Chapter 6

JOBLESS AND WITHOUT PRIVACY: 2001-2004

Privacy is the right from which all freedom flows.

Unknown

AGENT BULLIES

Mr. Han-Xin Lin

After I realized I had been robbed, I was, of course, extremely upset. Piecing together all the incidents leading up to the October 20-24, 2000, securities incident, I figured that the motivation for the defendant’s action was that I did not go along with their “business proposal”.

Suspecting that Mr. Han-Xin Lin did not know the whole story between the defendant and me, I called him in late November to try to convince him that he and his wife were being manipulated.

My meeting with Mr. Lin in the last weekend of November 2000 did not go well. I was wary of telling him too much, not knowing how deeply he was involved with the defendant. (I did not even tell him any names of the defendant.) And he did not seem to be happy with the situation either, although he did not threaten me as he did on a couple of months later when, I believe, he had decided which side he would be on.

On November 27, 2000, the day after my meeting with Mr. Lin, my Internet security software detected an intrusion from a gay porn website. (The software periodically issued warnings against intrusions. But this was the only time that an intrusion from a gay site had occurred to my computer that I know of. Later, a similar incident was that a gay agent was sent to harass me by the defendant soon after I filed my lawsuit in late 2002.)

FWIN, 1000/11/27, 11:44:32 -6:00 GMT, 12.41.90.50:137,216.191.91.215:137,UDP AT&T ITS (NET-ATT) ATT 12.0.0.0 – 12.255.255.255 BADPUPPY ENTERPRISES (NETBLK-BADPUPPY311-88) BADPUPPY311-88 12.41.88.0 – 12.41.91.255 In Florida

In the evening of January 18, 2001, I had another meeting with Mr. Lin at the Earl’s Restaurant near Metrotown in Burnaby. It was in this meeting that he threatened my family, and specifically my sister in China.

The most puzzling parts of his original Chinese conversation were listed here. Maybe I need help for more accurate translation. But I will write down my interpretations and the impact they had on me.

1. As soon as we sat down, he said in a wicked tone: “你妹妹还在国内吧！”

In English he basically said: “So, your sister is still in China, right?” After I nodded, he went on to talk about something else. Note that he barely knew my sister.

2. “什么都可以谈，什么都可以摆平。”

He basically said that the defendant wanted private justice, i.e, to settle privately. It was of the same spirit as the quote from Bloomberg website on July 24, 1997 “I’ll make him an offer he can’t refuse”.

3. “有那么十几万人民币，什么都可以解决。”

He meant that, as long as you have one hundred something thousand RMB Yuan, everything can be solved. Initially, I thought he bullied me about his knowledge of the US$25,000 I borrowed from my sister for my trading. But the figures did not match – US$25,000 was more than 200,000RMB Yuan. Then, a couple of days later, in a Chinese news website¹² I frequented, there was a piece of news about various prices for hurting or killing people in Chinese underworld. I remember the price to kill was one hundred something thousand RMB Yuan, the highest on the list.

4. “做事不正规，出了事怎么办呢”

He basically asked, if I do not have all the formalities, what if something happened? This one was an apparent bullying about the fact that I used my sister’s name to trade securities.

5. “借钱不还” “开车不小心”

Although on the surface, he was talking about a mutual friend (classmate) of us, that (1) this friend did not repay his debt; and (2) this friend drives carelessly, he was in fact bullying me. Because just a couple of weeks before, I had borrowed about $1000 from a friend of mine and talked to him about some of the bad experience I had with the defendant over the years, including a couple of suspicious incidents related to cars. I did not think Mr. Lin knew this friend of mine.

Messrs Ming-Qing Hou and Zhi-Yong Gu

In the morning of December 15, 2000, I received two calls on my cell phone. The first one was a hang-up call from (604) 599-9229. Note that this individual or individuals had called me several times before from that number (see Chapter 2 for a summary), including the one in the morning of June 15, 2000 with the paired incident being the stalking by Mr. Weldon’s three daughters and their bodyguards later that day.

A little while later, Mr. Ming-Qing Hou or Mr. Zhi-Yong Gu called³ to express interest in buying my used computer that I had put on the classifieds on Chinese Buy and Sell newspaper. (I had used my cell phone to call the newspaper to put on the ad.) We set up an appointment in the afternoon for him to come to my apartment to see the computer.

It turned out that two people, Messrs Hou and Gu, came together in the late afternoon. They were unusually aggressive⁴. Some of the odd things during their visit:

1. They asked me how much my rent was. After I reluctantly answered, Mr. Gu commented “it is very cheap indeed”⁵ while Mr. Hou chided him for uttering those words.

2. When they got to know that I traded S&P index futures, Mr. Hou sounded very interested⁶ and told me that he had written stock tips/comments for newspaper(s).

• He then asked me what the face value of an S&P contract was. I thought he meant the margin requirement because, from a practical point of view, margin is far more relevant than face value and the question about margin is often asked by new traders. But he said “no, no, no”, as if I did not get it, and repeated that face value was the question. So I explained to him how face value is calculated, i.e., the level of S&P Index times 250, not realizing his real intention in asking the question.

• In discussing currency futures, Mr. Hou asked me if I was aware of the then exchange rate between US and Canadian dollars.

3. Mr. Hou also asked me which immigration consulting company assisted me with my immigration application. I certainly did not want to tell a stranger about my personal information. So I said an arbitrary immigration consulting company, without being seen too rude to them. He then told me suggestively that he had worked for a brief period of time at COIBS, the very exact firm that handled my immigration application in 1995.

4. As for their supposed real purpose of coming to my apartment, i.e., buying my used 486 computer, they did not ask any questions about the computer at all. They simply bought it.

There were just too many hints from their visits. The first one told me that they were sent here by Mr. Yanxiu Li, just as in Ms. Hai-Ling Zhang’s visit earlier.

The second one clarified how much I was “offered”, i.e., 500,000 dollars, in Canadian fund, which was roughly the then value of an S&P contract, given the level of the S&P Index and exchange rate at the time. It clarified the messages delivered by Mr. Han-Xin Lin and Mr. Yu-Feng Qin, in terms of denomination of currency.

Item three was not quite so obvious. Was it merely a coincidence that Mr. Hou worked at the same immigration consulting company that had represented me in my immigration application in 1994-95? Clearly not. The logical explanation was that Mr. Hou went to work at COIBS by order of the defendant for the purpose of accessing my immigration file.⁷

Indeed, from Mr. Hou’s suggestive tone, the defendant – in this case, I would narrow it down to Mr. Yanxiu Li -- was conveying the message that he would help me down the road with this piece of “evidence” he got.

Having been given the tip about the existence of such information in my immigration file, I decided to initiate my own privacy request with CIC as described in section 6.3.

In early 2001, I was quite scared of the whole situation and did not know what the defendant wanted from me. It was around this time that Mr. Han-Xin Lin threatened me and Mr. Ming-Qing Hou bullied me to go back to China.

1. Mr. Hou said that he could get me a manager’s position in Corporate Finance⁸ with Jun An Securities⁹ in Shenzhen¹⁰, China.

2. I did not know how to respond to his forceful “suggestion”. So he said: “what are you afraid of?”

POLICE BULLYING NO. 1

Although this incident is labeled Police Bullying No. 1, it was not necessarily the first incident of police bullying targeted at me. I did not immediately write it down because at the time of the incident, I only felt the police behavior strange. I did not feel I was being threatened.

It happened in the afternoon of either December 24, or December 31 of 2000. I walked to the post office at East King Edward Avenue and Main Street from my then residence at Adanac Street and Commercial Drive. On my way back in a quiet neighborhood, I noticed one or several police vehicles driving extremely slowly around me. In fact, the car(s) were moving so slowly that they looked like stalled at times. I did not normally pay attention to police cars, except of course when their sirens or emergency lights were on. But I did notice this time, or should I say that I was made aware of their presence, because the police vehicle(s) intercepted with my walking several times, from different directions.

I did not think too much of it then. I have never had any problem with the law. I remember it was a fairly nice winter day. It must be fairly early in the afternoon as it was still quite bright outside.

The only logical explanation is that the defendant reported me to the police after they robbed me. The Vancouver police department did an individualized service for the defendant by bullying me this way. Of course, I don’t think that defendant told the police that they had just robbed me. (Would they ever tell the government what they said about me in their reference letter of 1993?)

The questions I would like to ask here are:

1. What did the defendant tell the police about me?

2. How did the Vancouver police handle the report?

3. Who are the police protecting, the bullies or the victims?

4. Given the facts that (a) the location where the incident occurred was quite a distance from my residence; (b) I very, very rarely walked the long route to my post office; and (c) the defendant stalked me as described elsewhere in this report, did the police collaborate with the defendant in stalking me that day?

PRIVACY REQUEST

As described above, Messrs Hou and Gu, agents for the defendant, came to my residence in mid-December 2000 and tipped me off the existence of hard-copy version of the rumors held in my file with CIC. I think Mr. Yanxiu Li wanted to convey the message that he would help me down the road now that he had the documents from my immigration files. Does this sound familiar? Yes indeed. When Mr. Li told me in 1993 that he kept a copy of the reference letter, he also implied that he would straighten things out for me. And what did he do? He sold me out and joined the bullies.¹¹

Can you trust a person like Mr. Li? I decided to get that information lawfully by myself.

I sent to CIC Public Rights Administration (“PRA”) a formal request (Appendix 6-1) for personal information under the Privacy Act on February 7, 2001. CIC PRA received it on February 12, 2001.

Initial Response

The next evening, at around 10:00PM on February 13, Mr. Han-Xin Lin called and indicated that he would like to meet me. In this brief conversation, he sounded most amicable ever since the securities incident. Please note barely a month before, he had threatened me.

I think that soon after CIC PRA received my privacy request, they checked my file in their computer and knew that the information would be damaging to the defendant. To protect the defendant, they then conversed with someone at SFU, most likely the person who was the source (or, part of the source) of that information. Since Mr. Lin was the only link between me and the defendant at the time, the defendant asked Mr. Lin to call me immediately. The amicable nature of Mr. Lin’s phone call simply was a reflection of their initial fluster caused by my privacy request, a serious matter under the law.

Bullying Over the Internet

On or around March 12, 2001, I received an acknowledgement letter (Appendix 6-2) from CIC dated 03/01/2001 and postmarked 03/05/2001 to my Privacy Request. The letter was signed by Ms. Nora Saikaley, A/Manager of Operations, Public Rights Administration¹².

I had suspected that my Internet and trading activities were monitored somehow and told my suspicion to some of my friends in an email on March 12, 2001. In that evening, I found out that the word “nasty” in my email was substituted by 5 blank spaces (see Appendix 6-3). The word “nasty” was supposed to be in front of the phrase “spying programs.”

I had written the email beforehand and saved it as a draft in my email account. There was no problem there. However, when I tested the email by sending a copy to myself, the same substitution occurred. It was as if somebody was able to “filter out” the word somewhere on the Internet.

Puzzled, I went to www.dictionary.com and put in the word “nasty”¹³. However, it returned the word “nothing” and its definition. I tried several other words. They all returned the same page, i.e., the definition of the word “nothing”. It was as if somebody was able to switch my input words to the word “nothing” just before I submitted it.

I then tried another website www.webster.com. No matter what word I put in, this one always returned the web page where there was nothing in the input cell, together with the following error message: “Invalid input. No entries found”. It was as if somebody was able to delete my words before I submitted it.

Later, I realized that the keyword here was nothing. And the message was that there is nothing on my immigration file, as I came to know from Ms. Saikaley three days later. It’s just one of the many incidents where CIC and these individuals had collaborated to bully me.

These Internet incidents occurred while I was using public computers.

Conversations with Ms. Nora Saikaley of CIC

On March 15, 2001, a month had passed since CIC received my initial letter. I called Ms. Nora Saikaley to seek the status of my privacy request on that day. She put me on hold, presumably checked her computer and came back telling me, in a puzzled tone, that “there is nothing on your file”. She then asked me a couple of factual questions, exclaimed “Oh, boy”, and told me that she would get back to me either later that day or the next day.

However, she did not do either. So I called her twice and left two messages with her the next day.

Four days later, on March 20, 2001, at around 9:50AM, Ms. Saikaley called me back. We had a ten-minute conversation.

1. She started by telling me that all she could find on my file was one piece of paper, i.e., my landing paper on microfilm and that that would be all she would send to me.

2. When I expressed doubt, she asked me how long ago I landed in Canada. After my answer, she told me that “if it is more than two years, all your other documents would have been destroyed”. She even went so far as to say that “that applies to everybody”. -- I feel her comment was in reference to the legal limitation period which normally is two years. So she actually intended to bully.

3. I referred her back to my request letter and specifically pointed out that she should know that my immigration application and its processing constitute part of my immigration records. She replied by saying that she did not have my letter in front of her and that she did not know where my immigration application was processed.

4. I told her that I indicated on my request letter that I applied through Buffalo APC in late 1994 and under her request, gave her my file number with Buffalo APC. She then told me that Buffalo APC would probably not keep my files for such a long period of time and asked me whether I was aware that with the exception for my application documents, everything else would probably have been destroyed by then. I told her that I did not want to tell her what I knew and what I did not know.

5. She then asked “what I was expecting”. I did not answer this question of hers and expressed my concern that she was intentionally withholding my personal information.

6. In the end, she said that she would send an email¹⁴ to Buffalo APC and ask for just the “bare bone” application documents. I referred her back again to my request letter, repeating that I wanted all my immigration records.

Office of the Privacy Commissioner

Immediately after my conversation with Ms. Nora Saikaley, I followed the Privacy Act and wrote a complaint letter to the Office of The Privacy Commissioner in Ottawa. Moments after I mailed out the letter from a nearby post office, at around 12:45pm, an anonymous call appeared on my cell phone from a “restricted” number. I did not take this call because experience told me that this call is likely of a harassing or threatening nature.

Still, I was worried because of the timing of the call. After much deliberation, I took the unusual step to call OPC and ask my letter to be returned. And on March 23, 2001, OPC returned my complaint letter.

During my dealings with OPC, I used my cell phone.

Lawyer Ms. Mary Brunton

Privacy request is a straightforward matter under the law. But in my case, I had to find a lawyer to help me.

I first met Ms. Mary Brunton at the Pro Bono legal clinic in Downtown South Gathering Place Community Center, a place I frequented after moving to downtown at the end of February. She asked me to come to her office to talk more about my privacy request.

During my first meeting with her in her office on April 10, 2002, I again received a call on my cell phone from a “restricted” number. I did not realize it then, but the defendant wanted to let me know that I was being watched.

I managed to sign up Ms. Brunton on April 12. To save money, I agreed that I would try to do some research on my own, mostly on finding out how long CIC keeps their case processing notes, known as CAIPS for Computer-Assisted Immigration Processing System.

However, a couple of months later, Ms. Brunton decided to not act for me and returned my retainer. I called her and asked the reason for her decision. Although she was vague in giving her reason, apparently she was under great pressure.

• She implied that she may have to close her practice because, as she put it, “it’s a very troubling, very frustrating, very tough job. I don’t know if I have the right character for it.”

• She also said that she made the decision for her own health and for the health of her family.

Agent Mr. Young Hwan Yun

It was around the time when I met my lawyer Ms. Brunton that Mr. Young Hwan Yun, a Korea visa student started to come to my apartment. He came in as a “friend” of my roommate Mr. Jun Woo Lee. The very first time we met in my apartment, he asked me to translate a Chinese phrase (哥们儿) for him – he told me that he had learned the phrase from a beggar. I told him that it could be translated as “buddy”. Then he insisted on me calling him “buddy” and almost forced me to have a drink with him.

Mr. Yun would come to my apartment almost every day (and night). I did not want to deal with him, so I stayed in my room whenever he came. But I could often overhear him talking about me with other people, things like “his business is not doing very well”, and “he does not have many friends” etc., although I did not tell those things to any acquaintances, let alone him.

In early May, he asked my roommate Mr. Lee to pass on several porn magazines to me “as gifts”. I was quite offended and told Mr. Lee so. But Mr. Lee explained to me that he had not known Mr. Yun for very long either. It was apparent that Mr. Lee did not want to confront him either as he was quite a volatile and shady character. (I would have reported him to police or CIC if I myself had not been bullied by the police and CIC.)

Documents Received

On May 24, 2001, CIC PRA sent me my immigration application form as their response to my privacy request. Even that, they took off the first page, the only one that CIC had some notes on it.

In the letter signed by Ms. Angela Montgomery, A/Senior Public Rights Administrator, she said that the processing of my request was complete.

On July 20, I sent another letter to CIC PRA, demanding the release of my complete file. In response, CIC PRA sent me the first page of my application form on August 24, 2001. On it there is a stamp showing that my immigration application was recommended a “pass” with a check sign; but on the “initials” and “date” lines, nothing was written down. So, of the total eight pages that CIC had released to me in two separate mailings, this was the only page with any CIC notes on it. All others were simply photocopies of my own application, information that was useless to me.

I don’t think that it was an “oversight” as claimed by Ms. Montgomery in her hand-written note of apology on a post-it note stuck on the cover letter:

Mr. Yu: We apologize for this oversight. Angela

On top of the post-it note, there were two additional letters besides the apology – the best I can make out of them are PU. Did she write these letters intentionally?

Furthermore, in writing this report, I also found that in the seven pages of documents released by CIC PRA on May 24, 2001, some of page numbers at the bottom right corners were altered to cover the original page numbers. All handwritings appear to have come from the same person (see Appendix 6-4).

RELEASE	PAGE DESCRIPTION	AFFIXATION OF PAGE NUMBERS
Page 1	My immigration visa	No alteration found; although the number “1” appeared to be photocopied with the rest of the page.
Page 2	Page 2 of my immigration application (IMM 0008)	“2” hand-written on a piece of tape stuck on to the paper, covering the original number.
Page 3	Page 3 of IMM 0008	“3” hand-written directly on top of a number which appeared to be “4”.
Page 4	Page 4 of IMM 0008	“4” hand-written on a piece of tape stuck on to the paper, covering the original number.
Page 5	Table A of IMM 0008	“5” hand-written on a piece of tape stuck on to the paper, covering the original number.
Page 6	Page 1 of the attachment to IMM 0008	“6” hand-written on a piece of tape stuck on to the paper, covering the original number.
Page 7	Page 2 of the attachment to IMM 0008	“7” hand-written on a piece of tape stuck on to the paper, covering the original number.

It’s obvious that CIC PRA intentionally withheld the first page of my immigration application (IMM 0008) in their initial reply to my privacy request.

Conversations with Mr. Alain Belleville of CIC

In response to my letter of July 20, Mr. Alain Belleville, Manager of Operations with CIC PRA, called me and we had a couple of conversations on August 3, 2001.

• He said that basically what they had sent me on May 24 was the complete file for my request. But he said that he would check for my citizenship record if I liked. –This was a threat to create problems in my anticipated citizenship application,¹⁵ because CIC knew as well as I did that I was after the information on my immigration file. After all, I did not mention the word “citizenship” at all in my privacy request.

• He said that National Archives Act requires them to destroy certain files after two years and thus the file I was expecting – whatever it was - had been destroyed. However, the closest law I could find was National Archives of Canada Act and I don’t think that my privacy request had anything to do with it. What he said to me was complete nonsense.

Collaboration with the Defendant

On August 23, 2001, the day before Ms. Montgomery wrote me the second letter, she called my cell phone at 12:53PM and left me a message to call her back. I missed her call because I was out of my apartment for a brief little while.

After coming back to my apartment and noting the time of her voice mail message, I realized that she had called within approximately three minutes of my stepping out of my apartment building. I remembered seeing a big SUV with tinted glasses parked right in front of my building on the other side of the street when I stepped out. Suspicious of my being watched, I looked down from my window. However, the SUV had already gone.

AGENT LISA CARUSO

Ms. Lisa Caruso was an agent sent by the defendant in June 2001. As in all those cases of agents who were not known to me beforehand, the most disturbing part of my dealings with her was that the way we met suggested stalking or gross invasion of my privacy by the defendant (and later, the government).

How We Met

Ms. Lisa Caruso was introduced to me by Dr. Peter Zhou and his wife Irene. I met Dr. Zhou in 1998 when I sought acupressure treatment from him.

On Saturday morning, June 23, 2001, Irene called to set up a date for me with Ms. Lisa Caruso. She told me that Ms. Caruso was also a patient of Dr. Zhou’s; her age; and that she was very interested in Chinese culture. On behalf of Ms. Caruso, Irene asked me if I would like to go to Ms. Caruso’s residence next Monday evening. I very much appreciated her effort as a match-maker, but told her that for the first meeting, it might not be best to meet in Ms. Caruso’s residence.

As described in Chapter 4, at the time when I visited Dr. Zhou’s clinic, I was working for Bartel Promotions as an independent contractor (peddler) and I had suspected that my visits to Dr. Zhou’s were being monitored by the defendant in summer 1998 because of some very unusual comments by Bartel’s owner/manager. My dealings with Ms. Caruso simply confirmed my suspicion. She must have become a patient of Dr. Zhou’s after I did.

Of course, it was only after I had met Ms. Caruso that I knew that she was an agent sent over by the defendant.

Dealings with Ms. Caruso

We had our first telephone conversation on June 27, 2001. At the beginning of our conversation, she asked me where I called from and whether I was using a public phone.

She told me that she had called my home on Monday June 25. In describing this supposed call, she said in a very exaggerated whining tone: “You’ve got an answering machine.” This statement was not true because there was no answering machine or answering service attached to my home phone¹⁶ (I did not use my cell phone in my dealing with her). I think she was simply reminding me of the phone message left in my answering machine by Ms. Kate Weldon in 1995. (It was the result of the same manipulation that, later, lawyer Ed Ng pronounced to me that “all you have is one recording”.)

When discussing the plan to meet, she emphatically suggested taking a walk together.

On Saturday June 30, she came to my place with a big black dog. I came down my apartment building and we took a walk around my neighborhood.

• One of first things she told me proudly was that her family name was very prestigious in Italy. I found it odd. Seriously, who would impress others with his or her family name nowadays? I think the more logical explanation was that she was trying to remind me of my humble origins.

• She asked me if I was eager to get married. I did not think it was a suitable topic for the first “date”. Just to be polite though, I responded by saying that my mother would like to see me married. She refuted with a puzzled and sarcastic “why?” and added that she was not eager at all.

• She told me that she studied Criminology as well as Psychiatric Nursing, and that she had studied at SFU before (although she did not say what she had studied there). And she was trying to get into the Entrepreneur Program at BCIT. She wanted to finish her degree. – On hearing these, I got the impression that she had quite a diverse background. It was only after I had the chance to reflect on her words that I got the hidden messages:

1. Criminology: she was conveying the defendant’s and the government’s logic that the bullied is potentially violent.

2. Psychiatric Nursing: She knew about my mental pain and suffering.

3. SFU: She knew those professors at SFU, or she was an agent for the defendant;

4. BCIT: After moving to downtown, I tried to sign up for some courses at BCIT just so that I could use their computer to continue to trade, because I suspected that my Internet activities were monitored by the defendant. The defendant probably followed me to BCIT.

5. Entrepreneur Program and finishing degree: The defendant’s “offer” for me was that I should go back to UBC to finish my Ph.D. and at the same time work on my own. -- When I moved out from the apartment on Adanac Street in late February, the apartment manager made similar comment to me although I never told him about my background in UBC. Mr. Heng Sun also made similar comment in an email around the time I met Ms. Caruso.

• She pointed to a fairly new Volkswagen Beetle parked on a street and told me that it’s the kind of car she wanted. I followed her conversation by asking her why. She whined emphatically: “Just because…” as if I did not get it. -- I later realized that she wanted me to buy her a car in exchange for having sex with me and possibly leading me to Mr. Weldon’s daughter(s).

• Pointing to an upper corner suite of the apartment building right across the street from mine, she told me that her ex-boyfriend used to live there. -- I don’t know if that’s true. But I knew she meant to bully me because anybody lives there could easily look into my apartment.

• After I walked her back to her car parked in our visitor’s lot, she told me that she needed to use washroom. I suggested the Bread Garden restaurant just a couple of blocks away. But she showed her unwillingness to do that. So I reluctantly let her into my apartment. After coming out of my washroom, she looked around my apartment without invitation, then pointed to the table in the living room and said: “Oh, is this your workstation?” – Please note that Mr. Han-Xin Lin had suggested in June 2000 that I use his computer to trade and I did not think it was necessary¹⁷. Also, Mr. Caruso never even asked what I did for a living. (Of course, she knew my situation already, just like agent Ms. Twee Phan in summer 2003.)

That’s the only meeting we had with each other.

DEALINGS WITH MR. STEPHENS IN 2001

Background

My dealings with Mr. Stephens were highly relevant to and critical in understanding the collaborative relationship between the government and the defendant.

The decision to contact Mr. Stephens was not an easy one for me. On one hand, I knew that he was part of the group who had been stalking me, harassing me and sabotaging my career and business for years. On the other hand, my situation was extremely desperate and I hoped that by contacting him directly, something good would come out of it.

I suspected for a long time that he had wanted me to contact him. The call in the early morning of June 15, 2000 from (604) 599-9229 was not the first such call I received. The earliest strange call for “Michael” or “Mike” that I received was in early 1996. It was his way of telling me that he wanted to talk to me as I came to understand it, and I disliked it very much. Of course, by forcing me to initiate the contact, he created the appearance that he had not done me any harm.

Dealings with Mr. Stephens

It is said that there were two ways to build trust: one is to have lunch together; the other to work together toward a common goal. Those were what I had in mind when I contacted Mr. Stephens.

Wednesday, July 11, 2001

I first called Mr. Stephens on July 11, 2001. Similar to my experience with Mr. Weldon in 1997, initially he was very happy to hear from me. – I believe it was genuine because the appearance of no-harm-done was already created for his benefit. – He soon grilled me about my past since leaving SFU. I guess he wanted to maximize the situation so that he could argue down the road if necessary that it was me who had told him about my past situation, and that he had not followed me over the years. Although he pretended that he did not know about my situation at all after SFU, a couple of comments by him suggested otherwise. For example, he appeared to have known my experience with Graphnet, Inc.

In giving him short answers, I tried to be nice to him. Anyhow, it was my intention to make peace and hope for the better.

We then discussed the lunch plan. We agreed that we could meet the following Thursday in New Westminster. In the end, he asked me to give him a call around 9 o’clock the following Thursday.

Thursday, July 19, 2001

When I called him at the appointed time the following Thursday, he changed the plan. He told me that it was Mr. Richard Lockhart’s birthday (really?) and he was taking Mr. Lockhart out for lunch. He suggested that I join them at the university restaurant. This came as a total surprise to me. I suggested another time for us.

He then asked me what I wanted to talk about. So I told him that I intended to make a $500,000 contribution towards SFU’s chaired professorship in Immigration Studies to honor my late father¹⁸. And I invited him to work with me to make it happen. I made it clear I was not asking money from him or anybody else and I would be responsible for “raising the money” solely¹⁹. But he was unwilling to join me.

Sensing my disappointment, he said that he would help me in other regards, such as my career. After discussion along this line, he told me that he would write a reference letter for me the following week and would give me a call when it’s done. Still in a friendly atmosphere, he thanked me for the call and we ended our conversation.

Saturday, July 28, 2001

By the end of the following week, I had not heard from him. So I called him again on Saturday, July 28, 2001.

At the start of the call when I identified myself, he appeared to have forgotten about me. This was a bit strange because our last conversation was only about a week before. In addition, his reaction sharply contrasted his immediate recognition of me in my first call to him on July 11, 2001 when we had not spoken to each other for at least 7 years.

Unlike the previous two conversations, he was obviously not friendly in this one, to say the least. It was in this conversation that he used the word “bomb” on me in a serious manner.

Sunday, August 5, 2001

Mr. Stephens called me and left a voice message on this Sunday morning, in which he told me that he had finished the letter and suggested that we met at 5:30PM later that afternoon at New Westminster SkyTrain station.

After the previous unpleasant conversation, I was cautious in dealing with him. Since there are two entrances to the station, in my callback message to him, I specified which entrance we should meet so there would be no confusion.

At the appointed time, he came by in a car with two of his students whom I did not know. I thought he would just hand me the letter, which he did (see Appendix 6-5 for the letter). But he also asked me repeatedly to have a cup of coffee with them, despite my initial reluctance. In other words, he became friendly again, at least in front of his students.

My Sister’s Immigration Interview

On November 15, 2001, my sister and her family had their immigration interview at the Canadian Consulate General in Hong Kong.

During the interview, the immigration officer asked my sister my father’s name. The government bullied me this way simply because I had proposed to Mr. Stephens about making a contribution to SFU in my father’s name. Please note that (1) my father’s name was already on my sister’s application form together with fact that he was deceased; and (2) the immigration officer did not ask any follow-up questions.

By the way, similar to my immigration application in 1994-95, the processing of my sister’s immigration application was also delayed. This time it was because the visa office in Hong Kong was closed for training for three months just before her scheduled interview.

AIRPORT INCIDENT No. 1

On December 8, 2001, I came back from a visit to China. After getting off the airplane, like everybody else, I passed the custom and immigration counter without incident and was handed back my custom declaration card without any further instructions to be examined.

However, after I had gathered all my luggage, a custom officer standing by the baggage belt approached me among all other passengers, took my custom declaration card and asked me essentially the same questions as the counter officer did. When she heard me answering “baked sunflower seeds”, she immediately marked on my card, despite my repeated emphasis on cooked, sealed and as a food item. She then led me into the examination room and thoroughly searched all my belongings including my clothing and personal documents²⁰. I was eventually released without any seizure or fine.

Why was I picked up? Was I just unlucky? And is Custom Canada routinely interested in taking a look at baked sunflower seeds? I do not know. Actually, it was the facial expression of the officer that gave away the clue. She was not particularly rude to me. But the way she looked at me and a constant sneer on her face clearly spelt her disdain and mockery.

Scared to Travel

In my previous trip to China in February 2001, I was so scared that I only stayed in Beijing for a weekend (to try to secure some work to do); I did not even take a local trip to see my family although that it was holiday season.²¹

Just to make sure that my trip would be safe, I called Mr. Han-Xin Lin to see what his reaction would be. He called me back days later and sounded friendly, though a little superficial. I even visited Richmond RCMP the day before my trip with a strange email I received.

MY SECOND CELL PHONE

Despite my great effort to ensure privacy in telephone communication, the defendant was still able to invade it. A solid case in point was my second cell phone that I used from May to December 2002.

Sign-up

The reason that I signed up for a second cell phone with a different cellular service provider, was to protect the integrity of my anticipated telephone communication in seeking a possible employment opportunity with Berkshire Hathaway, Inc.

This second cell phone was a pre-paid one. According to the sales person, an advantage of buying such a phone was to be able to remain anonymous. And that’s what I wanted. To further protect my privacy, I avoided using my home or cell phones when I called to activate the service in May, 2002. Supposedly, only Berkshire Hathaway knew this phone number.

The First Call I Received

Of particular importance was the first call I received from (604) 219-2240 because of its connection with an incident where I was followed by a Mercedes-Benz car with plate “BRK 891”.

Similar to the first police bullying incident, I did not immediately realize that I was stalked by the car. That’s why I did not write down the date. But I do remember that it took place on a weekday around June 9, 2002, in the Shaughnessy neighborhood in Vancouver while I was on a biking trip from my then residence in Richmond to downtown Vancouver. The Mercedes-Benz intercepted my biking route at least twice, once face-to-face, and the other time from the side. I should add that I did not feel threatened by it at all.

However, once I realized the connection between the phone number 2,192,240 and the car’s plate “BRK 891”, i.e., the then value of 891 B shares of Berkshire Hathaway (with ticker BRK) was roughly US$2,192,240, I was still quite scared for being so closely monitored.

First of all, the neighborhood where the incident took place was about 15 kilometers away from my residence. If the defendant was able to stalk me there, they could monitor my every movement since leaving my residence.

Secondly, how did the defendant get my second cell number? I knew you could intercept somebody’s cellular conversation using some expensive equipment. I also heard that it is possible to locate somebody by tracking his or her cell phone (I was carrying my second cell phone with me at the time of incident). But how did the defendant even know that I had a second cell phone in the first place? But of course, if you have tens of millions of dollars, anything might just be possible.

I am indeed a person without privacy. Believe me, the feeling is scary.

PROBLEMS WITH SERVICE PROVIDERS

Second Cell Phone

I signed up for the service in mid-May 2002. The initial credit in the phone was supposed to provide service for three months only.

However, this cell phone continued to work until mid-December, after I moved into my current residence. I do not think it was a mistake by the service provider. In fact, I think this was another case of my service provider being influenced and turned against me by the defendant. In other words, the defendant turned my personal cellular phone into one of their tools to spy on and to bully me, with the assistance of the service provider.

Voice Mail

Similar extension of service was made to my voice mail (604) 871-3329 by VoiceNet Communications Services Inc./Global Esthetics. I started using the voice mail in February 1998 by paying the first six months’ payment. For more than two years before terminating my service in mid-May 2001, the company provided me with continued service without sending me any invoices.

First Cell Phone

It was on this cell phone that I received a lot of bullying or harassing calls. I have set the service to vacation mode in the last couple of years. Still, I am highly suspicious of its handling of voice mail upgrade from July 2003 through April 2004.

1. The first time TELUS Mobility informed me about voice mail upgrade was in summer 2003. The scheduled date was on a day in July (the exact date forgotten). However, that eventually did not happen and I was told that the upgrade would be postponed to a date on or around August 14, 2003.

2. However, TELUS Mobility did not upgrade my voice mail on August 14, 2003 either. And I was again told a new upgrade date of October 9, 2003.

3. A TELUS Mobility announcement heard on August 21, 2003 said that the company had completed the voice mail upgrade for Western Canada.

4. TELUS Mobility did not upgrade it for me on October 9, 2003 either. And I was told that they were having problem in voice mail upgrade with all former ClearNet customers which I belonged. I was not even given a new upgrade date this time.

5. I phoned TELUS Mobility on March 18, 2004 and inquired about their “regular” rate plan. This can be apparently read as my intention to go back to regular use of my cell phone.

6. On March 31, 2004, I received a text message from TELUS Mobility informing me a new upgrade date of April 19, 2004.

7. At 7:37PM on April 3, 2004, TELUS Mobility called me on my cell phone with a voice message, saying the upgrade would be made “between mid-night and eight AM Eastern Standard Time on Monday, April 19.”

8. However, the upgrade was not done as I found out at around 10:30AM April 19.²² So I called TELUS Mobility Customer Service. Jeff [last name unknown] took my call. After putting me on hold for a while, he confirmed my report and told me that the upgrade will be done “in a couple of minutes” as they were working on it. – It really just takes a couple of minutes to do the upgrade.

9. However, the upgrade was apparently still not done after about an hour. Besides, the system did not accept my mail box password anymore.

10. At around noon, I called Customer Service again. Michael [last name unknown] took my call and transferred it to Kimberley [last name unknown] at Network Department. After checking with somebody, Kimberley told me that in their previous messages, they actually meant April 20, instead of April 19 as my upgrade date. – This explanation is clearly not convincing.

11. She also told me that the reason that I could not access my mail box is that they had re-set my password to 9999 after my call to Jeff and that it must be a misunderstanding on Jeff’s part, i.e., Jeff must have thought that I was having problem with my password. -- This is totally untrue as Jeff clearly told me that, “in a couple of minute”, when I call my own cell number from my cell phone, I would be prompted to re-create my personal settings, thus complete the upgrade.

I believe that TELUS Mobility intended to create interruption of services inherent in the upgrade, in anticipation of my going public with my report.

• The first couple of delays reflected their intention to single my account out and their poor performance in doing that.

• In August 2003, they anticipated the date of my going public to be in October 2003. They then stopped guessing until I revealed in the middle of March 2004 that I planned to use the phone more regularly.

• At the end of March, they expected the date of my releasing the report to be a few days after the expected date when Commons Public Accounts Committee releases its interim report on the sponsorship scandal.²³

• They finally did the upgrade on April 20 probably because they realized that I was recording our telephone conversations the previous day.

Local Telephone Company

I suspect that at least the following two public telephones were monitored when I was using them, most likely through Telus:

1. The courtesy phone in the courthouse library in New Westminster;

2. The courtesy phone in the Students’ Union building at Douglas College in New Westminster.

Besides, I suspect that my Internet activities using the computer in the courthouse library were also monitored, at least when I was in the courthouse building.

Of course, my home telephone lines were monitored over the years in different residential addresses.

POLICE BULLYING NO. 2

This incident occurred soon after my sister and her family landed in Canada.

Police Bullying

At around 8:00AM on August 23, 2002, I was woken by loud bangs on the door of my apartment in New Westminster. When I opened the door, I saw two police officers in dark uniforms standing by each side of my door with their hands on their guns (not drawn). They asked me if I was Craig A. I told them that I am not, not realizing that Mr. A was the tenant living there before I moved in about 40 days earlier. They then asked me if there was anybody else living in the apartment. I told them the only other person living here was my sister, who was also woken by the noise but did not get up. (My sister’s family had gone back to China by then.) They then took off without any explanation or apology. I did not even have the chance to take down their names or badge numbers.

Paired Incident

On this same day, at around 6:00PM, there was another knock on my apartment door. This time it was a young woman from The Pacific Newspaper Group. She asked me to try their newspapers. She said that, if I was interested, she would come back the next Monday with both Vancouver Sun and The Province. “You can try them both to see which one you prefer” said she. She did not have any name tag on her.

I did not quite understand the messages in the young woman’s pitch until after another incident on October 11, 2002. Around 9 o’clock, I was jogging as usual around my neighborhood. A young female sitting on a bench of the Tipperary Park said hi to me. So on my way back, I stopped to chat with her.

In retrospect, she was a little out of character for the weather. It was very chilling that morning. Although she wore a scarf around her neck, she dressed as such that she showed off a fair part of her cleavage. Also, she was holding a copy of The Province on her lap, but clearly she was not reading it. (I also feel she was too young to be interested in reading newspapers.)

She told me that her name was King-Gou [sound]. Her name did not sound like an English name. But she claimed that she was also an immigrant, from Eastern Europe. Pointing to a nearby high-rise apartment building, she said that’s where she lived. (Someone living there could easily watch my whole neighborhood.) He told me that she was waiting for a friend to go to a children’s hospital to volunteer. She told me that she did not have a car yet and that she had not decided on what kind of car she would like to get. Some of her “talking points” sounded very similar to those of Ms. Lisa Caruso. But her general physical characteristics were very much like those of one of the girls in the stalking incident on June 15, 2000. I believe she was or intended to create in me the impression that she was Ms. Kate Weldon’s sister.

SEEKING LEGAL REPRESENTATION

The following are some of the incidents occurred during the course of my seeking legal representation in 2002.

Mr. Ron McKay

Mr. Ron McKay is an immigration consultant with the law firm Clark Wilson. I called him on September 16, 2002 to see if he could help me with my privacy request with CIC. It was the first and only time we talked.

• He suggested that I would be treated differently by the government since I came from a “communist country”.

• When I told him that I considered privacy my right, Mr. McKay became distinctly agitated and said: “basically, from a Canadian government standpoint, it is not your right to be here.”

• He seemed to know my situation and my immigration history very well.

• He also made other bullying comments.

• He tried to find out what my plan was. I did not tell him. Then he outlined several options for me and waited for my response. I refused to fall in the trap. He even suggested that I should come in to his office to talk further. I declined.

Before I called him, I had used the computer in the New Westminster courthouse library to do some research on his firm and himself. According to his bio on Clark Wilson website, he was a former high-ranking immigration officer with the federal government.

Lawyer Ms. Rose-Mary Liu Basham

Before I called Ms. Basham, I also did some research on her in the courthouse library. When I first called her office, she was out of town. On the day she came back, she said she was in a meeting when I called, and could not speak to me. The next day I was able to talk to her for about 15 minutes.

I felt that she a little quick and harsh on her judgment on me and my case. And she was clearly on the professors’ side and even suggested that Mr. Yanxiu Li was the bad guy. I am not that sure whether the defendant had contacted her before my calls.

Mr. Victor Wong

From time to time, I had heard or read in the news about Mr. Victor Wong, a Chinese advocate. I came to admire his work on helping the marginalized. So I registered with his community office as a volunteer. I went to his office several times in spring and summer 2001. I avoided calling his office from my cell phone. However, his office called my cell phone once to give me a volunteer assignment. I have never met him in person.

In early October 2002, I called him to seek his help in finding a lawyer to represent me.

• He suggested that I file a complaint with BC Human Rights Commission/Tribunal instead of going to court.

• Although I had told him briefly that my problem was with some SFU professors, I never told him which department they were in or what my major was. However, on two occasions, Mr. Wong asked me: “have you considered working for Statistics Canada?”

He introduced lawyer Mr. Edward Ng and another lawyer to me on November 13, 2002. Mr. Ng later bullied me (see below for details).

Lawyer Mr. Edward Ng

Perhaps the most disturbing incident involving a lawyer was my telephone conversations with Mr. Ed Ng, a lawyer introduced to me by Mr. Victor Wong on November 13, 2002.

I called him at around 4:00PM that day, from the same courtesy telephone in the courthouse library where I believe all my telephone conversations, at least on that day, were intercepted. The conversation I had with him lasted until the close of the library at approximately 4:30PM.

• As is with all other conversations with lawyers, I made sure he did not have a potential conflict of interest.

• Because it was only an initial conversation and my problem was a complex one, I simply ran him through the outline. The key points I conveyed to him were libel and defamation, stalking and harassment, sabotage of my work and business, and problems with respect to my privacy request with CIC. He sounded interested.

• When I told him that, as a result of what the defendant had done to me, I had developed depression, he sounded even more interested in my case.

I called him many times the following two days (Thursday and Friday) to try to follow up and possibly get him to help me prepare my legal papers. But it appeared that his cell phone was turned off.

When he finally took my call on the following Tuesday (November 19, 2002), some really strange things happened.

• Upon taking my call, he said that I did not really have a case. This was a complete reversal to his reaction during our initial conversation 6 days before.

• He said that: “all you have is one recording.” -- I never got into the evidence with him in my initial conversation. But I think he was referring to Ms. Kate Weldon’s telephone message in my answering machine in 1995. This simply was a reflection that he had been manipulated by the defendant.

• He told me that I was going to embarrass myself if I went to the court. – This was plain bullying.

• He was very eager to find out what other evidence I had against the defendant. – In retrospect, he was already doing work for the defendant. Please note Mr. Ya-Li Wei, a gay agent later sent by the defendant, also asked me similar question.

• Apparently, he did not know about the recording I made from my conversation with Mr. Stephens on November 6, 2002. – The defendant did not tell him about that. – And when I told him I had recorded that conversation, he sounded very troubled since he was already on the defendant’s side.

• Instead of giving me legal advice, he gave me personal advice and asked me to deal with my depression first. – Mr. Ya-Li Wei, the gay agent sent by the defendant about one month later, also bullied me along the same line. In Mr. Wei’s case, I did not even mention anything related to my mental health.

Lawyer Referral Service

On Wednesday, November 13, 2002, I used the courtesy phone inside the New Westminster courthouse library to try to find a lawyer who would be able and willing to represent me.

In that morning, one of the lawyers I called was Mr. Herman Cheung, from a lawyer directory. But he told me that he does not do immigration work. (To simplify matters, I told him I need a lawyer to represent me in dealing with the federal immigration department.)

Around noon, I started to call Lawyer Referral Service at (604) 687-3221, hoping to find a lawyer through their referral. The first couple of lawyers they referred to me did not work out. I continued to call the referral line. But for almost an hour, nobody took my calls. When finally an operator did, she referred me to the same Mr. Herman Cheung, based on my request for a human rights lawyer.

So I called Mr. Cheung again. He told me that he does not do human rights work either. Lawyer Referral Service doesn’t normally make this kind of mistake. Besides, it would be too much of a coincidence for LRS to give me a lawyer whom I had called just a few hours before.

Based on these strange happenings in connection with the use of the public telephone at the courthouse library, it’s reasonable to think that the courtesy telephone was being monitored, at least on November 13, 2002.

POLICE BULLYING NO. 3

This police bullying incident was triggered, I believe, by a conversation that I had with Mr. Stephens only 12 hours or so before. So I will provide the details of the conversation first.

My Conversation with Mr. Stephens

At around 7:35PM, November, 6, 2002, I called Mr. Stephens at his home. It was the last conversation I had with him. The first part lasted about two and a half minutes. The second part, when he called me back after I hung up on him, lasted about four and a half minutes.

1. After the usual greetings to each other, I thanked him first for the reference letter he wrote for me the year before. He asked me: “what has become of it?” I was not quite sure of his question, so I asked him to repeat it. He then re-phrased it and asked whether the letter “had gotten me anywhere”. I said no.

2. I informed him that the purpose of the call was to ask him a question and asked him if he had a couple of minutes. He said yes.

3. I took him back to our conversations and the subsequent meeting of the year before. I reminded him that during one of our conversations, he said to me: “are you gonna throw a bomb into my house?”, or something to that effect. I asked him if he would admit saying those words. His initial response was: “Well, I don’t know about that. But, anyway, OK.” – It sounded like he was admitting it.

4. Then I told him that what he said bothered me. His response was: “Well, I’m sorry it bothers you, because I said I didn’t want to bother you.” – I did not recall at any time that he had said to me that he did not want to bother me.

5. I asked him directly: “why did you say something like that?” His response was: “I have no idea”, claiming that it occurred a year or so ago. Then he told me that he remembered that I had “pushed” him to do something in memory of my father but he did not want to be part of it.

6. I told him that I would not characterize it as “pushing”. His response was: “I would have said you were pushing. But anyway…”

7. I then said that, even if he characterized it as pushing, it shouldn’t cause him to make such a serious accusation against me.

8. He then denied that he was making an accusation and threatened to hang up the phone.

9. I told him: “I do have the recording. You might want to answer that [question] in the court of law.”

10. He then tried to say something. But I did not want to talk to him any more. So I hung up the phone.

A few minutes later, Mr. Stephens called me back. He must have gotten my number from his caller ID or by using other services provided by the phone company as I had not told him my then home number.

11. Right from the start, he tried to accuse me of being hostile. “Now, what is the matter with you, Jim? I just don’t understand why you are so hostile.” He added that he had always been interested in my doing well. – Apparently I can not agree with his self-proclaimed good intention.

12. I went back to my question. His response was: “well, I certainly didn’t mean any harm by it.”

13. He added that legally in Canada, I do not have the right to record telephone conversations without informing him and threatened to sue me. I said “go ahead”.

14. But he said he did not want to because he wanted me to be happy in life and that “[we] don’t need lawyers to gain from lawsuits. These are the guys [who] gain.”

15. I went back to my original question: “Why did you say something like that?”

16. His response: “I don’t remember the circumstances at all. But, I suppose you must have said something like …. I don’t know. I don’t know [what] you might have said. But, but uh, especially as you’re probably recording this, so I am probably not going to try to incriminate myself for your benefit. Uh, but uh, you must have said something that made me say: ‘well, what are you gonna do to me?’ So, you must have been hostile to me. You probably did not record that bit, of course.” – These were mostly lies, except that I was indeed recording our conversations both in 2001 and in 2002. I could not afford not to, with all those serious innuendoes flying around.

17. Since his lies were so lame, I simply laughed it off and wanted to end the conversation: “is there anything else you wanna say?”

18. He then said that he wanted to know what happened to me in the last year or so, and said that we had a pleasant lunch together [the previous year]. – It was simply a café with him and two other students of his.

19. Then I said that, if he had felt I was hostile towards him last year, he would not have invited me for the lunch. He totally agreed and added that he was not hostile to me either. – This was completely contradictory to what he had just said.

20. “So, why did you say something like that, professor Stephens?” I stayed on with my question.

21. He apologized to me without answering my question: “well, if I upset you, I certainly apologize because I didn’t mean to upset you however it came across”. Afterwards he repeated his question: “but anyway, Jim, what’s been happening to you? What have you been doing?”

22. I told him again that I could not continue the conversation without him answering my question. He said that he already did and the answer was that he did not know. He added that he did not “feel hostile” to me; had not threatened me; and he did not understand why I was so upset.

23. I did not want to talk to him by then. So I went on with my intention to sue: “if I play back the recording to a jury, or a group of students, or a group of average-intelligent people…” He stopped me and asked: “are you blackmailing me?”

24. I said no.

25. He then said that he hoped that I was recording that part. And I told him that I was indeed recording it. He said that it’s because it sounded to him that I was blackmailing. So I said “I have the right to sue”.

26. He asked: “do you?”

27. I said: “sure I do”.

28. He said: “OK. Well, I hope you won’t.”

29. I asked: “is there anything else you want to talk about?”

30. He again asked me what I had been doing in the past year.

31. I said: “Sorry, I can’t continue this conversation without your answering my question. Sorry, bye-bye.” And I hung up.

And that’s the end of our last conversation.

I do not even want to count how many times he asked in these short conversations the question about my situations. His intention was obvious: he wanted me to tell him about my activities in the past years so that he could claim that he gained the knowledge, not through stalking, but through my mouth. It was really annoying, to say the least.

Police Bullying the Next Morning

At around 8:30AM the next morning (November 7, 2002), while jogging in my neighborhood, I was followed by a police car on Queens Avenue between 4^th Street and 3^rd Street, about four blocks away from my residence. It behaved in the same manner as the police car(s) in Police Bullying No.1, i.e., it was moving conspicuously slowly.

What I would like to know are:

1. Did the defendant, and Mr. Stephens in particular, called New Westminster police after our conversation the night before?

2. If so, how did the NW police treat the call or report? and

3. Considering the deliberate bullying incident PI No.2, how should the NW police be responsible for its actions?

About one week later, I filed my lawsuit with the Supreme Court of British Columbia.

AIRPORT INCIDENT No. 2

On December 14, 2002, I went to Vancouver International Airport to see my sister off. In the airport, there was a security check station staffed by a single female officer in front of the long passenger lineup to the airline check-in counter. The officer was conducting her open-luggage examination in a seemingly uncontrolled manner -- whenever she finished checking one passenger, the first one in line at that moment would be called and the passenger’s luggage would be opened and examined. In our case, we became the first in the line when the security officer was still in the middle of checking a previous passenger and it appeared that we would not be examined. However, just when we were about to be called to the check-in counter by the airline staff, another male security officer suddenly became available to the check point – I did not see where he came out -- and asked us to be examined. He opened our luggage and thoroughly checked all the content. The examination resulted in no problem.

I did not see how this particular security officer treated other passengers as we left the check-in area afterwards. When he examined our luggage, he did it quite professionally. However, it was the way we were picked up out of a seemingly aimless plan that made me suspicious.

THE PUBLIC TRANSIT

I feel the need to add the unusual events on the transit system that morning on our way to the airport.

1. As we were waiting for the train on the platform at Lougheed Station, a couple of people with apparent mental illness came onto the platform separately.

2. After we boarded the train, one of them came into our car and sat down near us.

3. On the train, he kept murmuring to himself.

4. As he talked to himself increasingly loudly, and eventually laughed uncontrollably all by himself, we decided to change into another car. We did it at Columbia Station.

5. While traveling between New Westminster and 22^nd Street Stations on the same train (in a different car), an announcement from SkyTrain Control ordered all passengers to evacuate the train at the next station (22^nd Street Station). There was an ensuring system-wide disruption of service.

6. On my way back home from the airport, I asked a SkyTrain attendant, without identifying myself, about the incident in the morning and was told that it was a “bomb scare” at New Westminster Station.

Were transit cameras used to stalk me on the day I met Mr. Ya-Li Wei, a gay agent sent by the defendant? I am not sure. It depends on whether other surveillance device(s) had already been put in or around my apartment by that time.

AGENT MR. YA-LI WEI

How We Met

I became acquainted with Mr. Ya-Li Wei, a suspected agent sent by the defendant, during a seemingly normal social encounter.

In the afternoon of Sunday, December 22, 2002, I went to Trout Lake Community Center in Vancouver by public transit (SkyTrain and bus), to attend an IT business seminar organized by a Chinese group²⁴. I was not a member of this group. I only saw their seminar announcement on a newspaper. Before I left, I did not tell or phone anybody that I was going there.

I was a bit late for the seminar. While walking through the parking lot on my way to the Center building, he drove by right besides me and looked at me from the driver’s seat.

In the room where the seminar was held, he registered right after I did. He then sat besides me and started a conversation with me.

Bullying and Harassment

After the seminar, he invited another participant of the seminar and me to his place and the three of us talked some more business topics. On parting, he exchanged phone numbers with each of us. He then showed me the way to the SkyTrain Station.

On the way to SkyTrain, he asked me some personal questions, such as why I did not have a job. I did not want to get into that, so I replied in a general term that I was involved in a law suit.

The next day, he called me from work, wanting to stop by my place after work at 6:00PM²⁵. I told him that I needed to leave home early to buy some stuff for a party I was going to attend that night. A few minutes later, he called again to tell me that he could get off work at 4:30PM.

So he got off from work early and came to my apartment. Not knowing his real purpose, I let him drive me to the Wal-Mart and we then went to the party together since I did not have a car at the time. Noticed he was driving a fairly new car, I wondered if it has ABS on its brakes. He did not answer my question but asked me “why are you so timid, so afraid to die?”²⁶

At around 8:30PM, we left the party and came back to my place, which was only a short drive. At my place I showed him The Writ of Summons²⁷. On seeing it, he suggested that he had contact with the defendant²⁸. I was not alarmed. By then the only other thing odd about my encounter with him was that he seemed to suggest that he knew which company my brother-in-law worked for²⁹.

Not much to do in my place, Mr. Wei then suggested that we found another place to hang out. We got into his car and he decided to drive back to his place.

As we sat down in his kitchen, he again asked me personal questions. Annoyed, I asked why he was so interested in my personal situation. After some hesitation, he said that he was gay and interested in me sexually.

I was shocked.

Although this was the first (and only) time I encounter such a situation, I think I handled it quite well. I told him firmly that I am not gay and therefore it’s not possible for me to be interested in him. I then asked him if that’s the reason that he wanted to make friend with me. He said yes. I again told him that it’s impossible for me to be interested in him.

By then I still did not suspect that I was targeted and he was an agent sent by the defendant. However, his words and behaviors after I rejected him were quite disconcerting.

1. Mr. Wei offered his opinion, saying “those people are just playing with you”. He then said that he would like to help me, suggesting that I could use him and turn him into a “trap”. Not interested, I did not even ask how.

2. He urged me to be flexible in this “game”. Using water as a parable, he said: “look at water. Water is the most powerful because it is the most flexible”.³⁰

I did not want to listen to him any more. So I insisted on leaving. He offered to drive me home. I declined and told him that I would take the SkyTrain instead. He then followed me to the door and insisted on sending me to the SkyTrain. Since it was quite late in the evening, I reluctantly agreed.

3. He urinated outside his house in the dark while I was waiting on the street.

Once we arrived at the SkyTrain Station, he changed his mind and insisted on driving me back to my place. Events described in items 4 through 6 took place in his car.

4. He asked me: “what evidence do you have?” with respect to my lawsuit, as if he knew I did not have much evidence³¹. I did not answer this question.

5. Out of nowhere, he suggested: “No offense, but I think you should see a psychiatrist”, without saying where he got the idea, or, what he thought my problem was. Knowing he was bullying me, I simply replied: “Maybe I should. But I can’t do that without any privacy protection.” He paused for a second and nodded: “I think you got a point.” – This part of conversation was mostly in English.

6. He asked me what my status here in Canada was. I simply said that I am a citizen, which was, of course, not true. I did not want to tell him that I had a problem with CIC with respect to my citizenship application. Obviously, he and the defendant already knew about my problem with CIC because CIC and the defendant shared information about me and collaborated in bullying and harassing me. His purpose of asking me that question was simply to lead me to say that.

7. He told me that his first homosexual experience was with someone from my university in China. I felt extremely uncomfortable to have to listen to something like that.

I parted with him in front of my apartment building.

The next day, he left two messages in my answering machine. At around 5:30PM on Christmas Day, he called again. I took the call and told him that I did not want to see him any more.

On December 28, he called me from a Shopping Mall near my residence, apparently after he went to Britannia Community Center gym and did not find me there. (I had told him that BCC is the place where I normally played badminton on Saturdays.)

On Saturday January 4, 2003, he again showed up at BCC. It was obvious that his purpose was not to play badminton, but to stalk and harass me. He tried first to talk to me. I didn’t want to. He then tried four or five times and I became quite annoyed. At 4:30PM, while he was playing in the court, I decide to leave early to avoid him. He dropped his racket and chased me out of the gym. I told him to stop bothering me. He became quite aggressive and followed me to the bus stop. I was quite nervous. If I had not been bullied by the police myself, I would have reported him to the police.

Recent Development

On March 7, 2004, at around 4:25PM, while I was grocery-shopping at T&T Supermarket in Metrotown Centre with my sister and nephew, Mr. Ya-Li Wei came within a couple of meters of us. He looked at us intently, apparently wanting to strike a conversation with us. I simply pretended that he was a stranger. – Note that by that time, the defendant had been working actively on my sister and my brother-in-law, although very indirectly, i.e., through very low level agent, strange phone calls or Global Chinese Press³². I believe that Mr. Ya-Li Wei was not only stalking us on this day, he also came with the purpose of becoming acquainted with my family members so that he could work on them more directly.

On August 13, 2004, Global Chinese Press featured a major report titled “Wanted to Join the Mainstream Society; But Afraid of Being Hurt”. One of the interviewees in that article was Mr. Ya-Li Wei. – Although the newspaper did not give his last name, I am very sure it was him based on other descriptions of him in the article. – I was on the Internet with my blog around that time and doing pretty well. I believe this article was a desperate attempt by the defendant to hook him up with my sister³³ and brother-in-law. The following are my reasons:

1. The title of this major article was featured on the front page;

2. Of the three interviewees, the other two were fairly well-known figures in the Chinese community, while Mr. Ya-Li Wei was a virtual unknown;

3. This was one of the issues when the deliveryman for the newspaper was “playing a hide-and-find game” with me because the intended audience was my sister and brother-in-law and they certainly did not want me to find out their real intentions.

TELEPHONE INCIDENTS

The Message on December 20, 2002

In the morning of December 20, 2002, I received the following message in my answering machine: “Good morning. This is a message for Robert. Robert, my name is Thomas Ng. I’m in charge of the expansion for my company. Currently I’m looking for people. I can train people and develop position for the expansion either on a part-time or full-time basis. Your name and number has come cross my desk and [I’m] just calling you today to see if you’d be interested in pursuing a career with my company. Ah, if, ah, the money and timing is right, if you do, please do give me a callback at 604-519-1953, 604-519-1953, I’ll be happy to provide you with more detail then. Thank you and have yourself a good day.”

I returned the call in the afternoon and got the following recorded OGM by a woman: “Hello, you’ve reached the direct voice mail of Carol Reichardt [sound] and Thomas Ng. I’m sorry they are unable to get the phone right now. However, your call is important. If you’d please leave your name and number and the best time to call you back, [they]’d be happy to return the call as soon as possible. Have a great day. Bye.”

I called 604-519-1953 a couple of more times and always got the OGM. On December 23, 2002, I called from SUCCESS office during my lunch hour at 12:14PM, I again got the voice mail. In the evening, I tried to call 604-519-1953 by blocking my number (*67) and was told that it doesn’t accept anonymous calls. I did not leave any message with them. I just wanted to find out who the caller was.

Here is what I think really going on:

• Carol Reichardt is woman; Thomas Ng is a Chinese man.

• The expansion of the business probably meant to sue the government and RCMP for damages.

• If I make a deal with them on how much they would pay me so as to settle my private lawsuit (money) and if my interest in joining their “company” turns to action quick enough (timing), I could easily sue the government for damage because they had all the inside information on how the government bullied me.

• Form their point of view, I would need training. And the position is tailor-made or developed for me. – Absolutely true.

• If I accept their offer, I would end up “working” either part-time or full-time. – Make sense.

• They never took my calls because all they wanted to say to me, they said already in those two messages.

• Please note that just over a month ago, I was bullied by lawyer Ed Ng. And I was quite upset. (Other than that, I do not know a lot of people named Ng.)

THE CALLS ONE MONTH LATER: A BIGGER “CARROT”?

At around 8:30AM on January 20, 2003, I received the following message in my answering machine: “Craig A³⁴, if you could please return my call, I would greatly appreciate it. My name is Mark. My telephone number is toll-free. It’s 1-866-591-5168 extension 259. If you could please return… 2589, Sorry. My telephone number again is 1-866-591-5168 extension 2589. Craig (sound not audible), if you could please return this call as soon as possible, (not entirely audible) speak with you. Thank you.”

This sounded like a wrong number call from a business. However, it did not say which company. Curious, I called the number back on January 23, 2003. The following is a description of the call.

1. The greeting from this toll-free number still did not say which company it was. It was only after I spoke to a live agent, was I told that it was Canadian Bonded Credit Limited.

2. I remembered that this company had called me just a couple of weeks before, for the same wrong person, i.e., Mr. Craig A³⁵. (According to my record, that first wrong-number call from CBCL that I received was on January 2, 2003.) I decided to talk to this Mark and ask them not to call me any more.

3. In my conversation with Mark:

• I told him that CBCL had called my number twice for Mr. Craig A³⁶. He confirmed with me that he personally did call my number (on January 20, 2003). But he denied that my number had been called before by anybody else from CBCL.

• He said he got our numbers from the Internet by using Mr. A’s address.

• He also informed me that he just started with CBCL on January 6, 2003. So, presumably, his extension number was fairly new.

• When asked why he did not leave his company’s name in his message, he kept mentioning The Privacy Act as the reason. – Of course, Privacy Act meant a lot to me as my current problem with the government started with my privacy request. I guess It’s their way of reminding me that.

• I asked him to explain himself because using The Privacy Act as the excuse did not make sense to me at all. He then used a father-son example, which made me even more confused.

• Finally, he suggested that I spoke to his supervisor and transferred my call to Cathy.

4. In my conversation with his supervisor Cathy [sound]:

• Not long into our conversation, she said to me: “Your name …[pause] your voice sounds awfully familiar to me.” – Later, I reflected on her words and suspected that she sounded like the woman who had left me a nasty message in my voice mail on April 2^nd of 2000 (slight chance of being 1998 or 1999).

• I was puzzled and asked her why. She said: “I don’t know ‘cos I think…I don’t know even why Craig A rings a bell.” – In fact, she was asking me if the name of Craig A rang a bell for me. Of course, it did because of the police incident just a few months ago on August 23. So she was telling me that the defendant knew what really happened in that police incident.

• Then she mentioned “another call like this about a month or so ago”. – She was reminding me of the telephone message exactly one month before, on December 20, 2002 from (604) 519-1953, which delivered essentially the same hidden message.

• She confirmed that Mark had just started with the company and had left me a message on January 20, 2003.

This being a strange telephone call, I did the math: if you divide 5,915,168 by 2,589, you get 2,285 which was around the then level of Berkshire Hathaway (BRK) B share price. It appeared that the defendant raised the number from 219xxxx to 519xxxx and then to 591xxxx. Given the then exchange rate, it was close to 10 millions Canadian dollars.

Last Seen Mr. Stephens

At around 5:00PM on Friday, January 31, 2003, I saw Mr. Stephens in the newspaper reading area of the Burnaby Public Library at Cameron Community Center. I did not talk to him, considering the fact that I did not carry my recorder with me. So I promptly left the library.

After I moved to my current residence in late November 2002, I became a frequent visitor to this public library. That was the only time I saw Mr. Stephens in it.

I also received some strange calls from Shaw Cable around that time. One of them from a representative named “Catherine” [sound] said that I had called them on Friday, January 31, 2003. But I did not call Shaw on that day.

AGENT MS. TWEE PHAN

I became acquainted with Ms. Twee Phan, an agent sent by the defendant, during a badminton session at Cameron Community Center in Burnaby on April 11, 2003. I had a couple of more badminton meetings with her until I suspected that she was an agent for the defendant in July.

How We Met

At about 8:40PM on April 11, 2003, I came to Cameron Community Center for the Friday evening badminton session which starts at 9:00PM. When the female attendant at the community gym scanned my registration card into the computer, apparently something on the computer screen alerted her. She called another male attendant to see the computer screen. The male attendant then made a phone call. About 15 minutes later, Ms. Phan came in to the Center.

As we were among the first participants signed in, we played a couple of games together. She told me that this was her first time playing in this gym and was glad that I knew my way around there. She was very outgoing. In fact, from the whole evening, she would not play with anyone else but me, despite the fact that I would have preferred to play with someone better, a fact that I’m sure she was aware of. I felt a little flattered though by her willingness to stay around me and her generally positive comments about me. I asked her phone number at the end of the session and she gave me her business card.³⁷

In retrospect, a couple of things in this meeting seemed a little odd³⁸. First of all, she did not ask me any of the basic questions in initial social encounters, such as what I do, where I live, etc. Secondly, she tried very hard to deliver the message on flexibility³⁹⁴⁰. In the middle of the badminton session, she said to me very dramatically: “Oh, you didn’t bring any water? How could you not have some water? Go get some [fountain] water.” This was, I think, in apparent reference to the water parable that Mr. Ya-Li Wei had preached earlier, because she would make exactly the same urging (about water) to me during our second badminton meeting at Britannia Community Center in Vancouver on July 4, 2003.

I had quit calling her since our second meeting, primarily because she tried to deliberately make the false impression in front of other people during our second badminton meeting that we were having a close relationship.

1. When I called her the second time on June 29, 2003, she told me: “you’re my boss already.”

2. I asked her to go to the Gym first as I expected to be a little late. But she insisted that we go in together, giving me the excuse that she was not familiar with the Gym.

3. When we did walk in the Gym together (about 10-15 minute late for the session), she abruptly raised her voice to deliberately draw attention from other people.

4. On our way out after the session, she would come on to me so close that our bodies touched when other people were near us. -- I may not be an expert at romance, but I know that’s odd.

5. What’s even odder was that she would cool down, both in her verbal communication and in her body language, when there were no other people around.

I remember Mr. Ya-Li Wei once said to me: “I think those people are just playing with you.” I did not know what kind of games the defendant was playing. But I certainly did not want to play their game.

PATTERNS OF HARASSING PHONE CALLS

Right after I filed the lawsuit, I received quite a few strange phone calls. The most relevant ones were touched upon in the previous sections. Another call worth noting was by the Mr. Norm Blain, Executive Director of Burnaby Board of Trade. I gave a brief description in Chapter 2 about his call. Here I simply challenge him to declare publicly that he did not know me before his call.

Between the start of the Iraq War and the end of summer, I received virtually no intrusive or harassing phone calls. The only exception was the one on April 12, 2003, which I believe was related to my becoming acquainted with their agent Ms. Twee Phan.

At the end of summer of 2003, however, strange calls started coming in. The first such one was on Saturday August 23, 2003, at 4:15PM and it was clearly of a harassing nature.

When I picked up the phone, a male caller spoke in a foreign language – if I had to guess, I would say Vietnamese, agent Ms. Twee Phan's first language – for about ten seconds and then hang up. I used *69 and got the number 604-421-4405. I subsequently chose option No. 1 to automatically return the call, but was told that the line was busy and I would be notified when the line became free. When the phone rang, indicating the line was free, I immediately picked up the phone. Again, I heard a busy tone and a system message saying that the line had just become busy again.

This repeated for about half a dozen times until I finally got through at 4:24PM. Another male, who was clearly a minor, answered my call. I asked him if anybody had just called me. He replied: “I don’t know. I just came home. My name is Robert Robinson. I don’t know if somebody called you because I just came home.” I tried to ask him additional questions, but he hang up on me. His reply did not sound like what people would normally say on the phone. In fact, he sounded like reading from a script.⁴¹

I called again at 4:27PM but the line was busy. I called two more time, at 4:38PM and 5:31PM. In both instances I was able to get through but nobody took my call at the other end.

SFU REDUX

Ombudsperson Ms. Laurine Harrison

In preparation for this report, I wanted to find out a more accurate date of my visit to the SFU Ombudsoffice in spring 1994. So in late July 2003, I contacted the office. Below were my dealings with Ms. Laurine Harrison, the current Ombudsperson as I came to know.

I first called the office at around 11:00AM on Tuesday July 29, 2003, to ask a general question: how long does the office keep its log? Ms. Harrison took my call but the conversation didn't go on well at all.

• Although my question was of a general nature, she insisted on getting my name and former department;

• She told me that she was in charge of the Ombudsoffice and that I had to do business strictly on her term, otherwise she was not going to help me;

• When I tried to be firm in my request, she countered by saying that none of the federal or provincial privacy or information access legislation applies to her office.

At 11:30AM, moments after I came home, there was a hang-up call to my home number. (I had called her from a payphone in a Shopping Mall nearby.)

I subsequently had two meetings with her, both during her drop-in office hours. The first one was in the afternoon of that same day. The second was in the morning of Thursday, July 31.

In the first meeting, she was very cordial and laughed many times. But she was very cool during the second one two days later. The reason she gave me was that I did not do exactly as she had asked in our initial telephone conversation, i.e., I did not send her an email about my request.

Note that if that was her reason for treating me any differently, she should have done so in our first meeting. In fact, she was quite friendly – indeed overly friendly -- with me in our first meeting. And she tried very hard to get as much information from me as possible. For example, she asked me at least half a dozen times why I needed that information.

She even asked “are there further problems you need to sort out with the university?” I did not think that my problem was with the university, so I said no. Was she assuming that my problem was with the university, even though I had not said anything along that line?

She also tried to offer me unsolicited career advice, even though I was quite reluctant to get into my job situation, and indeed, I did not tell him that I had trouble in that regard. At one point, she even suggested that I consider a career in Bioinfomatics.⁴²

I also found her not very honest with me. I asked her in our first meeting if her office was funded by the Student Society, she said yes, which turned out to be not true. Indeed, it is very unusual among Canadian universities for an Ombudsoffice’s funding coming from a source other than student society or student union.

Dear Ms. Harrison: As you may recall, during our first meeting in your office on July 29, 2003, I asked you the following question: To whom are you accountable as the Ombudsperson at SFU? As you may also recall, your answers were very evasive. You provided three to me in the following order: everybody, nobody and the public. I believe your last answer is the more correct one. So in the name of accountability, I am offering you a simple challenge: to declare publicly that you did not know anything about me before you first met me (after I gave you my name and department info over the phone).

A Near Accident the Next Day

In the morning after my second meeting⁴³ with Ms. Harrison, I was almost hit by a car⁴⁴.

It happened at around 8:30AM on August 1, 2003. I was on my way to a park near my residence to play basketball by myself, as I did routinely in that late summer.

On my way, I walked west on the right side of Hunter Street. There was an older, beat-up, non-uniform light color, GeoMetro-type car parked on this side of the street by the park, which is prohibited. When I passed it, I heard the car's engine was actually running; the driver sitting inside turned around and smiled at me. Thinking that he was just being morning friendly, I smiled back. About 50 meters down the road, I made a right turn on to Keswick Avenue (it is the only turn at the intersection because all other directions are trees or bushes). Immediately after my turn, this car came right from behind me and narrowly missed me at speed.

There happened to have two senior ladies coming towards me on Keswick Avenue at that very moment, apparently taking their morning walks. I am not sure if their presence saved my life, or the car was simply trying to scare me. (With lots of trees and bushes around the corner, the driver could not possibly see those two ladies walking on Keswick when he was on Hunter.) This car's behavior was totally different from that of the Mercedes-Benz, or the police cars detailed elsewhere in this report. In those instances, the cars involved were driving conspicuously slow and intercepted or passed me more than once. This GeoMetro-type car, however, was driving very fast on this quiet street, which is nested in a wooded area, and does not have a pedestrian walkway.

SFU Badminton Club

In summer 2003, I signed up for the SFU Badminton Club in which Gary (last name unknown) was one of the executives.

On May 26 during club time in the gym, he pointed out that I held shuttle too high when I serve. (The rule says that the player must hold shuttle above his or her waistline.) Then he turned around and told everyone in the court loudly: “that guy cheats.” Unfortunately for him, nobody seemed to care about or responded to his comments. He never showed up for the club time for the rest of the summer.

I can not be absolutely certain that my serving was without problem. But I had been playing badminton as a recreational activity for more than three years and nobody had said anything along that line about my serving. Besides, the day of the incident was not the first time Gary played with me and he appeared to have enjoyed playing with me quite a few times before.

The other executives and members were always very friendly to me. I suspect that Gary was simply manipulated by the defendant.

MS. WEN QIN

Ms. Wen Qin is a high-school classmate of mine and Mr. Han-Xin Lin’s. We have not had contact for about 15 years when he she called me and left a message on my cell phone from Toronto on Sunday evening September 28, 2003.

I called her back that night as she asked. During the conversation, she told me

• that she came to Canada on business with a group of clients;

• that she would be promoted, immediately after this trip, to Beijing office of her company (Johnson & Johnson);

• that she got my number from Mr. Yu-Feng Qin, the classmate who called me in 2000 (see Chapter 5);

• that she had met quite a few of our classmates in Beijing just before the trip, and in particular, Mr. Han-Xin Lin, who had just recently come back to Beijing from Canada.

She also told me that Mr. Lin, together with another classmate from Beijing, was in Wuhan, the capital city of our home province⁴⁵.

She asked me what I do. I told her “not much right now”. She then said: “So, you’re your own boss. That’s good.”

When she came to Vancouver on or around October 6, she stayed in Executive Airport Plaza in Richmond, the same hotel where Mr. Lin and I stayed – as arranged by the airline due to flight delay -- when we first met in late 1999. Some of what she said to me while in Richmond had a sexual overtone. She even suggested that she had an unusually close relationship with Mr. Han-Xin Lin. I found an excuse to not meet her.

I felt she came by order of the defendant, or their agent, most likely Mr. Han-Xin Lin.

OTHER POLICE INCIDENTS

There are some other police incidents that I am less sure of a bullying nature, mostly because they were not suspicious enough. However, I feel I need to write the following three incidents down in this chapter just for the records.

The First Record

The first record is about increased police visibility around me immediately after I move my place of residence. By visibility I mean more frequent encounters with police, usually in public places, in the first few week right after my move than in a normal times. This phenomenon occurred both in March 2001 after I had just moved to downtown Vancouver and in December 2002 and early 2003 after I had moved to my current apartment in Burnaby. I did not notice any such phenomenon prior to the PI No.1 at the end of 2000.

The Second Record

The second record is about a recent incident occurred in my apartment building. At about 9:30AM on Monday, October 20, 2003, I saw some police activities in my apartment building when I went down the basement parking garage. When I came back around 10:00AM, I saw a police officer checking cars in the garage, accompanied by a couple of residents. One of them came over to my car and checked if my car was OK, as she told me that some cars had been broken into the previous night. I knew my car was OK as I had just used it. So after she confirmed my car was OK, I headed back to my apartment upstairs. However, after I had passed the officer, who was checking a car near the door to the basement corridor, and opened the door, the police officer said hi to me from behind. Already in the corridor, I said hi back and let the door loose so it closed behind me.

On November 3, 2003, the property manager of the building, IJM Properties Ltd., distributed two notices to each apartment in the building. One was about the recent break-ins⁴⁶. The other was about fire safety. Slipped inside my doors, however, were two copies of the same notice on break-ins.

In the afternoon of April 6, 2004, I bumped into a member of the strata council in the elevator, who was with two visitors. In lieu of greeting, he said words “watch out” and “car thief” to me in a not so coherent manner. I asked him to repeat himself. He then said in an awkwardly joking manner: “Oh, I said ‘watch out. There are three car thieves here’”, referring to them three in a gesture. In a couple of subsequent encounters with him, he kept his greetings short and about weather.

The Third Record

In the afternoon of Thursday, January 9, 2003, two uniform police officers came to the SUCCESS office⁴⁷ where I was volunteering at the front desk. (I would take note of their first names, Travis and Louis, on their second visit a week later.)

Soon after they came in, Travis, the Caucasian officer, pointed to one of the brochures on our desk and asked me: “Do you know who is in charge of the program?” He directed his question to me although there was another volunteer who was also sitting behind the desk. He was very rude in his questioning as if he was demanding information from me. There was no usual greeting or introduction.

I took a look at the brochure and noted that it was about the HOST PROGRAM FOR NEW IMMIGRANTS. I told him that Shirley [Tsang] was. He then asked: “Can we talk to her?” I told him that Shirley was out of the office for a meeting. He then continued in his rigid tone: “Do you know her phone number?” I asked him if he needed to call her right then so that I could determine whether to give him Shirley’s cell number. He reacted as if he did not hear what I had just said. Instead, he picked up a brochure, and said to me: “well, write down the phone number here then.”

After I wrote down our office phone number for them, they took off without saying a thank-you or a good-bye. In fact, our office phone number was already on the brochure, unbeknown to me. During my entire verbal exchange with Travis, Louis, the other Asian officer, simply looked on without uttering a word. Also, they never asked anything specific about the program, or even mentioned the name of the program. This gave me the impression that they pointed to this brochure rather randomly.

I suspect that they came to our office for the sole purpose of bullying me although they did come in later to see Shirley Tsang.

It seemed to me that their key suggestion was that Ms. Kate Weldon was in charge of the whole [bullying] “program”. This reminded me that in 1998, Mr. Mark Abrams from the recruiting firm Executive Network told me of a young lady who was the personnel manager and urged me to meet her (see Chapter 4).

1 www.chinesenewsnet.com.

2 It was from the same website that I received the following message once after the trading incident: “A bus station is where a bus stops. A train station is where a train stops. On my desk, I have a workstation. What more can I say…” The same message came to me months later at the bottom of an email by one of my friends.

3 I don’t remember who made the initial call because I thought he was just somebody wanted to buy my computer at the time and he probably did not say his name either. I got their names during their visit in the afternoon.

4 I would characterize their behavior during the visit as aggressive, but not threatening. They acted as if they knew me very well, roaming around my small apartment and asking me personal questions such as what my Christmas plan was, whether I planned to visit Montreal, etc.

5 He said it in Mandarin: “那是很便宜啊”.

6 In retrospect, I think they knew already that I traded futures. The questions they asked simply led me to say that.

7 I told my former classmate Mr. Heng Sun in the fall of 1995 about the Governmental Innuendo, i.e., the exact words of my immigration consultant as described in Chapter 4. I suspect that the defendant got this information from Mr. Sun.

8 In securities companies, trading and corporate finance are the two major areas of business activities and Mr. Yanxiu Li is essentially a trader. Apparently he did not want me to be successful as a trader.

9 Jun An (君安) in Chinese literally means “you’ll be safe” or “wish you safe”.

10 Shenzhen is in southern China. – In early 2000, I was invited to give a talk in Xiang Cai Securities Co. in Beijing, which was well received. I tried to look for work with this company. -- And I believe that the defendant sabotaged that relationship I built up with this company in Beijing.

11 Later, repeated messages coming from Global Chinese Press implied that the defendant (Mr. Li) regarded the reference letter as a “diamond” to him and suggested it is of no use to me.

12 In the letter, I was told that the officer assigned to process my request was Heather Dube. But I never received any communication or correspondence from her.

13 I had the habit of using online dictionaries whenever I encounter word problems.

14 She put her emphasis on the word “email”. It was a subtle warning to me as I had just re-started using emails to communicate with my former (Chinese) classmates since January 2001. In effect, the defendant, as well as the government, was afraid that I would make my case public using email.

15 CIC followed up on its threat by sending me an unsigned letter on June 21, 2002, asking for my fingerprints, in connection to my citizenship application.

16 Incidentally, a few days later, my roommate installed an answering machine.

17 I received the following message through Internet a couple of times in early 2001: “A bus station is where a bus stops. A train station is where a train stops. On my desk, I have a workstation. What more can I say…”

18 I had earlier read on SFNews about such a proposed professorship.

19 Of course, I did not mention about their disguised “offer” of $500,000. But he should know my intention.

20 She also took away my recorder for a couple of minutes.

21 Indeed, I believe that even when I was in Beijing, I was followed. – When my cousin picked me up, he received a wrong-number call on his car phone, in which the caller was looking for somebody from the Ethnic College (民族学院).

22 I was able to leave a test message in my mail box by calling from my home phone. Also, when I called my own cell number from my own cell phone, I was prompted to enter my password.

23 I think that the defendant, as well as the government, knows that my best time to go public is before the call of a general election.

24 CCITA, i.e., Canadian Chinese (or, Chinese Canadian) Information Technology Association.

25 My place is between his work and his home. So his stopping-by sounds reasonable. Besides, he had invited me to his residence the day before.

26 He said in Chinese: “你怎么这么胆小怕死？”.

27 My thinking was that since I already told him that I was involved in a law suit, he would have access to Form 1 if he wanted to by contacting court registry. I hoped that by showing him this Form, I would not have to say any more than necessary and risk being misquoted; and he would be considerate enough to stop asking me so many personal questions. Some of his questions were quite personal. For example, he asked how I supported myself since I was out of work for so long. He also asked why we chose this place since we have just moved in.

28 Mr. Wei told me that he had one time tried to apply for Graduate Study in Statistics at SFU.

29 He asked where my brother-in-law worked. I did not want to tell him. But I did not want to be seen as rude. So I told him the industry in which he worked. He then told me the ending of a Chinese movie, essentially pointing out correctly the name of the company that my brother-in-law worked for.

30 Similar messages also came from Ms. Twee Phan, Global Chinese Press, and another unknown person I met while playing badminton.

31 I am not sure if he knew about my missing documents. It could also be his attempt to gather information for the defendant.

32 I had told my sister about these tactics by the defendant.

33 I had told my sister about Mr. Ya-Li Wei in January 2003 right after she came back from a trip to China.

34 Last name withheld for privacy.

35 He was also the wrong person New Westminster police were looking for in my apartment in August 2002.

36 The first call I received from CBCL was in the morning of January 2, 2003. The representative of CBCL – I believe that he was a genuine representative, not someone who intentionally bullied me as Mark or Cathy did - asked for Craig A. (According to this representative, my telephone number appeared on Mr. A’s file with CBCL on December 19, 2002.) Then at 6:00PM that same day, someone from Pacific Newspaper Group called to sell their newspapers. These two calls reminded me of the paired incidents on August 23, 2002 because both of them involved Craig A and Pacific Newspaper Group. In other words, the call from CBCL suggested that somebody connected to CBCL knew about the police incident on August 23, 2002.

37 The next morning at 10:30AM, I received a call from a woman looking for “Diane”. – I do not know about anybody by the name of “Diane” except Princess Diane, whom I admire.

38 Also odd was a call to my home the next morning at 10:30AM. A woman caller wanted to speak to “Diane”. She then apologized for dialing the wrong number. I wondered who Diane is. The only one I know of is Princess Diane, whom I admire.

39 For me, the issue was never about flexibility. It’s primarily about trust.

40 Also around this time at this gym, in one of the Monday badminton sessions, another apparently new male participant asked to see my racket. He then commented suggestively about the string: “it’s kinda stiff.”

41 The name Robinson reminded me of Mr. Svend Robinson, MP in my riding of Burnaby-Douglas. I first met him in a public event on December 6, 2002 when I indicated to him that I had a problem and I needed his help.

42 A major part of my Master’s Project in 1994 Genetic and Morphometric Characteristics of Eastern White Pine was about statistical analysis of genetic information. Her “suggestion” revealed that, not only did she know me very well, she was also bullying me not to pursue a career in finance.

43 After my first meeting with Ms. Harrison, I found in my old address book the name of one of Ombudspersons mentioned by her in that first meeting. I brought in the book with me for the second meeting, hoping it might help her narrow down her search for my visit info. In other words, I found out, after my first meeting with Ms. Harrison, the name of the Ombudsperson who dealt my complaint in spring 1994.

44 There were other near-accidents happened to me over the years. I’m writing this particular one down because of its unusual timing.

45 I felt uneasy when I got to know that Mr. Han-Xin Lin was so close to my family.

46 There is a mistake on the notice. It says that the break-in took place on October 21, 2003. It actually occurred in the morning of Monday October 20, 2003 (or the night before). I could not help but notice that it was around the third anniversary of my securities trading incident. Indeed, I had planned to go public with my story on or around October 20, 2003.

47 SUCCESS is a non-profit social service organization in Greater Vancouver.