Posts Tagged ‘racism’

The UN human rights bodies’ double standard on Canada and China’s rights records

July 8, 2015

Now, the UN human rights committee is reviewing Canada’s human rights record. This is only a show, for both the UN and Canada.

The UN human rights bodies only selectively hear human rights complainants’ voice on political considerations. An example: while vigorously hearing the human rights complaints from the Chinese against China, these UN bodies turn away human rights complaints from the same Chinese against the Western countries like USA, Canada, etc. to cover up for these countries. I know at least 3 Chinese in US and Canada who brought human rights complaints to UN against the US and Canadian governments, but all of their complaints were turned a blank eye on by the UN.

My experience with UN probably is the most dramatic. In 2004, The Office of “High Commissioner for Human Rights” (HCHR) of UN, then headed by Louise Arbour, a former judge of Supreme Court of Canada, seized all the complaints I sent to UN’s various human rights bodies, and returned them to me, in violation of the UN’s human rights complaint procedures. I then brought a Complaint against this HCHR and the Secretary of the Human Rights Committee, Mr. Markus Schmidt to the President of UN General Assembly. But my Complaint was transferred back to the HCHR by Secretary of the President’s Office, Tony Gallagher of the USA, without consulting with any officials of the President’s Cabinet.

When I protested to the HCHR on grounds of conflict of interests, “Secretary” of the Human Rights Committee, Mr. Markus Schmidt called me and told me that he was “assigned” to my case by the HCHR, and “you don’t expect this Office will assist you”. Please see the letters that I wrote to the HCHR for details.

Obviously the UN’s human rights bodies are not accessible to people like me, whose human rights complaints are against the Western powers and who do not belong to a politically powerful and active ethnic groups such as the African Americans. This should change. As anyone has human rights, and is entitled to be heard at international human rights bodies.

‪#‎humanrights‬ ‪#‎unitednations‬ ‪#‎un‬ ‪#‎canada‬


Part II. Criminalized for Disputing the theory that “beauty is a European concept” by Canada and USA

December 29, 2014

Part II

As a result of Waterhouse’s retaliation, my application to the Ph.D program was rejected by the Department. Under the University’s policy, such intentional violation of grading policy and regulations would subject Waterhouse to serious sanctions. But since I was a racial minority student, and Waterhouse a member of the White privileged class, the University of Toronto, later joined by the whole justice system and another White American professor, geared up to cover up for Waterhouse and persecute me for complaining against Waterhouse.

After I lost my Ph.D application, I began to complain against Waterhouse’ racist reprisal to the University and requested the wrongs to be corrected and apology from Waterhouse. In this process I discovered from the Department the basic facts of Waterhouse’s fraud over my grade, etc., as mentioned above . When I questioned Waterhouse in a meeting with him, he admitted: “Yes I did.” But later he asserted it was an “innocent mistake”, and denied that he retaliated against me saying I misunderstood his theory. In covering up for Waterhouse, the university administration denied my right to access to my student file to find out what Waterhouse exactly did to me, which was my right under university policy.

In the department, all Asian professors eventually withdrew from sitting at the departmental appeal committee to hear my appeal, so finally it was the only one White professor who signed the decision to reject my appeal. Then an all White professors’ University’s Appeal Committee heard my appeal. They listened to my story so tentatively, and all of them so vigorously blamed Waterhouse who also attended the meeting. Waterhouse was grossly outraged and argued with them very angrily to defend himself, saying another Asian student also alleged he was racist, and that “we” are too tolerant for “them” to play race card. So it was totally to my astonishment when I received their decision to reject my appeal.

At the time, I was a part time student, since I was also part time working to support myself and pay the tuition fees. I worked on a full time well paid summer job in the East Asian department of the Royal Ontario Museum, which is affiliated with the East Asian Studies Dept. of the U of T. Because of my well appreciated work, I had been notified that I would be the only student to be hired back for next summer. Then during my appeal process, one day Waterhouse as if very casually asked me if I had worked in the Museum. I confirmed that. Soon I received a letter from the Museum that informed me that I would not be hired back. This was obviously a reprisal from Waterhouse. I was very upset, and brought a complaint to the Ontario Human Rights Commission (OHRC) in 1993.

In the meantime I had been working for years on a part counter help time job in a university cafeteria on campus. As my complaint continued at the OHRC, I was fired by the university from this job without any explanation or notice. I lost all my income sources all together and could not find another job, since it was in a time of the most serious economic recession in Canada in its recent history. Without income I had to drop out of the school, and faced with question of survival.

I then rushed back to the OHRC to continue my Complaint, which I had already basically stopped pursuing after filing it with the Commission. The Commission then became the only hope of survival to me, and initially it did give me a lot of help and support.

However, in my back the Commission already began to conspire with the U of T to suppress my Complaint.

As I later discovered, the U of T and the Commission were already exchanging drafts of an agreement regarding “the final result” of my case in my back. During the investigation process, the OHRC obtained my academic file at the U of T, but declined to disclose to me the info in my file regarding what had transpired at U of T about the grade etc. Also, although the OHRC had conducted a series of investigative interviews with key witnesses of the fake grade at the university – the then department Chair, Graduate Coordinator, etc., it refused to disclose to me any interview results.

So until now, what Waterhouse did to me in his reprisal is still a secret, only partially known to me based on the materials available to me.

US court legalizes selective law enforcement – No Constitutional right to equal protection to minorities

May 4, 2012

Many of my poor countrymen like Chen Guangcheng, have been brain washed to imagine the US as a human rights defender.  The truth, as testified by my human rights case in US and Canada, is the US and the West will brutalize on any Chinese with Fascist racial persecution, and there is no Constitutional right to equal protection of law to persons of color, as there is another law made by court applying to them that gives the law enforcement agencies the right to selective law enforcement towards different persons – by their choice.

Their choice is on basis of race, just as the Blacks already blame it for their mass incarceration. The US law enforcement agencies the exercise this “lawful” choice, so “lawfully” refused to investigate the felony crimes committed against me by the Whites and their non-White accomplices, yet I was incriminated on a bogus charge. Even the US government is free to threaten me with death and forced disappearance without any liability. All because I challenged a professor’s White supremacy theory.

The right to free speech is also selectively enforceable in US on political basis. My Internet free speech has been censored by the US government, including Department of State, and by all the major private media. When I sued, the court ruled that the private media are not “government actors” so not liable for violating my free speech rights, as for the real “government actors” like the Department of State, the court ruled they are “immune” from lawsuits. NO free speech to challenge racism.


1991, I, Wanxia Liao, a then MA student, challenged a U of Toronto professor David Waterhouse’s theory “beauty is a European concept” and Asians didn’t have it in history, he lost and retaliated against me with a series of fraud in violation of the university’s grading rules, and further racial prejudice that poor Chinese still wanted to claim historical inventions. I complained to the University and then the Ontario Human Rights Commission (OHRC) but was retaliated until I was criminalized.

The OHRC conspired with an American government employee, UC professor James Cahill to criminalize me. When at first I declined to answer some of the Commission’s questions, the OHRC compelled me to testify “everything true”, and offered me an unconditional confidentiality guaranty. Then Cahill deliberately disclosed to me his conspiracy with the U of T and the Commission, when I was devastated, the OHRC questioned me as to what I would do now that my case would be dismissed at the Commission.

When I answered this question of the Commission on phone I cried “If they are going to kill me, I’m going to kill them too”. This is my alleged crime of death threat to Waterhouse. Although I never spoke of anyone’s name, the judge convicted me on a “guessing” that I “meant” Waterhouse. It is a deprivation of my Constitutional immunity right against self-incrimination for government compelled testimonies and right to criminal justice for I was convicted on no factual evidence but a guessing.

Meantime, none of the felony crimes committed against me by US and Canadian government officials has been even investigated: perjuries committed by James Cahill, and by OHRC officer Alan Strojin; forgery of court document, perjury, falsifying evidences, etc. committed by US District Court judges Saundra Brown Armstrong and Phyllis Hamilton; death threats, threats of government forced disappearance against me made by an US government agent on Internet, etc.

I sued the US Department of Justice and FBI in court for violation of my right to equal protection by law. The court has dismissed my case, stating that I have no right to require the law enforcement agencies like the FBI to investigate my criminal allegations, because it is their choice, discretion, not their mandatory legal duty, to decide whether to investigate a criminal allegation, so they do not owe me a legal duty that I can sue to enforce.

This is legalized selective law enforcement. when the alleged perpetrators are Whites and their non-White accomplices like in my case, the agencies decide not to investigate; and when it is the other way around, the agencies then decide to the opposite. This is not a hidden practice, but a court made law that forms another set of laws that courts apply to nullify the Constitutional rights to equal protection towards the targeted people, those who are not their own. “legalized discrimination”.

The government organized a cover-up on all these persecutions on me. My posts on my human rights case were censored by the US Dept. of State on its Youtube site, the very Dept of State that goes around the world condemning other nations for Internet political censorship, and by the US government media such as Voice of America. The so called non-moderated free publishing sites like Wikipedia, Facebook, Topix, CNN’s iReport, etc. all are in accomplice with the government and censored my posts.

The cover ups have expanded to the United Nations where the then Office of “High Commissioner for Human Rights” of UN, headed by Louise Arbour, a former judge of Supreme Court of Canada, seized all the complaints I sent to UN’s human rights bodies, in violation of the UN’s human rights complaint procedures. My story is the best illustration of hypocrite and racist nature of the “Western democracy and freedom”. All people: we have to achieve democracy on our own and not to be used by the US.

Black men been mass incarcerated in US? Because law enforcement in US is discretion/choice based on race

April 19, 2012

Why are Black men been mass incarcerated in US? It’s because, as the US court just told me, the law enforcement in US is discretion/choice based, not merely violation-of-law based as the ordinary people believe. The court did not tell me what forms the basis for law enforcement agencies’ discretion, but my extensive experiences with the US and Canadian criminal justice system as a Chinese immigrant tell you this choice or discretion is based on race of the alleged crime perpetrators.

 In my case, the crime perpetrators are Whites or their non-Whites compliances. So the US court now told me I have no right to require the FBI etc. law enforcement agencies to investigate my criminal allegations, because it is their choice, discretion, not their mandatory duty, to decide whether to investigate a criminal allegation. Apparently, when the alleged perpetrators are Blacks (not in compliances with Whites), the agencies decide to the opposite – to investigate and prosecute.

So the statistics of Blacks’ out of proportion incarcerate rate cannot simply prove Blacks really commit so much more crimes than Whites, since it might only be a result of the law enforcement agencies’ choice. This race based discretion/choice naturally is at least as one of the major contributing factors for Blacks’ mass incarceration. I totally agree with The New Jim Crow, the best contemporary book by Black author. Search for my name Wanxia Liao, my case # in US federal court: 11-2494.

The following is an excerpt of the federal judge’s order dismissing my case:

The Court concludes that Liao fails to state a claim for mandamus relief, because she has not alleged facts demonstrating that the alleged duty to act is “ministerial” in nature. See, e.g., Wrightman-Cervantes v. Mueller, 750 F. Supp. 2d 76, 80-81 (D.C. Cir. 2010) (dismissing claims for mandamus relief on basis that FBI’s decision to investigate crimes is a discretionary act); Terrell v. Attorney General of State of California, 1998 WL 574387, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 31, 1998), aff’d 188 F.3d 515 (9th Cir. 1999) (dismissing claims based on alleged failure by FBI to investigate allegations of civil rights violations, and noting that “[t]he court can find no binding authority requiring the FBI to investigate every complaint that it receives. To the contrary, courts have consistently described the FBI’s mandate as a ‘discretionary rather than mandatory authority.’”) (quoting Agunbiade v. United States, 893 F. Supp. 160, 163 (E.D.N.Y.1995)).

My human rights case site has been blocked

May 24, 2010

My Web site has been blocked by the host site. This is so called American “freedom of speech”. The following is a revised version of the site summary:


In 1991, as a Master student, I challenged a White professor Waterhouse’s White supremacy theory that beauty is a European concept and Asians did not have the concept in history. He lost and retaliated against me through a series of fraud and violations of the university rules. I complained to the University but was retaliated with a wrongful dismissal from my cafeteria position, causing me the loss of life’s means. I complained to the Ontario Human Rights Commission (the OHRC). At first I declined to answer some of the Commission’s questions, but the OHRC compelled me to testify “everything true”, and offered me an unconditional confidentiality guaranty.  Then the OHRC officer Strojin, knowing my devastation for the loss of surviving resources and later for the overt racist oppressions organized by the OHRC itself and joined  by US government agent University of California at Berkeley professor James Cahill, repeatedly asked me to testify my state of mind as to that what I would do if my case couldn’t be resolved at the Commission, and then used my devastative ranting “If I die, not only me, die” in my testimony to inform the U of T behind my back that I made  “death threats to Waterhouse”, causing a first count of criminal charge of “Uttering Death Threat to Waterhouse” laid against me. When I inquired about if the OHRC had breached its confidentiality guaranty to me, Strojin denied and lied to me that it was someone at the U of T who did something. The wrongful criminal charge and Strojin’s deception further provoked my rage and my rant. Strojin again informed the U of T, causing the second count of same charge laid against me. I was later convicted by a judge. My human rights complaint was dismissed by the OHRC during the criminal prosecution process.

This is a Fascist racial persecution because I was unlawfully prosecuted and convicted. First, if what I testified were a crime, it was not me but the Canadian government and its witness compellability laws to cause it to happen, for the alleged threats would have never occurred but for the government’s compulsion on me to testify my thoughts. As by compelling me to testify my state of mind, the government transformed my thoughts into act – spoken words. Without these words, my desperate thoughts could have never become known to others and got alleged as threats. Since no one can be punished for thinking criminal thoughts at law, and no one can be punished for lawfully complying with the government’s requirements and its witness compellability laws to testify one’s thoughts, I have no any criminal liability. Yet the government prosecuted me for the crime procured by its own self. Second, the alleged threats never actually happened since my rantings were merely radomly made in which Whaterhouse was never referred to, yet the court convicted me for a guessing that I “meant Waterhouse”. Third, I never had intention to threaten Waterhouse for because of the OHRC’s “confidentiality rule”, I never expected that Waterhouse would know my words at the OHRC and get threatened. This was a bogus criminal prosecution that has grossly deprived my basic human rights – right to security of person and freedom, and right against self-incrimination, (testimony use immunity and derivative use immunity, etc.) guaranteed by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

In the meantime, all the American and Canadian White perpetrators and their accomplices who committed felony crimes against me got away Scot Free from their criminal liabilities. These crimes include: perjuries committed by the American government agent James Cahill; perjuries committed by the OHRC officer Alan Strojin at my criminal trial; forgery of court document and criminal fraud committed by US District Court judges Saundra Brown Armstrong and Phyllis Hamilton; death threats, threats of government forced disappearance against me made by an American government agent on Internet Yahoo newsgroups; forgery of court document committed by a California Superior Court Supervisor Maura Ramirez; etc. Despite that all these crimes are proven on written documents, the both governments and the government controlled the so-called “grand jury” have refused to prosecute them.

I filed civil suits in civil courts of Canada and US against the racial persecution. But all my cases have been dismissed and I have been unlawfully barred from access to court by court order in Canada, forbidding me to file any civil suits. The US federal court dismissed

my claims either without even any adjudication, or on basis of “procedural defects” that were created by the judges and clerks through their conspired criminal forgery, fraud, and open violation of the procedural rules in order to avoid dismissing my claims on their merits which are too indisputable to be denied without appearing outrageously unlawful. Even the US’s highest court would commit unlawful and fraudulent act to sanction the lower courts’ conducts. The same happened in California State court, and I have been partially barred from filing suits in state courts.  

All of these are done under a tight government organized cover-up. All the major American media refuse to publish my story, and some of them, such as CNN, even conspired with the US government to unlawfully set up secret automatic filters to filter out any information on my case on their web sites to ban my own publication attempts.  

Further more, those so-called “human rights groups” such as the “Human Rights Watch”, “Amnesty International”, etc. ignored my request for investigation, and the cover ups have expanded to the United Nations where the then Office of “High Commissioner for Human Rights” of UN, headed by Louise Arbour, a former judge of Supreme Court of Canada, seized all the complaints I sent to UN’s human rights bodies, in violation of the UN’s human rights complaint procedures. My story is the best illustration of hypocrite and racist nature of the “Western democracy and freedom”.

US court’s conspiracy to create “procedural defects” through fraud and deceit to dismiss my civil rights case

April 18, 2009


On June 4, 2008, I filed a civil rights case against 23 Defendants, who are all US federal and California state officials, including former US Attorney Generals, US Department of Justice “Civil Rights Division” officials, US Congressman Smith, former forepersons of California Indictment Grand Jury, San Francisco Police Department, CNN, youtube, etc., alleging that they violated my right to equal protect by criminal law and my right to free speech, etc.


On March 11, 2009, Judge Phyllis Hamilton dismissed my Complaint with prejudice against 19 Defendants of the case for reason of “lack of service”. Yet this “lack of service” was caused by fraud, deceit, etc. that were conspired by the court with the Defendants of my case.


For instance: at first, the court e-filing system officially informed me that Deputy Attorney General of California Kay Yu filed an official court document for Defendant former Attorney General Ashcroft; following the then presiding judge Armstrong’s explicit confirmation on Ashcroft’s appearance before the court in a court order. And then, the court clerk altered the filing record to that Kay Yu filed the document for herself in stead of Ashcroft (Yu is also a Defendant to the case) without my knowledge. As a result of my unawareness of this change, I skipped to serve Ashcroft with summons and Complaint (as by law, defendants who appeared before the court voluntarily without being served need not be served with the process). Then Judge Hamilton dismissed my case against Ashcroft “with prejudice” (so that I cannot re-file this case again) for reason I did not serve on Ashcroft.


After I discovered this fraud, I requested investigation by the court and alleged that this docket record change is unlawful that violated the federal procedural rules, since by the rule, the change can only be done by Kay Yu, the original filer, through re-filing, and upon the re-filing, I as a party, would be automatically notified by email message about the change. Judge Hamilton only briefly mentioned the change of the docket record in a footnote of her Order to dismiss my Complaint, saying Yu made a “mistake”, the court’s Office of Clerk “corrected” it. She never answered my questions such as “Even if this change was what Ashcroft and Yu intended, how did the court know their intention and would act on their behalf to do so for her? Does that mean the court is in fact an agent of the Defendants to this case?”


I filed a Second Motion for Discovery Investigation for the court to answer my questions, and I also filed a Motion for Relief from Order of Dismissal by Hamilton for reason of the fraud, and other deceit committed by the court in its orders, such as faking California service rules, faking a never-existed claim for my Complaint against CNN, and dismissed my action on basis of such fraud. I further alleged that the court does not have the authority to dismiss my case “with prejudice” under law, and to do so to me is a naked discrimination on basis of my civil rights case and my race for I am treated differently from other litigants.


On April 16, 2009, Judge Hamilton issued an order denying all my requests, including my motion to disqualify her. Again, she avoided addressing the questions I put before the court, and still assert the change of the docket was a “clerical mistake”. Obviously the court is not able to answer my questions, which can only mean that there are some secrets over this matter that can never be told. So the alteration could only be a covered operation, a fraud, and it was a conspiracy against me participated by the court and the Defendants of this case. They needed this conspiracy since if Yu did the “correction” in means provided by the Rules, the E-filing system would automatically serve the “correction” filing on me; yet if the court did so with its internal privilege to access and manage the court’s e-filing system, the “correction” could be done without my knowledge. 


Through such conspiracy and fraud, the court and the Defendants created “procedural defects” to dismiss my case. They needed to dismiss my case on procedural grounds, because a denial on the merits of my complaint can only be a denial of all the most fundamental legal principles that a “democratic society” is based on so that the hypocrisy of the so called American democracy will be revealed.  Yet when dismissing my Complaint on “procedural defects” grounds, especially for “lack of service”, the Defendants can completely avoid addressing the issues of racism in American criminal justices system and so on raised in my Complaint, since they now do not even need to file a motion to dismiss my Complaint on merits. And the dismissal is “with prejudice”, so only with some trivial and frivolous “defects” caused solely by the conspiracy, the Defendants and the court conveniently barred me from seeking redress against the racism in American criminal justice system for my human rights.


More details on the court’s other fraud, discrimination and violation of rules can be found here in my motion for relief from Hamilton’s Orders, and my motion to disqualify Hamilton.


Click hereto read my First Amended Complaint; here for motion to dismiss by CNN; Smith; Armstrong, and Yu. Click here for my Opposition to CNN’s motion to dismiss; here for my Motion to Disqualify judge Hamilton;


Click here for Hamilton’s Order of Dismissal of my Complaint for lack of service; here for Order granting CNN’s motion to dismiss; here for issues regarding e-filing. Click here for my motion for relief  from order of dismissal; herefor Hamilton’s Order denying my motion for relief and motion to disqualify.

US Supreme Court Joined The Cover Up Of The Racist Injustice By Unlawful And Fraudulent Means

December 18, 2007

Now finally it is the turn of the highest court of the US, the Supreme Court of the United States, to show the true face of “American justice”. It used the same kind of unlawful and fraudulent means like that employed by the lower courts to deny my access to court:              

On September 17, 2007, I sent a Petition For A Writ Of Certiorari and motion to proceed in forma pauperis to the US Supreme Court (SCT). The court refused to file my petition and returned it to me with a Letter on Sept. 25, 2007 , for reason “The petition is out-of-time.” The letter from the Clerk faked a “fact” that my petition was received by the Clerk’s Office on September 25, 2007, and reasoned that “the petition was due on or before September 23, 2007”.      

On October 12, 2007, I sent a letter to SCT clerk to clarify the facts: 

My petition was received by your office on September 24, 2007, not as you said on September 25, 2007. This is confirmed by Xpresspost USA of Canada Post that delivered the package for me (Attachments – the delivery confirmation certificate, the tracking records and the customer receipt). By Rules of the Supreme Court, the last day of the 90 calendar days for me to file the petition was September 23, however, that was a Sunday. Then the deadline was the next Monday, which was September 24, 2007. This is because the Rules of the Supreme Court stipulates:  Rule 30. Computation and Extension of Time  1. In the computation of any period of time prescribed or allowed by these Rules, by order of the Court, or by an appli- cable statute, the day of the act, event, or default from which the designated period begins to run is not included. The last day of the period shall be included, unless it is a Satur- day, Sunday, federal legal holiday listed in 5 U. S. C. § 6103, or day on which the Court building is closed by order of the Court or the Chief Justice, in which event the period shall extend until the end of the next day that is not a Saturday, Sunday, federal legal holiday, or day on which the Court building is closed. (Emphasis added)  So the last day of this 90 day period shall be September 24, not September 23.   And Rule 29 provides that  “A document is timely filed if it is received by the Clerk within the time specified for filing”.  Therefore when your office received my petition on September 24, 2007, it was filed, and was timely.              My petition was timely filed also because it was deposited in express mail, postage prepaid, and bears a postmark, showing that the document was mailed on September 18, 2007, (see the attachment) which was before the last day of filing  – September 24, 2007. Rule 29 provides: 

Rule 29. Filing and Service of Documents; Special          Notifications; Corporate Listing    2. A document is timely filed if it is received by the Clerkwithin the time specified for filing; or if it is sent to the Clerkthrough the United States Postal Service by first-class mail(including express or priority mail), postage prepaid, andbears a postmark, other than a commercial postage meterlabel, showing that the document was mailed on or beforethe last day for filing; or if it is delivered on or before thelast day for filing to a third-party commercial carrier fordelivery to the Clerk within 3 calendar days. If submittedby an inmate confined in an institution, a document is timelyfiled if it is deposited in the institution’s internal mail systemon or before the last day for filing and is accompanied by anotarized statement or declaration in compliance with 28U. S. C. § 1746 setting out the date of deposit and stating thatfirst-class postage has been prepaid. If the postmark ismissing or not legible, or if the third-party commercial carrierdoes not provide the date the document was received bythe carrier, the Clerk will require the person who sent the document to submit a notarized statement or declaration incompliance with 28 U. S. C. § 1746 setting out the details ofthe filing and stating that the filing took place on a particulardate within the permitted time. (Emphasis added) 

  I sent the same letter again on October 19, 2007. Since there was no response to my letters, I called the clerk, Gail Johnson twice but all my messages were never returned. I re-sent my petition with a declaration on mailing date for my Petition to the SCT, but on Nov. 27, 2007, it was returned to me again “for the reasons stated in prior correspondence from this office”.  Apparently, the issues that I presented in my petition are so significant in revealing the racist nature of the “justice” in US towards racial minorities, the Supreme Court of US prefers to hid its endorsement of all the injustice in this case, even by such shameful ways. This American justice system and this American government, from the very top to bottom, have no sense of decency in oppressing racial minorities by any means possible.   Here, by denying my petition, the highest court of US endorsed all the unlawful acts by the federal District Court, which have been outlined in my petition.

A Chinese proof: racial inequality in justice system

September 29, 2007

This is a Chinese proof of the racial inequality in US and Canadian justice systems.

I am a Chinese in Canada, but I am having experience with criminal justice similar to that of Jena 6 in both Canada and US – I challenged the White supremacy in an university, being retaliated against, complaints dismissed, got set up for criminal prosecution, convicted by a judge, and meanwhile all the American and Canadian Whites and their accomplices who committed true crimes against me got away Scott free from their criminal liabilities.

The Jena 6’s case and my case together have provided a live example of racial inequality in criminal justice. Just pick the issue on crime of “threats” from the both cases:

When a White person gets mad at a colored person, in public, to his face, calls to lynch him or to make him disappear, the government says it is not a crime, because either the White person did not have any violent acts, or he should have his right to free speech. But when it is the other way around, a colored person gets mad at a White person, and says “Then I’m going to die, and not only me, die”, in a government guaranteed secrecy, in reply to the government’s inquiry, the government finds him guilty for crime of threat, because, although you didn’t specify any person, you must have had that White person on your mind, so you meant to threaten him. And the government now does not hold out the “no violence” test or the “free speech” test. Clearly, there are two sets of laws, and the difference is based on color. Personally, I have never seen a White got charged and convicted for making “threats” to a colored person, although there have been quite few well-known cases in Chinese community of Canada where the Whites made death threats to the Chinese. In all these cases, the law enforcement authorities have been always only “investigating” those threats, not even one charge ever been issued.

Please visit my site for my story:

The following is an except of my Web page:



(Revised on Sept. 29, 2007)


[I] The selective prosecution on grounds of race by the Canadian and American criminal justice systems that convicted me for a bogus crime yet refuse to prosecute the Whites and their accomplices for their felony crimes committed against me.
[II ]The conspiracy of Ontario government human rights commission, the University of Toronto and a University of California professor to set me up for prosecution on the fabricated crime to suppress my pursuit of my human rights complaint at the commission.
[ III ] The infringement of my right to academic freedom by the White professor’s racial reprisal harassment for my challenge against his White supremacy theory and by the racial persecution on me to cover up for him by the US and Canadian governments.
[IV] I am completely barred from access to court in Canada by court order and partly in California of US for my civil rights cases against the both governments and the courts denied all my due process rights.
[V ] Canadian and US governments’s cover up these gross human rights abuses at United Nations.


 The racial persecution on me started because I challenged an academic theory of a White professor, David Waterhouse of the University of Toronto (U of T) that “the concept of beauty” is a “European concept”. After Waterhouse acknowledged his loss of argument to me, he retaliated against me with fraud on my grades, etc. When I complained, another White professor, James Cahill of the University of California at Berkeley and the Canadian government came in his aid to cover up the fraud and his racial prejudice in his theory for him. Together they conspired a criminal prosecution on me in that I was set up by en entrapment for a bogus charge of “uttering death threat” to threaten Waterhouse at the Ontario Human Rights Commission (the OHRC). It was a fabricated crime plotted by an entrapment using the “confidentiality rule” of the OHRC, and despite that the Canadian Charter of Rights provides that testimonies before a tribunal cannot be used as evidence to incriminate any one, I was incriminated and finally convicted by a judge.

In the meantime, all the American and Canadian White perpetrators and their accomplices who committed felony crimes against me got away Scott Free from their criminal liabilities. These crimes include: in US – perjuries committed by Cahill in a US federal court where I had a civil rights action against him; forgery of court document committed by a California Superior Court Supervisor Maura Ramirez; and death threats, threats of forced disappearance on Internet Yahoo newsgroups against me by an American, and in Canada, perjuries committed by the OHRC officer Alan Strojin at my criminal trial, etc. Despite that all these crimes are all proven on written documents, and all the facts so accurately match the descriptions of these offenses by the criminal laws of the US and Canada, the FBI and the US Department of Justice, the California San Francisco Police Department, the District Attorney, all refused to investigate my complaints. In California, even the Grand Jury is in the tight control of the government, in that the Foreman was picked by the court, and the foreman controls what the other Grand Jurors would know, (in violation of California and US constitutions that provide a grand jury can only decide on a complaint as a whole by votes), and so the Foreman just simply made a personal decision not to investigate my complaint.

The same with the California state court and US federal court, there is NO LAW for me. Some of my claims were simply dismissed without even ever being an adjudicated on, and others were dismissed on blatant violations of laws. In Canada, I have already been unlawfully barred from access to court by court order, and all my due process rights were literally denied by courts, in that I was not even allowed to oppose the defendants of my civil rights cases – to argue with them in anyway the law provides. I have to publish my story on the Internet since virtually all Canadian and U.S. main stream media declined to publish my story, and all those so-called “human rights groups” such as the “Human Rights Watch”, etc. ignored my request for investigation.Further more, the cover ups for Canada and US have expanded to the United Nations so that my access to international human rights community has also been blocked by Canada and US. As the Office of “High Commissioner for Human Rights” of UN, headed by Louise Arbour, a former judge of Supreme Court of Canada, seized all the complaints I sent to UN’s human rights bodies, in violation of the UN’s human rights complaint procedures. It is a best illustration of hypocrisy of the “Western democracy and freedom”.

To find the most recent events of my criminal cases in US, follow these links (scanned evidences of the crimes against me can be found on my Website):

Click here to read my complaint to the FBI. Click here to read FBI’s reply.Click here to read my letter to inquire about FBI’s reply.
Click here , here, here , and here to read the US Department of Justice’s responses to my complaints (basically same as the complaint I sent to FBI). Click here , and here to read my administrative appeals against the FBI and the DOJ to US Attorney General, (no response so far).
Click here to read my complaint to San Francisco Police Dept. Click here for San Francisco Police Department’s reply.Click here to read the Foreman of San Francisco Grand Jury’s reply to my complaint (basically same as the complaint I sent to SF police).
Click here to read my appeal to the US Supreme Court for a summary of the most recent events in the the federal civil court.

This page is under construction.