Grudgingly, I’ll try to be a politician

To be or not to be? That's the Shakespearean question bothering me these days. Irony is, when the question was about whether I should be a politician, the mere fact that I spent so much time pondering it, especially at this time of great crisis, already illustrated what I have been saying all along, that I could never be a politician.

But grudgingly, I think I'll try to be a politician.

UNSC Resolution 1784

The current crisis originated from North Korea's nuclear test on May 25. The latest development was that last Wednesday June 10, after more than two weeks' apparently stalked negotiations at the United Nation Security Council, China and Russia agreed onto a tough-worded draft resolution backed by the U.S.. The resolution was adopted by UNSC last Friday.

Why the sudden movement at the UN last Wednesday? I would say it had to do with what I typed into my computer the day before. As I mentioned several times already, the Canadian and U.S. governments were able to read the files on my portable disc. From my experience this time, I would say that they were able to capture every one of my keystrokes. (I have since bought another computer, on which this blog is being composed.) In order to put the political development in context, I'll copy and paste here the first several paragraphs of my writing last Tuesday June 9:

The North Korea situation is still a mess. More than two weeks after it conducted a nuclear test in defiance of the international community, U.N. Security Council has yet to bring forward a united response to the crisis. At the mean time, North Korea is increasingly bellicose, openly threatening the use of nuclear weapon in a "merciless offensive" through a state-run newspaper today.

China should and must deal a firm hand with North Korea this time. But in order for that to be effective, China needs first to take an even firmer approach to Russia, the backer of North Korea's nuclear test. China, together with the United States and other countries in the region, can then better leverage its influence over North Korea to make it give up its nuclear weapon.

In my June 2 update to my previous blog I argued that logically, Russia had to be the backer of North Korea's nuclear test. Later in the week, I found the telltale sign of its role in creating the crisis in a published interview of its president, Dmitry Medvedev, with Maria Bartiromo of BusinessWeek. Apparently, Mr. Medvedev was caught off-guard by the North Korea question. Otherwise, he would have hid his government's role in the nuclear test better. As I commented at the end of Bartiromo's article:

"On North Korea, Mr. Medvedev was lying through his teeth to you, Maria. The truth of the matter is, the recent N Korea nuclear test was aimed at China, with the backing of his government. That's probably why he did not mention a word of China in his interview with you. (Indeed, China was the only country he did not mention because U.S. was implicitly mentioned when he emphasized its allies Japan and S Korea.)"

The political logic behind the latest development at UN is as follows: The Obama administration is reluctant to accept my idea of a G2. The Russian government is firmly against it. I am widely regarded as the real leader of China with my proposals of China's democratization and Sino-U.S. relations. As such, the goals of U.S. and Russian governments somewhat converged on China and they therefore had an incentive to work together against me. Once they learned what I was about to publish last Tuesday, they quickly "reconciled" their differences on North Korea - with Russia agreeing to the U.S. position - at the UNSC with a resolution that put great pressure on China before my story could become public.

That China felt great pressure from this resolution was evident from the warning voiced by its ambassador to U.N. after the vote: "Under no circumstance should there be the use of force or the threat of use of force" in implementing the resolution. That's why we saw on CBC NewsWorld, one of the headlines all day Friday was "7th heaven", 7 being the most dreadful number in Chinese politics and used by Mr. Obama in his Cairo speech just recently on June 4. And on its Politics program with Don Newman, the anchor said: "Nobody wanted World War I, but …" He even mentioned the word "hibernate", from my original blog where I unwittingly spelled out the truth about China's nuclear force. (It's really sad that even after all these years, that's all came to some people's minds when they thought of me.) And on its evening flagship National program, the top headline was "T minus one sleep", perhaps a snipe at my slowness in writing my experience. (And I would suggest that the political drama in Ottawa in the past couple of days surrounding a rare summer election speculation was connected to my situation.)

U.S.-Russian cooperation on my file

The first time I suspected there might be a U.S.-Russian cooperation on my file was on February 10, 2009 when two satellites, one from the United States and one from Russia, collided in space. The chance that such a collision was a pure accident was extremely small. And the timing of the incident pointed to the cooperation between these two governments because Chinese government had a plan to bring me out into public in a celebrating atmosphere the day before, on February 9, the end of Spring Festival period and a significant Chinese holiday. (As it turned out, there appeared to be significant objection within the Chinese government, as manifested by two incidents happened to Chinese Central Television on that day. One was a reported satellite difficulty that affected transmission of TV signals for hours in the morning. Then in the evening, a huge fire engulfed the CCTV building.) What the U.S. and Russian governments wanted to accomplish with this "accident" in space were (1) to tarnish my public image at the start of my debut by reminding people that the Chinese government had conduct an anti-satellite (ASAT) experiment in connection to my possible debut in early 2007; and (2) to demonstrate their technological know-how. (From this and many others events people can see that China has a long way to go in terms of managing its international public relations.)

Of course, I did not know in advance of China's ASAT test. Indeed, I had come out and strongly condemned it after I learned its connection to my situation. I should add that this was not the only incident where the Chinese government had portrayed me in a militaristic fashion. Such portraitures did nothing to help my situation here other than to complicate it, as I often complained. Perhaps the most idiotic of them all was President Hu Jintao's link of my Pattullo Bridge protest in 2005 to "air defence". (Of course, my protest on Pattullo Bridge had nothing to do with the Chinese government, as I said many times. I got the idea from someone who, I believe, had nothing to do with Chinese government. I went on with my bridge protest only after all my other protests, including fasting day-in and day-out in freezing temperature in front of the Parliament in Ottawa, had failed to generate media attention on my cause. Even the timing of my protest was tied to Canadian domestic political situation: Although nobody admitted it, I believe it was my protest that gave the then opposition parties the resolve to bring down the then Liberal government and to begin a rare winter election. -- The non-confidence motion that defeated the government was a one-sentence general statement that "this House has lost confidence in the government", without being specific. For more background of my protest, please read here, here, and here.) Still, I feel sorry for the misunderstanding caused by Chinese government's idiotic portraitures of me.

Why was the U.S. administration reluctant to accept my G2 proposal of Sino-U.S. cooperation? I think fundamentally, it was due to U.S.'s hegemonic tendencies. I am not going to get into the abstract debate on whether the United States is an empire or not. Even for Barack Obama, there were telltale signs that he did not want to give up U.S.'s sole superpower status. That's why I called him (and his predecessor Mr. Bush) a "bubble-builder" in my January 18 blog. (I'm sure that he understood what I meant. That's why he had since tried to give alternative interpretations of the word "bubble".)

In my previous blog, I recalled that Mr. Obama could not give a coherent response to my April 2 blog during his post-G20 European tour. One response he gave was quite telling though: He stated the obvious fact that the U.S. was still the dominate military power in the world. The underlying message was simple: If necessary, he would not hesitate to use military power to preserve U.S.'s sole superpower status.

In my previous blog, I also talked about Mr. Obama's speech at Georgetown University on April 14 where, after he had succeeded in putting military pressure on China with the engineered hostage crisis off the coast of Somali, he essentially demanded that I should be the 5th generation of Chinese leadership, effectively proclaiming that my G2 idea was dead. In his speech, he mentioned that this 21st century would be another "American Century". Similarly, on the day after his 100th day in office when he succeeded in deceiving me by pretending that he would bring me out into public on that day, he gave another speech where he used the phrase "American Century" again to justify his keeping me away from the public.

Again, I am not going to get into abstract debate about "American Century" - just like the word "empire", much is depended on the definition. The mere fact that he used this phrase again and again to justify keeping me and thus my idea of G2 away from public was quite telling. And from my own experience, I can see that it is this hegemonic tendencies on the part of the U.S. administration that is a major part of the root cause for the potential conflicts between U.S. and China.

Because the U.S. government - and perhaps many other governments - was able to read the files on my disc, it's a good idea to copy and paste again some of the key phrases about my G2 idea from my disc. These are: "a new international order", "multi-polar world", "international democratic order", "counterbalance to America's hegemonic tendencies", "China and the developing countries", etc. These words should give people additional flavour of my idea on international relations. But most important of all, I should point out, my idea of G2 is a peaceful concept. It does not challenge American leadership per se. It merely offered a peaceful mechanism to transform the current uni-polar world order to a more democratic multi-polar one.

Russians are a bit trickier. My feeling is that the Russian government was fundamentally opposed to my idea of G2. Not only that, they in fact wanted to see China and U.S. walk down a more confrontational path. I mentioned before that I had foiled several potential conflicts across the Taiwan Strait over the years. In most of those cases, Russians appeared to have been on the side of Chinese government. It seemed to me that China and Russia had some kind of alliance. If that's the case, I think China should re-orient its approach to Russia.

From my own experience, I feel Russia supported China's confrontation with U.S. for its own reasons. Most other times, it just wanted to be troublesome. I remembered that after I had not cooperated on the plan to take Taiwan by force in late September or early October 2007, Vladimir Putin was very upset as evidenced by the news he made with the phrase "a lunatic dancing on a razor-thin edge", which was clearly nut-cracking my just-finished article on my experience in the mental hospital, entitled The Governments Pushed Me To The Edge Yet Made Sure I Did Not Fall Over The Edge. And more recently on the day of Mr. Obama's visit to Ottawa, Russian planes approached Canadian air space. Note that the Chinese government had a plan to bring me out on that day as well, as I revealed in my February 20 blog. What's Russia's purpose to send war planes over, other than "troublesome just to be troublesome", as prime minister Stephen Harper put it?

Of course, the U.S. and Russian governments would not have taken me and my G2 idea so seriously if I were not widely regarded as the real leader of China. And here came a dishonesty on the part of Chinese government, which I had disclosed before. As I said in my April 2 blog, Chinese government wanted to make me the 3rd generation of Chinese leadership - a super leader - yet "maintain in public that they only considered me as the 6th generation of Chinese leadership so that I could be free to establish myself here in Canada". As I said, this plan of Chinese government had caused friction between U.S. and China. Looking back, I am afraid that my genuine desire to get away from politics may have been taken advantage of by the Chinese government. And judging from Mr. Obama's speech in Cairo, it is quite possible that their bestowing me a super leader status was contingent upon my successful establishment here.

It was mostly because of this realization that I decided that I should go back to politics in a honest way - except for myself. That's the only way to resolve the situation. I have written enough on me and politics as a profession, and every word of it was true. However, there is no point in being honest to myself (that I can never be a politician) if everyone else thinks otherwise (that I am the true political leader of China). And if my realization is correct, the only honest way for the Chinese government to bring me out is to treat me as the 4th generation of Chinese leadership.

But I also knew this was a wrong decision. That's why I was so torn-apart by it. Indeed, I think it was a mistake for the Chinese government to have picked me years ago as a potential candidate for the top leadership position in China. I don't know exactly why I was picked. Perhaps Warren Buffett was a factor. But frankly, I think I am just an average guy. If anything, I perhaps have a stronger sense of right and wrong than other people. When it comes to politics, though, I am awfully ill-equipped. As the events in the past few weeks demonstrated, I had to be responsible for at least some of the serious damages done to China.

Events after North Korea nuclear test

Let's face it. Not only was North Korea's nuclear test aimed at China, even the date was carefully chosen to disrupt China's plan to bring me into public. May 25 was when Mr. Wu Poh-hsiung, Chairman of KMT started a highly visible tour of mainland. Chinese government probably had a plan to bring me out into public as the next super leader (but maintain in public I was only the 6th generation) around May 25 or 26 thus reveal at the same time what I have done, among other things, for peace across the Taiwan Strait. (I should add that I do not always know Chinese government's exact plan, such as the one on May 12, which I only knew after the fact. Partly this is because I lack experience in politics. Partly it is due to the way I receive my information. Ever since I embarked on my journey, I have not received a single message plainly, whether it was from the Canadian government and opposition parties, or from Chinese government, or from U.S. government and opposition politicians, or from the media. The messages were always hidden. I didn't always get them in my first reading. Indeed, a lot of times I only discovered the hidden messages when I went through the whole news the second, third, or even fourth time. Of course, even when I got the messages, I did not always act on them.) For me, I think it is simply the right thing to do to guard peace.

Indeed, I wrote my last major blog with an eye on the developing situation in Taiwan. Apparently, the U.S. administration had influenced the opposition DPP in an attempt to create social unrest and/or chaos on or around May 17 in Taiwan as part of their plan to create problems for China, who was preparing for war with India. Taiwan's former leader Chen Shuibian, who was held in prison for corruption-related charges, had started a hunger strike. After the current DPP leader's visit to the U.S., the entire DPP top brass, who had distanced themselves from Chen, visited him just before the mass demonstration their party organized. In light of this situation, in my initial draft of my last blog I started with writing my own experience in prison. Indeed, I believe it was because of these initial passages, unpublished but observed by the U.S. administration nevertheless, that prevented social unrest from flaring up in Taiwan in mid-May.

… Nice guy finishes last. My own experience was so miserable that I cried many times.

I remembered crying as far back as in the summer of 1994. I was in the office of a business professor at SFU, telling him what happened between my Stats professors and me. Many years would pass me by while I was bullied, harassed as well as humiliated without a job. I became depressed. But I did not file my lawsuit until November 2002. Even that was at the end of a status of limitation period. (Of course, I did not know the involvement of the federal government when I filed my lawsuit.)

I remembered crying on November 29, 2006, over the disappearance and potential cover-up of another young girl, Tamra Keepness, in Saskatchewan.

My last significant cry was after November 28, 2007, the first day of my trial in Judge Steinberg's "kangaroo court". I cried because I felt I was losing my cause of seeking justice for Cecilia Zhang, having realized that I had been cheated by both the judge, who apparently had been influenced by the government after I was last in his court, and the opposition Liberals, whose moral outrage during the Question Periods in parliament before my trial was just hot air. Knowing that I was under 24 hour video surveillance (duo to my earlier hunger strike) in prison, I had to control my crying with my back facing the camera. Still, the prison doctor was at my door in no time. Apparently he had been hard pressed by the governments to find any evidence to prove that I was mentally ill so as to discredit my cause.

And my situation is not much better, being in a virtual prison as I often say I am in. Moreover, I am still on probation by Judge Steinberg's order, issued after he had convicted me AND made sure that I would be sent back to mental hospital for forced psychiatric medication. Any "bad behaviour" would automatically land me in a real prison, together with forced psychiatric medication. Even if I have to be hospitalized for other sickness, I would likely be forced to take psychiatric medication as well.

And I believe I am still under surveillance even inside my apartment. The latest confirmation was the big drop in market indices on Wednesday, May 13. I believe the sequence of events is as follows: (1) I read on Tuesday night on Bloomberg website that a respected Australian scientist claimed that the A(H1N1) virus could come from a lab; (2) I could not fall sleep and got up in the middle of the night; and (3) Information about me was relayed to market insiders.

As such, right after North Korea's nuclear test, I got the feeling that it was targeted at me. But I was out of politics then and I was determined not to be bothered by it. I even tried to get my mind away from politics by developing a hobby to break my daily routine. I contemplated taking up photography. I visited electronic stores to compare-shop camera; gathered information on photography classes from at least two institutions and investigated funding requirements. I was really serious about it. But I could not get away from the news on North Korea -- it was headline everywhere. And soon I realized that I would be personally targeted if I did not respond. I also knew Chinese government had another plan to bring me out on June 1, the last day of Wu's visit to mainland. Naturally Chinese government wanted me to act and to act promptly.

However, I realized these a little too late, as my mind had been deliberately taken elsewhere. When I decided to write my response, I wrote it too slowly, as I always did. As you can see, I was only able to finish this update in the evening of June 2 local time.

It was in this context of my failing to meeting the June 1 (Beijing time) deadline that Air France Flight 447 disaster occurred on June 1 (local time). I highly suspect it was a foul-play to pin terrorism blame on China. Besides the timing of the incident, the following are the facts that support my assertion.

1. France's Sarkozy government is well-known for its anti-China stand. Indeed, French government had tried to take a lead in the recovery of wreckage and investigation of the accident in the beginning.
2. Brazil is an important developing country who has a generally good relationship with China. This would be a good opportunity to instigate problems and create frictions between Brazil and China. If successful, China would be considerably isolated internationally.
3. Media coverage, especially those in France, had put a cloud of mystery on the disaster from the beginning. A French minister openly said that terrorism could not be ruled out.
4. Just three days later, Mr. Obama called on the whole world to turn on China in his Cairo speech.

After I missed the June 1 deadline, Beijing suggested to me that I could get back to politics on June 4, as my sentiment on the event of June 4, 1989 was well known. I knew Beijing was eager to bring me out. But I was still reluctant to get back to politics. As a result, Beijing could not get out the truth about North Korea's nuclear test.

When I first read Mr. Obama's Cairo speech on June 4, frankly, I was a little shocked that he openly called for China's dissolution with the number 7 in his speech. But my initial shock soon gave away to the reality: Russia was starting to turn against China. France had been onboard for some time. With the power of Western media in his palms, Mr. Obama must have felt that the prospect of pinning down China with terrorism was within his reach by connecting the Air France 447 disaster with China. No wonder he was bolstered to call on the whole world to turn on China.

It was in the morning of June 5 that I started collecting and saving information on Air France disaster story. Perhaps because of this computer activity of mine which "told" the world that I was watching the development of this story, the media frenzy surrounding this story started to die down a little bit. It was after the first two bodies were found that I felt much more relieved. I really hope that truth will be found in this tragic disaster.

The effect of Mr. Obama's speech was immediate. There were certain benefits to be the world's only superpower, after all. Great Britain and Australia were the two countries whose governments had been receptive to my idea of G2. In Great Britain, Gordon Brown's government went into a deeper crisis with additional minister resigning. In Australia, RioTinto suddenly scrapped a huge business deal with Chinalco. It was clearly a political decision. So much for not meddling in other people's affairs.

What do I have to say to Mr. Obama's speech in Cairo? Frankly, not much. I suppose that if Mr. Obama succeeds in turning the whole world against China through his Machiavellian ways, that would be the end of China as we know it. But like Warren Buffett says, you always have to ask yourself the question, "And then what?" And I have already provided the answer in my analysis of Sino-U.S. relations and elsewhere in my blogs: A chaotic China is not in the world's interest. Just think of the perhaps hundreds of millions of refugees coming out of a disintegrating and chaotic China. Where would they go? How many will U.S. take? How many will France take? How many will Russia take?

Even with that awful scenario, China - in the cultural sense - will still survive. In fact, the power of China lies not in its military, nor in its growing economy. I believe China's real power lies in its culture. Indeed, if you study Chinese history, you'll find that there have been periods when China was conquered by "outsiders". And then what? The conquerors invariably became Chinese. That's just how irresistible Chinese culture is. (Another feature of Chinese culture is that it is incredibly open.) Think of Chinese culture as chocolate. As one of my favourite movie illustrated, you can not fight chocolate with a knife. You just can't.

But I took my other realization from reading Mr. Obama's speech seriously. I did not want to see myself become a source of tension, even unintentionally. That's why on Friday evening, June 5, I posted a blog, grudgingly signalled that I would consider trying to be a politician, as this was the only way to diffuse the tension between China and U.S as Mr. Obama saw it. The Chinese government's plan was to bring me out on June 8, again in a celebrating atmosphere in connection to the first of a series of parties for the 60th anniversary of the founding of the People's Republic. In effect, Chinese government planned to bring me out as the 3rd generation. However, I did not feel comfortable with their plan, even if this time their bestowing me the 3rd generation status did not depend on my establishing myself here. On Saturday evening, I took down my blog.

Conclusion

Just four weeks ago I sum up my experience with politics this way: "I was dragged into politics without my prior consent. I was bothered by the fact that politics had complicated my situation and made my primary goal - which was to get my life back - seem harder to reach. Despite the complications, however, I had always used 'doing the right thing' as my guiding principle along the way - usually with great personal costs. When I found out that I could not untangle myself from politics, I played along, hoping that I would be taken out politically."

But, as I said, the only honest way now to bring me out is to treat me as the 4th generation of Chinese leadership. I am little sad about it. But I am resigned to my fate. Hopefully my story will shed some light on the North Korea situation and help to resolve the crisis peacefully. Politically, I will still try to lead China on the path of democratization with that "nice" philosophy of mine. I will also try my best to make my idea of G2 work between China and U.S. This may just be too naive. But I'll try nevertheless, because it is the only way I know. With President Hu Jintao traveling outside of China, I think there is an opportunity now to do this with minimum disruption. My only hope is that Canadian government will cooperate with my plan and compensate me as soon as possible for the serious wrongs inflicted upon me.


Update (20090620):

It appears that I don't have enough support in China to be the 4th generation at this time. That leaves me with the only option to be the 5th generation.

Still, I believe my strength is in my ideas - my idea for China's democratization as well as my idea for international relations. These ideas could potentially change China and impact the world. That's fundamentally why people take me so seriously.

Assaulted in prison, tortured in mental hospital

Before I take on politics again, I post here my oral submission to BC Provincial Court on December 4th, 2007, to provide some context on the torture and assault I personally endured during incarceration:

At the core of the 13-page documents I submitted to the Court last Wednesday, November 28th, in support of my application to stay the proceedings was a 2-page letter I wrote to U.S. Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid, on October 23, 2007. In it, I disclosed for the first time that President Bush personally knew my telephone activities at the Forensic Psychiatric Hospital (FPH) and therefore likely knew that I was being tortured there as well.

In this current submission, I intended to establish that, in order to protect the Bush administration from this damaging information about President Bush, the federal government, mostly through its influence on North Fraser Pre-Trial Center (NFPC), repeatedly obstructed the delivery of my letter to Senator Reid, in various formats.

One. On October 23, 2007, I submitted the 2-page letter, attaching the 6-page FPH update, to NFPC for faxing to Sen. Harry Reid at around 1:00PM. Mr. Fraser, the Living Unit Officer (LUO), signed my request "fwd for action" and later told me that his supervisor had promised to "make it happen". However, at around 10:30AM the following day, Mr. Fraser told me that my fax request had been rejected. I asked him why. He said that he was told it was too long. But I knew it was an excuse because I had earlier requested sending even longer faxes and they were granted. And I noticed that the "Supervisor Remarks" section of my request was left blank. I asked Mr. Fraser to ask whoever was responsible to provide a formal reason for rejecting my fax request. Later a Supervisor signed the section: "Please send this document via regular mail." Merely pointing out an alternative but slower means of delivery was apparently not a solid reason for rejecting my fax. The real reason was, of course, the federal Conservative government intended to protect the Bush administration from the damaging information in my letter.

Two. After my fax request was rejected, I did put a copy of my letter to Sen. Reid in mail on October 24, 2007. At the mean time, I wrote a letter to MLA Jenny Kwan. There were two purposes in my writing to MLA Kwan. One was to ask her to fax my letter to Sen. Reid on my behalf so that Sen. Reid would receive my letter sooner than the regular mail. That's why I sent my letter to MLA Kwan to her constituent office in Vancouver, rather than to her legislative office in Victoria. Two was to convince her, as an opposition MLA in BC Legislature, to intervene in the BC government-run NFPC's treatment of me, especially in light of their rejection of my fax request.

The response I got from MLA Kwan's offices was very confusing at best. For more than a week, I was told that they had not received my letter, which was quite unusual for a letter from Port Coquitlam to Vancouver. It was not until Wednesday, November 14th when a staffer, Stewart, in her office told me that he had in fact received my letter on October 26 and turned it over to MLA Kwan on that same day, without the knowledge of any other staff members in her offices, and that he had subsequently been out of office for quite some time. He also promised that he would fax my letter to Sen. Reid later that day, November 14th.

Three. On October 30, 2007, I decided to re-send my letter to MLA Kwan, together with a one-page note I wrote her on that day, this time by making another fax request to NFPC. This was essentially how my 13-page submission last time came about. Again, having counted the number of pages, LUO Mr. Fraser signed my fax request: "fwd to Programs for possible consideration for faxing."

Two days later, a supervisor from the Programs Department told me that my fax request had been rejected with the ridiculous reason: "There is no letter attached." I guess they ran out of excuses for turning down my fax request.

Four. On November 1st, 2007, in protest of the repeated obstructions of my written communications with Sen. Reid by federal government and NFPC, I started another hunger strike. On November 8th, 2007, in desperation to get the letter to Sen. Reid, I called a relative of mine and asked him to record my letter - as I read it - as a voice mail and send it to Sen. Reid's office via email. However, my telephone conversations with this relative of mine were repeatedly interrupted by either the federal government or NFPC. For several times, whenever I read the part of the letter on President Bush's activities on Thursday evening, September 13th, the telephone line was disconnected. As I said before, President Bush's activities on Thursday evening, September 13th, which revealed his personal knowledge of my telephone activities earlier that day at the FPH, was the information that the federal government did not want me to get out to Sen. Reid.

Finally, I would like to emphasize that my 6-page FPH update article was finished on October 10, 2007 and had been sent out to other politicians without much difficulty before October 23, 2007 when my letter to Sen. Reid provided new information that was damaging to President Bush. So it would appear that this new information was the reason why I had so many problems in getting this letter out.

Also, this new information, together with my FPH update provided the reasonable and logical conclusion that President Bush knew my telephone activities from the Harper government almost instantaneously on September 13, 2007. This is because (1) all of my calls made prior to President Bush's televised speech were local calls; (2) I did not tell anyone about those calls; and (3) I had established in my FPH update article that my calls made at the hospital were monitored by the federal government. (Of course, the federal government has been monitoring my personal and/or legal telephone communications for at least 6 years. That's why I could not find a lawyer. Please see my websites jyu1.blogspot.com and www.sfu.ca/~jyu1 for details.)

Lastly, NFPC, being a correctional facility, is an apolitical organization. It, by itself, should not or would not obstruct my personal communications. It likely was taking orders from the federal government who had been working hand-in-hand with the Bush administration against my cause for a long time.

PM update:

I started running technical difficulties again when I tried to post the 13-page documents, mostly with the website Zamzar, since yesterday. I have just been able to post it on tuzulo.com.

The 13-page documents, consisting of letters I wrote to various law makers while in prison, was submitted to the Court on November 28, 2009, to support my application to stay the proceeding. Later, I found out by phoning Court Registry that Judge Steinberg had essentially kept those documents in his pocket. I complained and the Registry had to track down him to get hold of these documents. Till this day, I am not sure if these documents are in my Court File (New Westminster No. 68600).


Update (20090812):

This blog was originally published on June 6. I took it down on June 16. I re-published it today.


Update (20140124):

I visited New Westminster Court Registry on Tuesday January 21, 2014. I did find the said 13-page documents in my file with a yellow post-it note on the top page. The note, which essentially says that those documents were obtained from the judge or judge's (I paraphrase), was hand-written by someone with the initial "D.M.". This was consistent with my own personal notes from my hospital days. My notes indicated that the clerk I spoke to over the phone was Diane.

I have requested a copy of my whole file.

Okay, all right. I'll try to be a politician

But I can only be a nice politician.