Here's to the crazy ones, the misfits, the rebels, the troublemakers, the
round pegs in the square holes... the ones who see things differently -- they're
not fond of rules... You can quote them, disagree with them, glorify or vilify
them, but the only thing you can't do is ignore them because they change
things... they push the human race forward, and while some may see them as the
crazy ones, we see genius, because the ones who are crazy enough to think that
they can change the world, are the ones who do.

Steve Jobs
US computer engineer & industrialist (1955 - 2011)

Friday, September 30, 2016

BREAKING: Don Dunphy Public Inquiry Terms of Reference

HERE is the Terms of Reference for the public inquiry into the killing of Don Dunphy at the hands of Sgt. Joe Smyth of the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary - acting as the Premiers personal security. My opinion is the terms of reference appear to be excellent and do not restrict a thorough investigation of all aspects of this tragedy - which the government should be commended for:


Justice and Public Safety

September 30, 2016

The following is being distributed at the request of the Commission of Inquiry Respecting the Death of Donald Dunphy:

Co-Counsel Appointed for Commission of Inquiry Respecting the Death of Donald Dunphy

Sandra. R. Chaytor, QC, and Kate O’Brien have been appointed as co-counsel for the Commission of Inquiry Respecting the Death of Donald Dunphy, the Honourable Justice Leo Barry, Commissioner of the Inquiry, announced today.

Ms. Chaytor was admitted to the Bar of Newfoundland and Labrador in 1989 having completed a Bachelor of Arts degree at Memorial University in 1985 and having obtained her LL.B from Osgoode Hall Law School in 1988. She was appointed Queen’s Counsel in 2007, the same year she was appointed co-counsel to the Commission of Inquiry on Hormone Receptor Testing, an inquiry in Newfoundland and Labrador which investigated errors in breast cancer testing. In 2010, she was appointed a Master and Taxing Officer of the Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador. Ms. Chaytor is Deputy Managing partner of the St. John’s office of Cox & Palmer where her primary area of practice is litigation. She has presented cases at all levels of court within the province of Newfoundland and Labrador as well as the Supreme Court of Canada.

Ms. O’Brien was admitted to the Bar of Ontario in 2003 and the Bar of Newfoundland and Labrador in 2004 having obtained her LL.B. from the University of British Columbia in 2002. She completed a Bachelors of Engineering from Memorial University in 1996. Ms. O’Brien is a partner at the law firm of O’Brien White where she provides a range of legal services to individuals and businesses. She is an experienced litigator and has appeared at all levels of court in Newfoundland and Labrador.

The Commission of Inquiry Respecting the Death of Donald Dunphy was established by the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador on September 23, 2016, in accordance with Part 1 of the Public Inquiries Act, 2006. The Terms of Reference for the inquiry are as follows:

  1. The commission of inquiry shall

       (a) inquire into the circumstances surrounding the death of Mr. Donald Dunphy, including

             (i) the date, time and place of his death, 

            (ii) the cause of his death, and

            (iii) the manner of his death;

       (b) inquire into the reason why a Royal Newfoundland Constabulary officer attended upon Mr. Dunphy on the day of his death, including whether or not the officer was directed to do so, and if so directed, by whom and for what objective;

       (c) ascertain what information provided the basis for the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary officer's attendance upon Mr. Dunphy on the day of his death, and the reliability, interpretation, evaluation, transmission and dissemination of that information;

       (d) inquire into why the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary officer who attended upon Mr. Dunphy on the day of his death did so in an area of Royal Canadian Mounted Police jurisdiction, the criteria applied in reaching the decision to do so and the objective for the decision;

       (e) inquire into the facts surrounding the command, control and implementation of any relevant police operation on the day of Mr. Dunphy's death, the actions of the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary officer during the operation and the actions of any other Royal Newfoundland Constabulary or Royal Canadian Mounted Police officers involved both before and after Mr. Dunphy's death;

        (f) inquire into the circumstances under which the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary officer who fired the fatal shot or shots on the day of Mr. Dunphy's death came to discharge his weapon;

       (g) inquire into whether the relevant use of force protocols were properly adhered to in the circumstance of Mr. Dunphy's death;

       (h) inquire into the relevant policies, protocols or manuals in force at the material time in either the Office of the Premier or the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary, including particularly any policies, protocols or manuals relating to

             (i) the security of the Premier and Cabinet Ministers, 

            (ii) the monitoring of and response to social media, and

            (iii) with respect to the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary, policies, protocols or manuals governing communications by members with the public or the media following serious incidents and during active investigations;

  1. inquire whether Mr. Dunphy's use of social media had any role in the circumstances of his death;

            (j) ascertain whether there were any material deficiencies in the investigation into Mr. Dunphy's death; and

           (k)         in accordance with section 4, make recommendations that the commission of inquiry considers necessary and advisable relating directly to the matters of public concern referred to in this section.

  1. The commission of inquiry, in carrying out the terms of reference referred to in subsection (1), shall consider the following:

       (a) the need to maintain public confidence in law and order;

       (b) the need to protect fundamental rights of citizens;

       (c) the powers, duties and responsibilities of police; and

       (d) the need to ensure the safety of police officers in the execution of their duties.

The commission of inquiry shall not express any conclusion or recommendation regarding the civil or criminal responsibility of any person or organization.

The commission of inquiry shall terminate its work and deliver the final report to the Minister of Justice and Public Safety, who shall be the minister responsible for the commission of inquiry, before July 1, 2017.

Further details will be provided in the coming weeks in relation to the commission office, as well as a Notice of Hearings for Standing and Funding.

- 30 -

Media contact:

Diane Blackmore

Chief Administrative Officer

709-729-0403 (as of October 4, 2016)

709-738-7800 (c/o Cox & Palmer)

2016 09 30                                          3:40 p.m.

Tuesday, September 27, 2016


The US presidential debate last night, the first in a series leading to the November Presidential election, was an ugly affair. Ugly because it revealed the base flaws of both candidates. Ugly because it revealed the deep, stark divisions within American society that have dogged it for decades now. However, it was interesting in some senses as well.

Much has been made of Hillary Clinton's health as of late. Numerous on line videos show her in a near trance-like state. Last night was not much different. While she spoke Clinton seemed on point, but it was the points in time she didn't speak that were quite frankly unsettling. She gazed off into what appeared to be her "happy place". A bizarre, vacant looking smile and stare came over her. It was almost as if she was in a drug induced state of bliss. Her performance, when not occupied with actually speaking,  gave the impression that whatever medical condition she suffers from is clearly still very present.

Trump, however, also lived up to to the billing of arrogance and meanness that the establishment has been painting him with. While he cruised through the first third of the debate, scoring body blow after body blow on Clinton, the latter half was dominated by his ego peeking its head out. There were moments when I had flash backs of the contestants on his show the Apprentice. Often they would attempt to sell their performances, or lack of performances in a similar fashion as Trump attempted to thwart relatively minor blows from Clinton. Some critics of the debate suggested he "couldn't help himself", and in many ways that is how it came across. That being said, Trump wasn't going to win any favours from the American press - as he noted during the debate. The problem with that is he carried the point too far, and dwelled on it too much, which is why he spiralled into a "me" and "I" tirade that made him look somewhat immature.

The personalities aside, which in either case haven't been endearing to the American public, or the world at large, some stronger themes emerged that will shape the race far more than moments of debate. America is a divided society. It has been for decades now, and each US Presidential election has clearly shown it. The last number of Presidents has won by the slimmest of margins against their opponent, yet each winning side hails itself as a fundamental shift. The reality is the American people haven't got the fundamental shift many were/are hoping for. Recall Obama's "Yes We Can" by way of example. He was the big change candidate, and his wars in the Middle East and disconnect with Eurasia show his slogan should have been "No I Won't".

As Trump very successfully pointed out during the debate, Clinton presided over the last 8 years of war in the Middle East that has the nerves of the entire world on edge. What he failed to do was carry the point one crucial step further: he failed to state to Clinton, when she contemptuously bragged about preparing for the job of President, that he didn't realize that part of the preparation to be US President was turning the Middle east into a disaster for the US and the World. He could have driven home the point by connecting her claim of readiness to the disasters in Libya, Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, and so on. He failed to drive home the point that setting the world on fire hardly qualifies one for leadership, and that would have come across statesmanlike.

Being statesmanlike, and presidential isn't about having your jaw in the air and peering down on people, or making childish facial expressions at your opponents jibes while on camera in front of a world-wide office. It's about being in control of yourself, your emotions, and the moment. And while Clinton hammered away at Trump's taxes he could well have pointed out the "Clinton Foundations" special status and role in the Clinton's tax status. Or he could have pointed to the massive speaking fees that the Clinton's have charged while taking advantage of her husband's post office connections. Instead, he tried to make himself look good by saying not paying taxes would make him "smart". Again, the ego overruling the brain and mouth.

Trump's major saving grace in the debate, and in the election campaign as well is the painting of Clinton as the establishment candidate. He could have, and should have gone much further with that point. He could have named all the people who conducted the war on Iraq who now endorse Clinton, despite being Republicans. If people are judged by the company they keep, then that would likely be a very clear illustration for the American people. George Bush, and Paul Wolfowitz come to immediate mind. Actions speak louder than words, and Clinton can say she is the "grandma" candidate, but not many "grandmas" wrap their arms around people that are responsible for hundreds of thousands of deaths, and a wildly unpopular war.

That being said, Trump is "somewhat associated" with being the anti-establishment candidate, and he did get that message across in the debate. I thought his best shots were when he came back at Clinton with "Those are just words", because that is exactly what many Americans believe. in that way he is linking himself with them, and that is important. The world-wide movement against the "establishment", or the "1%" as they have become known, has become a mass movement. Trump should be pointing to those within his own party, that are widely seen as "establishment" that are backing Clinton and not him. He can wear that as a badge of conviction. As he would say: "That's a winner".

My own feeling on the election as a whole is that Trump stands a very good chance of taking it. What many in the world-wide media, and that most definitely includes the US media, fail to understand about the US is a simple term known as "brand". The US is really the home of "brand". It comes from the American fixation with free market, capitalistic economy - in theory at least... when it suits. So, if America is the "Land of Brand", which of the two candidate has the biggest grand? Clearly, Trump has spent his entire life organizing his last name as a brand in itself. To a large extent he has been successful in that regard. Clinton, however, has not focused on branding other than in the political sense. Unfortunately for her, Clinton's political brand has accumulated more baggage than JFK International airport. Everything from shady real-estate deals to mass deleted emails  - many containing classified information which is a serious crime in the US. In fact, the FBI is still going through them while the US election stumbles along. The Clinton brand is the political establishment brand, and that's a huge anchor around her neck. Americans aren't very proud of their political establishment, but they still have a healthy respect for successful people in business. The champions of their American Dream. Trump has it in spades, BUT his egotistical rubbing it in is tarnishing his successful branding. There is no need to brag when the entire world knows the story. Therein lies the keys to Caesar's room. 

Friday, September 23, 2016

UPDATED - The Killing of Don Dunphy

Make no mistake about the killing of Don Dunphy - he was wrongly killed. We don't have all the evidence yet, but we will. What we do know points to a state sponsored killing of one of its own citizens. A citizen that was an active critic of the government on social media. The evidence we do have points solely to that interpretation.

What we do know:

1.  Don Dunphy fired off a set of 5 tweets (forming one statement) to former Premier Paul Davis and Minister Sandy Collins. The tweets criticized the two for enjoying a nice drive on a sunny day while people with work place related injuries suffered without the proper financial and/or medical care;

2.  Someone from the Premier's Office, likely someone who was responsible for monitoring his Twitter account, informed the Premier's body guard of the tweets. That part is not in question - Paul Davis admitted as much here . (OF NOTE - the 12 minute taped interview of Davis on this story is unplayable now...)

3.  In the same CBC story, Paul Davis claims that he was concerned by the tweets of Don Dunphy, and took them as a threat - he even showed concern for his Grandmother. This is after he spoke personally with Sgt Joe Smyth, and offered him his personal best wishes in the matter. There is absolutely no question that Davis, and his political staff, took Don Dunph's tweet as a threat - or at least that is what they said to the provincial media at the time.

Smyth, for his part, issued an email to his colleagues that was leaked to the media shortly after the shooting. The full text of the email is found here . In the email, Smyth refers to "proactive policing":

"Protective policing - is predicated on intelligence led investigations. Most will inherently view police work as something that is reactive. ie. Somebody is threatened and we respond accordingly. Intelligence based policing is proactive, and in the case of protective services, attempts to identify potential concerns and disconcerting behavior, and through a risk analysis endeavors to assign threat levels and implement corrective measures before an act of targeted violence occurs."

That's an interesting concept, and a mouthful for sure, but has no basis in the Act that governs the RNC ( see the Act here ). The only thing that comes close to justifying that course of thinking and acting are the parts that refer to "keeping the peace" and "preventing crimes and offences". Just one problem with that: there was no crime about to be committed. Despite the fact that Davis told the media that a member of his staff identified a threat from Dunphy's tweet, and despite the fact that Davis told the public the tweet was a threat to him and his family, the officer who pulled the trigger said he never took the tweet as a threat. In the most shocking revelation about Don's death Smyth admits he never took any threat from Dunphy's tweet:

"At no point did I or members of the RNC interpret any of Mr. Dunphy's social media commentary as threats - as has been indicated time and time again by both traditional and social media platforms"

First off, it was then Premier Davis himself who divulged that he and his political staff took the tweets as a threat to the Premier and his family - that's where social and regular media got the story from. Secondly, and far more importantly, Smyth admits that he never considered the tweets, and by association Don Dunphy, as threats. So that begs the question why did he go to Don Dunphy's home? Retired Justice Riche, charged with independent oversight of the investigation, had a similar thought in a CBC interview:

"I find it hard to understand how this happened. ... Then I said to myself, 'Well maybe it shouldn't have happened at all." (read full story here )

Smyth then went on to explain why, as an officer on duty, he attended Dunphy's home at all on that Easter Sunday:

" The goal of the meeting was to build a rapport with Dunphy, and to identify if there was a reasonable solution to his grievance."

This by far is the most bizarre statement of the entire Dunphy tragedy. At this point it's worth noting another one of Justice Riche's observations on the matter:

"There's a lot of contradictions. Like in front of Dunphy's house, there were signs, 'No government people, nobody allowed in', and that kind of stuff. And yet Smyth says he came to the door."

So, despite the fact that Don Dunphy had posted signs outside his home stating he didn't want government people in his home, Smyth decided to enter the home to build a "rapport" with him. There is nothing in the RNC Act that authorizes police forces to enter on private property to build "rapports" with people. There is also nothing in the RNC Act authorizing an officer to "identify if there is a reasonable solution to the grievance." In fact, Don Dunphy's grievance was clearly with the Worker's Compensation Board, a board of government, a board dealing with governmental policy on injured workers, and therefore a political body. Dunphy's "grievance" was purely political in nature. A grievance of this type is statutorily the responsibility of politicians to investigate, and to develop a rapport if necessary to resolve. As such, Smyth is definitely in violation of the RNC Act:

      15. (1) A police officer shall not engage in political activity, except as the regulations permit."

By Smyth's own damning admission, he was acting as a political fixer, at the behest of the Premier's Office (which has already been admitted). A very serious violation of his duties, and one that, in my opinion, should result in him being charged for Criminal Negligence Causing Death as outlined in the Criminal Code of Canada:

" 219.  Criminal negligence
           (1) Every one is criminally negligent who
                (a)  in doing anything

           shows wanton or reckless disregard for the lives or safety of other persons.
          Definition of "duty"
          (2) For the purposes of this section, "duty" means a duty imposed by law."

In my opinion, Smyth is at least guilty of this offence. He acted to resolve a political matter at the behest of the Premier's Office. That is strictly banned under the RNC Act. He understood by his own words that there was no threat, and therefore no offence for him to investigate. He ignored an offer from the RCMP for backup, and he chose to ignore signs posted clearly on Dunphy's premises banning government people. In other words, he showed wanton and reckless disregard for the situation - which resulted in the death of Don Dunphy. These are the facts admitted to by Smyth - not made up on social media as he is fond of saying.

4.  We now know, thanks solely to the interviews with Justice Riche that:

   (i)  Smyth intended to kill Don Dunphy;

   (ii) Smyth fired the fatal shots from no further than 3 to 4 feet from Dunphy;

  (iii) Smyth fired 4 shots into Dunphy (one to the head) while none were fired by Dunphy; and

  (iv) The rifle found next to Dunphy's body was not placed in a way that would be consistent with someone shot in the way Dunphy was.

Justice Riche also stated that a Holyrood RCMP officer offered to accompany Smyth to the Dunphy residence, but was turned down by Smyth, and that Smyth had a history of being "aggressive". You can listen to the interviews with Justice Riche here . There is no question my mind, after watching the interviews, that Justice Riche doubts Smyth - to put it mildly.

As a former military officer myself, and having dealt with all types of weapons from pistols to as large as anti-tank weapons, that Smyth's story doesn't hold water. First of all there are the wounds. Three to the upper chest, and then the last to the right side of Dunphy's head. The last wound is the most damning, and you could see it impacted Justice Riche as well. A side shot to the head indicates Dunphy was starting to spin to the side after being struck by three bullets to the chest. That is finishing off a kill, or as Justice Riche said: "an intention to kill". There is no question about that. It also shows excessive force given the man was already spinning away from the three shots and no longer a threat.

However, and I've always found this to be totally unbelievable from my training and experience, there is no way that Dunphy could have pointed a rifle at Smyth first and Smyth just responded. First of all, and importantly, Smyth's pistol would have been holstered, uncocked, and perhaps not even having a bullet in the chamber. It takes time to unholster, cock, and aim a weapon. If Dunphy had a rifle pointed at Smyth before Smyth reacted, well Smyth would have no chance. Instead, we are left to believe that Smyth simply reacted. That is almost impossible. Especially considering not one round was fired off by Dunphy first. The timing of this draw for weapons makes absolutely no sense, and really belongs in some kind of western movie. It's not reality.

Then there is the issue of the shots coming from 3 to 4 feet from Dunphy. An average .22 caliber rifle is about 3 feet long, perhaps longer. That means that Smyth would have had to shoot Dunphy at almost the exact same distance the rifle would be pointed at him. In other words muzzle to muzzle. That means there wouldn't be three separate wounds all over Dunphy's upper chest, but more than likely three wounds grouped closely together in one spot on his chest. If Dunphy was aiming the weapon, as is alleged, only the side of his body would be exposed - not his entire chest. See Justice Riche's video and note where he shows Don Dunphy was hit.

All in all, the Smyth account of what happened quite frankly can't be true. It is as if he made the story up from some western or cop movie. You can quite easily see that Justice Riche doesn't believe it either. It is because it is not believable by anyone that either has the courtroom experience to know it, or the professional (military/police) experience to know it. What this new evidence does do is lay out the grounds for criminal charges against Smyth. In an ironic twist, Smyth's own words that there was never a perceived threat are the most damning to him of all.

Tuesday, September 20, 2016

Quebec Owned Newfoundland

"Owned" in the sense of being utterly defeated by one's enemies. Quebec owned Newfoundland, and now all of Labrador is up for grabs. That was recently thrown out there in a rather arrogant and disrespectful way by former Hydro-Quebec big shot F. Pierre Gingras. A short version of his commentary in La Presse: "Give us "back" Labrador and we'll throw 1000 MW of power to you." The proverbial "crumbs to the vanquished". Words that were meant to send a message to Newfoundland's elite. Or, in simpler terms: "you are done like dinner".

This is no great surprise to me. Rather, it's simply a sad confirmation of the warning I've given over and over to the Newfoundland back room types that have paraded to my door in Hickman's Harbour "for coffee". Yes, believe it or not, the same people that have ridiculed me for half a decade really want to know what I think - just not publicly. I suppose to do otherwise would be having to admit they don't know what the hell they're doing, and need help from the guy they decided to publicly humiliate here. Oh well, the wheel turns. A big thank-you to my wife who barely holds her contempt for them while they sip their Tim Hortons in the living room.

I've always been a Newfoundland patriot. I moved here to be that person. To rediscover my Newfoundland roots, and to offer what I could to the place. I suppose that's what most people do when they move somewhere. For me it was personal though. My Grandmother was a Newfoundlander, and I loved and respected her dearly. However, my Grandfather was a Quebecer, who I never knew as he died before my birth. My father was a by product of both - an Irish home where English was all that was spoken, immersed in a culture of French vs. English politics. I grew up with an understanding of the Newfoundland fighting spirit and the French strategic thinking. Obviously, like any child born in a "mixed marriage", I chose a side that was closest to my heart, and moved to Newfoundland.

That being said, the very first thing I became aware of was the complete lack of strategic thinking in Newfoundland. Essentially all fight and no thinking was the over arching theme I found here. I saw the pied pipers leading the people here down the garden path and right into devastation. Not just financial devastation, but also territorial devastation. The complete abyss. that is the real reason I ran for the PC leadership back in 2011. The uppity come from away who thought he knew better than the Newfoundlanders already in place. It's the same reason I ran for the Liberal leadership a short time later - albeit with more invites to run there than within the PC crew. The bottom line is I was desperately trying to stop what is now taking place today - essentially throwing myself under the bus for the place. That sounds soppy, but the truth is the truth. There will be those that say "Oh Cabana's getting on with his Messiah complex", but I say to them: Who was right and who was wrong. Giving everything means you care enough to.

Now, with the recent decision in Quebec Superior Court (which was predicted and totally predictable), Quebec has its hands at our throats. Williams and Dunderdale always spewed that they had to "break the stranglehold" of Quebec over the development of Labrador, but the reality is they simply handed Quebec our throats. With our Water Management Agreement now utterly useless, and the project still being built, Quebec can hardly believe that Newfoundland's elite has been frankly that stupid. They are rubbing their hands in glee, and mocking Newfoundland now: "Here, we'll throw you that 1000 MW of power you always wanted, now get out of our Labrador". Literally, they are laughing at us, but who wouldn't. Our political elite gave it to them.

Williams recently appeared in the media screaming about Hydro-Quebec visiting the Muskrat Falls site, and warning of a cave in to Quebec. It reminded me of PC leader Paul Davis's warnings during the election that the Liberals would lay off civil servants and cut programs, when in reality he knew full well he left them few options but to. Williams defiant comments that we are " not roadkill" and should not be "on our knees" to Quebec strike the highest note of irony considering it was his "strategic" moves that placed us in that exact position. All totally foreseeable, except for those who refused to see - which was almost everyone in the province.

So now the piper must be paid, and the big question is how. How to recuse a white elephant that may cost $15 billion, and can only produce about 150 MW without that Water Management Agreement that we just lost out on in Court - although the b'ys here still don't have the courage to admit that to the people of the Province. Stan Marshall simply lied in a teleconference about it, and when chased by reporters with specific questions the line for the teleconference suddenly went dead. Dwight Ball hasn't spoken on it once to the media. The greatest court loss in the province's history and no comment. Instead, Williams is right on this one thing, our brain trust are on their knees over at Hydro-Quebec's office in Montreal, and the Prime Minister's office in Ottawa. They're trying to pull the old "come on b'ys, we're loveable, give us a break here, there must be something we can do to make all this go away". The answer came from Gingras: "give us Labrador". We hold all the cards. We own the Prime Minister.

Now all the people of Newfoundland hear is deathly silence. Nalcor says boldly: "we will appeal that decision", and in somewhat more hushed tones "but we will abide by the decision in the mean time". Like they had a choice. The elite in Quebec have set Newfoundland up, and they aren't about to play boy scout and let Newfoundland out of the trap. Harper's gift of a federal loan guarantee was always, and obviously, a poisoned chalice. The man hated Newfoundland. That just wasn't that difficult to see. They handed this province a rope and we hung ourselves - or perhaps more accurately our "elite" hung us for the riches they would receive. The truth is there are now no longer any good options. There are only bad, and really bad options. Surrender Labrador of bankrupt all of Newfoundland and Labrador - then Quebec will come in and pick it up for a cent on the dollar. Surrender the Upper Churchill and Quebec will control Labrador in every way but name. Etc.

There is of course the independence movement in Labrador that is being fanned covertly by Quebec. Most people don't realize that Quebec has its own "intelligence service". It is in every location where Quebec has strategic financial interests - including places like China where Hydro-Quebec is deeply involved. Its service targets the decision makers and influencers in these strategic markets to further its overall goals. One of those very important goals is Labrador. In case you didn't realize it, after the French language, the territorial goals of a "greater" Quebec rank a close second. In other words, Quebec will stop at nothing to take Labrador. To think otherwise is to seriously underestimate the enemy. There is already a great deal of evidence on the ground that Quebec's "intelligence service" is fully engaged, under the radar, promoting Labrador separatism. By the way, check out the recent court decision in Quebec for a hint of where Quebec is at with Labrador. The deciding judge refers to the "Government of Newfoundland" through out his decision. There is no "and Labrador" attached to the title...

For me, I suppose, it was a fight worth having, but you can't help those who won't help themselves. I recall being labelled a "dangerous zealot" by a certain radio host here over my fight to stop what's happening now. When you're labelled that way by those you consider dear, and fellow patriots, it's hard to take anything more from the conversation. I sacrificed financially, and my family sacrificed much more, in the fight to stop this. Now all that is left to do is watch the surrender of our province - which is a hard pill to swallow.