On Thursday, March 2, 2023 at 10:09:23 AM MST, Frances Widdowson wrote:
Hello Kevin!
I love your messages and the Socratic format. I’ll get back to you shortly.
Regards,
Frances
[Former Message snipped]
BYRNE: Good that you like the format. Now let’s get into it. I can’t follow what’s going on at Facebook. I didn’t even know that you had replied to myself and to some other person. But, somehow, I saw this woman’s message, where she said something to the effect:- “That’s Harsh!” And you replied to both of us, with 2 false assertions, to wit (loosely stated):-
WIDDOWSON: 1) Collusion is difficult to prove and 2) Frances believes somebody who says “The process is flawed.”
BYRNE: Both of those statements are provably false. 1. Collusion is easy to prove between indirect parties of/to legal proceedings. 2. Every legal/judicial process is absolutely perfect. Refute/(elenchus) either or both of those provable DISPUTATIONS between us. You know, Kiddo. You do Rational Space Disputations. So, try to refute me. You can’t. My first question is (and like any lawyer I am pretty sure I know the answer):-
VOCATIVE QUESTION: Who told you that collusion was difficult to prove?
[SOTTO VOCE: Your lawyer/partner/husband/main-squeeze named Albert? He means collusion between DIRECT parties is difficult FOR LAWYERS to prove. I mean that collusion is easy FOR SCIENTISTS to prove between/among INDIRECT PARTIES to PERFECT legal (or even quasi-legal) proceedings].
Now I’m going to go to your website and “needle” James McMurtry and yourself. Your site is a better place (than Facebook) to do rational space disputations.
Kevin
O.K. Here I am at Frances Widdowson’s site. Now I want to “needle” or “gadfly” James McMurtry, who said above, quote:-
JAMES: 1:52:53 “I need to learn.”, after saying, quote:
JAMES: I am (1:51:54) not bending at all; I am completely; I am a rock in this and I think you are I’m (1:52:00) not talking about peripheral issues I’m talking about the fact that you’re standing up to these totalitarian bullies and I’m continue to want to say (1:52:08) to you I am so very inspired and I’m not after in (a? Any? KB) settlement particularly after (1:52:13) listening to you yeah I’m after doing what’s right and what’s right is that I (1:52:19) go to the end with this and I get a complete retraction.
KEVIN: Good for you, James. So, 2 Socratic Questions:- Why did you say, on June 11, quote:
JAMES: @WOKE WATCH CANADA NEWSLETTER: I learned from the above what Overton window means, the range of politically accepted discourse permitted by mainstream society. James McCrae is outside the window, but the window isn’t static and the public is realizing that truth is obscured by our government and media. McCrae is worth listening to, much less Sinclair who plays loose with facts.
But, then you said on June 12th, quote:
JAMES @The REAL Indigenous Issues NEWSLETTER : What chance does James McCrae have in this epic battle? All he possesses is facts, and maybe years of research and professional experience. He is no match for an opponent whose most exaggerated or inventive claims get vast media play. McCrae is non indigenous. No one likes that. My money is on Sinclair. He can just say genocide and all governments and institutions will be in his corner, even the UN. McCrae is punching above his weight. [ASIDE question: Kevin: Were you being ironic here?]
CRITICISM: You don’t sound “rock solid” on the issue of McRae vs. Sinclair. So I asked you the following 2 questions WHICH YOU DID NOT ANSWER, but which you LIKED, quote:
BYRNE: [Preamble Comment: He has the same chance as you have in your own epic battle.]
Question 1. Does your post above mean that you are going to “throw in the towel”, despite your promise to Frances Widdowson that you are going to fight your case to the finish?
Question 2. Do YOU know [Frances Widdowson doesn’t seem to know how to say the word] how to say the word COLLUSION with respect to your illegal/illicit firing (?) — which puts the onus on all lawyers, rather than on either yourself or the people who got you fired by means of lawyers. It’s called INVERSE ONUS and no lawyer actually “gets” the technique, or that the onus is upon them, until after they’ve either committed or sanctioned a crime. [End-quote from The Real Indigenous Newsletter COMMENTS on June 16, 2023]
This “bit” may never appear on Frances Widdowson’s website because most people believe in “free speech” only in so far as it benefits themselves or their friends or their causes. But when free speech becomes inconvenient to themselves, or to their friends or to their causes, it is “discretion is the better part of valour” OR “he who fights and runs away, lives to fight another day” OR you name it. My favourite is: “It is not my part to criticize THE KING!”
But in a Democracy …
[[[ I know that we actually live in a “Mixed Polity” (which is not a Democracy) of unelected King, unelected “Aristocrats”; e.g. Court Justices and unelected bureaucrats; and some elected legislators at municipal, provincial and federal levels of government — ergo a partial democracy. In sum we have a Dominion Style of Government, which is good in principle, but in practice is A FAMILY COMPACT style of “government” — a benevolently despotic style of “governance”]]]
…, there is no such thing as a King.
The people are “the king” in an actual democracy. The law is “the king” or “queen” in a constitutional “anything” [Monarchy, Aristocracy or Democracy]. And it is LAW to which scientists and philosophers are subservient. Most people are either willfully or woefully in contempt of laws. Not so with laboratory scientists. We want to turn facts into laws, by induction, or judge facts by means of laws, via deduction.
Frances, on the other hand, seems to think that there is some sort of an individual as a metaphorical King at her arbitration and she must be silent or I must remain silent or bad stuff (unknown to myself) may happen. Doesn’t sound like free speech to me.
So how do you plan to do your arbitration, James? Are you going to get all discrete and quiet about it as well??? I told Frances that none of the lawyers in her arbitration would like the word “collusion”. That prediction seems to have come true.
August 9th, 2023: Jim McMurtry has received a really dopey letter from some lawyer who describes himself as “counsel” to Ana Mohammed, The Commissioner for Teacher Regulation. Quote:
LAWYER:
Re: McMurtry, James Walter – L L133948-01, 02 and 03
I am counsel for the Commissioner for Teacher Regulation.
On May 16, 2023, the Commissioner determined to propose a consent resolution of this matter under section 53 on the following terms:
* An admission of professional misconduct
* acceptance of a cancellation of his certificate of qualification under section 64(e) of the teachers act
*publication of this agreement under sections 54 and 79 of the Teachers Act.
A draft consent resolution agreement is enclosed for consideration.
If the terms of the consent resolution agreement are satisfactory to your client, could you please have Mr. McMurtry sign it and then return it to me for execution by the Commissioner. If there are changes which you would like to have considered please advise me.
Please respond to this letter by Friday August 25, 2023
The Commissioner is concerned that Mr. McMurtry continues to make public comments in the media and on social media, in which he identifies himself as a teacher and makes comments that are inconsistent with Standards #1, #2 and #9 of the Professional Standards for BC Educators and with the preamble to the School Act. Mr. McMurtry’s statements erode the confidence of the public in the teaching profession and the education system and may poison the learning environment for students. Decisions of the Supreme Court of Canada establish that as a member of a regulated profession, his freedom of expression is reasonably limited under Section 1 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
For this reason, the Commissioner has instructed that she will not leave this matter in the consent resolution process, if there is no substantial engagement. I am instructed to return this matter to the Commissioner in late August to consider taking further action, including requiring Mr. McMurtry to give evidence and produce documents under section 48.
Blacked out section
Enclosure Consent Resolution Agreement.
This is the kind of response that I would give to such a letter, given 3 considerations. 1. Lawyers never know alleged facts; others must swear to them under oath; 2. The lawyer Ana Mohammed has some terrible ratings at a site called Lawyer Ratingz dot com. 3. And James seems to know at least one false statement alleged on the so-called Consent Resolution Agreement — maybe more if he ever speaks to me directly. So here we go! But a nice touch for Jim would be to alternate the paragraphs of this proposed letter in English then French. The 2 legal dopes may probably have to buy translators.
************ A Suggested Response First Draft ******
Dear Sir (whatever his name):
Did you really “counsel” Ms. Mohammed (Peace be Upon Him) in this matter, or did she think up that ridiculous Consent Resolution Agreement, all by her lonesome self? Or did you pair of arguable scoundrel lawyers collude in fabricating evidence and uttering a false document as described by Section 321 of Canada’s Criminal Code, to wit, “false in some material particular/s”? We’ll see about such guesses on my part in a while.
I see that your terms are that I should 1. admit professional misconduct, 2. disqualify myself as a teacher and 3. Allow you 2 arguable legal charlatans to LIBEL me before my peers under “Sections 54 and 79” of the teachers Act, contrary to Sections 298 through 300 of the Criminal Code of Canada, when you have yet to produce even one Sworn Affidavit in this matter. I have it on more or less loose authority that your client, whom you counsel, is, at best, a poor lawyer. Her rating at LawyerRatingz.com is POOR and her Consent Resolution Agreement confirms many of the rather nasty comments about her at that website. Forgive me for presuming my own innocence and for not “hanging myself” to please you two arguable ambulance chasers. The terms of the Consent Resolution Agreement are not satisfactory and I wouldn’t have you change a word of your fabrications, which I intend to prove to be fabrications.
Of course the commissioner is concerned about my criticisms, just as I am concerned about you nasty lawyers and bureaucrats poisoning Canadian education by defending Marxist “class struggle” and “class consciousness” ideology, while additionally peddling pornographic reading material; courtesy of the SOGI 123 curricula; to under age minors. As the son of a lawyer and with my own son/s(?) as lawyers, I am concerned about your comments on the CRA. You identify yourselves as lawyers, yet write propositions that are inconsistent with legal standards, the Professional Standards for B.C. lawyers and the Preamble to the Canadian Bill of Rights, which states, in part: “Affirming also that men and institutions remain free only when freedom is founded on respect for moral and spiritual values and the RULE OF LAW.” (endquote). Your statements do not “erode my confidence” in the legal profession, but do erode my confidence in your legal educations. Were you legally trained in the Soviet Bloc or at Beijing University or did you get your law degrees out of Cracker Jack Boxes — or maybe forge them on the backs of cracker jack boxes? Forgive the Jest.
I know that freedom of expression is limited. No one can yell “Fire” in a crowded theatre in the absence of any indication of a fire. No one needs a Supreme Court decision to know that. By the same token, no one needs a Supreme Court decision to understand that fabricating evidence is a Section 137 Criminal Code Offence, or that concealing and compounding indictable offences or suborning perjury, are also a criminal code offences. I am far more interested in The Bill of Rights 2.(b), 2.(d), 2.(e), Section 7 of The Charter (personal security) and Sections 11.(b.), 11. (c.) and 11.(d) of The Charter in relation to our Bill of Rights 2.(d.) Commission matter, than in Section 1. of the Charter and so-called “reasonable limits” on free speech. If you idiot lawyers had your way, then no one would say anything in a Court of Law, unless you already knew they had perjured themselves — in which cases you’d be pleased to be able to prove they were perjurers. Other than that, you people want to do all the talking and simply have people like me agree with your client’s prevarications, half truths and outright lies, per your so-called “Consent Resolution Agreement”. Well “Nuts to that!” and here is why:-
You 2 lawyers say, quote:
b. McMurtry’s comments to students about the deaths of students at the Kamloops
Indian Residential School breached Standard #9, because they were disrespectful and
inflammatory, minimized the harms that occurred in Indian Residential Schools by
falsely suggesting that student deaths at the schools were comparable to the general
child mortality rate and not the result of a government strategy of cultural genocide,
and did not contribute towards truth, reconciliation and healing.
TO THE CONTRARY:-
1. My comments to students about the deaths of students at the Kamloops INDUSTRIAL residential school (which, incidentally, the entire Roman Catholic “First Nation” of Secwepemc people lobbied to have built on their reserve in the 1880s and had opened by 1890 and had staffed by Oblates by 1893, in accordance with Chief Louis’ lobbying on behalf of his people) were in accordance with Standards 1 through 8 of the Standards for B.C. educators. They were not “disrespectful or inflammatory”, but in accordance with the findings of the TRC. And if anybody was committing a “cultural genocide”, then it was the strategy of the Catholic Secwepemc tribe and their Chief Louis to commit a “cultural suicide”, which would be a really big fib. Alternatively you lawyers have been suing all the wrong entities for this bogus neologism, of “cultural genocide”, given that the alleged “government strategy” was thought up and implemented by all the lawyers styled as Fathers of Confederation. Gadzooks! The first nations should have been suing the Canadian Bar Association and all the local law societies for the alleged “genocide” your lawyer-predecessors thought up and had enforced.
2. I did not “falsely suggest” that student deaths at the schools were “comparable to the general mortality rate”. I know, given my professional standards 6 through 9 and Dr. Peter Bryce’s reports, of the early 1900s, that the overall mortality rate of First Nations people, in general, up until the late 1940’s, was from 2 to 3 times higher than the general “off reserve” Canadian population. The death rates for children, from all causes, were 8000, per 100,000 (or 8%) compared to about 430 per 100,000 (.43%) for the “off reserve” children’s population, according to Dr. Scott Hamilton’s Report of 2015 to the 3 Truth and Reconciliation Commissioners entitled “Where are the Children Buried?”
3. According to Dr. Hamilton, they were buried, for the most part, in neglected cemeteries. And if you go to page 15 of Dr. Hamilton’s report, you will see his mention to the TRC of more than 3 cemeteries on the first paragraph of his 2015 report. But the Kamloops cemetery [discovery of “remains” in unmarked graves on May 27, 2021, according to the Kamloops Chief; “Bodies” discovered according to Murray Sinclair on CBC, June 1st, 2021 and, again “bodies” on June 3, 2021 to a parliamentary committee] is mentioned at the bottom of the paragraph. The Cowessess CEMETERY [an actual graveyard] was mentioned at the top of the first paragraph of the 2015 report, where they “discovered” unmarked graves on June 24, 2021. Again, on June 30, 2021, they announced the “discovery” of unmarked graves at the St. Eugene’s cemetery at Cranbrook (made about one year earlier) after a grass fire burned multiple grave markers. How is it that native spokespersons and lawyers, like you people, “forgot” to mention the word CEMETERY in all those “discoveries” that both lawyers of the TRC [Sinclair and Littlechild] knew about 6 years before they were “discovered”?
4. Do you 2 dipshits with law degrees know how long you may be imprisoned for, for being “accessories after” to a fraud on the Canadian public, involving fabricating evidence, contrary to Sect. 137 of the Criminal Code of Canada? I am a professional educator, people. I teach facts, mathematics and a bit of logic to uninformed minds. I’ve taught many subjects. But I have never taught a subject where 2 “experts” in a subject look at the same facts and the same basic rules and one of the 2 “experts” directly contradicts his fellow legal “expert” and both of the “experts” expect to be paid for proving each other to be liars or inordinately confused.
You have provided me a mish mash full of out of context, unsworn, hear-say and despicable neo-logisms that don’t make sense. You lawyers are truth-killers, reason-killers, decency-killers and collegiality-killers [Professional Standard #8]. You don’t belong anywhere near an education system, let alone “governing” an education system. I give your Consent Resolution Agreement an “F-” for its egregious failure. You 2 legal bozos wouldn’t have law degrees except for educators like me and, in my impersonal opinion, you ought to sue your legal alma maters for institutional negligence and fraud for miseducating both of you.
You expect me to give evidence and produce documents for you “if there is no substantial engagement”. How about you 2 clowns providing me with one sworn document to actually begin a “substantial legal engagement”, given that you have been harassing me with nothing but unsubstantiated “hearsay” for [WHATEVER NUMBER of YEARS at this point], while wasting my time, my money and defaming my character and my profession. And let me tell you something about my profession. When I give a lecture on an unfamiliar subject, in general, 10% of my students get the subject matter exactly backwards and wrong. Fifty percent of my students just get it wrong, along with the 10% that get it exactly backwards. Fifty percent get a good deal of it “right”, but much of it wrong and only 10% get my lectures exactly right. Who are you going to put on a witness stand to prove that you 2 airheads haven’t libeled me, defamed my character and wasted my time and money?
So my counter proposal to you two “dopes with law degrees” is that you get the Minister of Education to provide me with a fresh new Teaching Certificate, with some gold labelling on the document (for a nice touch) and 2 fresh and polished apples. If you don’t do that, then I’m going to indict you and teach both of you air-headed colluders a big lesson for attempting libel, attempting intimidation and for being “accessories after” to the biggest fraud in Canadian History.
Since James did not respond at this site, the Consent Resolution Agreement is interesting to look at because it has some interesting points. Here it is, quote:
IN THE MATTER OF THE TEACHERS ACT, SBC 2011 c. 19
AND
IN THE MATTER CONCERNING
JAMES WALTER MCMURTRY
L133948-01, 02 and 03
CONSENT RESOLUTION AGREEMENT
BETWEEN:
THE COMMISSIONER, APPOINTED UNDER THE TEACHERS ACT
(the “Commissioner”)
AND:
JAMES WALTER MCMURTRY
(“McMurtry”)
BACKGROUND and FACTS
1. McMurtry holds a valid Professional Certificate of Qualification, No. L133948. It was
issued by the B.C. College of Teachers under the Teaching Profession Act on
March 17, 2000, is valid from January 1, 2000, and was continued under the Teachers Act
as of January 9, 2012.
2. At all material times, McMurtry was employed as a secondary school teacher by School
District No. 34 (Abbotsford) (the “District”) at schools in the District.
Matter 1
3. On October 2, 2020, the District made a report to the Commissioner regarding McMurtry,
under section 16 of the School Act . This report is designated Matter 1.
4. During the 2019-2020 school year while teaching at a secondary school in the District,
McMurtry made comments to students and used resources related to topics, which had
Page 1 of 7
———————– Page 2———————–
little relevance to the curriculum or were otherwise inappropriate, including:
a. taught students in his French Immersion History 12 class French swear words,
including the derogatory term “putain”, which means “whore”, and did so in a
context in which this vocabulary was not related to any educational resource;
b. told students that parents of some students were “stupid” because the parents were
uncomfortable with aspects of the sex education curriculum;
c. made a joke about incest, which was inappropriate;
d. played for the class the “trailer” for the movie The Dictator, which included the use
of stereotypes, gratuitous violence, sexual innuendo and gestures and derogatory
comments;
e. played a video of an Iranian protestor being shot and dying, without providing an
adequate warning to students who did not wish to view it;
f. talked about serial killers in a Career and Life Education 10 class, including Paul
Bernardo and Karla Homolka, using graphic detail and making a “joke” about Karla
Homolka becoming trans-male, living in Abbotsford and working as a teacher;
g. told students that they were “too sensitive”, “too conservative”, and “couldn’t take a
joke” , after some students complained about his conduct.
5. On September 30, 2020, the District disciplined McMurtry by suspending him without pay
for two days and requiring him to complete the course Creating a Positive Learning
Environment at the Justice Institute of B.C.
6. The District had previously given McMurtry a letter of expectation in October 2019. In this
letter, McMurtry was advised of the expectation to act as a role model for students,
maintain a classroom environment that is caring, inclusive and supportive of all students,
and choose instructional strategies and materials that are relevant and appropriate.
7. On January 8, 2021, the Commissioner ordered an investigation of Matter 1 under
section 47(1) of the Teachers Act .
Matters 2 and 3
8. On June 2, 2021, the District made a report to the Commissioner regarding McMurtry,
under section 16(2) of the School Act , after it suspended McMurtry under section 15 of the
School Act . This report is designated Matter 2.
Page 2 of 7
———————– Page 3———————–
9. Between April 28 to 30, 2021, while McMurtry was working as a teacher teaching on call
(a “TTOC”) in a History 12 class (the “History 12 class”) at a secondary school in the
District:
a. McMurtry told the students a joke about Donald Trump, saying words to the effect
that the President was “touching unwilling women’s butts – I guess he was feeling a
little behind”; and
b. when a student in the class made a comment about ancient Greek Olympians
competing nude, Mc Murtry said “like female volleyball players today”.
10. On May 4, after being given a notice of investigation by the District, McMurtry returned to
the History 12 class and wrote the following message on the whiteboard (translated from
French to English):
Do I deserve this treatment? Think for a moment about me and my family. I
do my best and I am not like as others paint me. Is this how I will be recalled?
Another victim of cancel culture, a teacher who has given his all eaten by an
intolerant crowd at this school? It is sad for me! I had something to offer you.
Nonetheless, I wish you the best.
This message was seen by students.
11. On May 10, 2021, after the District had suspended McMurtry’s District email account due
to his misuse of it, McMurtry used the District’s Google Classroom platform to send the
following message to students in the History 12 Class (translated from French to English):
Dear students, I won’t be back at school over the next 3 weeks and I offer my
apologies for my absence. You know I work hard and I intended to be much
more than an absentee teacher. All I can write is, it is not the right time to be
at [the school], even if I remain faithful to my teaching … every word and
every phrase, every letter and punctuation mark, even between the two, I ask
you all to give your support to the TTOC and learn as much history as
possible until we meet again online on May 26. Best regards.
12. On May 31, 2021, McMurtry was working as a TTOC in a Calculus 12 class at another
secondary school in the District. On that day, the school held a minute of silence in respect
of the news regarding the identification of 215 unmarked graves at the Kamloops Indian
Residential School. McMurtry discussed this news with students and during this discussion
he:
a. asked students why they were wearing orange shirts;
b. asked students who was to blame for deaths of students at Indian Residential
Page 3 of 7
———————– Page 4———————–
Schools;
c. said that the Catholic and Anglican churches were not to blame, and that some
students may be Catholic;
d. told students that it was not “cultural genocide” that killed Indigenous students at
Residential Schools;
e. said that students in Indian Residential Schools died from disease, hunger and
neglect;
f. then said that many children died from disease and hunger in the late nineteenth and
early twentieth centuries and told them the child mortality rates for the general
population and commented that child mortality rates had declined in the last 100
years; and
g. said he wanted to focus on the positive and that fewer children now die.
13. On November 24, 2021, the Commissioner ordered an investigation of Matter 2 under
section 47(1)( of the Teachers Act.
14. On or about November 6, 2022, McMurtry was interviewed by Rebel News, a right wing
online entity that describes itself as the “fearless source of news, opinion and activism that
you won’t find anywhere else”. During this interview, McMurtry stated:
a. “No-one’s dug up any graves in Kamloops because people know it’s not true. There
are only 51 children that ever died while enrolled at their school and they have the
death certificates and they know where they died, mostly at the local hospital or back
on the reserve. So this story is a complete fabrication but it’s cost me my career”;
b. “all these newspapers, on the basis of you know one person saying something that
was completely fabulous, you know, would all of a sudden accept as truth”;
c. “The school system right now is run by people who want to manipulate children and
want to get a bunch of converts to this radical hard left cause of where we are
creating a society where there is equality between all groups. And we can try and
raise one group, but to – another way to do it is to lower other groups, and I think that
is so unfair, particularly to the men and women who devoted themselves to educating
Indigenous youth”;
d. “… the idea that I’m supposed to say that Europeans are terrible and men are terrible
and all straight people are terrible, and it’s just so contrary to what my job is”;
Page 4 of 7
———————– Page 5———————–
e. “they [the District] are so nervous about me that they went to a second investigation
and they went to again a recommendation for dismissal because they know there is a
problem with me, and the problem is, that everything I say is right, that you don’t
take advantage of children, you don’t lie to children, you don’t decide anything for
children, you don’t push puberty blockers before someone is old enough to decide for
him or herself to decide to do something so drastic, you don’t get into, interfere with
a parent’s relationship with their child, you don’t play games and hide secrets from
kids, and in relation to me, you don’t denigrate one race or race or group of people to
raise others, you don’t shame white children in the classroom to make non-white
children feel better”;
f. “It just doesn’t make any sense to me, if I think my goal as a teacher and everyone’s
goal in the education world is to make every kid feel better about him or herself. You
see I’m not, I’m not, I didn’t say they, did I? And, and you know, these are the
pronouns – it’s unbelievable, there are teachers in Canada who are being lost their
jobs because they don’t want to use the pronouns”;
g. “to me it’s very Marxist, communistic, it’s very totalitarian, Orwellian, they want to
have everybody – not just employees but students – use the language of a group of
people who are manipulating for their own self-interest or their own promotion, into
adopting, really it’s become a cult, I think, the whole woke thing, post-modernism,
you know, diversity, equity, inclusion, all these lovely words that are the opposite
from what they mean – war is peace, you know – again it’s awful”; and
h. “But I think when parents start to see that children aren’t making up their own minds
about their sexuality, about about how they view themselves, how they view other
groups, people in society, that they always have to follow what others are telling
them, I think they will be quite appalled”.
15. On February 23, 2023, the District disciplined McMurtry in respect of his conduct by
terminating his employment for cause.
16. On February 24, 2023, the District made a report to the Commissioner regarding the
termination of the employment of McMurtry, under section 16 of the School Act. This
report is designated Matter 3.
17. On May 16, 2023 the Commissioner considered these matters and determined to propose a
consent resolution agreement to McMurtry, in accordance with section 53(1)(a) of the
Teachers Act .
Page 5 of 7
———————– Page 6———————–
CONSEQUENCES
18. This Agreement is made under section 53 of the Teachers Act .
19. McMurtry understands and acknowledges that this Agreement is not effective until
executed by the Commissioner, and that the date of execution by the Commissioner will be
the effective date of this Agreement (the “Effective Date”).
20. McMurtry admits that the facts set out in paragraphs 1 to 6, 8 to 12, and 14 to 16 of this
Agreement are true.
21. McMurtry admits that the conduct described in paragraphs 4 and 9 to 12 of this Agreement
constitutes professional misconduct and the conduct described in paragraph 14 constitutes
conduct unbecoming, and that this conduct is contrary to Standard # 1, 2 and 9 of the
Professional Standards for BC Educators, June 2019.
22. McMurtry agrees to the cancellation of his certificate of qualification under sections 53 and
64(e) of the Teachers Act, which will occur on the first business day following the
Effective Date.
23. In determining that a cancellation is an appropriate consequence, the Commissioner
considered the following factors:
a. McMurtry’s two messages to students about his employment-related issues breached
his professional boundaries with students, by inappropriately drawing students into
his personal conflict with the District, contrary to Standard #1.
b. McMurtry’s comments to students about the deaths of students at the Kamloops
Indian Residential School breached Standard #9, because they were disrespectful and
inflammatory, minimized the harms that occurred in Indian Residential Schools by
falsely suggesting that student deaths at the schools were comparable to the general
child mortality rate and not the result of a government strategy of cultural genocide,
and did not contribute towards truth, reconciliation and healing.
c. McMurtry’s comments to Rebel News demonstrated attitudes inconsistent with the
requirement in Standard #1 to treat students equitably with acceptance, dignity and
respect; in Standard #3 to work to create a positive, safe and inclusive learning
environment to best meet the diverse needs of students; and Standard #9 to contribute
towards truth, reconciliation and healing with Indigenous people. His comments
harm the education system by creating an unwelcoming environment for some
students and their families and by undermining the confidence of the public in the
profession and the education system.
Page 6 of 7
———————– Page 7———————–
24. McMurtry agrees not to make any statement orally or in writing which contradicts,
disputes or calls into question the terms of this Agreement or the admissions made in it.
EFFECT OF THE AGREEMENT
25. The Director of Certification will record the terms of this Agreement on the online registry
of the Ministry of Education and Child Care under section 79(d) of the Teachers Act .
26. McMurtry acknowledges that this Agreement will be published in accordance with
section 54 of the Teachers Act, which includes posting the Agreement, in full, on the
27. Notification of this Agreement will be made in accordance with section 55 of the
Teachers Act .
28. If McMurtry applies for a certificate of qualification, an independent school teaching
certificate, or other authorization to teach in the kindergarten to grade twelve education
system, is agreed, without limiting any other power of the Director to determine
McMurtry’s fitness and suitability to be granted a certificate of qualification, independent
school teaching certificate or letter of permission, that the Director may consider:
a. the facts set out and admitted in this Agreement;
b. any document or other evidence gathered or prepared by the Branch in any
investigation of this matter; and
c. any evidence of breach by McMurtry of one or more terms of this Agreement.
29. McMurtry acknowledges that he has voluntarily entered into this Agreement with the
benefit of independent legal advice, and that he fully understands the terms and conditions
set out in this Agreement.
Signed in ___________________, B.C.
________________________________
this ____ day of ______________, 2023. James Walter McMurtry
Signed in ___________________, B.C.
_________________________________
this ____ day of ______________, 2023. Ana R. Mohammed, Commissioner
Page 7 of 7
************* END OF THE (proposed) CONSENT RESOLUTION AGREEMENT *************
Of the 3 factors which Ana Mohammed focused on [a., b. and c.], to remove Jim’s teaching certificate, the “b.” factor appeared to be the weakest to me, whereas a. and c. looked quite strong to me. They were “a.”:- Getting students to “take his side” in a dispute with his employer and “c.” going to Rebel Media about his matters, despite signing a confidentiality agreement with his district, on June 19, 1991, with his wife as a witness. So my proposed (to Jim) letter totally focused on his strongest point concerning “b.”, dealing with how he handled (Well!) the Kamloops announcement and his knowledge of the Kamloops situation. Next post, if published, will be his actual dialogue with me concerning my suggested letter.
Now I’m trying to figure out Twitter (that James spoke about, above in your interview, where his son told him that he should post to help his cause) where I found both the goofy lawyer’s letter and also the mis-formatted CRA (consent resolution agreement) posted above (hopefully reformatted). I actually found my twitter posts to his website about which I had forgotten when he first DM-ed myself. I think I even asked him how he did that direct messaging stuff. Anyway, I like dialogues and this is how the DM dialogue went. It is not exactly like the Rick Mehta “sell out”, but is reminiscent of him not being as seriously determined to fight as Frances, although he seems to be taking similar advice, quote:
JIM: Great advice. Wed 6:53 AM
[I found my advice at his twitter account just now, quote:
Aug 7
You should tell your lawyer to tell the writing lawyer and his boss, Ana R. Mohammed, that they are attempting to intimidate you, contrary 423. (1)(b) of Canada’s Criminal Code and that their CRA is a case of the Commissioner and her “counsel” uttering a false document.
Kevin @elenchuskb
Aug 7
Their CRA or consent resolution agreement is a false document as defined in and by “false document” b., according to Sect. 321 of the Criminal Code and constitutes more than one case of perjury, contrary to Sect. 131. of Canada’s Criminal Code
Kevin @elenchuskb
Aug 8
Does this lawyer actually work for B.C.’s Attorney General? Get over to Widdowson’s site and talk to me. Kevin [endquote; So that must have been my “good advice” according to Jim above]
KEVIN: Thanks Jim. But I’m so retarded about Social Media that I don’t even know what that advice was. I have typed up that letter from your Twitter account, since it was in an image file format. And I’m going to post it on Frances Widdowson’s site under your/her Rational Space Disputation 25 [her 25th rational disputation] and then respond to each sentence of that Twit lawyer, in attack mode. I noticed from your recent video message that you seemed annoyed about the 2 of them bringing back up “round 1” of your disciplinary hearings — the dad jokes. Maybe the Trump joke. But that’s probably what they think to be one of their strong points. You counter that kind of stuff with SOGI-123 quotes. But FIRST, you go after their weak spot which is lying through their teeth about you “saying” that indigenous death rates were the same as European rates — which is a big fat fib. I think you said somewhere that its patently false that you ever said such a thing. That of course, is on their “Please commit rational suicide” formal document. The first thing I did when I saw that goofy document was look up the woman who wanted you to “suicide” yourself to see what/who this Ana Mohammed was. You should see (and will see) the ratings she got from Lawyer Ratingz dot com, provided that she is actually a lawyer from Coquitlam B.C. She got some really bad ratings. I’ve actually done this stuff with real lawyers. And it actually works. So hope to see you at Widdowson’s site. My email is elenchuskb@yahoo.ca — which is arguably the best ways to communicate with me, given I am clueless about social media. Hope this gets back to you. Wed 8:00 AM
JAMES: Is it Kevin then? Thank you so much for the information. I am particularly interested in learning more about Ana Mohammed. I will check out Lawyer Ratingz dot com. I will contact you tomorrow. My day today is already full. I will also check out Frances’ website and episode 25. Thank you for your support. You seem acutely aware of the issues at play. Best regards – Jim
Wed 8:51 AM
KEVIN: Right. It’s Kevin. I have teased you several times at Woke Watch Canada and, perhaps, at Hymie Rubenstein’s Real Indigenous News Letter. You and Frances are modern versions of the treatments received by Socrates in ancient a [Wed 11:21 AM] by Socrates n (sic) ancient Athens and Galileo during the Reformation – Counter-Reformation era. Standard Academic jealousies/controversies. That’s why I follow your cases so closely. Enjoy your full day. I haven’t quite finished the WHAT I’D DO WITH THAT SNOTTY LETTER were I Jim McMurtry.
Wed 11:24 AM
JAMES: Thank you, Kevin, for your interest. What’s happened to me and Frances is counter to educational principles. All the best. Wed 11:53 AM
KEVIN: Replying to [Thank you, Kevin, for your interest. What’s happened to me and Frances is counter to educational principles. All the best.] Actually your firings are contrary to legal principles. I will be posting the kind of rebuttal that I would send to Mohammed’s counsel if I were you and received such a goofy “legal ultimatum” at Widdowson’s site in an hour or so. You may have noticed my previous reply. I am supposing that you have never received anything in the form of a Sworn and Notarized Affidavit. In other words, they don’t have one legal allegation Sworn on Oath against yourself. In other words, they have nothing “legal” to rely upon. Of course, I don’t know, for sure, what has been Sworn against you. I also don’t know whether/no Frances will allow my counselled letter to be published at her site. But there are no guarantees in legal matters and I am very interested in the student and the principal who may have colluded against you in the first matter. Wed 11:37 PM
KEVIN: Widdowson’s site seemed to accept the sort of letter I would send back to them, were I you. KB Yesterday, 1:58 AM
JAMES: Hi Kevin, what I’ve been told is that administrative law for union members has different practices. I don’t know for certain who my accusers are and what their evidence is. I will likely never know and will certainly never er face my accusers. I have two lawyers, one for arbitration, the other for my regulatory body. I should be OK. The problem is that many school board people are woke fanatics. Yesterday, 6:58 AM
KEVIN: Hi Jim. The kind of letter that I would write, were I you was posted at Widdowson’s site at 7:42 AM. Your problem isn’t the Boards, whether woke or not, it’s lawyers including your own. Your lawyer would discourage you from sending the kind of letter, I suggest, back to Mohammed’s mouthpiece. At any rate the suggested letter is up at her site. Use it or not. Discuss it with me or not. Good Luck. Yesterday, 3:00 PM
JAMES: Thanks, Kevin. May I ask which website of hers? Yesterday, 3:20 PM
KEVIN: https://wokeacademy.info/episodes/ There is a recent posts section on the right side of her home page below her latest post to the site. I know that administrative law is different from standard civil or criminal law. But it does not take precedence over either standard civil or standard criminal law. If your lawyer is telling you such things then hire Brian Giesbrecht to be your lawyer. He already knows that the Res stuff is a gigantic fraud on tax payers.
Yesterday, 4:47 PM
KEVIN: Good. Checked the link and it works. There are her recent posts and below them are 2 messages that I sent to you quite awhile ago and at 11 last night. Posted at about 7:42 this morning. You always go one notch above lawyers. If they say civil, you counter with criminal. If they say administrative you say CHARTER and criminal. You always go higher because everybody has a boss that is higher. Yesterday, 4:51 PM
JAMES: I’m staying with my lawyers for arbitration and my regulatory body’s investigation of me because they’re free – my union is paying. I’ll wait until these processes are over before going to others. I really appreciate your insight. Yesterday, 5:29 PM
KEVIN: Your regulatory body investigated you and fired you, apparently with just cause given the confidentiality agreement you signed with the district on exactly June 19th, 2019, witnessed by your wife. They even told you that you had committed and offence contrary to Sect. 30.(4) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. That is why that Mohammed woman told you that you had better engage or she would ask you to bring in documents — especially that 2019 document you clearly signed. They’re lawyers. They know when they’ve got someone by the balls. You have to do something extraordinarily drastic to put them back on their heels — or you are total dead meat. How come no comments at Widdowson’s site? And they say Catholics, like me, like to play “martyr”. How did your brilliant lawyer/s suggest you respond to Mohammed’s mouthpiece’s letter. What will that response be? Post that at Widdowson’s site. RIP
3:36 AM
KEVIN: I mean, I hate to say it, but it’s RIP, unless you actually do some serious scrapping. Big deal on “free”. It costs you nothing to commit educational Hari Kari — or however the Nipon people spell it. I’m so disappointed in you James. But we all gotta do it our own way. Once again Good Luck, but luck is not on your side. 3:39 AM
JAMES: Time will tell. I can’t sue until the grievance process is through. I must be patient. Meanwhile, I’m fighting the woke narrative. 6:44 AM
KEVIN: Right. 17 days will tell. You have until the 28th to respond to Mohammed’s mouthpiece. Of course you can’t sue. But I asked what your lawyer’s response was going to be to the mouthpiece’s letter, given you were not inclined to my sort of response. You mean passive; not “patient”. And “No!”, you are not “fighting the woke narrative” because the Woke “narrative” is entirely legal. Derek Bell of CRT fame was a lawyer as was Angela Davis. The gay EGALE narrative is by lawyers. Did you ever hear of Delwyn Vriend’s case? Done through him enrolling in King’s Christian College and then doing enough funny “gay outrage” stuff to get himself fired — then he went straight to Court — all the way to the Supreme Court on a red carpet. Indigenous activism is all by lawyers such as Murray Sinclair and Wilton Littlechild. So if you don’t fight lawyers you are not “fighting the woke narrative.” QED My friend you’ve done this stuff before. When you were teaching in Ontario, something happened. Then kids were carrying signs supporting you. Then you disappeared to B.C. apparently and had 30 quiet years. But you’re at it again. We Celts call it “uproar”. Anyway, maybe I’ll eventually see the response of your brilliant lawyers to the “mouthpiece’s” letter.
[https://digitalarchiveontario.ca/objects/373314/marching-for-teacher-ajax-high-school-students-demonstrate; Marching for teacher: Ajax High School students demonstrate today for the reinsatement (sic reinstatement KB) of their law teacher Jim McMurtry, who was fired last week Date 3/2/1992 Names Faught, Ken (photographer) Toronto Star (Firm) (publisher)]
JAMES: Thank you for your interest in my case. I’m guided by lawyers now. They haven’t told me to quit Twitter, but that may come. I’m being strategic. I have never been disciplined in all my years in public education before Abby. My case is strong. Theirs isn’t.
KEVIN: You’re welcome. Remain strong. Bye
[END of dialogue; Not exactly The Republic or Euthyphro, leave alone The Apology]
I think that the Newspaper could have gotten it wrong to the effect that he was fired. But he completely denied the reference to students demonstrating in favour of him in Ontario and that is one of the strongest grounds for Ana Mohammed getting rid of him, in that he brought his modern students into “the fray” with his Principal and District in B.C. 30 years later. I really thought that he absolutely had to focus on Mohammed’s and her mouthpiece’s weak spot or their 2 strong points will sink him. But we’ll see.
On Thursday, March 2, 2023 at 10:09:23 AM MST, Frances Widdowson wrote:
Hello Kevin!
I love your messages and the Socratic format. I’ll get back to you shortly.
Regards,
Frances
[Former Message snipped]
BYRNE: Good that you like the format. Now let’s get into it. I can’t follow what’s going on at Facebook. I didn’t even know that you had replied to myself and to some other person. But, somehow, I saw this woman’s message, where she said something to the effect:- “That’s Harsh!” And you replied to both of us, with 2 false assertions, to wit (loosely stated):-
WIDDOWSON: 1) Collusion is difficult to prove and 2) Frances believes somebody who says “The process is flawed.”
BYRNE: Both of those statements are provably false. 1. Collusion is easy to prove between indirect parties of/to legal proceedings. 2. Every legal/judicial process is absolutely perfect. Refute/(elenchus) either or both of those provable DISPUTATIONS between us. You know, Kiddo. You do Rational Space Disputations. So, try to refute me. You can’t. My first question is (and like any lawyer I am pretty sure I know the answer):-
VOCATIVE QUESTION: Who told you that collusion was difficult to prove?
[SOTTO VOCE: Your lawyer/partner/husband/main-squeeze named Albert? He means collusion between DIRECT parties is difficult FOR LAWYERS to prove. I mean that collusion is easy FOR SCIENTISTS to prove between/among INDIRECT PARTIES to PERFECT legal (or even quasi-legal) proceedings].
Now I’m going to go to your website and “needle” James McMurtry and yourself. Your site is a better place (than Facebook) to do rational space disputations.
Kevin
O.K. Here I am at Frances Widdowson’s site. Now I want to “needle” or “gadfly” James McMurtry, who said above, quote:-
JAMES: 1:52:53 “I need to learn.”, after saying, quote:
JAMES: I am (1:51:54) not bending at all; I am completely; I am a rock in this and I think you are I’m (1:52:00) not talking about peripheral issues I’m talking about the fact that you’re standing up to these totalitarian bullies and I’m continue to want to say (1:52:08) to you I am so very inspired and I’m not after in (a? Any? KB) settlement particularly after (1:52:13) listening to you yeah I’m after doing what’s right and what’s right is that I (1:52:19) go to the end with this and I get a complete retraction.
KEVIN: Good for you, James. So, 2 Socratic Questions:- Why did you say, on June 11, quote:
JAMES: @WOKE WATCH CANADA NEWSLETTER: I learned from the above what Overton window means, the range of politically accepted discourse permitted by mainstream society. James McCrae is outside the window, but the window isn’t static and the public is realizing that truth is obscured by our government and media. McCrae is worth listening to, much less Sinclair who plays loose with facts.
But, then you said on June 12th, quote:
JAMES @The REAL Indigenous Issues NEWSLETTER : What chance does James McCrae have in this epic battle? All he possesses is facts, and maybe years of research and professional experience. He is no match for an opponent whose most exaggerated or inventive claims get vast media play. McCrae is non indigenous. No one likes that. My money is on Sinclair. He can just say genocide and all governments and institutions will be in his corner, even the UN. McCrae is punching above his weight. [ASIDE question: Kevin: Were you being ironic here?]
CRITICISM: You don’t sound “rock solid” on the issue of McRae vs. Sinclair. So I asked you the following 2 questions WHICH YOU DID NOT ANSWER, but which you LIKED, quote:
BYRNE: [Preamble Comment: He has the same chance as you have in your own epic battle.]
Question 1. Does your post above mean that you are going to “throw in the towel”, despite your promise to Frances Widdowson that you are going to fight your case to the finish?
Question 2. Do YOU know [Frances Widdowson doesn’t seem to know how to say the word] how to say the word COLLUSION with respect to your illegal/illicit firing (?) — which puts the onus on all lawyers, rather than on either yourself or the people who got you fired by means of lawyers. It’s called INVERSE ONUS and no lawyer actually “gets” the technique, or that the onus is upon them, until after they’ve either committed or sanctioned a crime. [End-quote from The Real Indigenous Newsletter COMMENTS on June 16, 2023]
This “bit” may never appear on Frances Widdowson’s website because most people believe in “free speech” only in so far as it benefits themselves or their friends or their causes. But when free speech becomes inconvenient to themselves, or to their friends or to their causes, it is “discretion is the better part of valour” OR “he who fights and runs away, lives to fight another day” OR you name it. My favourite is: “It is not my part to criticize THE KING!”
But in a Democracy …
[[[ I know that we actually live in a “Mixed Polity” (which is not a Democracy) of unelected King, unelected “Aristocrats”; e.g. Court Justices and unelected bureaucrats; and some elected legislators at municipal, provincial and federal levels of government — ergo a partial democracy. In sum we have a Dominion Style of Government, which is good in principle, but in practice is A FAMILY COMPACT style of “government” — a benevolently despotic style of “governance”]]]
…, there is no such thing as a King.
The people are “the king” in an actual democracy. The law is “the king” or “queen” in a constitutional “anything” [Monarchy, Aristocracy or Democracy]. And it is LAW to which scientists and philosophers are subservient. Most people are either willfully or woefully in contempt of laws. Not so with laboratory scientists. We want to turn facts into laws, by induction, or judge facts by means of laws, via deduction.
Frances, on the other hand, seems to think that there is some sort of an individual as a metaphorical King at her arbitration and she must be silent or I must remain silent or bad stuff (unknown to myself) may happen. Doesn’t sound like free speech to me.
So how do you plan to do your arbitration, James? Are you going to get all discrete and quiet about it as well??? I told Frances that none of the lawyers in her arbitration would like the word “collusion”. That prediction seems to have come true.
Kevin
August 9th, 2023: Jim McMurtry has received a really dopey letter from some lawyer who describes himself as “counsel” to Ana Mohammed, The Commissioner for Teacher Regulation. Quote:
LAWYER:
Re: McMurtry, James Walter – L L133948-01, 02 and 03
I am counsel for the Commissioner for Teacher Regulation.
On May 16, 2023, the Commissioner determined to propose a consent resolution of this matter under section 53 on the following terms:
* An admission of professional misconduct
* acceptance of a cancellation of his certificate of qualification under section 64(e) of the teachers act
*publication of this agreement under sections 54 and 79 of the Teachers Act.
A draft consent resolution agreement is enclosed for consideration.
If the terms of the consent resolution agreement are satisfactory to your client, could you please have Mr. McMurtry sign it and then return it to me for execution by the Commissioner. If there are changes which you would like to have considered please advise me.
Please respond to this letter by Friday August 25, 2023
The Commissioner is concerned that Mr. McMurtry continues to make public comments in the media and on social media, in which he identifies himself as a teacher and makes comments that are inconsistent with Standards #1, #2 and #9 of the Professional Standards for BC Educators and with the preamble to the School Act. Mr. McMurtry’s statements erode the confidence of the public in the teaching profession and the education system and may poison the learning environment for students. Decisions of the Supreme Court of Canada establish that as a member of a regulated profession, his freedom of expression is reasonably limited under Section 1 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
For this reason, the Commissioner has instructed that she will not leave this matter in the consent resolution process, if there is no substantial engagement. I am instructed to return this matter to the Commissioner in late August to consider taking further action, including requiring Mr. McMurtry to give evidence and produce documents under section 48.
Blacked out section
Enclosure Consent Resolution Agreement.
This is the kind of response that I would give to such a letter, given 3 considerations. 1. Lawyers never know alleged facts; others must swear to them under oath; 2. The lawyer Ana Mohammed has some terrible ratings at a site called Lawyer Ratingz dot com. 3. And James seems to know at least one false statement alleged on the so-called Consent Resolution Agreement — maybe more if he ever speaks to me directly. So here we go! But a nice touch for Jim would be to alternate the paragraphs of this proposed letter in English then French. The 2 legal dopes may probably have to buy translators.
************ A Suggested Response First Draft ******
Dear Sir (whatever his name):
Did you really “counsel” Ms. Mohammed (Peace be Upon Him) in this matter, or did she think up that ridiculous Consent Resolution Agreement, all by her lonesome self? Or did you pair of arguable scoundrel lawyers collude in fabricating evidence and uttering a false document as described by Section 321 of Canada’s Criminal Code, to wit, “false in some material particular/s”? We’ll see about such guesses on my part in a while.
I see that your terms are that I should 1. admit professional misconduct, 2. disqualify myself as a teacher and 3. Allow you 2 arguable legal charlatans to LIBEL me before my peers under “Sections 54 and 79” of the teachers Act, contrary to Sections 298 through 300 of the Criminal Code of Canada, when you have yet to produce even one Sworn Affidavit in this matter. I have it on more or less loose authority that your client, whom you counsel, is, at best, a poor lawyer. Her rating at LawyerRatingz.com is POOR and her Consent Resolution Agreement confirms many of the rather nasty comments about her at that website. Forgive me for presuming my own innocence and for not “hanging myself” to please you two arguable ambulance chasers. The terms of the Consent Resolution Agreement are not satisfactory and I wouldn’t have you change a word of your fabrications, which I intend to prove to be fabrications.
Of course the commissioner is concerned about my criticisms, just as I am concerned about you nasty lawyers and bureaucrats poisoning Canadian education by defending Marxist “class struggle” and “class consciousness” ideology, while additionally peddling pornographic reading material; courtesy of the SOGI 123 curricula; to under age minors. As the son of a lawyer and with my own son/s(?) as lawyers, I am concerned about your comments on the CRA. You identify yourselves as lawyers, yet write propositions that are inconsistent with legal standards, the Professional Standards for B.C. lawyers and the Preamble to the Canadian Bill of Rights, which states, in part: “Affirming also that men and institutions remain free only when freedom is founded on respect for moral and spiritual values and the RULE OF LAW.” (endquote). Your statements do not “erode my confidence” in the legal profession, but do erode my confidence in your legal educations. Were you legally trained in the Soviet Bloc or at Beijing University or did you get your law degrees out of Cracker Jack Boxes — or maybe forge them on the backs of cracker jack boxes? Forgive the Jest.
I know that freedom of expression is limited. No one can yell “Fire” in a crowded theatre in the absence of any indication of a fire. No one needs a Supreme Court decision to know that. By the same token, no one needs a Supreme Court decision to understand that fabricating evidence is a Section 137 Criminal Code Offence, or that concealing and compounding indictable offences or suborning perjury, are also a criminal code offences. I am far more interested in The Bill of Rights 2.(b), 2.(d), 2.(e), Section 7 of The Charter (personal security) and Sections 11.(b.), 11. (c.) and 11.(d) of The Charter in relation to our Bill of Rights 2.(d.) Commission matter, than in Section 1. of the Charter and so-called “reasonable limits” on free speech. If you idiot lawyers had your way, then no one would say anything in a Court of Law, unless you already knew they had perjured themselves — in which cases you’d be pleased to be able to prove they were perjurers. Other than that, you people want to do all the talking and simply have people like me agree with your client’s prevarications, half truths and outright lies, per your so-called “Consent Resolution Agreement”. Well “Nuts to that!” and here is why:-
You 2 lawyers say, quote:
b. McMurtry’s comments to students about the deaths of students at the Kamloops
Indian Residential School breached Standard #9, because they were disrespectful and
inflammatory, minimized the harms that occurred in Indian Residential Schools by
falsely suggesting that student deaths at the schools were comparable to the general
child mortality rate and not the result of a government strategy of cultural genocide,
and did not contribute towards truth, reconciliation and healing.
TO THE CONTRARY:-
1. My comments to students about the deaths of students at the Kamloops INDUSTRIAL residential school (which, incidentally, the entire Roman Catholic “First Nation” of Secwepemc people lobbied to have built on their reserve in the 1880s and had opened by 1890 and had staffed by Oblates by 1893, in accordance with Chief Louis’ lobbying on behalf of his people) were in accordance with Standards 1 through 8 of the Standards for B.C. educators. They were not “disrespectful or inflammatory”, but in accordance with the findings of the TRC. And if anybody was committing a “cultural genocide”, then it was the strategy of the Catholic Secwepemc tribe and their Chief Louis to commit a “cultural suicide”, which would be a really big fib. Alternatively you lawyers have been suing all the wrong entities for this bogus neologism, of “cultural genocide”, given that the alleged “government strategy” was thought up and implemented by all the lawyers styled as Fathers of Confederation. Gadzooks! The first nations should have been suing the Canadian Bar Association and all the local law societies for the alleged “genocide” your lawyer-predecessors thought up and had enforced.
2. I did not “falsely suggest” that student deaths at the schools were “comparable to the general mortality rate”. I know, given my professional standards 6 through 9 and Dr. Peter Bryce’s reports, of the early 1900s, that the overall mortality rate of First Nations people, in general, up until the late 1940’s, was from 2 to 3 times higher than the general “off reserve” Canadian population. The death rates for children, from all causes, were 8000, per 100,000 (or 8%) compared to about 430 per 100,000 (.43%) for the “off reserve” children’s population, according to Dr. Scott Hamilton’s Report of 2015 to the 3 Truth and Reconciliation Commissioners entitled “Where are the Children Buried?”
3. According to Dr. Hamilton, they were buried, for the most part, in neglected cemeteries. And if you go to page 15 of Dr. Hamilton’s report, you will see his mention to the TRC of more than 3 cemeteries on the first paragraph of his 2015 report. But the Kamloops cemetery [discovery of “remains” in unmarked graves on May 27, 2021, according to the Kamloops Chief; “Bodies” discovered according to Murray Sinclair on CBC, June 1st, 2021 and, again “bodies” on June 3, 2021 to a parliamentary committee] is mentioned at the bottom of the paragraph. The Cowessess CEMETERY [an actual graveyard] was mentioned at the top of the first paragraph of the 2015 report, where they “discovered” unmarked graves on June 24, 2021. Again, on June 30, 2021, they announced the “discovery” of unmarked graves at the St. Eugene’s cemetery at Cranbrook (made about one year earlier) after a grass fire burned multiple grave markers. How is it that native spokespersons and lawyers, like you people, “forgot” to mention the word CEMETERY in all those “discoveries” that both lawyers of the TRC [Sinclair and Littlechild] knew about 6 years before they were “discovered”?
4. Do you 2 dipshits with law degrees know how long you may be imprisoned for, for being “accessories after” to a fraud on the Canadian public, involving fabricating evidence, contrary to Sect. 137 of the Criminal Code of Canada? I am a professional educator, people. I teach facts, mathematics and a bit of logic to uninformed minds. I’ve taught many subjects. But I have never taught a subject where 2 “experts” in a subject look at the same facts and the same basic rules and one of the 2 “experts” directly contradicts his fellow legal “expert” and both of the “experts” expect to be paid for proving each other to be liars or inordinately confused.
You have provided me a mish mash full of out of context, unsworn, hear-say and despicable neo-logisms that don’t make sense. You lawyers are truth-killers, reason-killers, decency-killers and collegiality-killers [Professional Standard #8]. You don’t belong anywhere near an education system, let alone “governing” an education system. I give your Consent Resolution Agreement an “F-” for its egregious failure. You 2 legal bozos wouldn’t have law degrees except for educators like me and, in my impersonal opinion, you ought to sue your legal alma maters for institutional negligence and fraud for miseducating both of you.
You expect me to give evidence and produce documents for you “if there is no substantial engagement”. How about you 2 clowns providing me with one sworn document to actually begin a “substantial legal engagement”, given that you have been harassing me with nothing but unsubstantiated “hearsay” for [WHATEVER NUMBER of YEARS at this point], while wasting my time, my money and defaming my character and my profession. And let me tell you something about my profession. When I give a lecture on an unfamiliar subject, in general, 10% of my students get the subject matter exactly backwards and wrong. Fifty percent of my students just get it wrong, along with the 10% that get it exactly backwards. Fifty percent get a good deal of it “right”, but much of it wrong and only 10% get my lectures exactly right. Who are you going to put on a witness stand to prove that you 2 airheads haven’t libeled me, defamed my character and wasted my time and money?
So my counter proposal to you two “dopes with law degrees” is that you get the Minister of Education to provide me with a fresh new Teaching Certificate, with some gold labelling on the document (for a nice touch) and 2 fresh and polished apples. If you don’t do that, then I’m going to indict you and teach both of you air-headed colluders a big lesson for attempting libel, attempting intimidation and for being “accessories after” to the biggest fraud in Canadian History.
James McMurtry [Educator].
Since James did not respond at this site, the Consent Resolution Agreement is interesting to look at because it has some interesting points. Here it is, quote:
IN THE MATTER OF THE TEACHERS ACT, SBC 2011 c. 19
AND
IN THE MATTER CONCERNING
JAMES WALTER MCMURTRY
L133948-01, 02 and 03
CONSENT RESOLUTION AGREEMENT
BETWEEN:
THE COMMISSIONER, APPOINTED UNDER THE TEACHERS ACT
(the “Commissioner”)
AND:
JAMES WALTER MCMURTRY
(“McMurtry”)
BACKGROUND and FACTS
1. McMurtry holds a valid Professional Certificate of Qualification, No. L133948. It was
issued by the B.C. College of Teachers under the Teaching Profession Act on
March 17, 2000, is valid from January 1, 2000, and was continued under the Teachers Act
as of January 9, 2012.
2. At all material times, McMurtry was employed as a secondary school teacher by School
District No. 34 (Abbotsford) (the “District”) at schools in the District.
Matter 1
3. On October 2, 2020, the District made a report to the Commissioner regarding McMurtry,
under section 16 of the School Act . This report is designated Matter 1.
4. During the 2019-2020 school year while teaching at a secondary school in the District,
McMurtry made comments to students and used resources related to topics, which had
Page 1 of 7
———————– Page 2———————–
little relevance to the curriculum or were otherwise inappropriate, including:
a. taught students in his French Immersion History 12 class French swear words,
including the derogatory term “putain”, which means “whore”, and did so in a
context in which this vocabulary was not related to any educational resource;
b. told students that parents of some students were “stupid” because the parents were
uncomfortable with aspects of the sex education curriculum;
c. made a joke about incest, which was inappropriate;
d. played for the class the “trailer” for the movie The Dictator, which included the use
of stereotypes, gratuitous violence, sexual innuendo and gestures and derogatory
comments;
e. played a video of an Iranian protestor being shot and dying, without providing an
adequate warning to students who did not wish to view it;
f. talked about serial killers in a Career and Life Education 10 class, including Paul
Bernardo and Karla Homolka, using graphic detail and making a “joke” about Karla
Homolka becoming trans-male, living in Abbotsford and working as a teacher;
g. told students that they were “too sensitive”, “too conservative”, and “couldn’t take a
joke” , after some students complained about his conduct.
5. On September 30, 2020, the District disciplined McMurtry by suspending him without pay
for two days and requiring him to complete the course Creating a Positive Learning
Environment at the Justice Institute of B.C.
6. The District had previously given McMurtry a letter of expectation in October 2019. In this
letter, McMurtry was advised of the expectation to act as a role model for students,
maintain a classroom environment that is caring, inclusive and supportive of all students,
and choose instructional strategies and materials that are relevant and appropriate.
7. On January 8, 2021, the Commissioner ordered an investigation of Matter 1 under
section 47(1) of the Teachers Act .
Matters 2 and 3
8. On June 2, 2021, the District made a report to the Commissioner regarding McMurtry,
under section 16(2) of the School Act , after it suspended McMurtry under section 15 of the
School Act . This report is designated Matter 2.
Page 2 of 7
———————– Page 3———————–
9. Between April 28 to 30, 2021, while McMurtry was working as a teacher teaching on call
(a “TTOC”) in a History 12 class (the “History 12 class”) at a secondary school in the
District:
a. McMurtry told the students a joke about Donald Trump, saying words to the effect
that the President was “touching unwilling women’s butts – I guess he was feeling a
little behind”; and
b. when a student in the class made a comment about ancient Greek Olympians
competing nude, Mc Murtry said “like female volleyball players today”.
10. On May 4, after being given a notice of investigation by the District, McMurtry returned to
the History 12 class and wrote the following message on the whiteboard (translated from
French to English):
Do I deserve this treatment? Think for a moment about me and my family. I
do my best and I am not like as others paint me. Is this how I will be recalled?
Another victim of cancel culture, a teacher who has given his all eaten by an
intolerant crowd at this school? It is sad for me! I had something to offer you.
Nonetheless, I wish you the best.
This message was seen by students.
11. On May 10, 2021, after the District had suspended McMurtry’s District email account due
to his misuse of it, McMurtry used the District’s Google Classroom platform to send the
following message to students in the History 12 Class (translated from French to English):
Dear students, I won’t be back at school over the next 3 weeks and I offer my
apologies for my absence. You know I work hard and I intended to be much
more than an absentee teacher. All I can write is, it is not the right time to be
at [the school], even if I remain faithful to my teaching … every word and
every phrase, every letter and punctuation mark, even between the two, I ask
you all to give your support to the TTOC and learn as much history as
possible until we meet again online on May 26. Best regards.
12. On May 31, 2021, McMurtry was working as a TTOC in a Calculus 12 class at another
secondary school in the District. On that day, the school held a minute of silence in respect
of the news regarding the identification of 215 unmarked graves at the Kamloops Indian
Residential School. McMurtry discussed this news with students and during this discussion
he:
a. asked students why they were wearing orange shirts;
b. asked students who was to blame for deaths of students at Indian Residential
Page 3 of 7
———————– Page 4———————–
Schools;
c. said that the Catholic and Anglican churches were not to blame, and that some
students may be Catholic;
d. told students that it was not “cultural genocide” that killed Indigenous students at
Residential Schools;
e. said that students in Indian Residential Schools died from disease, hunger and
neglect;
f. then said that many children died from disease and hunger in the late nineteenth and
early twentieth centuries and told them the child mortality rates for the general
population and commented that child mortality rates had declined in the last 100
years; and
g. said he wanted to focus on the positive and that fewer children now die.
13. On November 24, 2021, the Commissioner ordered an investigation of Matter 2 under
section 47(1)( of the Teachers Act.
14. On or about November 6, 2022, McMurtry was interviewed by Rebel News, a right wing
online entity that describes itself as the “fearless source of news, opinion and activism that
you won’t find anywhere else”. During this interview, McMurtry stated:
a. “No-one’s dug up any graves in Kamloops because people know it’s not true. There
are only 51 children that ever died while enrolled at their school and they have the
death certificates and they know where they died, mostly at the local hospital or back
on the reserve. So this story is a complete fabrication but it’s cost me my career”;
b. “all these newspapers, on the basis of you know one person saying something that
was completely fabulous, you know, would all of a sudden accept as truth”;
c. “The school system right now is run by people who want to manipulate children and
want to get a bunch of converts to this radical hard left cause of where we are
creating a society where there is equality between all groups. And we can try and
raise one group, but to – another way to do it is to lower other groups, and I think that
is so unfair, particularly to the men and women who devoted themselves to educating
Indigenous youth”;
d. “… the idea that I’m supposed to say that Europeans are terrible and men are terrible
and all straight people are terrible, and it’s just so contrary to what my job is”;
Page 4 of 7
———————– Page 5———————–
e. “they [the District] are so nervous about me that they went to a second investigation
and they went to again a recommendation for dismissal because they know there is a
problem with me, and the problem is, that everything I say is right, that you don’t
take advantage of children, you don’t lie to children, you don’t decide anything for
children, you don’t push puberty blockers before someone is old enough to decide for
him or herself to decide to do something so drastic, you don’t get into, interfere with
a parent’s relationship with their child, you don’t play games and hide secrets from
kids, and in relation to me, you don’t denigrate one race or race or group of people to
raise others, you don’t shame white children in the classroom to make non-white
children feel better”;
f. “It just doesn’t make any sense to me, if I think my goal as a teacher and everyone’s
goal in the education world is to make every kid feel better about him or herself. You
see I’m not, I’m not, I didn’t say they, did I? And, and you know, these are the
pronouns – it’s unbelievable, there are teachers in Canada who are being lost their
jobs because they don’t want to use the pronouns”;
g. “to me it’s very Marxist, communistic, it’s very totalitarian, Orwellian, they want to
have everybody – not just employees but students – use the language of a group of
people who are manipulating for their own self-interest or their own promotion, into
adopting, really it’s become a cult, I think, the whole woke thing, post-modernism,
you know, diversity, equity, inclusion, all these lovely words that are the opposite
from what they mean – war is peace, you know – again it’s awful”; and
h. “But I think when parents start to see that children aren’t making up their own minds
about their sexuality, about about how they view themselves, how they view other
groups, people in society, that they always have to follow what others are telling
them, I think they will be quite appalled”.
15. On February 23, 2023, the District disciplined McMurtry in respect of his conduct by
terminating his employment for cause.
16. On February 24, 2023, the District made a report to the Commissioner regarding the
termination of the employment of McMurtry, under section 16 of the School Act. This
report is designated Matter 3.
17. On May 16, 2023 the Commissioner considered these matters and determined to propose a
consent resolution agreement to McMurtry, in accordance with section 53(1)(a) of the
Teachers Act .
Page 5 of 7
———————– Page 6———————–
CONSEQUENCES
18. This Agreement is made under section 53 of the Teachers Act .
19. McMurtry understands and acknowledges that this Agreement is not effective until
executed by the Commissioner, and that the date of execution by the Commissioner will be
the effective date of this Agreement (the “Effective Date”).
20. McMurtry admits that the facts set out in paragraphs 1 to 6, 8 to 12, and 14 to 16 of this
Agreement are true.
21. McMurtry admits that the conduct described in paragraphs 4 and 9 to 12 of this Agreement
constitutes professional misconduct and the conduct described in paragraph 14 constitutes
conduct unbecoming, and that this conduct is contrary to Standard # 1, 2 and 9 of the
Professional Standards for BC Educators, June 2019.
22. McMurtry agrees to the cancellation of his certificate of qualification under sections 53 and
64(e) of the Teachers Act, which will occur on the first business day following the
Effective Date.
23. In determining that a cancellation is an appropriate consequence, the Commissioner
considered the following factors:
a. McMurtry’s two messages to students about his employment-related issues breached
his professional boundaries with students, by inappropriately drawing students into
his personal conflict with the District, contrary to Standard #1.
b. McMurtry’s comments to students about the deaths of students at the Kamloops
Indian Residential School breached Standard #9, because they were disrespectful and
inflammatory, minimized the harms that occurred in Indian Residential Schools by
falsely suggesting that student deaths at the schools were comparable to the general
child mortality rate and not the result of a government strategy of cultural genocide,
and did not contribute towards truth, reconciliation and healing.
c. McMurtry’s comments to Rebel News demonstrated attitudes inconsistent with the
requirement in Standard #1 to treat students equitably with acceptance, dignity and
respect; in Standard #3 to work to create a positive, safe and inclusive learning
environment to best meet the diverse needs of students; and Standard #9 to contribute
towards truth, reconciliation and healing with Indigenous people. His comments
harm the education system by creating an unwelcoming environment for some
students and their families and by undermining the confidence of the public in the
profession and the education system.
Page 6 of 7
———————– Page 7———————–
24. McMurtry agrees not to make any statement orally or in writing which contradicts,
disputes or calls into question the terms of this Agreement or the admissions made in it.
EFFECT OF THE AGREEMENT
25. The Director of Certification will record the terms of this Agreement on the online registry
of the Ministry of Education and Child Care under section 79(d) of the Teachers Act .
26. McMurtry acknowledges that this Agreement will be published in accordance with
section 54 of the Teachers Act, which includes posting the Agreement, in full, on the
following website: https://teacherregulation.gov.bc.ca
27. Notification of this Agreement will be made in accordance with section 55 of the
Teachers Act .
28. If McMurtry applies for a certificate of qualification, an independent school teaching
certificate, or other authorization to teach in the kindergarten to grade twelve education
system, is agreed, without limiting any other power of the Director to determine
McMurtry’s fitness and suitability to be granted a certificate of qualification, independent
school teaching certificate or letter of permission, that the Director may consider:
a. the facts set out and admitted in this Agreement;
b. any document or other evidence gathered or prepared by the Branch in any
investigation of this matter; and
c. any evidence of breach by McMurtry of one or more terms of this Agreement.
29. McMurtry acknowledges that he has voluntarily entered into this Agreement with the
benefit of independent legal advice, and that he fully understands the terms and conditions
set out in this Agreement.
Signed in ___________________, B.C.
________________________________
this ____ day of ______________, 2023. James Walter McMurtry
Signed in ___________________, B.C.
_________________________________
this ____ day of ______________, 2023. Ana R. Mohammed, Commissioner
Page 7 of 7
************* END OF THE (proposed) CONSENT RESOLUTION AGREEMENT *************
Of the 3 factors which Ana Mohammed focused on [a., b. and c.], to remove Jim’s teaching certificate, the “b.” factor appeared to be the weakest to me, whereas a. and c. looked quite strong to me. They were “a.”:- Getting students to “take his side” in a dispute with his employer and “c.” going to Rebel Media about his matters, despite signing a confidentiality agreement with his district, on June 19, 1991, with his wife as a witness. So my proposed (to Jim) letter totally focused on his strongest point concerning “b.”, dealing with how he handled (Well!) the Kamloops announcement and his knowledge of the Kamloops situation. Next post, if published, will be his actual dialogue with me concerning my suggested letter.
Kevin
The above should be edited because of a mismatch in formatting. KB
Now I’m trying to figure out Twitter (that James spoke about, above in your interview, where his son told him that he should post to help his cause) where I found both the goofy lawyer’s letter and also the mis-formatted CRA (consent resolution agreement) posted above (hopefully reformatted). I actually found my twitter posts to his website about which I had forgotten when he first DM-ed myself. I think I even asked him how he did that direct messaging stuff. Anyway, I like dialogues and this is how the DM dialogue went. It is not exactly like the Rick Mehta “sell out”, but is reminiscent of him not being as seriously determined to fight as Frances, although he seems to be taking similar advice, quote:
JIM: Great advice. Wed 6:53 AM
[I found my advice at his twitter account just now, quote:
Aug 7
You should tell your lawyer to tell the writing lawyer and his boss, Ana R. Mohammed, that they are attempting to intimidate you, contrary 423. (1)(b) of Canada’s Criminal Code and that their CRA is a case of the Commissioner and her “counsel” uttering a false document.
Kevin @elenchuskb
Aug 7
Their CRA or consent resolution agreement is a false document as defined in and by “false document” b., according to Sect. 321 of the Criminal Code and constitutes more than one case of perjury, contrary to Sect. 131. of Canada’s Criminal Code
Kevin @elenchuskb
Aug 8
Does this lawyer actually work for B.C.’s Attorney General? Get over to Widdowson’s site and talk to me. Kevin [endquote; So that must have been my “good advice” according to Jim above]
KEVIN: Thanks Jim. But I’m so retarded about Social Media that I don’t even know what that advice was. I have typed up that letter from your Twitter account, since it was in an image file format. And I’m going to post it on Frances Widdowson’s site under your/her Rational Space Disputation 25 [her 25th rational disputation] and then respond to each sentence of that Twit lawyer, in attack mode. I noticed from your recent video message that you seemed annoyed about the 2 of them bringing back up “round 1” of your disciplinary hearings — the dad jokes. Maybe the Trump joke. But that’s probably what they think to be one of their strong points. You counter that kind of stuff with SOGI-123 quotes. But FIRST, you go after their weak spot which is lying through their teeth about you “saying” that indigenous death rates were the same as European rates — which is a big fat fib. I think you said somewhere that its patently false that you ever said such a thing. That of course, is on their “Please commit rational suicide” formal document. The first thing I did when I saw that goofy document was look up the woman who wanted you to “suicide” yourself to see what/who this Ana Mohammed was. You should see (and will see) the ratings she got from Lawyer Ratingz dot com, provided that she is actually a lawyer from Coquitlam B.C. She got some really bad ratings. I’ve actually done this stuff with real lawyers. And it actually works. So hope to see you at Widdowson’s site. My email is elenchuskb@yahoo.ca — which is arguably the best ways to communicate with me, given I am clueless about social media. Hope this gets back to you. Wed 8:00 AM
JAMES: Is it Kevin then? Thank you so much for the information. I am particularly interested in learning more about Ana Mohammed. I will check out Lawyer Ratingz dot com. I will contact you tomorrow. My day today is already full. I will also check out Frances’ website and episode 25. Thank you for your support. You seem acutely aware of the issues at play. Best regards – Jim
Wed 8:51 AM
KEVIN: Right. It’s Kevin. I have teased you several times at Woke Watch Canada and, perhaps, at Hymie Rubenstein’s Real Indigenous News Letter. You and Frances are modern versions of the treatments received by Socrates in ancient a [Wed 11:21 AM] by Socrates n (sic) ancient Athens and Galileo during the Reformation – Counter-Reformation era. Standard Academic jealousies/controversies. That’s why I follow your cases so closely. Enjoy your full day. I haven’t quite finished the WHAT I’D DO WITH THAT SNOTTY LETTER were I Jim McMurtry.
Wed 11:24 AM
JAMES: Thank you, Kevin, for your interest. What’s happened to me and Frances is counter to educational principles. All the best. Wed 11:53 AM
KEVIN: Replying to [Thank you, Kevin, for your interest. What’s happened to me and Frances is counter to educational principles. All the best.] Actually your firings are contrary to legal principles. I will be posting the kind of rebuttal that I would send to Mohammed’s counsel if I were you and received such a goofy “legal ultimatum” at Widdowson’s site in an hour or so. You may have noticed my previous reply. I am supposing that you have never received anything in the form of a Sworn and Notarized Affidavit. In other words, they don’t have one legal allegation Sworn on Oath against yourself. In other words, they have nothing “legal” to rely upon. Of course, I don’t know, for sure, what has been Sworn against you. I also don’t know whether/no Frances will allow my counselled letter to be published at her site. But there are no guarantees in legal matters and I am very interested in the student and the principal who may have colluded against you in the first matter. Wed 11:37 PM
KEVIN: Widdowson’s site seemed to accept the sort of letter I would send back to them, were I you. KB Yesterday, 1:58 AM
JAMES: Hi Kevin, what I’ve been told is that administrative law for union members has different practices. I don’t know for certain who my accusers are and what their evidence is. I will likely never know and will certainly never er face my accusers. I have two lawyers, one for arbitration, the other for my regulatory body. I should be OK. The problem is that many school board people are woke fanatics. Yesterday, 6:58 AM
KEVIN: Hi Jim. The kind of letter that I would write, were I you was posted at Widdowson’s site at 7:42 AM. Your problem isn’t the Boards, whether woke or not, it’s lawyers including your own. Your lawyer would discourage you from sending the kind of letter, I suggest, back to Mohammed’s mouthpiece. At any rate the suggested letter is up at her site. Use it or not. Discuss it with me or not. Good Luck. Yesterday, 3:00 PM
JAMES: Thanks, Kevin. May I ask which website of hers? Yesterday, 3:20 PM
KEVIN: https://wokeacademy.info/episodes/ There is a recent posts section on the right side of her home page below her latest post to the site. I know that administrative law is different from standard civil or criminal law. But it does not take precedence over either standard civil or standard criminal law. If your lawyer is telling you such things then hire Brian Giesbrecht to be your lawyer. He already knows that the Res stuff is a gigantic fraud on tax payers.
Yesterday, 4:47 PM
KEVIN: Good. Checked the link and it works. There are her recent posts and below them are 2 messages that I sent to you quite awhile ago and at 11 last night. Posted at about 7:42 this morning. You always go one notch above lawyers. If they say civil, you counter with criminal. If they say administrative you say CHARTER and criminal. You always go higher because everybody has a boss that is higher. Yesterday, 4:51 PM
JAMES: I’m staying with my lawyers for arbitration and my regulatory body’s investigation of me because they’re free – my union is paying. I’ll wait until these processes are over before going to others. I really appreciate your insight. Yesterday, 5:29 PM
KEVIN: Your regulatory body investigated you and fired you, apparently with just cause given the confidentiality agreement you signed with the district on exactly June 19th, 2019, witnessed by your wife. They even told you that you had committed and offence contrary to Sect. 30.(4) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. That is why that Mohammed woman told you that you had better engage or she would ask you to bring in documents — especially that 2019 document you clearly signed. They’re lawyers. They know when they’ve got someone by the balls. You have to do something extraordinarily drastic to put them back on their heels — or you are total dead meat. How come no comments at Widdowson’s site? And they say Catholics, like me, like to play “martyr”. How did your brilliant lawyer/s suggest you respond to Mohammed’s mouthpiece’s letter. What will that response be? Post that at Widdowson’s site. RIP
3:36 AM
KEVIN: I mean, I hate to say it, but it’s RIP, unless you actually do some serious scrapping. Big deal on “free”. It costs you nothing to commit educational Hari Kari — or however the Nipon people spell it. I’m so disappointed in you James. But we all gotta do it our own way. Once again Good Luck, but luck is not on your side. 3:39 AM
JAMES: Time will tell. I can’t sue until the grievance process is through. I must be patient. Meanwhile, I’m fighting the woke narrative. 6:44 AM
KEVIN: Right. 17 days will tell. You have until the 28th to respond to Mohammed’s mouthpiece. Of course you can’t sue. But I asked what your lawyer’s response was going to be to the mouthpiece’s letter, given you were not inclined to my sort of response. You mean passive; not “patient”. And “No!”, you are not “fighting the woke narrative” because the Woke “narrative” is entirely legal. Derek Bell of CRT fame was a lawyer as was Angela Davis. The gay EGALE narrative is by lawyers. Did you ever hear of Delwyn Vriend’s case? Done through him enrolling in King’s Christian College and then doing enough funny “gay outrage” stuff to get himself fired — then he went straight to Court — all the way to the Supreme Court on a red carpet. Indigenous activism is all by lawyers such as Murray Sinclair and Wilton Littlechild. So if you don’t fight lawyers you are not “fighting the woke narrative.” QED My friend you’ve done this stuff before. When you were teaching in Ontario, something happened. Then kids were carrying signs supporting you. Then you disappeared to B.C. apparently and had 30 quiet years. But you’re at it again. We Celts call it “uproar”. Anyway, maybe I’ll eventually see the response of your brilliant lawyers to the “mouthpiece’s” letter.
[https://digitalarchiveontario.ca/objects/373314/marching-for-teacher-ajax-high-school-students-demonstrate; Marching for teacher: Ajax High School students demonstrate today for the reinsatement (sic reinstatement KB) of their law teacher Jim McMurtry, who was fired last week Date 3/2/1992 Names Faught, Ken (photographer) Toronto Star (Firm) (publisher)]
JAMES: Thank you for your interest in my case. I’m guided by lawyers now. They haven’t told me to quit Twitter, but that may come. I’m being strategic. I have never been disciplined in all my years in public education before Abby. My case is strong. Theirs isn’t.
KEVIN: You’re welcome. Remain strong. Bye
[END of dialogue; Not exactly The Republic or Euthyphro, leave alone The Apology]
I think that the Newspaper could have gotten it wrong to the effect that he was fired. But he completely denied the reference to students demonstrating in favour of him in Ontario and that is one of the strongest grounds for Ana Mohammed getting rid of him, in that he brought his modern students into “the fray” with his Principal and District in B.C. 30 years later. I really thought that he absolutely had to focus on Mohammed’s and her mouthpiece’s weak spot or their 2 strong points will sink him. But we’ll see.
Kevin
The above link didn’t work. Let me try again
https://digitalarchiveontario.ca/objects/373314#