From my
perspective, there are at least two
extremely dangerous Court judgements involved. –
(a) The
Selladurai and Nesa Premakumaran case (immigrants
deceived about work prospects) - Edmonton
Sun article of Aug. 23, 2005
Analysis of what went wrong and why:- CLICK HERE
(b)The
case of Dr. Michael Stanley Short vs. SNC in the Quebec Court of Appeal on
November 12 1987. Cover-up / ignorance of
corruption in business, Court not told about what was going on.
DOCUMENTED AND ANALYZED ELSEWHERE ON THIS SITE.
In both these cases, the Judges involved were not made aware of important information about the business behaviours of Canadian society, which could have been crucial to the decisions in both cases.
In
(a) the Selladurai and Nesa Premakumaran
case, which is currently ongoing (March 2007), Judge Konrad von Finckenstein
was not made aware of the mis-information routinely disseminated about the
state of the Canadian job market. This ubiquitous mis-infornmation would seem
to explain, in part at least, the series of unpleasant surprises and
near-complete financial ruin suffered by the Premakumaran family. This resulted
in Judge Konrad von Finckenstein making an extremely dangerous and quite
inappropriate decision which asserted that the Premakumaran family s problems
were entirely their own fault, when their difficulties in getting work were in
fact the result of incomplete statistics concerning the Canadian unemployment
numbers, and bad analysis of those statistics based on flawed assumptions anf
faulty arithmentic. The Premakumaran family would have been unaware of this
problem concerning under-statement and mis-reporting concerning the
Canadian unemployment numbers, WHICH IS
A FEDERAL GOVERNMENT RESPONSIBILITY. The problem is analyzed elsewhere on this
site; whatever the reason(s) why this is going on, it is obviously extremely
dangerous.
In
(b) - the case of Dr. Michael Stanley
Short vs. SNC in the Quebec Court of Appeal on November 12 1987 – the Judges
were not made aware of corrupt business practices by SNC in which, among other
things, SNC contrived to have themselves described in favourable terms in a
1986 book, The 100 Best Companies to Work for in Canada. This
description was based on interviews with some of SNC s employees WHO WERE
SELECTED BY SNC THEMSELVES AND NOT BY ANY SCIENTIFIC METHOD INVOLVING RANDOM
SAMPLING OF THEIR EMPLOYEES. SNC then exploited this write-up in at least two
newspaper advertisements to recruit employees, within days of the book going on
sale. WARNING TO LAWYERS : ALL IS DOCUMENTED ON THIS SITE. YOU WILL BE
SHOT DOWN AT ONCE IF YOU ATTEMPT TO ATTACK ME.