From:                              David Crowe

Sent:                               13 September 2009 03:29 PM

To:                                   Anthony Brink

Cc:                                   cifarber[…].com; 'Val Turner'

Subject:                          RE: RA Board: RE: [hivaidsparadigm] Paul Last, David Crowe and Etienne de Harven

 

Importance:                   High

 

Categories:                     Orange Category

 

Anthony [removing the RA board];

 

It is you who is slithering.

 

Paul Last reported to have seen documents in a private meeting that he stated Joe Anglin showed to him but required that he not make public. So his testimony relies at least partially on documents that neither I nor you have seen. Not only that, neither of us know whether they exist or whether the contents were accurately described. You can argue that Paul Last's testimony is just one of your arguments but I want to know if it is verifiable. We either verify it or you withdraw it, there are no other choices. I think it will act as a good test of your ethics and aims in this campaign.

 

Furthermore, if Paul Last is Joe Anglin, or a close friend of Joe Anglin, then it becomes quite obvious these documents might be mythical.

 

Furthermore, your posting of the documents with suggestive insinuations, without giving me an opportunity to respond is quite biased and slanderous.

 

Let's take another example, my supposed hiding of the loans from the party auditor:

http://www.tig.org.za/Greens_misrepresentation_to_Doyle.pdf

 

I have explained (as is evidenced by the document you posted) that the audit was for the election period (February 4-May 5 2008) and that the party always reports everything outside an election period (there can be 0, 1 or more in any year) in the annual report (this was never reported for 2008 due to the incompetence and negligence of Joe Anglin and was the main cause of deregistration of the party). Therefore, unless you can show that I intended to conceal the loans from the annual reporting, your posting of this document says nothing of substance, except that you are intentionally slandering me.

 

Elections Alberta, which enforces election regulations, informed me that the choice of what was an election activity or an annual activity was largely led to my discretion.

 

For example, as I have previously explained, if someone donated $100 on February 4 2008 I would have recorded that as an election period donation (which it most likely was) and reported it in the filing that was accepted by Elections Alberta. However, if someone was donating $10 a month to the party, the donations taken on February 15th, March 15th and April 15th would have been considered annual donations and would NOT have been reported in the election period report. On the other hand, if someone told me that the $100 was not related to the campaign but was perhaps in fulfilment of a promise made months ago, I might have considered it to be not a campaign donation.The effect of all this? For most people in most circumstances, nothing. In rare circumstances it could allow a donation to be shifted between tax years, but not in the case when an election period was entirely within a year. Therefore, even if I made a wrong decision about what to report within an election period versus a year the only difference was in what was reported by the government, it had no impact on anybody's finances.

 

This same logic applied to expenses and by extension to loans, since the repayment of the loans extended well beyond the 3 month election period.

 

You are trying to act as prosecutor, judge and defense lawyer. You can pick one role, not all three.

 

Regards,

    David Crowe

 

 

 

At 1:17 AM +0200 9/10/09, Anthony Brink wrote:

David

Your trick isn't working.

In the first place Paul Last has not claimed to have been a due paying member but a supporter of the Greens. It's elementary that one doesn't have to be a paid up registered member of a party to support it. He states:

 

'I have supported and voted for the Green Party in the past because I believe in the fundamental principles and philosophies of the party.'

 

Still, I allow the possibility that Paul Last is a pseudonym, although I have no reason to think this.

But the allegations made are anyway not Paul Last's.

The information concerning the manner in which you misconducted yourself in a variety of respects, including criminally, was provided by Joe Anglin and others, and is supported by real documentary evidence; and Paul last merely reports it.

Quit slithering like a snake in a net, and kindly address yourself to the serious points I raised about your failure as RA President to deal with and resolve your fellow board member's extremely grave false charge against Eleni, and his swift appropriation of her science on the basis that it's not her science but someone else's science that she's stolen. Which you're quite happy with, and naturally considering the sort of ethical values you have demonstrated on the RA board and on the Alberta Greens board and after you were ejected from it.

Try to remember before you write that I'm well practised with liars, and spotting them and nailing them has been my sport two decades in court.

Quit your childish whining about your successors having destroyed the party, as if your allegation becomes true by repetition, and as if there isn't a diametrically opposing version amply established on the evidence clearly implicating your criminal misconduct as reason for your successors' forced decision to deregister the party.

Actually I couldn't careless about you and your Greens.

I'm just preserving what we lawyers call similar fact evidence, going to propensity to behave in a certain dishonest way.

Perform your responsibilities as RA President in the matter I've repeatedly raised, and who knows what sort of tabula rasa accommodation might eventuate.

AB

 

 

 

-----Original Message-----
From: David Crowe 
Sent: 09 September 2009 11:33 PM
To: board@rethinkingaids.com; hivaidsparadigm@yahoogroups.com
Cc: cifarber[…]com; board@rethinkingaids.com; 'Val Turner'; Anthony Brink
Subject: Re: RA Board: RE: [hivaidsparadigm] Paul Last, David Crowe and Etienne de Harven
Importance: High

 

Anthony;

 

If Paul Last is a fake person created by my antagonists who took over

the Alberta Green Party (that I had founded and assisted for 19

years) and then destroyed it, trying to blame me for it, that would

rather destroy the credibility of the allegations wouldn't it?

 

Can the words "bona fide", "objective", "even-handed" and "in-depth"

possibly apply to such a person?

 

If Paul Last is not such a person can you provide evidence that he is

real? I have requested this two times and received only insults.

 

Furthermore, Paul Last claimed to have been a party supporter but

does not appear in the records for either the provincial party

(implying no donations or memberships since January 2004) or the

federal party.

 

Regards,

     David Crowe

 

At 9:38 PM +0200 9/9/09, Anthony Brink wrote:

>Just as a matter of interest, Celia.

>Before firing off your 'totally disgusted' hot words, at me obviously, about

>not being a writer who's meticulously careful with fact and flying an

>'absurd "story" about David' Crowe; my 'mean spirit'; my 'shameful

>depravity'; my 'betrayals of other colleagues'; my 'lies, distortions,

>seething stupidity', had you actually stopped to read the discussion thread

>on the Greens in Alberta Facebook page (which I captured and published just

>hours before one of Crowe's political allies deleted it) in which Paul Last

>(possibly a pseudonym) posted a lengthy, detailed, finely specific report

><http://www.tig.org.za/Greens.htm>  of his apparently bona fide, objective,

>even-handed, in-depth investigation of the reasons for the deregistration of

>the Alberta Greens Party?

>Would I be correct in surmising that you hadn't actually stopped to read

>Paul Last's lengthy, detailed, finely specific investigation report, nor had

>you examined the incriminating documents that I obtained and published

>substantiating the allegations that Crowe fraudulently misrepresented the

>corporate status of the party to a bank for the purpose of securing a

>facility, made an illegal loan to the party and enriched himself with

>interest charges without the knowledge of all sitting executive board

>members, and concealed this illegal loan from the party auditor?

>Nor did you read Crowe's responses to my publication of this real

>documentary evidence, and likewise my comments on his failure in his

>responses to touch sides with the issues raised, and his repeated resort to

>obfuscation and distraction instead, in the characteristic manner of the

>guilty fraud accused that I know so well after so many years in the courts?

>I know you Americans watch a lot of television, but do you also ever read

>anything more complicated than Today?

>If my surmise is correct, and indeed you haven't actually troubled yourself

>to acquaint yourself with the case made out against Crowe by Paul Last

>following what appears to me as a seasoned trial lawyer to have been a bona

>fide, objective, even-handed, in-depth investigation of the reasons for the

>deregistration of the Alberta Greens Party, would you kindly do so now, and

>after you have done so, let me know whether you still hold to your opinion

>that I'm not meticulously careful with fact; have flown an 'absurd "story"

>about David' Crowe; have a 'mean spirit'; am guilty of 'shameful depravity';

>have made 'betrayals of other colleagues'; and have been guilty generally of

>'lies, distortions, seething stupidity'.

>It's all posted for you  here <http://www.tig.org.za/RA.htm> .

>Jon

>Before pronouncing:

>David is correct in his assessment of the takeover of the Alberta Greens by

>what appear to be small business and landowner interests (against any

>regulation of land use whatsoever, hardly what the Green Party stands for).

>Joe Anglin is hardly a progressive. He was a former marine and cop from the

>US. Paul Last was probably a fake person created by them as part of the

>takeover effort.

>Would I be correct in surmising that you hadn't actually stopped to read

>Paul Last's lengthy, detailed, finely specific investigation report, nor had

>you examined the incriminating documents that I obtained and published

>substantiating the allegations that Crowe fraudulently misrepresented the

>corporate status of the party to a bank for the purpose of securing a

>facility, made an illegal loan to the party and enriched himself with

>interest charges without the knowledge of all sitting executive board

>members, and concealed this illegal loan from the party auditor?

>Nor did you read Crowe's responses to my publication of this real

>documentary evidence, and likewise my comments on his failure in his

>responses to touch sides with the issues raised, and his repeated resort to

>obfuscation and distraction instead, in the characteristic manner of the

>guilty fraud accused that I know so well after so many years in the courts?

>If my surmise is correct, and indeed you haven't actually troubled to

>acquaint yourself with the case made out against Crowe by Paul Last

>following what appears to me as a seasoned trial lawyer to have been a bona

>fide, objective, even-handed, in-depth investigation of the reasons for the

>deregistration of the Alberta Greens Party, would you kindly do so now, and

>after you have done so, let me know whether you still hold to your opinion

>that 'David is correct in his assessment of the takeover of the Alberta

>Greens by what appear to be small business and landowner interests (against

>any regulation of land use whatsoever, hardly what the Green Party stands

>for). Joe Anglin is hardly a progressive. He was a former marine and cop

>from the US. Paul Last was probably a fake person created by them as part of

>the takeover effort.' In short, would you let me know whether you still

>consider that the detailed charges against Crowe of the most opprobrious and

>even criminal conduct while on the Albert Greens executive board are all

>completely vacant and purely malicious?

>Please detail the facts supporting your conclusion that 'Paul Last was

>probably a fake person created by them as part of the takeover effort',

>given that Paul Last interrogated the reasons for the deregistration of the

>Alberta Greens Party after the 'takeover' of the Party by incontestably

>Party-constitutional means, and there is no evidence to suggest that he was

>a party to the democratic 'takeover' in which the sitting executive was

>voted out at a duly constituted and duly conducted Party meeting, and

>replaced, only to regroup in the car-park outside and carry on clandestinely

>as if still in charge of the Party like a banana republic government that

>won't leave when they're not wanted any more.

>It's all posted here <http://www.tig.org.za/RA.htm> .

>May I conclude by saying that in my experience seemingly ironclad cases have

>been knocked over during the defence case, so I'm open to being dissuaded

>from continuing to accept the prima facie case set up against Crowe, and I'm

>open to concluding he's been wrongly accused. It's just that normally when

>serious allegations are made against one, one meets them and disputes them

>forthrightly and cogent particulars. He hasn't.

>If the charges against Crowe are shown to my satisfaction to be bad, or

>insupportable even at the level of reasonable doubt, I will certainly

>'apologize and withdraw these documents and everything that relies on them'.

>In fact I will apologize profusely. Paul last's report and the real

>documentary evidence I procured are not in the public domain at this point.

>The TIG page <http://www.tig.org.za/RA.htm> on which they are posted has no

>visible link on the TIG front-page <http://www.tig.org.za/>.

>But just before I go.

>I appreciate that Crowe is smarting under the appalling charges that have

>been levelled at him, because it's uncomfortable to stand accused of doing

>the most appalling and even criminal things.

>The question is why as President of RA is it a matter of no ethical account

>to him that Etienne has falsely accused Eleni of stealing her original

>Copernican scientific discovery concerning 'HIV' from Stefan Lanka and will

>not retract even with the clear evidence presented that he's wrong?

>And why he has done nothing about it?

>It's the gravest allegation imaginable, crying out for immediate resolution,

>and yet Crowe leaves it standing unaddressed - notwithstanding that he

>claims to be concerned about statements that are 'not true' and 'damaging ·

>and consequently could have had significant ramifications', and as President

>of RA he has acted against Etienne before in requiring him 'immediately' to

>submit future email to him for approval before dispatch to avoid a

>repetition of statements that are 'not true' and 'damaging · and

>consequently could have · significant ramifications'.

>And why is it a matter of no ethical account to him as President of RA to

>suggest that Eleni's original Copernican scientific discovery concerning

>'HIV' be 'swiftly appropriated' from her and presented by Etienne at the

>November conference, without her authority, mangled and ignorantly faulted

>in a key respect on the way, after her nominated representative to present

>her science was rejected on manifestly spurious grounds by Rasnick? Which

>manifestly spurious grounds put up by Rasnick Crowe supported, adding even

>more risibly spurious grounds of his own for rejecting Eleni's request, to

>add insult to injury and to precipitate the political crisis we're embroiled

>in.

>These are the burning questions that will keep burning ever more ardently

>until they are satisfactorily resolved.

>And it's all connected because it all goes to the ethics of the person

>holding himself out as the leader of the international AIDS dissident

>movement.

>The sort of guy he is.

>AB

>From: hivaidsparadigm@yahoogroups.com

>[mailto:hivaidsparadigm@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of cifarber[…].com

>Sent: 09 September 2009 06:33 PM

>To: hivaidsparadigm@yahoogroups.com

>Subject: Re: [hivaidsparadigm] Paul Last...

>  Sounds like we have some fact-checking problems around here.

>Why was this absurd "story" about David ever flown in at all? Why wasn't it

>punctured sooner. Why is it NOW being received so limply?

>My conclusion is that when mean spirits take over their facts start to

>degenerate. I don't like being around it.

>Whoever started this list, have you the power to remove me?

>Nothing good ever comes from this place anymore. It is associated with

>shameful depravity and the sacrifices and betrayals of other colleagues.

>Lies, distortions, seething stupidity.

>Now this.

>I am totally disgusted.

>REMOVE ME PLEASE.

>-----Original Message-----

>From: Jonathan Campbell <work@cqs.com>

>To: hivaidsparadigm@yahoogroups.com

>Sent: Wed, Sep 9, 2009 8:39 am

>Subject: Re: [hivaidsparadigm] Paul Last...

>David is correct in his assessment of the takeover of the Alberta Greens by

>what appear to b e small business and landowner interests (against any

>regulation of land use whatsoever, hardly what the Green Party stands for).

>Joe Anglin is hardly a progressive. He was a former marine and cop from the

>US. Paul Last was probably a fake person created by them as part of the

>takeover effort.

>Jon

>----- Original Message -----

>From: "David Crowe"

>To: <hivaidsparadigm@yahoogroups.com

><mailto:hivaidsparadigm%40yahoogroups.com> >

>Cc: "Anthony Brink"

>Sent: Tuesday, September 08, 2009 12:59 PM

>Subject: [hivaidsparadigm] Paul Last...

>>  Anthony;

>> 

>>  What evidence do you have that "Paul Last", from which most of the

>>  Green Party allegations arise, is a real person and not a fake

>>  facebook account created by one of the people who took over the Green

>>  Party and destroyed it (e.g. Edwin Erickson, Joe Anglin, Connie

>>  Jensen)?

>> 

>>  For reference see your extensive quotes from "Paul Last" at

>>  http://www.tig.org.za/Greens.htm

>> 

>>  If you were to find that there was no proof of the existence of Paul

>>  Last's existence would you apologize and withdraw these documents and

>>  everything that relies on them?

>> 

>>  Regards,

>  > David Crowe