolous.

Points two and five are of particular concern! They are afraid that the court shall agree with our submissions regarding 'consultations/deliberations' and - they know that the court is in a position to report to federal justice.

They should not try to advance this 'without jurisdiction' nonsense as that is disregarding the Rules of Court in connection to Notices of Motion and Rule 463:

463 In every cause or matter where any party thereto makes any application at chambers he shall be at liberty to include in one and the same application all matters upon which he then desires the order or directions of the court; and upon the hearing of such application, it shall be lawful for the court to make any order and give any directions relative to or consequential on the matter of such application as may be just; any such application may, if the court thinks fit, be adjourned from chambers into court, or from court into chambers. R. 463.

It is apparent that they continue to conceal and that they are concerned about the outcome of the process - if all the points advanced by us are heard and ruled on by the court - through our Motion.

We shall soon see - in only four days!

February 2, 2007

This is my advice. Dont fly off the handle, never make even the slightest threat, state your case succinctly.

The more you write, the less your chances for redress. When I was a chief steward for the machinist union, which covers both the US and Canada, I would severely warn those whom I represented against making gratuitous statements. By that, I mean that if you write a bunch of mumbo jumbvo, the employer will work on that, not your real situation. gHari has great advice here, state your case. What happened, in two sentences.

I havent written anything near what you have written on this thread, but all who have read know exactly what happened to me. In two sentences,

1. I was a union rabble rouser who touched a nerve of the employer with whistleblower complaints.

2. The employer retaliated by discrimination because of my professed religion, discriminated because of a minor flaw in my employee health record, both violations of protections guaranteed by the Civil Service reform Act of 1964 and the Equal Employment Opportunity Act.

See, my whole case is presented without all the mumbo jumbo, and you have yet to describe how the State and the employer violated your rights and broke the law.

Haribol, ys, mahaksadasa

Bhakta Don Muntean · February 2, 2007

There is such a pretence in our system today and - it is undermining everything - too many of our civil servants have an extreme sense of infallibility and with that they make so many foolish and harmful decisions.

It is interesting that their noted 'ex parte Motion' is asking the court to disregard these points from our motion [where we are seeking an order that]:

"(ii) establishes bad-faith determinations on SHRC violations of s. 53(3)(b)(i) FOIPP – attempted unauthorized access to representations to privacy commissioner

(iii) establishes clear juristic explication of s. 17(2)(b) and s. 24(2)© FOIPP - consultations/deliberations within adjudicative and discretionary files and ‘opinions and views given in course of employment’ recorded within consultations and deliberations within adjudicative and discretionary files

(iv) establishes bad-faith determinations on s. 66(1)(a) FOIPP – SHRC withholding access to records and information

(v) invokes s. 58(4) FOIPP – reporting SHRC statutory violations to federal justice"

How can they argue that the court is 'without jusridiction' in this connection?

Of course they aren't asking the court to disregard it - as vexatious and frivolous.

Points two and five are of particular concern! They are afraid that the court shall agree with our submissions regarding 'consultations/deliberations' and - they know that the court is in a position to report to federal justice.

They should not try to advance this 'without jurisdiction' nonsense as that is disregarding the Rules of Court in connection to Notices of Motion and Rule 463:

463 In every cause or matter where any party thereto makes any application at chambers he shall be at liberty to include in one and the same application all matters upon which he then desires the order or directions of the court; and upon the hearing of such application, it shall be lawful for the court to make any order and give any directions relative to or consequential on the matter of such application as may be just; any such application may, if the court thinks fit, be adjourned from chambers into court, or from court into chambers. R. 463.

It is apparent that they continue to conceal and that they are concerned about the outcome of the process - if all the points advanced by us are heard and ruled on by the court - through our Motion.

We shall soon see - in only four days!

Here is my rebuttal for SHRC's ex-parte application:

Q.B.C. 105/07

In The Court of Queens Bench for Saskatchewan

In the matter of Section 58 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act

Between:

Donald Muntean – Appellant

Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission - Respondent

Appellant Brief - pursuant to respondent’s ex-parte application

[1] On February 01, 2007 at approximately 3:50 P.M. the respondent’s lawyer served an ex parte notice of motion [at the appellants residential address] - as filed by the respondent on February 01, 2007. It is respectfully submitted that the court note and question the respondent’s having waited until just three days before this court hears the appellant Notice of Motion to file such an inordinate application as has been filed by the respondent.

The respondent could clearly surmise where SHRC could serve documents on the appellants [from the Notice of Motion documents served by the appellants] as such - there was/is no need for an ‘ex parte’ status on the SHRC notice of motion.

Additionally – there are no “special provisions” for the respondent’s application.

[2] The SHRC is asking this court make an order - to amend the appellant Notice of Motion - to become an appeal of the respondent’s decision following the OIPC review process.

The rules of court [441A] and section 58 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act [FOIPP] delineates that this review is conducted as an in chambers review and that it shall be conducted - de novo – from the beginning – i.e.: a new process notwithstanding previous processes.

While it may be that a section 58 - de novo hearing is precipitated by the respondent’s section 56 FOIPP decision - it is nonetheless respectfully submitted that - a section 58 FOIPP application cannot be conducted as ‘an appeal’ of the SHRC’s decision under section 56 FOIPP.

The SHRC isn’t in any position to amend our application before this court - an application that has been properly filed with regard to the FOIPP statutes and the rules of court. In this connection the rules of court state – [regarding any Notice of Motion filed for in an in-chambers hearing]:

441B “Every Notice of Motion shall set forth:

(a) the precise relief sought;

(b) the grounds to be argued, including a reference to any statutory provision or

rule to be relied on; and

The appellant Notice of Motion and supporting documentary evidences filed with the court registrar conforms to the rules of court in this connection. Any such amendments must be forthwith denied.

[3] The SHRC is petitioning this court to ‘summarily dismiss’ points (ii) through (v) of the appellant Notice of Motion.

The respondent erroneously contends in their application that this court is ‘without jurisdiction’ to hear and subsequently rule upon the matters and issues as noted within items (ii) through (v) of the appellant Notice of Motion.

Points (ii) and (v) are of particular concern in this connection - SHRC cannot plead that this court is ‘without jurisdiction’ on determinations regarding consultations and/or deliberations' under section 17 FOIPP and - SHRC well knows that under section 58(4) FOIPP - this court is in a position to make reports to federal justice.

It is submitted that the appellants have advanced items (ii) through (v) of within the Notice of Motion application - fully in accordance with the rules of court [and the FOIPP statutes] in this connection and - as specifically outlined through rule 463:

463 “In every cause or matter where any party thereto makes any application at chambers he shall be at liberty to include in one and the same application all matters upon which he then desires the order or directions of the court; and upon the hearing of such application, it shall be lawful for the court to make any order and give any directions relative to or consequential on the matter of such application as may be just; any such application may, if the court thinks fit, be adjourned from chambers into court, or from court into chambers. R. 463.”

The inclusions of items (ii) through (v) within the appellant Notice of Motion are framed within context of the FOIPP statutes and these are concerning matters directly associated to specific material circumstances within this matter and - as relating to these provisions – in other words - the noted items fall under provisions of the FOIPP statutes and - as noted - can be entered by the appellants into the Notice of Motion - as per rule 463 of the rules of court.

It is respectfully submitted that the respondent’s inordinate application to dismiss items (ii) through (v) of the appellants Notice of Motion - must be forthwith denied.

[4] The SHRC is asking this court to order what records etc., SHRC are to submit to the court. The SHRC is aware that section 58(2) FOIPP clearly instructs SHRC to submit the entire record within their possession to the court and that ‘no information shall be withheld from the court on any grounds’:

58(2) “Notwithstanding any other Act or any privilege that is available at law, the

court may, on an appeal, examine any record in the possession or under the control

of a government institution, and no information shall be withheld from the court on

any grounds.”

The SHRC seeks an order - SEEMINGLY to be then directed towards this court - with obvious intent to directing this court’s procedures in hearing this matter de novo - while these procedural points are already evident to the court - when dealing with section 58 FOIPP.

[5] The SHRC is petitioning for an order so that the head of the SHRC can make submissions via conference call. This application is protested as being unreasonable and not in keeping with good faith. The SHRC advances some argument that this method of appearance is sought to keep costs down - however – it seems that their hiring of a law firm to host this conference call - contradicts a prohibitive costs argument.

[6] The preceding points are an outline of counter-submissions with respect to the February 01, 2007 ‘ex parte’ application of the respondent.

All of which is respectfully submitted.

Donald JK Muntean

______________________

Noted rules of court referenced [or to be referenced] [all emphases added]:

 

441(1) All applications both in court and in chambers shall be by notice of motion

except where otherwise specially provided.

 

When by notice of motion

(2) Where under any statute an application may be made to the court or to a judge,

such application shall be made by notice of motion unless the statute or the rules

otherwise provide.

441A Ex parte applications shall be by memorandum setting forth:

(a) the special provision authorizing the ex parte application;

(b) the relief sought;

applicant, represented by legal counsel; or, setting out the name of legal counsel

representing any opposite parties; and

(d) citations of the authorities relied upon, namely:

(i) chapters and section numbers of statutes;

(ii) rules numbers; and

(iii) complete citations of cases with designation of relevant passages.

Contents of Notice of Motion

 

441B Every Notice of Motion shall set forth:

(a) the precise relief sought;

(b) the grounds to be argued, including a reference to any statutory provision or

rule to be relied on; and

 

443 All applications or motions by these rules or by statute authorized to be made to the court, shall, except motions made at or during the trial of any action, issue or other proceeding be made to a judge in chambers.

450 A notice of motion shall be in Form 47 and shall be addressed to all the persons on

whom it is to be served.

Applications may include several matters, Adjournment into court and into chambers

 

463 In every cause or matter where any party thereto makes any application at chambers he shall be at liberty to include in one and the same application all matters upon which he then desires the order or directions of the court; and upon the hearing of such application, it shall be lawful for the court to make any order and give any directions relative to or consequential on the matter of such application as may be just; any such application may, if the court thinks fit, be adjourned from chambers into court, or from court into chambers. R. 463.

______________________

Note: This brief delivered by mail to: xxxxxxxxxxxxxx Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, S7K 5T6

Bhakta Don Muntean · February 2, 2007

This is my advice. Dont fly off the handle, never make even the slightest threat, state your case succinctly.

The more you write, the less your chances for redress. When I was a chief steward for the machinist union, which covers both the US and Canada, I would severely warn those whom I represented against making gratuitous statements. By that, I mean that if you write a bunch of mumbo jumbvo, the employer will work on that, not your real situation. gHari has great advice here, state your case. What happened, in two sentences.

I havent written anything near what you have written on this thread, but all who have read know exactly what happened to me. In two sentences,

1. I was a union rabble rouser who touched a nerve of the employer with whistleblower complaints.

2. The employer retaliated by discrimination because of my professed religion, discriminated because of a minor flaw in my employee health record, both violations of protections guaranteed by the Civil Service reform Act of 1964 and the Equal Employment Opportunity Act.

See, my whole case is presented without all the mumbo jumbo, and you have yet to describe how the State and the employer violated your rights and broke the law.

Haribol, ys, mahaksadasa

I see you cannot read very well either. It is all that 'writing' that is my saving grace!

One cannot go into court hearings etc., with some 'he said they said' business - one must have a way to document and objectively present such concerns etc., and - i have done that well enough.

Those who think that such things can be discussed in 'two sentences' aren't very aware of the operation of the law in such matters. Have you ever seen lawyers hauling boxes and boxes of documents and other materials into a court? Is the respondent going to offer up just a couple of sentences? Think about it.

Quote:

state your case succinctly

Reply:

Anyone reading our materials shall see that is what I've done - succinctly means 'to the point' and - if it can be done in two sentences - great - if not - then that is fine too.

Here is an example:

A few years ago when the SHRC was conducting their [so-called] investigation we were sent a long submission by the respondent and asked to 'take a moment to jot down your reaction' - the fact is - the SHRC was looking to have scant representations from us on the file - while having pages and pages from the respondent. We submitted a proper redress to the respondent's noted submission and the SHRC refused to even acknowledge it - what to speak taking regard to its contents.

I understand what all of you are saying - it's just not that simple.

YS,

February 3, 2007

I understand what all of you are saying - it's just not that simple.

If you could make it simple, you could vanquish the bureaucrats.

You are one man; they are an army of paperwork and obfuscation. You cannot outgun them with your quantity of words.

Take a lesson from the martial arts; learn to use your opponents' bulk against them. Speak simply and powerfully, and sparingly. In the focused precision of your few words, you can create a lever that will throw the weight of their injustice to the ground.

However, if you try to answer their every word with a word or two of your own, they will squash you like a bug.

Listen to mahak; he is wise -- he has conquered The Man. In doing so, he has in many ways conquered himself.

Bhakta Don Muntean · February 3, 2007

If you could make it simple, you could vanquish the bureaucrats.

You are one man; they are an army of paperwork and obfuscation. You cannot outgun them with your quantity of words.

Take a lesson from the martial arts; learn to use your opponents' bulk against them. Speak simply and powerfully, and sparingly. In the focused precision of your few words, you can create a lever that will throw the weight of their injustice to the ground.

However, if you try to answer their every word with a word or two of your own, they will squash you like a bug.

Listen to mahak; he is wise -- he has conquered The Man. In doing so, he has in many ways conquered himself.

Quote:

However, if you try to answer their every word with a word or two of your own, they will squash you like a bug.

Quote:

I don't reply to everything - but - i have to reply - take for example the coutner-submission which i've filed [and posted here] today - it is short and to the point - says what needs to be said - any less would have left it incomplete. Courts do not like submissions with holes any more than they like loquacious submissions.

Quote:

Listen to mahak; he is wise -- he has conquered The Man

Reply:

To quote Mahak in this thread:

...In the end, I walked away. I even proved perjury by admirals and captains, highly placed civilian managers. The Federal Judge agreed that perjury was committed, however, decided that the perjury did not affect the decisions they initially made. He refused to accept my charge of verifiable perjury, refused to prosecute... I walked away, shaking the much from my boots as I left....They will do everything to discourage you. I was even threatened, followed, harassed...this is about as far as I can go with it, it was quite heavy to them, because they had no counter documentation to support their defense...They did buy me out, gave me a full medical retirement, etc....

So - how has he "conquered The Man" in that?

I think I'm doing a fine job handling all this 'legalese' crap thrown on me by these errant public servants - thus - while I may not be a lawyer I nonetheless have been forced to play one in real life...

Sign In

we don't cover krishna here - statement from Saskatchewan human rights commission

Recommended Posts

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites