Corruption in Alberta, Canada, 'Mafia' or someone else...

[Cunt]

Hey, Darren... Thanks and I trust you got my Skype. And I'm fine with whatever you'd like to try. For a start, I'd appreciate a few words around your: "I am a bit surprised at how vague your unease was...". TIA.

As to what evidence could convince me, a good start would be to explain the screen shots indicating what I view as being 'issues', starting with the United Air shot. But only a start. Again, thanks.

I am more interested in which action to advance, BrettA.

I would have expected a much richer understanding from you than simply 'I've suspected I'm not using the 'Standard' 'net for some time.' Can you say more about what you mean? There may be something falsifiable here...

Having little experience and no control over at those sites (United Air and the forums) I don't know. Part of the reason I suggested copying over at MR was that, if this thread were deleted from here, I wouldn't know why. (perhaps). If it happened at MR, I could know why much easier.

As I said, I am interested in which actions to advance. What are the possibilities and which support the largest breadth of possibilities...?

What does your family think of this? Do they know? Do you really need help re-entering Canada? Is there some reason you can't just drive?

[BrettA]

Hey, Darren... Thanks and I trust you got my Skype. And I'm fine with whatever you'd like to try. For a start, I'd appreciate a few words around your: "I am a bit surprised at how vague your unease was...". TIA.

As to what evidence could convince me, a good start would be to explain the screen shots indicating what I view as being 'issues', starting with the United Air shot. But only a start. Again, thanks.

I am more interested in which action to advance, BrettA.

I would have expected a much richer understanding from you than simply 'I've suspected I'm not using the 'Standard' 'net for some time.' Can you say more about what you mean? There may be something falsifiable here...

Having little experience and no control over at those sites (United Air and the forums) I don't know. Part of the reason I suggested copying over at MR was that, if this thread were deleted from here, I wouldn't know why. (perhaps). If it happened at MR, I could know why much easier.

As I said, I am interested in which actions to advance. What are the possibilities and which support the largest breadth of possibilities...?

What does your family think of this? Do they know? Do you really need help re-entering Canada? Is there some reason you can't just drive?

Hi again... Well, I could go into detail about almost any aspect of what I wrote - and much more about what I didn't write here, so to take any one item out of a great many, your: "I would have expected a much richer understanding from you than simply 'I've suspected I'm not using the 'Standard' 'net for some time. Can you say more about what you mean?'" seems pointless to me.

Why not make this a two-way process and explain the screen shots instead of dismissing my response to your question as you seem to have and hoining in on what I consider more trivial, or at least of less importance in the short term.

[Cunt]

Perhaps I should have been more clear - I accept the screenshots which is why I have nothing to add. You seem clear, unconfused, and genuinely perplexed by events. I would guess that if you are correct about the main problems, that you would still likely be mistaken about certain details. To me that means there is little to be gained by pointing out what might be an honest mistake.

The reason I asked about the 'not using the 'standard net' was because, with your expertise, I thought you might be able to describe the problem in more detail. It might point to harder evidence of...well, I still don't know what.

The other thing is I am interested in is what action to advance. What do you want? I will do as I have offered and hold your messages safe. I will participate here, but if you want me to explain those screenshots, you have vastly overestimated my knowledge. That churchy forum used to have you in it, now it doesn't. I know because I saw you there (months or years ago), but I don't know them well enough to benefit from asking them why your account was removed.

I would support unreserved actions which support you best under all possibilities I listed, but as to narrowing them down, I don't know how.

Fuck, BrettA, how could I possibly explain the screenshots? That's a question I wouldn't expect from you.

Simply let me know what you want...how I could support you. I'll let you know if I can. For the record, I don't think you are demonstrating 'disordered thinking', but also haven't reason to take it off the table for now. Feel free to think of me the same way.

You have my ear, my mind is chewing this stuff over...I am not too interested in trying to pick holes in your story (since, as I said, you could be correct in the main and incorrect in a detail or two) but would gladly try to find something which could move from suspicion to evidence. The screenshot of the cancelled/deleted account could be that, but another piece would be needed. As it is, it could simply be lousy adminning/moderating, couldn't it?

And speaking of two-way, how about looking at some of my questions, too? (by the way, my support is not contingent on this)

[Seth]

It might be worth reflecting on the maxim "Never attribute to conspiracy that which is adequately explained by stupidity."

[BrettA]

It might be worth reflecting on the maxim "Never attribute to conspiracy that which is adequately explained by stupidity."

It also might be worth reflecting on: "OK, so I may be paranoid, but am I paranoid enough?"

[BrettA]

The nonsense continues... while trying to book a flight, they rejected my card because of supposed invalid security code... which is plainly correctly entered according to the back of my card.

George Brett Aubrey Calgary C: 303-402-3444

[Seth]

Screen Shot 2012-09-28 at 11.48.37 AM.jpg

The nonsense continues... while trying to book a flight, they rejected my card because of supposed invalid security code... which is plainly correctly entered according to the back of my card.

George Brett Aubrey Calgary C: 303-402-3444

I got this message after trying to buy several seasons worth of TV programs from the Apple iTunes store. The charge was declined and I was directed to my iTunes account where the security code was missing from my record. I tried entering it several times and it wouldn't work. The next day, my bank's automatic fraud checker called me to verify the five transactions, and after I did so the transactions went through with no problem and the security code was again validated. It appears that if the security software at the bank thinks your card has been stolen, and the card being used in widely geographically-spaced locations in a short period of time is (so I'm told) one of the potential triggers, your rabbit-hopping around two countries may have triggered the alert, it automatically invalidates the "card in hand" security code until they can verify the card has not been stolen. It's for your protection, but can be a pain in the ass. I've had that happen while traveling before as well.

I suspect you've been caught by your banks anti-fraud software. Call them up and tell them what's going on and they will most likely restore your card.

[BrettA]

Could be, I guess - it's never happened to me and seems to fit the recent dicey 'pattern', but thanks! B. And here a consolidated update, less graphics many of which are now stored in my website's 'More Images' > 'Venues' gallery: http://www.intersiteimaging.com Sorry for the long post, guys, but it is what it is (from emails and forums - mainly Rationalia - with minor mods to clarify and some corrections)…

----- Forwarded Message -----
From: Brett Aubrey <brett.aubrey@yahoo.ca>
To: "403923xxxx@txt.bell.ca" <403923xxxx@txt.bell.ca>
Sent: Wednesday, September 26, 2012 5:31:05 PM

Subject: Fw: Corruption also in Alberta, Canada, whether 'Mafia' or someone else... (BCC Included)

[ Jxxxx: I'm on the 'net here at a Holiday Inn by JFK and what's below is the text I read from over the phone, then the emails I sent to Antonio Nicasa, the latter with almost 50 BCC people, including that CBC show I mentioned, then the post I made on Calgary Fashion Connection Facebook Group and lastly more emails and forum posts. It's not very well done but I can clean it up later. ]

In addition to the email copy directly below, a big reason why organized crime is not often reported is that it effectively controls access to the police, whether by the answering service they use or by rerouting calls from people with knowledge of some details of how they work (like me) such that they will never let you get to the appropriate level for organized crime investigation in a police service. I've tried - many times - mainly for the RCMP. They also control building access to say, the RCMP in Calgary, again not allowing me to get to the appropriate department (or I was particularly unlucky the only time I tried… to the same end). In addition, 'they' control access to flights in a variety of ways.

Re controlling airport activities (see email below), at both Calgary and JFK airports they can and have set up 'false gates' to route passengers like me to them, but use different M.O.s. In Calgary, the gate itself was real - and with an associated jet - but said I was sleeping and missed my flight despite calling me over the PA twice (4 times?). The facts were that I arrived at Gate 12(?) ostensibly for AC 168 at 6:20 AM, said nothing when the Boarding Time of 6:40 went by with no activity, nor when I noted the clock read 6:53, 6:58 and 7:04, approaching the access podium at 7:10 to ask what was happening, which was when they fallaciously said that I'd missed it. Incredibly to me, a plane actually did leave the gate at the appropriate time of 7:15, but no passengers had boarded (there had been someone 'splitting' passengers as they approached security and I suspect all other passengers actually boarded, but at a differing gate. Anyway, I left though one of the podium employees followed me across the gate area and asked something to the effect: "You missed your flight, sir - don't you want us to help get you another?" I politely declined, given that I'd missed it through no mistake of my own and thus had issues around trust of these people. As I couldn't successfully board a flight to Ottawa and no longer felt safe even trying to get home (they have my van), I decided to try to get east via the States.

Briefly, after being blocked because the online reservation would only 'accept' people aged 18-64 (reported to booking agent who'd never seen this, BTW), I booked at the gate and travelled Calgary to Denver UA (6385Y), then to Charlotte (USAirways 498 or 555A?) and now here to JFK in NYC (via DL 4284 Boarding Pass for Seat 8D, though my ticket says AC 7923Y from Charlotte to Toronto, which I clearly did not get since I'm in NYC).

At JFK - I'm at a nearby Holiday Inn Express flanked by Best Western Kennedy Airport and a Days Inn as I type - I'm concerned that the airport shuttle bus will take me other than to the airport, BTW. Anyway, the rouse of setting up false exits for flights seems rampant. The AirTrain signs pointed to JFK Terminal 7 for Air Canada (one temporary ticket counter with a cardboard Air Canada sign) at the end of many British Airways permanent counters (with 'proper' BA wall logos). While this is likely no be a big deal, when I tried to get to AC 8901 to Toronto via Terminal 7 Gate 12 this Sept 26 AM, things became unsettling. Not only was there no ticket given (though I had a Boarding Pass for Seat 11A and a ream of paper printout as a 'ticket'), but I made it through the body scanner with no alarm and the security staff bypassed a body search as well - both for the very first time since getting a knee replacement last Nov. 11 in Calgary - but that may be due to simple procedural and equipment differences. Then, instead of any 'normal' gate, the sign for Gates 11, 12 were halfway down some stairs and supposedly through a very narrow passageway off to the left… I just kept walking down and quickly ended in a baggage pickup area. Despite not seeing any airline 'employee' during that short walk, one approached me shortly thereafter and asked if I wasn't taking the flight. Why would any real employee care or even notice, especially given the stairs weren't visible to any employees, at least from my POV? I could use help getting out of New York, and at this point have no idea how I'll try or whether I can even get this text out to someone who cares.

Again at JFK (now later), I tried to book a WestJet flight on Sep 28 ~11:15 from La Guardia to YYZ (for that day) and my TD Visa card was rejected saying the Security Code was 'invalid', but it wasn't… it's clearly 379 on the card and on the rejection screen shot - posted to the Rationalia.com forum under my thread on Corruption in Alberta… I even took a photo of the back of my card, but can't get it online unless I get a CF card reader

My Skype access was also just been removed around Sep 25, meaning I couldn't even access the 'net via Boing(?) at JFK proper, and I question if I can safely go through to any (real) gate to board a flight. At the Holiday Inn, I was using WiFi password of 'jets', then today 'giants' though this is for info only. But it may be analogous to my access at home in Calgary… I've suspected I'm not using the 'Standard' 'net for some time. I'm also certain that others can access my computers, whether via WiFi (which is 'Off' as I type) or even via cellular, at least in Calgary. Also, it seems they may have taken my van and kept some $6K of Nikon gear on that first flight (AC 168, but both need confirmation) plus stolen an iPad bought near the Gate - said iPad was not standard. Last night I got my Skype access back and managed to confirm - hopefully - that my posts to Ratz were working - not sure, but I may try to get to Toronto today or tomorrow.

Going back to how all this may have started, I'm a photographer who shoots a wide variety of subjects - including nude women - but was recently 'involved' with 3 underage girls wanting to shoot but 2 online not initially indicating that they are underage. In addition, an acquaintance said that he heard I shoot porn… not at all true. I have much more on this - related to the groups and site noted below but it's really only relevant to me if I can safely get to Canada… and be safe there.

Also as I've noted in the email, I *strongly* believe that the Rockyview General - notably Security and Unit 48 (especially Dr. Madan and perhaps nurse Ros) - is being controlled by organized crime as well. It seems I was moved there from the Foothills with no documentation - or none that they'd show me. I had only presented to the Foothills for advice but was admitted as a Formal Patient by Drs. Michelchuk and Binder, with 2 certificates - both badly flawed as to content about me. For release from the Rockyview's Unit 48 after being there ~8 days, they moved me from High Obs to the regular Unit to release in ~20 hours. As above I have more on this but it's really only relevant to me if I can reach safety get to Canada.

P.S.: If anyone from the CPS might be involved, check the driver of Squad Car 1543, AB plate ZHC - 318 at 9:20 - 9:30 at The Point Inn near Hwy 1, plus Officer 'Mike McGregor Badge 1701' (latter by memory but name/badge be confirmed via a Facebook post). Finally for this, Terminal 4's Palm Bar & Grill refused time and again to give me a Visa receipt for a $79.18 meal, without which I could not prove a paid for it - could they have called airport authorities as another way to try and stop me? Also, my home, John H's and Doug M.'s lines are always 'busy' 3:30-40-ish, Wed Sep 26 via Hotel phone - more than unusual.


----- Forwarded Message -----
From: Brett Aubrey <brett.aubrey@yahoo.ca>
To: antonio nicaso <nicaso@nicaso.com>
Cc: George Brett Aubrey <brett.aubrey@shaw.ca>; "brett.aubrey@gmail.com" <brett.aubrey@gmail.com>
Sent: Sunday, September 23, 2012 8:00:22 AM
Subject: Re: Corruption also in Alberta, Canada, whether 'Mafia' or someone else... (BCC to ~50 Others Included)

Antonio;

I never did receive a reply from you Sir, but I thought you'd be interested to know that one can realistically add significant influence at the Calgary Airport - very significant influence. I elected to try flying to Ottawa as a first route but failed to leave Calgary due to the most unbelievable set of circumstances you can imagine... well, not you perhaps due to your intimate knowledge, but I submit 'unimaginably unbelievable' to the vast majority of people.
Of course if the Quebec and Ontario 'stories' have any validity at all, it makes complete sense that corruption in a wealthy province like Alberta would exist.

Sincerely, Brett Aubrey - Home: 403-240-3455 Cell: 403-402-3444 Address: 343 Wildwood Dr. SW, Calgary Website: Intersite Imaging (.com)/ Model Mayhem Page: URL + /1501876
http://www.cbc.ca/player/News/ID/2280866569/

[ Directed P.S.: Sorry Webmaster, but I didn't quickly see a more general email address ]

From: Brett Aubrey <brett.aubrey@yahoo.ca>
To: antonio nicaso <nicaso@nicaso.com>
Cc: Brett Aubrey <brett.aubrey@shaw.ca>; "brett.aubrey@gmail.com" <brett.aubrey@gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, September 20, 2012 10:30:56 AM

Subject: Corruption also in Alberta, Canada, whether 'Mafia' or someone else...

Sir;

My information - partly divulged to others - predates the Sept 18 CBC news item on the Quebec Corruption Inquiry read by Peter Mansbridge which is where I found your name. I note this so you might realise that seeing such news items is not an influence to the scant notes below, but has indeed influenced how I will approach this with the police. I intend going to the RCMP Calgary office at 7575 8 Street NE at around 12:30 today - it's 10:30 here now - and hope to find an ear. I was thinking of flying to Ottawa but will try this route first.

Very briefly, some organized crime group has infiltrated certain persons working for the Calgary health region and more specifically, at the Foothills Medical Centre and the Rockyview General Hospital including the Emergency Departments' Security and other staff, notably those in the RGH's Unit 48. In addition and related, certain individuals using the model/photography website, Model Mayhem and Facebook group 'CALGARY FASHION CONNECTIONS - CFC (Models...)'.

If you have any advice to give in the next 2 hours - noting I've provided almost nothing here - I would appreciate it.

Sincerely, George Brett Aubrey - My website: http://www.intersiteimaging.com/ Model Mayhem Page: http://www.modelmayhem.com/1501876


KNOWLEDGE and COMMUNICATIONS - A CFC ISSUE (Calgary Fashion Connection Facebook Group Connecting Models, 'Togs, etc.)

It's fairly rare that I post here but I've just been through the most unusual communication thread I've encountered in my 2.5 years of shooting models and I submit that it's inappropriate - and should be to all of us - and needs to be addressed with changes implemented such that it doesn't happen again. If anyone disagrees, I'd welcome their position on this matter but to me it seems an open and closed case. In actuality there were 2 separate instances with huge similarities but so as not to muddy the waters, I'll deal with only what I find the most potentially problematic, which also happens to be the latter of the two. To have a group such as this with close to a thousand members and no control seems to me to be greatest underlying factor and that's exacerbated by a lack of information about the members - notably in this case, age - and the nature of the group of dealing frequently with models of almost any age, photographers and photoshoots - in my albeit limited experiences, often in private and/or out of the way settings and venues.

The scenario I'm referring to is a model making more than one post on various related forums waning a shoot. While wording varies, one asked for "anyone" to do a photoshoot of "any type" including "something new smile". When I hit her up privately she said she was down to shoot whenever and whatever I wanted, but no nudes. On asking for a few more guidelines "unless she was being quite literal and is open to anything that isn't 18+? ( 18+ as defined by, say, MM )", she replied affirmatively that she was "open to doing anything that isn't 18+". My understanding of that is that it means anything that doesn't show genitalia or - in a rather sexist manner - female nipples (plus images of a violent nature or suggestive of sexual activity, largely irrelevant to this post).

So whether lingerie, boudoir, the skimpiest of bikinis or any implied including butt naked varieties reasonably falls within her scope, as she specified it. And for more concrete but relative mild examples, anything in my 'People' gallery at: http://intersiteimaging.smugmug.com/Top … ;k=7BZRSdM and an almost infinite variety of shots 'sexier' than that. Also virtually anything on Facebook where there hasn't been manipulations to strategically cover certain parts - say, with those black rectangles one sees. And of course if she wanted to use something like black electrical tape over those same parts, she seemed to be agreeing to 90+ percent of what's on Model Mayhem including most 18+ poses that lack such covering. I felt that this was inappropriate and of course I asked to speak to her mother the minute she also added - at my request - her age. She's 14. Yes, fourteen! (She had included that her Mom would attend when she noted her age.)

At least two other people answered her request online back on Aug 22 and I've sent warnings to them that the model is indeed only 14, but I trust that at least the fairly active member who asked the model: "what theme do you have in mind?" simply never followed up with private messages to this model. Otherwise I'd hope he'd have posted something similar to this - my apologies if I missed it - or he went blithely on with a shoot and only when he read my message found out that she was just 14. The other person - whom I've never seen post before if memory serves - told her that he had "some time available in Sept"… that is, as early as tomorrow. Now I know this would never likely end in any unsavoury manner in this group, but I also suspect that there are 14 year-old girls that would like some images of "any type" including the examples above, and photographers - or Zev's 'fauxtographers' - who might want to provide them. Thus it seems that there is a potential for something unsavoury - again with such a large membership.

To my mind, there are ways to mitigate the possibility of problems, but I'm new here and would like to know if others agree with my concerns and agree that the situation should be looked at. Any input here would be appreciated and I'm also leaving contact information.

Sincerely, Brett Aubrey H: 403-240-3455 (preferred) C: 403-402-3444 (no voice mail) Email: brett.aubrey@yahoo.ca MM: 1501876 Website: http://www.intersiteimaging.com/ - most models mixed in at 'People', nudes and some implied locked elsewhere).

----- Forwarded Message -----
From: Brett Aubrey <brett.aubrey@yahoo.ca>
To: "403923xxxx@txt.bell.ca" <403923xxxx@txt.bell.ca>
Sent: Wednesday, September 26, 2012 7:52:54 PM
Subject: Re: Cell Status? Location and 613 numbers

J, it would appear that - after 3 quick unanswerable calls in succession from 613-249-8532 and ...-8531(2 calls) - my cell phone may now be 'out' / disabled. I'm in Rm 311 at a Holiday Inn near what's signed as the "Best Western - Kennedy Airport" Hotel very close to a freeway. I'd think you should distribute earlier info quickly. Canadian coins are hidden under the mattress, in a nook at the back of an LG TV and at the top of the lamp in the corner as 'proof' I was here if I'm not found to be (and 'they' haven't seen this).

As noted some time ago, things could be happening to unnerve or rattle me and they're working. Please try to call and if I don't hear from you, I may try those 613 (Ottawa) numbers - unsure yet.

Cheers, Brett.

From: Brett Aubrey <brett.aubrey@yahoo.ca>
To: "403923xxxx@txt.bell.ca" <403923xxxx@txt.bell.ca>
Sent: Wednesday, September 26, 2012 6:54:01 PM
Subject: The Could Not Process / Adult (age 18 to 64) Default Box and Message

FYI, J...

I just tried booking another United flight to see if the same thing happens as my attempt in Calgary and I go from selecting the flight - i.e. basic flight info like Number and Time - to "Traveler Information" which specifies "Traveler 1 - Adults (age 18 to 64)" by default and indicates that my Jan '47 Date of Birth is not valid. There seems to be no way to change/override the "Traveler 1" default. The Booking Agent has never seen this message and without his help, it seems I couldn't have bough the ticket.

I could check more but this is enuff for now. Still, I admit it could be my error.

Cheers, B.

P.S.: Ooops, seems I can't upload the attachment - a screen shot with the 'error' in this case. Will work on it.
********************

NEXT: A Sept 27 8:28 AM response post on Rationalia - http://rationalia.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=22&t=39703

First, an update… Interestingly IMO, unusual events are still happening. One forum I posted on last night was the very inclusive United Church of Canada's WonderCafe.ca site, specifically at http://www.wondercafe.ca/discussion/politics, but my post and the ~7 replies it garnished are no longer there, and I as user BrettA I'm no longer able to log in: 'User name BrettA has not been activated or has been blocked / Access denied…'. Most of the post replies expressed confusion while the second last reply from one 'RevJohn' said that he flagged the post because he felt that it was (brief summation) highly paranoid and he was worried about my health and well being. More specifically, most of what he wrote was:

"…I am concerned for you. I have flagged this post, not because I find it offensive but rather because I find it deeply concerning. To be blunt, the paranoia expressed is exceedingly heavy and I am worried for you. It is my hope that Admin will be able to establish contact with you and see if you are in need of assistance. As you claim above, this post is what it is.  From where I sit the post is delusional and I fear for your health and well-being.
Grace and peace to you. John
My reply to him was:

"Yes John, I can certainly understand.  Though last Sunday I asked someone much more aware of what I'm going though for 5 or 6 words to describe his thoughts around a part of this and he replied: 
"Six words - irrefutable evidence trumps paranoia."
 I suggest that the more you know, the more comprehensible it becomes.   I hope that gives you at least a tiny bit of comfort - my health and well-being is fine from where I sit and will remain so with no outside interference :-).  - B.
Now why would posts that elicited concern about someone - to the point of being flagged about - be simply deleted? And then the user of whom concern is expressed denied access? RevJohn specifically stated that he wasn't flagging for the usual reasons. As I said, unusual things are still happening.


To your posts, Rum, yes, you have the first concern basically right, though it's also because I've been embroiled in this through no real 'fault' of my own. The 'brush with the possibility' was noted mainly because I posted my concern on the Facebook group "Calgary Fashion Connections - CFC - connecting models, photographers and MUAs" and is no real immediate concern but seemed to be the impetus for much shit to start… most of it not yet mentioned here. However, these events starting in minor ways were enough to want me to report this to the RCMP and that's when the serious shit started, and to a degree is ongoing to a degree, I believe, such as with WonderCafe.ca and deletion of my post. The under age thing to which I referred did not take place - it was merely the reason for my raising it with the CFC group… to no benefit, BTW - as my concerns were brushed off. Again, this was most surprising since I'd strongly suggested it be looked at so it didn't happen with anyone else.

Re your "delusion", as I said to RevJohn, I understand, Rum. While events are unbelievable and would be to me if someone else stated them, they are both true and completely unexaggerated. And while I've been through has been unnerving, there's no need for concern for me if that's what you're suggesting, again barring outside influences. I'm fine :-)! Thanks mutely for the offer of PMing, but anything I write is likely best being public. An feel free to discuss anything here publicly, FBM - I'm an open book. Indeed I'd love you to question any aspect of this you want and I'll answer as best I can.

Also, regarding societal control (your words as I see it), did you note the news item I posted a CBC.ca link about (and there's a later, related one also by Diana Swain and read by Peter Mansbridge - both available at Diana's home page at CBC.ca). I was deep into things here before I saw these, so it's not like they were an influence on me except in minor ways - the shit had already hit the fan. I'm not saying societal control in the way I read you, but 'they' can go to great lengths in controlling a person from reaching the police, and have done so with me. This is not to say I'm important in any way… just that I 'fell into' an area I suspect deals with kiddie porn and I started making noise about it… and have continued to make noise as things got worse.

Please try to apply your 'not to dismiss organized crime'. With it, someone, somewhere will be deeply impacted. I happen to be one of those, again through no 'fault' of my own. It seems rather like the lottery in reverse - we know there are winners but few of us know one personally or even via a forum.

P.S.: What's a GP in your use, please - like an MP perhaps - an elected Member of Parliament representing my riding/area (if this, I'm trying)? Or like a General Physician / Family Doctor (if this, I'm in NYC and this would be way, way out of her experiences)? Or something else? And Indeed I am talking to others, including the person who wrote "Irrefutable evidence trumps paranoia". I'll also be posting more from other sites where questions arose, but sadly, not the now deleted thread on Wonder Cafe. Thoughts?

Cheers, Brett.
********************

NEXT: A Sept 27 8:38 AM post pointing to a related thread at: http://rationalia.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=22&t=39703 (with graphic).

And a bit from RatSkep where I posted the UA denial screen shot and was questioned by Fact-Man-2 and Metatron (if interested, please see the screen shot near the bottom of: http://www.rationalskepticism.org/post1 ... l#p1483956 )...

As per the text, there was no 'selecting' involved at all - it was straight from basic flight info to this as an unchangeable default that even the employee/agent at the gate had never seen. Also as per the text, I tested this out again before posting. But I do understand from whence you come - it's simply unbelievable, but still true - and I thank you for the advice, but yes, I'm fine posting here and elsewhere, as indeed I have done.
< RatSkep 'United Airlines'' Graphic with my booking rejection screen shot: http://www.rationalskepticism.org/news- ... 34781.html >

Re Fact-Man-2's post partly about what I shoot (or not), here's my Model Mayhem page and my portfolio links:
http://www.modelmayhem.com/1501876
http://www.modelmayhem.com/portfolio/1501876/viewall (18+ Warning - Adults Only, Please!)

Cheers Brett :-) H: 403-240-3455 (preferred) C: 403-402-3444 (no voice mail) Skype: InImaging Email: Brett.Aubrey@yahoo.ca Intersite Imaging (.com)/ - most models mixed in at 'People', nudes are locked under 'More Images' > 'Risqué' (password is: 1501876 and you may need to hit 'Submit' 2ce).
********************

NEXT: Sept 27 9:11-10:46 AM misc. selected shorter response posts on Rationalia (modified for clarity) - http://rationalia.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=22&t=39703 (Graphics were screen captures)

Well Rum... As I said, I'm in NYC and this is way beyond her (my Family Doc) experiences. Also, she doesn't take phone calls and it's far too complex by phone, anyway.

But what's your strongly strongly advice re my GP based on, please, Rum?

Cheers, Brett.
*****

OK, thank you Rum and most of that was largely clear with your earlier post. So again, why do you think that I "should talk to a doctor because your thinking about these issues is not realistic"? What's your professional experience that indicates this, please? Psychiatric? Medical? Organized crime? Or something else entirely, please? TIA.

Cheers, George Brett Aubrey
*****

Oh, I have given some thought to that (disordered thoughts), Rum. And talked it over with people... hence my friend's "Irrefutable evidence trumps paranoia".

And even if it was partly or mainly me, that doesn't explain things like this morning's:
< WonderCafe.ca 'Access Denied' Graphic for me - 'BrettA' >

Cheers, George Brett Aubrey
*****

Nor does it explain deletion of a similar thread to this on their forum:
< WonderCafe.ca 'Political Discussion' Graphic with my late Sept. 27 post on Corruption clearly no longer there. >

Cheers, George Brett Aubrey
*****

Nor does it explain a whole host (gotta love that term ;-) ) of other related events.

Cheers, George Brett Aubrey :-) H: 403-240-3455 (preferred) C: 403-402-3444 (no voice mail) Email: brett.aubrey@yahoo.ca MM: /1501876
*****

Indeed, it also doesn't explain earlier thread deletions on SAOC's (Canadian submariner) forum, as per the bottom line, here:

< SAOC-Central Thread List Graphic with my late Sept. 27 post on Corruption, and a Sep 6 post of mine re thread deletion. >

Cheers, Brett
*****

The above screen shot was from "SAOC-Central (.com)" and their related forum. Here's more to that bottom line noted above:
< SAOC-Central Thread Graphic with my earlier Sep 6 posts asking about earlier thread deletion - August 20-25? >

It's from the Submariner's Association Of Canada, and the "Central" generally excludes both east and west coasts (not an official 'exclusion', though). And the posts deleted were very much related to what's going on now.
*****

<<< Some of the above graphics have been uploaded to my 'More Images' > 'Venues' gallery at http://www.intersiteimaging.com >>>
*** After having an online session at JFK's Terminal 7 this Sep 28 AM via Boingo, another try while charging my laptop failed. ***
*** Also, my Visa was rejected for invalid security code of 379 when "379" is clearly on the back of my TD Visa Gold Elite card. ***

Cheers, George Brett Aubrey :-) H: 403-240-3455 (preferred) C: 403-402-3444 (no voice mail) Email: brett.aubrey@yahoo.ca Website: Intersite Imaging (.com) - most models are mixed in at 'People', nudes are locked elsewhere). Mayhem: URL with /1501876 (Warning: 18+ content!)

[Rum]

Brett, May I ask what you think you will gain by posting this stuff here? Do you want help with this issues? Are they causing you anxiety? Are you sharing the information to 'open up' this plotting that you think you have uncovered?

People here are feeling a bit helpless, but really want to help you with this stuff.

You say that your family doctor can't help - that this is way beyond here. I was not thinking about the worries you have, but about the fact that you are worried at all about what to most of us is simply not real. You have said nothing as yet to convince me that you are not suffering from a state of paranoia. You may need help with it - unless of course you are content with your present state of being.

Your doctor is the one to go to for that help.

[BrettA]

Rum: If this is tl;dr, I'm fine, but I thought that with your consistent advice, I'd put down a bit of my recent related past that's basically an elaboration or the 9th paragraph in the top 'Section' of my longest post - which has now been through several iterations. Shortly after related strange events* began happening following my CFC complaint about the possibility of photographers inadvertently hooking up with underage girls ('models'), I presented myself at the Foothills General Hospital for advice given the these events were starting to unnerve me a bit. I was told to go to Admitting and found myself admitted right away (remember that I was only looking for advice). Further, I was admitted as a 'Formal Patient' after 2 psychiatrists - Drs. Mikelchuk and Binder - provided with 2 'certificates' which were in lock-step with one another but both badly flawed as to content about me. Long story short about the Foothills, after being lied to by the hospital Security staff as relates to inventorying my belongings**, I sustained more bruises than I'd evert had in my life after their 'handling'.

But after a couple of days in their prison-like "High-Observation" area, I found myself being moved - "conveyed" in their terms - from the Foothills to the Rockyview General Hospital with no documentation - or none that they'd show me. Again I was placed in 'High-Obs', in psych ward Unit 48. I remained there for about 8 days, quietly suggesting that there was no need for it, again as I'd only presented to the Foothills for advice. Then following a convoluted series of steps***, I found myself asking the Unit Nursing station that the RCMP be called as with the lies and intransigeant attitude of Unit personnel, it was looking like I'd be interned there for months. At their refusal, my back went up and I began saying things that should have had me interned for life in a "real" situation, such as: "If you try to keep me in here forever, you'll be fucked", "I work autonomously, I don't work alone" (implying I had sanctioned support if I needed it) and dropped the former CSIS Director's name.

They refused the police and this is where it became unusual. I was on the phone telling a friend of my situation when two security guards strolled up and told me to get off the phone and then tried to drag me into a 'cell'. I resisted partly because of the blatant lies of the Foothills staff and partly because the seemed to have no right to do this… after all, I was just quietly talking on the phone. Again I went into the "I work autonomously, I don't work alone!" - now almost yelling - and more pointedly, "If you fucks harm me the Canadian people will tear you apart!" Later, because Binder and Mikelchuk both mentioned that I was worried about covert government operatioons against me, I noted that partly because to my knowledge the only area in the RCN running covert operations - or black ops - are the submarine service when I spent 4 years, I certainly knew more about these than the average Canadian. Following that, things changed dramatically and after a several tests and interviews with psychiatrists and residents - one lasting 90+ minutes - I was moved out of High-Obs to the Unit proper and then fully released with "clean papers" - no follow-up and no meds… all within 20 hours.

Sorry to take so long to get here, but with that past, going to my GP as you advise seems entirely inappropriate as I'm way beyond that with the Rockyview 'OK'ing and releasing me, your related past notwithstanding. But I still strongly believe that the Rockyview General - notably Security and Unit 48 (especially my Doc and Nurse) - is/are being controlled by organized crime to some unknown extent. I should never have been admitted - much less as a Formal Patient with 2 Certificates based on fallacious information - but given that I was, I should likely not have been released so quickly - especially from High Obs to release with no follow-up in a scant ~20 hours.

* Being harassed and followed by car and much, much more.
** This is a long story in itself - hopefully later.
*** Later for these.

Finally, I'll suggest you do as most people do with many, many threads... Just ignore it, Rum :-). And FWIW, I'm not trying to convince you.

Cheers, Brett Aubrey

[BrettA]

Just a quick update for you to ignore, Rum ;-), but I'm now in Room 1469 at Toronto's Delta Chelsea Hotel, partly with the help of two truly fine people :-). I find it a great boost to be able to communicate on a more personal level than a forum allows, and 4 or 5 people have been just marvelous in this respect - outfuckingstanding!

Thanks guys - you know who you are if you read this :-) :-) :-)! Fuck, ya know who you are even if you don't read this!

Cheers, Brett.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

Brett,

I'm sorry if this sounds a little patronising (it certainly isn't meant that way!) but... Have you considered that you may have given an impression to the doctors at Foothills that was not what you intended? Is it possible that you came across to them as dangerously disturbed and "a danger to yourself and others"?

I know that there have been several occasions in my life where I have thought that I was being quite reasonable but others had taken my comments as antagonism, had told me to calm down/stop being so angry/get a grip (etc.) and had thus infuriated me to the point where I genuinely was antagonistic and not prone to cooperativeness! Looking back, I can usually see that I was a little heated to begin with and should have taken a couple of steps back before initiating any confrontion, however sound my position seemed at the time.

I can see how a scenario like this could cause a pair of psychiatric doctors to decide to admit someone for observation. You did seek their help, remember - not something that ordinary members of the public are wont to do often. Could it be that they simply saw it as their medical duty to have you where they could keep an eye on you for a while?

I am not dismissing your account of events - I am simply trying to suggest an alternative interpretation that doesn't involve any grand conspiracy. In my experience, that is often the correct one.

Please, at least consider this as a possibility.

[BrettA]

Brett, I'm sorry if this sounds a little patronising (it certainly isn't meant that way!) but... Have you considered that you may have given an impression to the doctors at Foothills that was not what you intended? Is it possible that you came across to them as dangerously disturbed and "a danger to yourself and others"?

Thanks for the input and never a need for "sorry" IMV as I've tried to encourage feedback with "Why not make this a two-way process...", "Could be, I guess... but thanks!", "I find it a great boost..." and more. So any feedback is welcome and I'll try to respond in kind. That said, sure, I've considered almost everything I think but if I came across as 'dangerously disturbed and a danger...' or similar - as indeed their 'certificates' implied or stated - why then let me go so quickly after having made virtually no psychiatric contact with me for the next ~8 days (despite multiple, polite requests for more 'Doctor time', I had perhaps 40 'doctor-minutes' during that period but probably in excess of 350 'doctor-minutes' in the day after I pushed back with yelling rants like: "I work autonomously, I do not work alone", "...the Canadian people will rip you apart" and more.

When I said "clean papers", IIRC one positive check-off was indeed about a danger to myself and others, while for the previous ~10 days (~2 in the Foothills) it had been a negative check-off. So just after I fight back, rant, ask/demand the RCMP be called and more... all of a sudden I'm fine? OK, if you can buy that over what I'm stating/implying about corruption then goferit; but after even more consideration just now, it seems unlikely to me (and I'm not at all saying that my take on things is not unlikely... it's enormously unlikely, simply unbelievable and outrageous!). Also, we know there's corruption - including public support of corruption as one of the police says - so perhaps having some people in psychiatric emerg is one area of supporting public corruption... have you considered that?

It would be one possible route to prevent people like me - i.e. what I believe my situation to be about - from getting to the police (along with their phone answering people dismissing any and all requests for me to get to them as well).

And here's another thought... instead of just interning people like me, why not use a mix of ways to ensure people never get to the police? Why not kill one or two, say, by throwing one being conveyed by ambulance in front of a truck: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/newfoundl ... n-924.html (yeah, yeah, pure speculation but based on my experiences, speculate I did ;-) ). Still XC, will you consider that? This is organised crime AFAIC and a body or two - with others interned in mental institutions - seems not entirely improbable given their very violent past (Al Capone, etc., etc., etc.) and possibly huge, huge amounts of money and power they have or could likely get.

... You did seek their help, remember - not something that ordinary members of the public are wont to do often. Could it be that they simply saw it as their medical duty to have you where they could keep an eye on you for a while?

Sure, for most of that but to nitpick a bit, I didn't seek their help so much as their advice for help.

I am not dismissing your account of events - I am simply trying to suggest an alternative interpretation that doesn't involve any grand conspiracy. In my experience, that is often the correct one. Please, at least consider this as a possibility.

Again, absolute agreement from me here - alternative interpretations are always possible so consider everything!!!

[Brian Peacock]

It might be worth reflecting on the maxim "Never attribute to conspiracy that which is adequately explained by stupidity."

It also might be worth reflecting on: "OK, so I may be paranoid, but am I paranoid enough?"

As you may be aware Brett, conspiracies theories seem compelling because they appear to join together in a logical way two or more seemingly unrelated pieces of information. A conspiracy theory is a kind of narrative that we arrive at ourselves to 'explain' how things that do not appear to be necessarily related to each other can, could be, or in fact are related to each other. A conspiracy theory therefore plugs a gap or hole in the informations we have available and acts as a kind of bridge which seemingly connects random events into a consistent narrative whole.

But, and here's the deal Brett, we must recognise that the conspiracy theory can only ever be a hypothesis, and a poor hypothesis at that, because it almost entirely consists of assumptions we have provided ourselves in order to specifically draw together otherwise random or unrelated information. A conspiracy theory is an explict attempt to bolster a pre-existing conclusion and not an honest attempt to arrive at the actual conclusion.

Of course, we have to acknowledge that our assumptions could, perhaps, possibly be true in certain circumstances, but because those assumptions are the product of our innate capacity imagine we also have to acknowledge that any and all imaginable hypotheses could, perhaps, possibly be true also - or even none.

We also have to acknowledge that we may never actually have good, sound reasons for imagining a possible connection between disparate items of information, and we must also acknowledge that there may actually be no actual information or detail that exists to connect our story and make it a cohesive narrative whole.

A conspiracy is an exercise in imposing order on a disordered world, and in this respect they perform admirably. But still the fact remains; the world remains a disordered and untidy place.

If we are to declare our conspiracy theories correct, true or 'proven,' and in that elevate them from mere conspiracy theory to actual factual knowledge, we require evidences. This, I am sure, you understand.

But let me be explicit and clear here Brett, when we talk of evidences we do not simply talk about that which supports and bolsters our assumptions - for that kind of thing is notoriously unreliable and simply amounts to a redundant exercise in confirmation bias. No, what we require are any and all evidences regardless of what they imply. Only in accounting for what we do actually know (not we assume) we can build into a cohesive narrative whole and lay claim to truth and knowledge.

In other words, we must follow reason wherever it leads us and not just make a bee-line for a predetermined conclusion - and in that we must accept that reason can only lead us so far.

Brett, I feel that much of what you have written here rests on imagined connections, unfounded assumptions, and a personal commitment to the idea that the role of organised crime in society is always and only ever exactly what you are claiming it to be. In this sense most of what your have written appears not as a reasoned explanations of how disparate information and unrelated events are actually part of a broad narrative whole. Instead most of what you have written appears to be specifically designed to bolster and reinforce your pre-existing commitment to the specific idea; the idea that the world not only reflects your assumptions but, in fact, actually consists of those assumptions in reality.

Brett, please listen when I say that you are an unreliable witness here. You are so bound to the idea of a conspiracy as being the true reflection of the actual state of things that you have fallen to only reinforcing that state without regard for all which might, and indeed does, act to undermine it.

We take care of each other here Brett, and part of that extends to sometimes being quite forthright in our communications with each other. We do this because we exist under a common agreement to not seek to cause harm to each other, and those who do cause harm here are invited to find another place to practice their bad manners. You are among friends here Brett, and with this in mind I would like to strongly suggest, very strongly suggest, that you seek out somebody who can help you put your thoughts in order on this matter.

And that DOES NOT mean that you should seek out somebody who is an expert in organised crime or someone who will provide you with tacit agreement. I mean that you should seek out somebody who is skilled in helping people order their thoughts, and I think your first step towards that would be to take your family doctor into your confidence to tell them exactly what you think about this matter.

You know in your heart of hearts that there is something wrong about this whole business don't you? You can continue to seek confirmation of your ideas of course, but you have done that already haven't you, but you know that the 'something wrong' still remains, don't you?

Adding more information to your conspiracy theory does not bring you closer to clarity does it, really(?); in fact it only seems to creates more unravelling thread and adds further confusion to your thoughts, which in turn deepen your sense that something is wrong about this whole business.

Brett, I will say something quite plainly to you now:

• Make an appointment with your doctor to talk about your thoughts and feeling about this issue.

And Brett, examine your reactions to that statement. If your initial reaction is to alight on some reason or excuse to say that my suggestion is silly or foolish, unnecessary, irrelevant and/or unhelpful then please, please consider the fact that you are an unreliable witness and may not be in the best position to dismiss the sincere and honest advice of others so quickly.

Brett, make an appointment with your doctor and talk about your thoughts and feelings on this issue, regardless of whether you think it will help or not. See what your doctor thinks about these things and just take it from there, OK?

[BrettA]

Erm... While I agree with most of what you say, Brian - and that should have been obvious to you before you wrote - we already went over the 'see your doctor' perhaps 3 or 4 times and I'm thousands of miles away from her and have been 'cleared' by much, much more qualified doctors who've spent much more time with me... almost infinitely more time on this 'issue' than my doc. Is that quite plain to you, Brian?

Re my being an unreliable witness, that's why I'm in much closer communications with others, one of whom wrote - as you know:

"Six words - irrefutable evidence trumps paranoia."

And yes, I do know in my heart of hearts that there is something (very) wrong about this whole business... see, we have agreement :-)! But some things are becoming increasingly droll, as well ;-)!