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:

NLIS 10

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.

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:

" Restrictions

      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.

New Facts on the death of Don Dunphy

The tragic death of Don Dunphy has haunted me now for seven months. Don was a close friend on social media, and his plight at the hands of the Workers Compensation Board hit close to home. As a disabled veteran I could have faced the same life-long struggle if it were not for the fact that my injuries were sustained while serving the country in the army. But for the Grace of God... as the saying goes. Many of you will know that I've campaigned long and hard to get the truth out about Don's death - whatever that may be.

To show support for Meghan, Don's daughter, and to serve the memory of Don, my wife and I recently attended the March for Don Dunphy in Mount Carmel - his hometown. Afterwards Meghan and family invited us in for some coffee and biscuits. We had a good talk about Don, and the circumstances surrounding his death that night. The words were spoken in confidence as the details were not yet public. However, national columnist Michael Harris just released a story on Don where some of those details were exposed (here), so silence on those points no longer serves any purpose.

Fact #1

Sgt Joe Smyth, the Premier's personal friend and bodyguard, and officer in charge of internet surveillance for the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary (RNC) at the time, was the officer that shot Don Dunphy to death.

Fact #2

Smyth was alone at the scene for one half hour before other police forces arrived, and found wondering aimlessly around the scene.

Fact #3

Smyth did not write a statement on the shooting until two days after the fact.

Fact #4

Meghan was not allowed to view her father's body until two days after his death.

Fact #5

Premier Paul Davis spoke with Smyth BEFORE the officer had written his statement on the events surround Don's death.

Fact #6

Don was shot numerous times, including at least one shot to the forehead. He died at the scene and his body was not removed until 4:00 a.m. the next day - or roughly 14 hours after he was killed.

These are some shocking, absolutely shocking details of Don's death and the subsequent process. The fact that Paul Davis, the Premier of the Province, and former serving RNC officer with Smyth, would speak to him on the phone prior to Smyth writing his statement is beyond the pale. Given the recent revelation that RNC Sgt Buckle counselled a fellow officer to lie (here) the question becomes: Is the RNC corrupted? Whether it is or not, and whether Davis counselled Smyth or not, the bottom line is he spoke to an officer who killed a man before his statement was written, and that is an outrageous breach. One that should cause his immediate resignation as Premier.

Also, and extremely disturbing, is the fact the officer had two days to give a written statement. Aside from the fact that many details can be forgotten in two days, which is why a statement is normally done immediately, the time lapse gives the officer time to create a story to match the events should he be so inclined.

On a human side, it was very disturbing to learn that Don's daughter could not see her father's body for two days. According to her, the police said she could not see the body due to the Coroner's instructions. When Megan finally contacted the Coroner he stated there was nothing holding her back from seeing her father's body. Anyone who has lost a loved one knows that seeing the person's body is a critical part of the process of coming to terms with their death. This basic right was denied to Meghan for days, which I can only imagine must have been pure hell for her.

Of course it is now semi-public knowledge that Sgt Smyth, after writing his statement, and then sending an email that he had "no regrets" to his fellow officers (which was subsequently leaked to the media) hustled off to Florida for a vacation. As disturbing as Don's death was, and remains, to us all, the details thus far released are nearly as disturbing. One thing is for certain though, Premier Paul Davis must immediately resign as Premier, PC leader, and MHA. He has committed an inexcusable act by speaking with his personal friend and officer on the killing of a man without that officer first writing a statement on the events. That is how the truth looks so far in the death of our friend Don Dunphy.

RCMP bring in Ontario Investigator in Don Dunphy killing

There are two tragedies in the story of the killing of Don Dunphy by the premier of Newfoundland and Labrador's personal bodyguard - one is personal and one is societal. The personal tragedy is that of the Dunphy family, and especially that of his daughter Meghan. The second tragedy is the conduct of the government in this province regarding the investigation and of course the police conduct of the investigation.

Meghan's tragedy is of course the loss of her father. She didn't expect him to be gunned down in his own home just hours after having brunch with him on Easter Sunday. She didn't expect her Dad to be killed for tweeting. But it happened here. After the death of Donny Dunphy, Meghan turned to a cousin who is a practicing lawyer for advice on retaining a lawyer. Her cousin recommended Erin Breen - a lawyer in St. John's. The story takes a bit of a turn here, because Erin Breen had a conflict or two herself in representing Meghan. Firstly, and most obviously, Erin Breen was sitting on the Board of Directors of Nalcor Energy - the highly political crown energy corporation for the Province. It is an established fact that a person does not get named to Nalcor's Board unless they are a political partisan of the PC Party. Then there is the fact the law firm she belongs to, as a partner no less, is an established Tory law firm. In fact, the partisan nature of the firm caused a scandal over this . Beyond those facts, Erin Breen has donated to the PC Party every year since 2008 (check it out here) .

Now I spoke to Erin Breen on these matters and she claims the donations were  not made by her, but rather her law firm in her name. Does that really make any difference? Obviously her firm could not make those donations without her consent.  Then she informed me she had tendered her resignation from the Nalcor board as of April 15, 2015. However, by that time she had been the Dunphy's lawyer for well over a week. So, in my opinion, Erin Breen should not be representing the Dunphy family. That opinion jumped out at me when she made the statement that the tweets that brought about Don Dunphy's death were a "red herring". In fact, those tweets carried a direct link to the premier's office in the shooting death of Mr. Dunphy. A fact that carries potential legal recourse for the family to attain damages in a court of law. So, that was a red flag to me.

Now, the dueling controversies of the RCMP investigation and a public inquiry continue to dominate the story. The Minister of Justice in this province, Darrin King, insists he has no role to play in who investigates the Don Dunphy killing. He also insists that a judicial inquiry cannot be called until the investigation is over, and only then if he deems there are "unresolved issues". In other words, he's leaving the door open to not calling a judicial inquiry even though every person killed by the police in this province has resulted in a judicial inquiry. Of course, none of those had direct and public links to the premier's office. However, his story has a major hole in it on both fronts. Firstly, he can call a judicial inquiry, appoint a judge, and await the results of the investigation before allowing it to begin. And secondly, the RCMP is breaking its own policy by investigating the Dunphy killing.

The RCMP have a policy that it will not play any part in an investigation into a police-caused death it is involved with unless no other agency or force is available to conduct such an investigation. That's a fact - read the link. It seems obvious that any number of police forces or agencies, separate and apart from the RCMP and the RNC would be available to conduct a homicide investigation into the Dunphy killing. However, the RCMP is following the back up policy that "should no other force" be available, it can conduct the investigation under these conditions:

   "Where there is no such agency, cases will be referred to external police services,                   who can enlist independent observers to assess and report on the impartiality and                     independence of investigations. As a last resort, where neither a special agency nor                 an external police service are available, the RCMP will undertake investigations.                       However, an investigation will only be conducted by the RCMP after extensive                        screening of investigating officers for conflict of interest and an independent observer                will be appointed and a final review of the investigation will be conducted by an                        independent police service."

Given that the RCMP are involved in the special protection unit that guards the premier, and other VIPs, and given the fact they were involved in the visit to Don Dunphy's home (the extent of which is not firmed up yet), it would appear an extensive screening would have been needed for conflict of interest. Yet, they began the investigation of the shooting immediately - which would logically have provided no time for "screening". Also, an "independent observer" was not named to the investigation until days into the affair - contrary to RCMP policy. In effect, the RCMP is now compromising its good name by refusing to follow its own policy requirements.

That brings me to the latest news - not yet reported by media in the province. The family was contacted yesterday by the RCMP to advise it that an "Ontario private investigator" had been assigned to the Dunphy investigation. No public release of this information has happened yet. All in all, the Don Dunphy tragedy keeps getting more tragic, and more infuriating by the day. It is getting more and more clear every day that not only did the Premier's office contribute to the death of Don Dunphy by falsely accusing him of making threats via Twitter, but that some sort of white wash campaign is being conducted to make sure that those sins don't end up back on the Premier's door step. All in all, this entire situation is on the one hand an embarrassment of incompetence, and on the other hand a dark commentary on the state of justice in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Newfoundland Government refuses call for Judicial Inquiry into Don Dunphy's Death

The Premier of this province refuses to call, at this time at least, a judicial inquiry into the shooting death of Don Dunphy at the hands of his personal body guard. A disgraceful, arrogant, and out of touch position that angers the people here to the core. Yet, the ruling PC cabinet refuses to call an inquiry.

The reasoning goes something like this: "There is an ongoing investigation...there maybe criminal charges as a result...the investigation may leave no questions left to answer...those calling for it are playing politics." This is the kind of foolishness that often passes for governance here in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Here's some background for those that don't know the province, or those in the province that don't scrutinize the government's actions on a daily basis like a few of us do...:

1. The RNCA (the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary Association) is a union-like association representing the RNC officers in this province. Since 1999 it has donated thousands of dollars each year to the ruling PC Party - almost exclusively. It donated $10,000.00 to Paul Davis for his successful leadership campaign. All of this in violation of the RNC Act, which makes it illegal.

2. The RNC forms the premier's personal protection force - ie: bodyguards. The RCMP are also involved in this function.

3. The premier is a retired RNC officer. He appointed a retired RNC Chief as his Chief of Staff.

4. On Easter Friday a member of the premier's office flagged a tweet from Don Dunphy, which was not a threat, but sent it to the personal body guard of the premier anyway.

5. On Saturday, the next day, the premier attended a hockey game with his family without any security what so ever.

6. On Easter Sunday a member of the premier's bodyguard, dressed in plain clothes, driving the premier's personal black SUV, arrived at Don Dunphy's, was invited into his home, and 15 minutes later the officer shot Don Dunphy dead. Apparently the conversation took a turn for the worse, for "whatever reason", and Don pulled a weapon on the officer. Or so the officer says.

So, we have a police force, politically linked to the governing party, whose officer, the premier's bodyguard, shot and killed an injured worker and vocal opponent of the governing party in his own home - without witnesses. Pardon the hell out of me, but if that isn't the most bizarre set of circumstances in a so-called democracy, then I don't know what would be. The problem here is that nobody in our society wants to be held accountable. It's the culture of "unaccountability". Wasn't me. Wasn't my fault. Wasn't his fault. It was nobody's fault. Shit happens. Oh well.  This is what passes for democracy in Newfoundland.

Then, in a further bizarre twist, we have the opposition Liberals, who are meant to clean up the mess left by the PC's after the next election, refusing to call for a public inquiry. Ironically, they are spouting the same buzzwords and talking points the discredited PC's are. It's like politics submersed in complete slime. Andrew Parsons, the Liberal justice critic, had the actual nerve to state people calling for a public inquiry were playing politics. Apparently, Parsons and the Liberals, along with the PCs are unable to to tell the difference between "holding people to account" and "playing politics". A completely disgraceful position. A despicable attempt to marginalize people outraged and seeking accountability over an innocent man's death at the hands of a premier's bodyguard in 21rst century Canada by framing it as "playing politics". It turns my stomach. The NDP, to their credit, came out yesterday calling for such an inquiry.

The biggest question right now is why won't the government call an inquiry? Why are the Liberals backing that position, rather than seeking the truth, and listening to the public? Obviously the Judicial Inquiry could not commence until after the investigation is finished, but it can be called to commence immediately after the investigation. The judge can be appointed. The terms of reference can be crafted. All the administrative issues could be resolved. We called it "concurrent activity" in the army. Civilians call it "multitasking". Bottom line is there is no reason to not announce there will be an inquiry after the investigation. Instead, Minister King said yesterday that a judicial inquiry won't be called unless he feels the investigation comes up short. So, the political people, who accepted illegal political donations from members of the RNC, are going to decide whether an officer of the RNC (who was the premier's personal bodyguard), and the office of the premier will be subjected to a judicial review over the killing of an opponent of the government - not witnessed.

Name me another jurisdiction in Canada where we would even be talking about this. That's how rotten to the core the political elite of this province are. That is just how badly things need to change here. Donny Dunphy did not die in vain. He's become the symbol of victims of an irresponsible, corrupted elite within our province.

Don Dunphy - Shoot the Messenger - Media vs Social Media

The shooting of Don Dunphy is the latest, and for us most tragic, example of the media attacking social media. It's not new, but it's becoming hyper-inflated.

When Don Dunphy was killed by the personal security detail of the premier of Newfoundland in his home on Easter Sunday the media got it all wrong. It jumped on one part of a five part tweet. It painted Donny as a half-crazed injured worker striking out threateningly at the premier of the province. But then social media intervened. The twitter message in its full context filled the airwaves. Suddenly the story that was being perpetuated in the media began to fall apart - embarrassingly so. To give David Cochrane of the CBC credit, which is painful, he did get those tweets out there and helped change the conversation. Yet, stations like VOCM continued with the one tweet, dangerous threat scenario.

Then of course there is the issue of what happened in the home. Again, David Cochrane led the story that "sources" said Don Dunphy pointed a gun and that's why he was shot. Then the RCMP came out the next day, and to settle the public down in their words, they released that indeed it was a fact that Don Dunphy pointed a gun at the officer after 15 minutes of conversation - that suddenly went bad. Their source for this information? The very officer that shot Don Dunphy multiple times in his home, killing him instantly. Now, if this were a person who was not a police officer that person would be in custody and have to prove self-defence to a judge. Not in this case. No, in this case the officer sits at home on paid leave while the family buries their loved one. Yet, the word of the man who fired the shots without witnesses is propagated like it was the undeniable truth, when any common sense, right thinking person might well think an officer in such a situation might have a reason to cover his arse. That's not to say that he did, it's just to say that he had plenty of reason to.


Then, despite a "we can't comment, it's under investigation" defence, the RCMP releases a bit more information. This time it was yes, indeed, the premier's bodyguard came and saw us, did a threat assessment, and saw Donny's brother before he went to the house. The media dutifully spills the news for all to lap up. Yet, in the detail it's let out that threat assessment is a computer search if there's a criminal record on the man. Not a detailed, comprehensive, he did all he could do type threat assessment. And so it goes. Selective news leaks, to selected news reporters, for the sole purpose of "calming the hordes".

Then the premier went on local and national television to tell all that it was Don Dunphy's fault, that his staff contacted his bodyguard about "threats" and the bodyguard did his job, and it was changed world out there, and that in a personal phone call after the shooting he gave the bodyguard a call and gave him his "personal support". On the national CBC news broadcast Davis repeated the same talking points he had said earlier to the provincial media. This time the national reporter looked at him incredulously and asked if the premier was comparing Donny Dunphy to Al Queda or ISIS. In other words, what the hell are you talking about. The question would seem obvious to most of us, but it slipped past our provincial media...

Just yesterday, the bodyguard under investigation became a non-bodyguard...according to David Cochrane...again...from a "source"...again... a selective leak to calm the hordes...again. The premier, the man whose office sent the now ex-bodyguard (apparently) to see Don Dunphy has announced he will make a decision on a judicial inquiry after the RCMP investigation. The man whose office is responsible for the events that led up to Don Dunphy's death is going to decide if Don's death warrants a judicial inquiry - after the RCMP, who were somewhat involved in the Dunphy shooting, finish the investigation of his death. Not to mention that both police forces serve as the premier's bodyguard. Yes, the same bodyguard whose member killed Don Dunphy. It's all good though, because the RCMP, who were involved somewhat in the shooting, have appointed a retired judge to watch over them. And so it goes, you can't make this shit up.

Where's the media on all of this? Now the tweet is no longer described as the "threat", but rather the "perceived threat". Even though anyone with less than high school English can clearly see the tweets had nothing to do with the premier, but referred to two already dead politicians. Facts be damned, we'll call it a perceived threat because the RCMP and the premier's office are apparently illiterate. On the rifle bit, yes, that's still out there as a fact, even though it has yet to be confirmed by forensics or anything else - other than by the shooter. The investigation? Nothing to see here folks. Not a single word or criticism that the RCMP were investigating a police killing that they were involved in. Nope. Not happening. All the rest is covered by:"we have to wait for the results of the investigation". Convenient when so many troubling questions already are quite factually evident.

However, it's becoming more and more obvious that in this province the media is not concerned by facts. It's concerned about keeping it's position as the filter of truth that feeds the public as it sees it, and when it feels like it. Despite being some of the most active on twitter, reporters and broadcasters here decry the "irresponsible" and "nut-bar" approach of social media. It's as if the media senses, in the free exchange of information and ideas on social media, it's own demise. And in that assumption there is truth. The media is quickly becoming the dinosaur of the information age. As the world becomes more plugged in, and the populations better educated, the media looks more and more like a vintage of yesteryear. Tired, worn out, and out of ideas. More concerned about keeping those subscription numbers and reporters salaries than asking the tough, but quite obvious questions. Instead, the Don Dunphy killing is just the latest example of the media shooting the messenger. Shooting the social media. The very people who they hope to influence with their "news".

The Ugly Truth about Newfoundland

Newfoundland is not an ugly place. It is beautiful. It's raw, rugged nature, unblemished by time remains for all to see. You can't help but love Newfoundland. The place. However, there is a deep, dark side to Newfoundland that defies the beauty of this place. In a word, tyranny. Not the tyranny you would find in a dictatorship over sees. Not the tyranny of an armed camp. This is the tyranny of the elites. And here the elites work hand in hand to keep the average Newfoundlander (or common man as it goes here) firmly in his place. Dissent here equals disloyalty. Disloyalty equals persecution. Persecution by the small group of business families that run the province. Persecution by an elite that is so small that it encompasses the few but powerful law firms here, and the few but powerful media outlets here.

To go outside the strict boundaries of day-to-day conduct established by these elites is to invite unto yourself public ridicule and humiliation, and personal destruction. Whether that destruction be of a financial or reputation nature - although it is almost always both. Newfoundlanders know it. They know it only too well. It's the Italian mafia version of Omerta - or silence. We run the show, we run the money, we run everything - you do not challenge us. Granted, it's not very Italian here, so perhaps Irish mafia is a better analogy. Whatever the name, Newfoundlanders have been afraid for a very long time of the powerful here.

It began  with the "Merchants", the small group of families that controlled Newfoundland by controlling its economy. Fisherman survived on the credit from these stores, whatever the price and conditions, and then turned over what they made to pay there way clear. A never ending sentence of feudalism - and it never ended.

Now, things are a changin'. Feudalism is dying a sudden death here in Newfoundland. Our government, that represents those elites is falling. Not just the government that is in office today, but the governments coming after it. "Falling" means business as usual amongst the elites here is dying. Instead of the people becoming controlled servants to these families, and the systems they control, the people are taking back, or perhaps better put finally taking, this beautiful place back for themselves.

In the last four years the political, legal and business elite here have been subjected to a phenomenon they do not see or understand. All they can see is the order they had so tidily enforced and enjoyed crumbling all around them. They're scared. As the incumbent premier said very recently: "Some authority from somewhere is challenging us". As odd as that comment might seem, it's not altogether off the mark. Their is an authority, but it's not challenging the "boy's club" here - it's destroying it. There is no challenge. "Challenge" implies that there exists a possibility they can win, and there is no possibility of that. They just haven't figured that part out yet. They haven't stopped long enough to see how far they've fallen. Perhaps they don't want to see what it looks like when they finally hit ground. Whatever the case, they desperately try and cling to the feudal system so well layed out for them by their predecessors. Newfoundlanders, average Newfoundlanders, the common man be damned.

In fact, the ruling class of Newfoundland is in such a panic they are making mistakes. Big mistakes. Grave mistakes. The most recent, and personally tragic one being that of Don Dunphy - who is to be buried tomorrow. The premier's own staff flagged a completely innocent tweet made by Don, contacted the premier's own body guard, and the rest is history. Don died. He died for tweeting. The reason I say that is the officer should never have gone to his home. But, they couldn't help themselves. They had to show this poor man, suffering as he was, that they were the bosses around here. He dissented, and made them look bad. He needed a talking to. The talking to went bad, apparently, and now Don Dunphy is dead. But, Don wasn't the only one that died on that Easter Sunday. No, the last shred of any credibility the Newfoundland elite had died with him, and I'm positive that Don would have been tickled with that.

He knew only too well what it was to suffer under this regime of silence. Now, predictably, the many in the local media tried to spin his death on the strength of one part of a five part tweet. To make Don look bad. To make him look depraved and dangerous. To make the result seem justified. It didn't work. The premier tried to show he was the last authority by stating he phoned the officer that fired the shots and gave him his "personal support". He knew that his office sent the officer to Donny's home. They used his personal black SUV to do it. He knew there would have to be an investigation, yet he compromised it before it started by giving the shooter his "personal support". And he didn't care. Why didn't he care? He didn't care because that's what happens when you mess with power. They are the last word, and the only word. That's the way it's always been. And then BOOM! The people of the province came apart. They exploded in anger and disbelief at the death of Don Dunphy. Why? Because the killing of Don Dunphy represented everything we have come to despise, and give oath to change.

The powers to be will no longer be the powers to be. It's over for them. Whether it be the business or legal elite. Whether it be the small, select families. It's over for them. All they have to do is stop, look, and see what's happening to their grip on this place. It's been happening for four years. The politics of feudalism is dying a slow, twisting, in denial death. As the saying goes "God guard thee Newfoundland". Well, God is with us, and we are the people.  

Don Dunphy Dies for Politics in Newfoundland

       
                                                                   Don Dunphy

Don Dunphy died for expressing his pain and suffering in a small rural community in Newfoundland at the hands of the Premier's personal security force. In other words, he died over politics. He had just finished having Easter Sunday dinner with his daughter when, at about 230 pm, a solitary plain clothed member of the Premier's personal body guard arrived at the Dunphy home in a plain black SUV, with smoked black windows - the Premier's own personal government vehicle. From that moment til the moment several shots rang out remain unaccounted for. The only witness was the man that pulled the trigger ending Mr. Dunphy's life - and voice.

Mr. Dunphy was injured at work. The compensation board abandoned him, but he refused to go quietly. He became engaged in social media, mostly Twitter, and attempted to make a difference, He tweeted on many things, all generally centered on social justice. On Good Friday he sent a series of tweets to Premier Paul Davis, and a cabinet minister Sandy Collins. Sandy Collins had just sent out a public tweet expressing his satisfaction about cruising with the premier, in his car, listening to a song whose message was enjoying the sunshine. Mr. Dunphy, suffering as he was and had been for many years, replied to the public tweet of Collins:

5 tweets that would end his life. Someone on the premier's staff contacted a member of the premier's bodyguard, and two days later a sole officer appeared on Mr. Dunphy's driveway. The tweet originally put out by the provincial media originally showed just the last tweet, which mentioned the words "dead" and "hurt". However, social media quickly found the entire set of tweets, and the story line began to change. The string of five tweets, representing the full conversation, clearly show anyone who can read English that Mr. Dunphy was not threatening anyone. Not the premier. Not anyone. Instead, it was simply the response of a long suffering man responding to a system he felt had ignored him and, simply put, he was upset that these two politicians were enjoying a carefree ride in the country while he suffered. Nothing more. Nothing less. That was his only crime.

Was there evidence a crime was being committed, or going to be committed? No. Was there cause for the premier's body guard to be at Mr. Dunphy's home? No. So why was he there? Given the politics of intimidation in this province, the most likely answer was he went to the Dunphy house to intimidate a man into silence. What evidence is there of that? Well, first of all, unless the premier's political staff is illiterate, and the body guard is illiterate, there was no cause for any police action. None. Zip. That is the biggest clue, but there are others. The use of the premier's own personal black SUV. The use of the premier's own bodyguard. The leaks about who pulled a gun on who first - despite no "official" comment. The fact that a sole officer went to "investigate" a "non-crime" without any other witnesses. From my own experience, an eerily similar situation to the time 4 years ago when Minister Wiseman sent his personal Executive Assistant, a self-proclaimed member of the Newfoundland "backroom", to threaten me with personal destruction if I allowed my name to stand in the PC leadership race. This ended far  more seriously for Mr. Dunphy, but the bones of the matter are very similar.

The question remains, was Don Dunphy lawfully killed by a member of his premier's bodyguard. There is no question he was killed. There is no question who did it. The question remains was it lawful. I would argue it was not. An officer of the law cannot pull over your vehicle, let alone enter your property without "cause". There was no cause. There was no threat to the premier. None whatsoever. The only reason that officer was at the Dunphy home was to intimidate. If you don't believe that, well, then you have to believe the premier's office and the bodyguard can't read English. What is the more likely? It's clear what is the most likely. Now, local media and talk shows were very quick to decry speculation about the death of Don Dunphy. That's typical of politics in Newfoundland. Silence the outrage. If you speak out you will be labelled as "playing politics". It's a form of control used here all the time. Don't speak out, even when it's as obvious as the nose on your face.

If you do speak out you become the problem. You are scapegoated. The original issue becomes obscured in charges of political opportunism. You have an axe to grind. You are a disturber of the shit. It doesn't matter that what you say makes perfect sense, or is a perfectly normal opinion. If it shakes the foundations of power in Newfoundland it must be silenced. Don Dunphy shook that system more than he or anyone else apparently realized. He was silenced. Silenced by his own government. But, in his death, Don sent a message that he could not send in life. It lead the national news. It splashed from coast to coast. An injured worker, ignored and marginalized by a government in this country that suppresses political opposition. That was the message Don was trying to send in life. That was the message his death sent to the entire country.