HomeCounter-Racism Radio NetworkCounter-Racism Television NetworkArticlesProjectsCounter-Racism Work/Study ProjectShopping MallContact
Secure DonationsSecure Donations  FAQFAQ  SearchSearch  MemberlistMemberlist  RegisterRegister  ProfileProfile  Log inLog in

Non-white person's word against the R/WS in the work place
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
Post new topic†††Reply to topic †††Counter-Racism Work/Study Project Forum Index -> How to Counter Racism (White Supremacy) in the Work Place
View previous topic :: View next topic
Author Message
Edward Williams
Site Admin


Joined: 12 Apr 2003
Posts: 3110
Location: I am from everywhere I've ever been and everywhere I've never been

PostPosted: Sat Nov 07, 2009 12:57 pm† †Post subject: Re: Reply with quote

Corsican153 wrote:
Is deception a form of mistreatment?

It could be. It depends on what you mean when you say 'deception'.

Corsican153 wrote:
Does giving the correct information to a non-white person who has been given incorrect information about a subject not count as helping a person who needs the most help?

It depends. Help is a process. If you are doing something that you think is helping someone that did not ask for any help you could be harming them.

If you would like to have a conversation of asking and answering questions please start a thread in the Follow The Logic forum.
_________________
What is the reason YOU were born into a SYSTEM of INJUSTICE if not to replace it with a SYSTEM of JUSTICE?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Edward Williams
Site Admin


Joined: 12 Apr 2003
Posts: 3110
Location: I am from everywhere I've ever been and everywhere I've never been

PostPosted: Tue Dec 01, 2009 10:54 am† †Post subject: Re: Reply with quote

Darkmatter wrote:
The white supremacists are becoming a little desperate. The have threatened me with disciplinary action, if I don't sign the crummy OH referral. They made the mistake of sending a letter to me where they stated the following. 'you must sign the OH refer to signify that you've read and understood it not agree to it.' Well I have read it but I don't understand it because they have never explained to me why the referral is being sought. Their own procedures say 'ensuring that the employee fully understands why the referral is being sought, by formally arranging either phone call, e-mail or letter to explain the reason for the referral and the rationale behind it'. They haven't done this, so I sent a letter pointing this and other unlawful acts they've been committing for nearly 4 months. Such as acting on unsubstantiated allegations made in retaliation to a initial allegation made by me.

If it were me I would have asked questions...some of which would've been:

Is it due process for me to sign an OH Referral without me fully understanding why the referral is being sought, by formally arranging either phone call, e-mail or letter to explain the reason for the referral and the rationale behind it?

Then I would let them answer the question. As best I can I use what I call 'binary' questions...meaning, the questions have only a 'yes' or a 'no' answer. Either it is due process or it isn't. And people like to respond by giving long drawn out responses to questions without giving answers. I let them finish their response if it is as such and then I ask them another question - Is that a 'yes' or a 'no' to the due process question I just asked? And let them answer the question. If need be I would explain to them that either what I was being told to do is due process or what I was being told to do is not due process. See, they are going to have to pick one or the other. None of this long 5 to 10 minute responses that they usually give. I make sure I am patient, speak in a monotone voice, look them in the eye and I begin to narrow the perception so that we are all talking about one thing and one thing only...due process.

Darkmatter wrote:
I told them that I would not sign until they explained exactly what my line manager meant, when he stated witnessing a sudden change in my behaviour when he'd had only met me on two occasions. I asked him to clarify everything, when he supposedly witnessed this sudden change, what did my behaviour change from and to and how it would be possible for him to notice this change if he'd never worked before or know me from Adam. He sent me a letter stating he'd arranged a meeting with HR to discuss it with them, before getting back to me, and would be extending the deadline for returning the signed OH form. So he's having a meeting with HR to discuss completing a referral about something he claims to have witnessed over 3 months ago. Anyway he gave me a deadline of 12/11. Surprise surprise, he didn't get back to me with the answers in time. I couldn't sign it, so in theory they could start disciplinary against me. Only I sent in an e-mail to everyone in HR, including my line manager the day before the deadline and informed them all that my line manager had failed to get back to me and that I'm not signing until I get the answers to my question. I got an out of office reply from the clown the day before the deadline to say he would be in the following day, but he failed to contact me. So it has remained unsigned.

I am so disgusted with this person's blasť attitude, I'm considering making a formal complaint about him, to his manager for misconduct.

If it were me I would refrain from making what could be considered as personal attacks and stick to talking about due process. They are going to find someone to take the wrap for any subversive actions that took place. The idea is to make sure you are not that person and you share the technique with as many people as possible so that they can make sure they are not that person either (the person that takes the wrap).
_________________
What is the reason YOU were born into a SYSTEM of INJUSTICE if not to replace it with a SYSTEM of JUSTICE?


Last edited by Edward Williams on Sat Jan 09, 2010 8:30 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Edward Williams
Site Admin


Joined: 12 Apr 2003
Posts: 3110
Location: I am from everywhere I've ever been and everywhere I've never been

PostPosted: Sat Jan 09, 2010 8:45 pm† †Post subject: Re: Reply with quote

Darkmatter wrote:
Edward Williams wrote:
Darkmatter wrote:
The white supremacists are becoming a little desperate. The have threatened me with disciplinary action, if I don't sign the crummy OH referral. They made the mistake of sending a letter to me where they stated the following. 'you must sign the OH refer to signify that you've read and understood it not agree to it.' Well I have read it but I don't understand it because they have never explained to me why the referral is being sought. Their own procedures say 'ensuring that the employee fully understands why the referral is being sought, by formally arranging either phone call, e-mail or letter to explain the reason for the referral and the rationale behind it'. They haven't done this, so I sent a letter pointing this and other unlawful acts they've been committing for nearly 4 months. Such as acting on unsubstantiated allegations made in retaliation to a initial allegation made by me.

If it were me I would have asked questions...some of which would've been:

Is it due process for me to sign an OH Referral without me fully understanding why the referral is being sought, by formally arranging either phone call, e-mail or letter to explain the reason for the referral and the rationale behind it?

Then I would let them answer the question. As best I can I use what I call 'binary' questions...meaning, the questions have only a 'yes' or a 'no' answer. Either it is due process or it isn't. And people like to respond by giving long drawn out responses to questions without giving answers. I let them finish their response if it is as such and then I ask them another question - Is that a 'yes' or a 'no' to the due process question I just asked? And let them answer the question. If need be I would explain to them that either what I was being told to do is due process or what I was being told to do is not due process. See, they are going to have to pick one or the other. None of this long 5 to 10 minute responses that they usually give. I make sure I am patient, speak in a monotone voice, look them in the eye and I begin to narrow the perception so that we are all talking about one thing and one thing only...due process.


I believe using binary questions is a very good technique in this type of situation. I have observed that the racists DO NOT like being asked questions requiring either a yes or no answer. In meetings, if I ask them a question whether something is due process, they immediately say \\\"don't know or that's what we need to investigate/will get back to you!\\\" they will do everything to avoid answering questions about due process. If I pursue this line of questioning, they then say I am being unreasonable/agressive. Of course they will refuse to sign off on what was said and/or done in the meeting so they can run with these lies. They have tried everything in their power to stop me from using these words. Their principal tactic is to accuse me of repeating PS&RofL and then say this somehow proves that I'm mad, unreasonable/agressive etc. I assume they think their character assassination of me will somehow result in others questioning the credibility of my allegation. I don't know, but all managers have made this type of comment repeatedly. My response has repeatedly been where's the evidence to suggest I have not followed due process.

I cannot stress enough how important it is in meetings to get them to agree to sign off on what is said and/or done (as you suggested) as it is highly probable they will lie through their teeth about what is said if you don't. I don't know what your take is on this Mr Williams, but in addition to taking notes, could be to ask a white person (colleague) to accompany you to a meeting if possible (I did this at the last two meetings I had - this person didn't say anything in the meeting just observed), the managers still lied about what I said, but the accusations aggressive behaviour/poor conduct were dropped. The white person who accompanied me has witnessed on 2 occasions senior managers saying one thing in the meeting then lying about it later on. This person agreed to be a witness if things go any further, although I realise I cannot rely on them to follow through on this. Anyway, It has taken a while but the managers have finally agreed that any future meetings are thoroughly documented and signed by all those present at the end of the meeting.

second part of my post to follow..


Oh yes, I have used what I call a 'silent witness' before and it is usually a person who is one or two levels higher in rank than the highest level manager that is attending the meeting. I try to make sure that person has someone reporting to them that also has someone reporting to them that the highest level manager at the meeting reports to. I tell the 'silent witness that they can not answer questions or ask questions or make any statements to what is being said in the meeting but they can take notes as long as no one views their notes and they can tell no person what it is they have written down. If they observe anything at the meeting that are not in accordance with the 'due process' clauses of the United States Constitution to please take note of it and act accordingly following the meeting. I can explain everything that I say to the 'silent witness' if need be. While in the meeting it makes all the difference. Keeps everyone 'on point'.
_________________
What is the reason YOU were born into a SYSTEM of INJUSTICE if not to replace it with a SYSTEM of JUSTICE?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Edward Williams
Site Admin


Joined: 12 Apr 2003
Posts: 3110
Location: I am from everywhere I've ever been and everywhere I've never been

PostPosted: Sat Jan 09, 2010 10:27 pm† †Post subject: Reply with quote

Darkmatter wrote:
Darkmatter wrote:
I told them that I would not sign until they explained exactly what my line manager meant, when he stated witnessing a sudden change in my behaviour when he'd had only met me on two occasions. I asked him to clarify everything, when he supposedly witnessed this sudden change, what did my behaviour change from and to and how it would be possible for him to notice this change if he'd never worked before or know me from Adam. He sent me a letter stating he'd arranged a meeting with HR to discuss it with them, before getting back to me, and would be extending the deadline for returning the signed OH form. So he's having a meeting with HR to discuss completing a referral about something he claims to have witnessed over 3 months ago. Anyway he gave me a deadline of 12/11. Surprise surprise, he didn't get back to me with the answers in time. I couldn't sign it, so in theory they could start disciplinary against me. Only I sent in an e-mail to everyone in HR, including my line manager the day before the deadline and informed them all that my line manager had failed to get back to me and that I'm not signing until I get the answers to my question. I got an out of office reply from the clown the day before the deadline to say he would be in the following day, but he failed to contact me. So it has remained unsigned.

I am so disgusted with this person's blasť attitude, I'm considering making a formal complaint about him, to his manager for misconduct.

Edward Williams wrote:
If it were me I would refrain from making what could be considered as personal attacks and stick to talking about due process. They are going to find someone to take the wrap for any subversive actions that took place. The idea is to make sure you are not that person and you share the technique with as many people as possible so that they can make sure they are not that person either (the person that takes the wrap).


Some good news. I have been fully reinstated, albeit in a different department and they've agreed to pay me for the last 5 months, since they prevented me from working there... this is what happened in the last few weeks...

I had another meeting with them a couple of weeks before the white supremacist holiday season. They began by asking me if I would agree to the meeting being taped. I agreed. In the meeting I asked the investigating officer, \"you have been conducting this investigation for 4 months and you have not contacted me once in that time\" Is this due process? She said \"well it has taken 4 weeks to arrange this meeting, and I did not have all the e-mails/meeting notes until very recently\". I said \"You could have asked me for any e-mails you didn't have?\" she said \"yes that's true\". She then said that there have been delays for which she apologised for. I then read out a section of the organisational policies and procedures regarding investigations which state \"the manager to keep the employee informed of progress on a fortnightly basis\"! She did not respond to this. I should have followed up with is that a yes or no to the due process question, which I will do next time. I then asked the new manager they've recently drafted in to the investigation. \"Having looked at my case do you think that this is the way an employee should be treated\"? She replied \"I don't have all the facts but, no, I don't think this is the way an employee should have been treated\". I asked \"are you investigating whether there has been a breech in the Rule of Law\"? Reply \"yes we are\". In addition to this I sent a statement reiterating what had been said and what they agreed to investigate. In this meeting both managers admitted to mistakes being made and apologised.


Slam dunk! Here is what you are looking at. You are asking if something has been said and\or done that is not in accordance with 'due process' of Parliamentary Sovereignty and/or the Rule of Law. They agree that they are investigating 'due process' subversion of Parliamentary Sovereignty and/or the Rule of Law. They are saying they don't know if there has been any subversion of 'due process' of Parliamentary Sovereignty and/or the Rule of Law and at the same time saying 'some mistakes were made'. Well...mistakes in reference to what? Parliamentary Sovereignty and/or the Rule of Law?

See, this is the reason is it critical to make sure you keep everything based on Parliamentary Sovereignty and/or the Rule of Law and ask, when anything is brought up, if it is in accordance with 'due process' of Parliamentary Sovereignty and/or the Rule of Law. This is what they will have to investigate. They will have to investigate everyone's actions in accordance with Parliamentary Sovereignty and/or the Rule of Law to see if there was subversion of it and the only reason they are doing this is because you are stating that you have probable cause believe that someone is subverting Parliamentary Sovereignty and/or the Rule of Law. You are making an Inquiry into the speech and/or action of subversion of Parliamentary Sovereignty and/or the Rule of Law. If you don't use 'due process' in accordance with Parliamentary Sovereignty and/or the Rule of Law they will not have to investigate anything in reference to it.

Inquiry, Investigation and Indictment. These are all parts of the same process. Non-white people have to understand how critical it is for them to stay in the Inquiry lane and let the white people who practice racism (white supremacy) investigate and indict each other because that is where the logic is going to take them. That is where the logic has taken them in this instance and now they are faced with whether or not they will indict each other...which they seldom do percentagewise.

Darkmatter wrote:
However, they later informed me that the tapes from the meeting where they admitted I had been mistreated were 'INAUDIBLE'. I'm not surprised they're claiming the tapes were inaudible, since in this meeting I asked the right questions (requiring a yes or no answer) and got them to admit to their wrongdoing, I did this in a calm, professional and logical manner.


(((smiling)))

Darkmatter wrote:
They asked me questions and I consistent answered their questions and did not change or vary anything I have been saying for the last 5 months. I also repeatedly quoted from their own policies and procedures and pointed out where their actions had been in conflict with them, their response was to agree that in some instances it appeared that they had contravened their own procedures. In essence these tape proved I had been telling the truth and that they had broken their own policies, which they say are in accordance with the Rule of Law. They don't want anyone else to hear these tapes as these people have portrayed me as being aggressive, illogical, unreasonable and mad and themselves as being professional, helpful and supportive. These tapes prove the opposite.


Of course. Still up to their old tricks. Don't ever expect them to stop. Even when it looks like they are doing the correct thing.

Darkmatter wrote:
Prior to this meeting, I began to re-read everything I had sent to them, meeting notes, e-mails and all of the things you've suggested. I started to see where I had made mistakes, mainly saying too much and not sticking to the point 'due process'.


You're learning. (((smiling)))

Darkmatter wrote:
I then sent the letter I referred to previously about the OH referral. Something I said in that letter and in the recent meeting, caused them to dramatically change course. As I said before, they've now paid me for the last 5 months - they are now in the position where they will have to explain at some point, why they didn't pay me whilst I had effectively been suspended and why they decided to pay me now. No matter what way you look at this, it doesn't look good for them. They have sent 2 letters stating exactly what they are doing, (they ring me to find out if I agree with the letters before sending them), who they are interviewing and they've stated that they're taking my allegation very seriously yadda yadda. and have given me information on appealing against their decision if I do not agree with the outcome. They're stubbornly refusing to use PS & RofL and are using their internal grievance procedure. I'm not sure what you're thoughts are on this (i.e. using their grievance procedure to investigate my allegation), but I am continuing to say I have been subverted in my efforts to support PS & RofL, which they claim they're investigating. I didn't feel confident enough to force the issue of whether or not they used their internal grievance procedure to investigate my allegation.

Doesn't matter...they have already stated their 'internal procedures' are in accordance with Parliamentary Sovereignty and/or the Rule of Law therefore you can continue to use Parliamentary Sovereignty and/or the Rule of Law. That's the beauty of asking them if they have any 'internal procedures' that are in direct conflict with Parliamentary Sovereignty and/or the Rule of Law. Remember that question earlier in this process? Now you understand how that question works to your advantage and at the same time works against them. No matter what language they use or change or adopt along the way you using the words 'Parliamentary Sovereignty and/or the Rule of Law' still work to your advantage.
_________________
What is the reason YOU were born into a SYSTEM of INJUSTICE if not to replace it with a SYSTEM of JUSTICE?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Edward Williams
Site Admin


Joined: 12 Apr 2003
Posts: 3110
Location: I am from everywhere I've ever been and everywhere I've never been

PostPosted: Sat Jan 09, 2010 10:31 pm† †Post subject: Reply with quote

Darkmatter wrote:
Q: Can I ask, what is the logic in not stating the person(s) one believes is engaged in subverting the Constitution. I only ask this because they pressured me into handing over the notes I have made each time there was a problem and I obviously named people in those notes. I just wondered if this could be a problem later, because I stated that I did not know who was subverting me. In theory this is true since the person subverting me could have been the manager in the department (who is not mentioned in the notes I made prior to my allegation), but as I have learned these people have a habit of corrupting and twisting things.

If I understand the question, THE LOGIC of not stating the person's name who could be subverting you in your efforts to support and defend 'Parliamentary Sovereignty and/or the Rule of Law' is that once you do that you have moved from the Inquiry lane directly to the Indictment lane and there is no reason for an Investigation. Part of 'due process' is to follow 'due process' which is you have to have an Inquiry then an Investigation then an Indictment.

Think about it this way...if there is a fire in a building and someone yells out that there is a fire in a building (which is the equivalent to you stating that you have probable cause to believe that someone is subverting 'due process' of 'Parliamentary Sovereignty and/or the Rule of Law') the first thing that has to be done is to get everyone out of harms way who should not be harmed. This is a universal procedure. Universal logic. No one stands around trying to investigate how the fire got started prior to getting the people out of harms way who should not be harmed. The next step is to put the fire out. These two steps are part of the same whole. Then there is an investigation of how the fire may have started which leads into, if there is probable cause to believe someone started the fire, who may have started the fire. During the investigation if it is found that someone may have started the fire that is when the Indictments come.

By you coming forward and stating that you have probable cause to believe that someone is subverting 'due process' of 'Parliamentary Sovereignty and/or the Rule of Law' you have removed yourself from any suspicion of having started the fire. Meaning you are not only alerting everyone to the fact that there is a fire but you are also beginning the process of getting people out of harms way who should not be harmed and and you are starting that process by getting yourself out of harms way and you'd better believe the white people who practice racism (white supremacy) are doing that with each other to the best of their ability. They will sit in a meeting, sometimes even with you in there, and decide who will take the fall for what you are proposing is taking place...meaning they are removing each other from suspicion. So, the first person you are getting out of harms way is you. As you have found out they will not help you to get out of harms way. You have to do this for yourself and that is why this works so beautifully.

Follow 'due process'. As I have stated before, in this thread, don't you subvert 'due process' trying to get 'due process'. Inquiry, Investigation, Indictment. Stay in the Inquiry lane by alerting everyone to the possible subversion of Parliamentary Sovereignty and/or the Rule of Law and ask questions about everything that is said and/or done that you believe could be subversion of Parliamentary Sovereignty and/or the Rule of Law. And ask these questions in such a manner that the only logical answer to the question is either a 'yes' or 'no'. So remember, when you name the person who is subverting you then you have just subverted 'due process'. They know this and this is the reason they try to get you to do it. I explain all of this in detail in the book I am writing and I give THE LOGIC for it...how it works, why it works the way that it works, and what the effect is.

Darkmatter wrote:
I eventually got a response from my line manager regarding the Occupational Health referral appointment, he failed explain why he was requesting the referral and chose to hide behind the organisation stating the organisation wanted a referral and not him personally. He did not witness a noticeable change in my behaviour 'the organisation' did! This does not make any sense to me, but I guess that's the point - keeping me confused.

Exactly.

Darkmatter wrote:
Anyway I signed the form and attended the appointment which in itself was a complete farce. In the appointment, the consultant asked 'why has it taken 5 months for you to attend this appointment?' I replied 'It has taken 5 months for my line manager to explain why the OH referral was being requested'! He then said 'Why have you not been working here in those 5 months'? I replied 'my line manager would not allow me to work until I agreed to the appointment, which I would not do until I was fully informed about the reasons for the appointment being requested, in accordance with policies and procedures of this organisation'! He replied 'There's no reason why you could not have continued to work whilst this was being looked into, you are clearly fit to work, this is ridiculous'. I responded, 'I agree, I have been saying the same for the last 5 months, to no avail'.

Excellent! Many non-white people that I have observed will attempt to argue the point rather than to see how it is that what the person is saying or doing is making your point. Use what they give you and learn to use it to your advantage. Excellent!

Darkmatter wrote:
He also stated that since the allegation pertaining to my conduct at a meeting, (which led to the OH referral being sought), I had several meetings with managers (including the manager requesting the referral), where my conduct had not been questioned and that this further demonstrated that I should have been able to continue to work. He seemed genuinely shocked by the way management had handled my case. I ended by saying that I believed I had not contravened any policies or procedures and I myself could not understand why I was being treated in this way. I received the report from him a few days later, which states that 'she was alert, attentive, logical and rational and displayed appropriate conduct and normal behaviour during our long consultation and is fit to work immediately'. He made several attempts to goad me into arguments, interrupted me and raised his voice etc., I'm not saying he did this with any malicious intent as it may have been because I had been accused of being aggressive and he needed to find out if there was any truth in it. My response had been the same as it had been in all the other meetings where the managers had tried the same tactic and that was to remain calm and answer/ask questions.

Excellent! That is how it is done.

Darkmatter wrote:
Sorry, one other thing I've remembered. I had a conversation with a non-white person who is a lawyer and I explained to her about the situation at work and how I had been using PS & RofL. She didn't understand and asked me to explain to her why I chose to use the Rule of Law. We had a bit of a heated discussion about it as she made me feel as if I was wrong to use the Rule of Law - almost as if to say people like me had no right to use it. I explained that I had used internal procedures in the past and that it didn't solve the problem in the long term and that I didn't want to spend my entire working life going to tribunals. I explained that I had taken an employer to a tribunal before, won and been compensated, but that didn't help me or stop me from being mistreated again in my current job. She was very resistant to the idea of using the rule of law, which seemed strange to me since she is a lawyer. When we were having this discussion I thought, little wonder we as black people are in such a mess. There I was making a perfectly logical argument (to a much better educated person than myself who is in the legal profession) that I am protected under the British Constitution therefore, I'm going to use it to defend myself against racists and she is telling me to go along with organisational policies which she knows can be reviewed and changed. That isn't logical.

Many non-white people have this reaction. Try to only help the people who need help the most get the most help. It appears to be only when a person is in need of help will they request it or even listen to someone who is attempting to help them. What I have found out is even the explanation of how this is done is baffling to many non-white people because we cannot even wrap our minds around what it is that is being said and how it works to our advantage. So I have been reserved to help people when they ask for it but I don't go around evangelizing the idea.

Darkmatter wrote:
I could have been because I didn't explain the process correctly, but she would have got the gist of what I was saying. I got a different response when I explained the process I'm using to a white legal person, who initially didn't understand what I was saying then later agreed that it was a plausible route to take and didn't see it as a problem, although I did get the impression there was a bit of 'snobbery' attached to the way he was coming across, again as if to say the Rule of Law isn't really for 'you people'.

That is how it works. Many white people not only understand the language but they understand where it is going and why it is necessary for them to agree with you which is because by doing so they remove themselves from suspicion. Many non-white people don't understand this and may never understand it unless they run their own experiments as you have. That is the reason this website is setup this way...for non-white people to run their own counter-racism science experiments and post them, report their findings and post their conclusions on the WSP all by themselves. You have a whole different perspective once you run the experiments yourself and put everything on the line. Then and only then do you KNOW. Don't think you will be able to explain all of your thoughts, your intentions, your observations and the results to another non-white person and they are going to understand it...no matter how 'educated' you may think they are. It ain't gonna happen.

My suggestion is for you to think about everything that was said and/or done and as best you can organize it and collate in the most constructive format in your mind and on paper and then publish it for other non-white people who need it. But above all keep using it and refining it until you have a product that works consistently the same way no matter who uses it.

Darkmatter wrote:
In each case it absolutely reaffirmed my belief that using the Constitution is definitely the right course of action particularly for non-white people, we should be all over it. I remember hearing Mr Fuller saying something about Thurgood Marshall, who served on the supreme court would just be slapping people all day with the US Constitution. You got someone who served on the supreme court using it, I don't need any convincing.

Q: Have you experienced this type of opposition to using the Constitution from non-white legal professionals?

Yes because we can't even wrap our minds around why it is necessary to use the United States Constituion or how to use it. Either use it or throw it away. The answer is to use it. Either you use something or you don't use it and if you don't use it you might as well get rid of it. If you use it how do you use it? You support it and defend it. How do you support it? How do you defend it? You make sure you do not say and/or do anything that is not in accordance with it and you also make sure that no one else does either. Many non-white people do not understand the value of using words as a precision tool so that it works for them so do not expect non-white people to understand. Just point them to this thread and have them read it. Many non-white people will not even do that. Don't be discouraged. You are not doing it so that other non-white people will do it are you? You should only be doing it because you think it needs to be done and because it works.

Darkmatter wrote:
Q I also read on the net someone suggesting not allowing employers to get away with making false accusations and that employees should challenge this type of thing. Do you agree?

To a certain degree. You don't want to end up in an argument because that is not going to help you. It's like you standing up saying the building is on fire and someone wanting to argue with you about it. Sooner or later they are going to have to DO something about what it is you are saying other than argue.

Darkmatter wrote:
Q: How is your situation on the job going? I remember you said someone in your job mentioning the legal department.

No, I mentioned it. The situation is going beautifully. The patterns of behavior are the same and it appears so no matter where non-white people are on the planet.

Darkmatter wrote:
I apologise for the length of this post. I have been told that I have a habit of making long-winded statements instead of just sticking to the main points. I don't do this intentionally and suspect it has something to do with not thinking logically and not using words precisely. I am working on it, so I hope you can forgive me if I've rambled on again.

No problem. Congratulations on your reinstatement and the recovery of your funds. Remember, this is the beginning of the beginning. You still have to continue to do the work until the problem is solved...meaning the SYSTEM of racism (white supremacy) is replaced with a SYSTEM of justice.
_________________
What is the reason YOU were born into a SYSTEM of INJUSTICE if not to replace it with a SYSTEM of JUSTICE?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Edward Williams
Site Admin


Joined: 12 Apr 2003
Posts: 3110
Location: I am from everywhere I've ever been and everywhere I've never been

PostPosted: Mon Jan 11, 2010 3:27 pm† †Post subject: Reply with quote

Yes Sir. I'm going to answer your question but I am not going to ask you any questions. This is not a discussion between you and I.

First of all, unless I'm mistaken, Darkmatter was asking those questions to me. Darkmatter and I have, in this thread, 6 pages of conversations where we are walking through solving a problem with the purpose and intent of solving that problem without producing more problems. There have been other non-white people who have interjected into this conversation to ask questions of Darkmatter or myself and/or to make brief statements as to how constructive the conversation is and/or how much they are learning from it.

You have been a member here since April of last year and this thread was started by Darkmatter in July of last year. Darkmatter has had to not only endure the mistreatment on the basis of color by racist suspects on her job but also come up to speed very quickly on a process that is not easy to learn for non-white people. She now understands the value of using words correctly, the value of establishing and maintaining a posture that not only allows her to think constructively when faced by the racist suspects but also to behave (speech and/or action) in a manner that allows her to get racist suspects to help her solve her problems...the same ones who are causing the problems, she understands the value of asking questions and most importantly how not to allow words to become more important than what she is seeing. If she does not fully understand all of these things she will...it is simply a matter of time because she has gone through the process.

You came in on page 5 of this conversation, which was after we had walked through THE LOGIC of the process, some of the language of the process and we were already receiving some of the responses that we had already mapped out would happen. When you came into the conversation you began asking questions of me about the purpose of this forum, which is outlined in the FAQ.

Help is a process, as I pointed out in this thread. What a white person should do is to ask the non-white person or people if they can make a suggestion that the white person thinks will help the non-white person...since help is a process. This ain't just people talking here...it is a counter-racism website so you, as a white person, have to make sure that you are helping non-white people and in order to do that the non-white people have to be receptive and agree to any assistance you desire to provide.

After all has been said and done...after Darkmatter has received full reinstatement and backpay for the months of mistreatment on the basis of color including all of the time the racist suspects would not allow her to work...after Darkmatter spent all of these months not knowing what was going to happen next and all she had to go on was THE LOGIC and some simple suggestions I came up with that were based on my experiences you make a post telling her this process, and I quote, 'will not work'. I do not know why you did this but in case you do not understand the term 'racist suspect' you can use that example as a definition.

You are welcome to make your post without the links because they disfigure the board. So that others can read it. I still have a copy of it for my records so if you do decide to repost it I'll make sure it is verbatim from the original post. Then non-white people can read what you have written, look at your join date, the date of this thread and the date of your post which would've been yesterday instead of today and wonder why a white person would post this who has been a member of the WSP and following the thread...why a white person would post what you posted after all that time. Then you can explain to the non-white people who are wondering this why it is that you are not a racist suspect.

Right now Darkmatter has a process that she can use not only for her job but a process that she can alter no matter where she works and no matter where she is on the planet. A process of how to get the most powerful people to help her to solve problems and to do so without producing more problems.
_________________
What is the reason YOU were born into a SYSTEM of INJUSTICE if not to replace it with a SYSTEM of JUSTICE?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Edward Williams
Site Admin


Joined: 12 Apr 2003
Posts: 3110
Location: I am from everywhere I've ever been and everywhere I've never been

PostPosted: Thu Jan 14, 2010 8:03 am† †Post subject: Re: Reply with quote

Darkmatter wrote:
Edward Williams wrote:
No problem. Congratulations on your reinstatement and the recovery of your funds. Remember, this is the beginning of the beginning. You still have to continue to do the work until the problem is solved...meaning the SYSTEM of racism (white supremacy) is replaced with a SYSTEM of justice.
Thank you. I have some more good news, I think you will be please to hear Mr Williams. My employers have today announced all over the intranet, that they have introduced a new service. A dedicated helpline and team has been set up for employees who are facing harassment and bullying. Its a cynical move on their part, obviously trying to cover their backsides, but its positive all the same. They are really pushing the service and made a really big announcement about it. See, it's like you said Mr Williams, solving problems without creating more problems....

This announcement should put everyone on notice, that they're being monitored and that person in their midst talking about PS&Rof Law ain't going nowhere so there might be an increase in the number of people using the process. In fact that's one of the reasons why I even considered going back to this job. I would without hesitation inform any non-white person about your website, the process I am using, (which worked even though I made mistakes) and how it has helped me - if they ask for help....

Yes, outstanding indeed and yet, as you so eloquently put it, 'cynical' and also at the same time 'positive'. It doesn't surprise me that this is happening though. This is also a more refined way for the white people who practice racism (white supremacy) on your job to move non-white people down a certain path. They will attempt to give you something that is apparently designed to 'help' you...but only because they do not want you to go any other route.

Picture it this way, contrast many non-white people taking the path that you have taken in their quest to produce justice, which eliminates them from being mistreated on the basis of color, talking about and acting in a manner where they are supporting and defending Parliamentary Sovereignty and/or the Rule of Law...a path that the racist suspects on your job clearly do not control. Now contrast that with the white people who practice racism (white supremacy) on your job putting together a package or service that THEY SAY is designed to 'help' employees on your job who are experiencing harassment and bullying by offering a dedicated helpline and team for employees facing this. Help them do what? Acknowledge it? Report it? Resolve it?

See, the difference is they control the process. They know where to send you...where not to send you...when to send you...when not to send you...see how that works? If they control it they can have you moving all over the place and they will. And they can keep you confused doing this.

Now that you have them acclimated to the language and you have a tool that works for you there is no need for you to change anything. This could be just a way for them to keep people from doing what you have done and headed down a path that they control. Stick with the counter-racism ju-jitsu. As you already know the speech and action works.

Maybe at some point you can come up with a hybrid model to help non-white people understand the difference between what they are doing and what you have done. Or you can help another non-white person do what you have done under the auspices that they produce the hybrid model. Either way the both of you will be going down the path to produce justice by helping the people who need help the most get the most help.
_________________
What is the reason YOU were born into a SYSTEM of INJUSTICE if not to replace it with a SYSTEM of JUSTICE?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Edward Williams
Site Admin


Joined: 12 Apr 2003
Posts: 3110
Location: I am from everywhere I've ever been and everywhere I've never been

PostPosted: Mon Jan 25, 2010 6:18 pm† †Post subject: Re: Reply with quote

Darkmatter wrote:
Edward Williams wrote:
Darkmatter wrote:
Edward Williams wrote:
No problem. Congratulations on your reinstatement and the recovery of your funds. Remember, this is the beginning of the beginning. You still have to continue to do the work until the problem is solved...meaning the SYSTEM of racism (white supremacy) is replaced with a SYSTEM of justice.
Thank you. I have some more good news, I think you will be please to hear Mr Williams. My employers have today announced all over the intranet, that they have introduced a new service. A dedicated helpline and team has been set up for employees who are facing harassment and bullying. Its a cynical move on their part, obviously trying to cover their backsides, but its positive all the same. They are really pushing the service and made a really big announcement about it. See, it's like you said Mr Williams, solving problems without creating more problems....

This announcement should put everyone on notice, that they're being monitored and that person in their midst talking about PS&Rof Law ain't going nowhere so there might be an increase in the number of people using the process. In fact that's one of the reasons why I even considered going back to this job. I would without hesitation inform any non-white person about your website, the process I am using, (which worked even though I made mistakes) and how it has helped me - if they ask for help....

Yes, outstanding indeed and yet, as you so eloquently put it, 'cynical' and also at the same time 'positive'. It doesn't surprise me that this is happening though. This is also a more refined way for the white people who practice racism (white supremacy) on your job to move non-white people down a certain path. They will attempt to give you something that is apparently designed to 'help' you...but only because they do not want you to go any other route.

Picture it this way, contrast many non-white people taking the path that you have taken in their quest to produce justice, which eliminates them from being mistreated on the basis of color, talking about and acting in a manner where they are supporting and defending Parliamentary Sovereignty and/or the Rule of Law...a path that the racist suspects on your job clearly do not control. Now contrast that with the white people who practice racism (white supremacy) on your job putting together a package or service that THEY SAY is designed to 'help' employees on your job who are experiencing harassment and bullying by offering a dedicated helpline and team for employees facing this. Help them do what? Acknowledge it? Report it? Resolve it?

See, the difference is they control the process. They know where to send you...where not to send you...when to send you...when not to send you...see how that works? If they control it they can have you moving all over the place and they will. And they can keep you confused doing this.
Yes that's very true, and also if or when I'm mistreated in the future, they could even try sending me down this route.

Edward Williams wrote:
Now that you have them acclimated to the language and you have a tool that works for you there is no need for you to change anything. This could be just a way for them to keep people from doing what you have done and headed down a path that they control. Stick with the counter-racism ju-jitsu. As you already know the speech and action works.
Absolutely, and it works the same every time, for example, remember I told you about the tapes that conveniently didn't record properly. Well as I said I sent them my notes from the meeting, they accepted my notes but said that they could type the audible parts of the tapes if I wanted them to. Initially I thought well what's the point they've already accepted my notes, but then I got to thinking, they could make the transcript anyway and put anything they wanted in without my knowledge. So I asked them to send me what they had, a week later I received 8 PAGES of transcripts - bearing in mind that they told me most of it was inaudible. The transcript bears little resemblance to the discussion, almost every time I spoke the tape was inaudible but everything they said was crystal clear. So I just sent an e-mail requesting an appointment to listen to the original tapes, initially they didn't respond then they tried phoning me, they did not want to respond by e-mail.

Yes, that's how it works. They are getting smarter as they go along. Doesn't matter...they are now acclimated to the language that is forcing them to follow THE LOGIC.

Darkmatter wrote:
Every time they rang I switched my phone off, a few days later I received an e-mail informing me they were looking into making me a \"copy\" of the tapes. The tapes arrived a week later, and of course I can't listen to them because I don't have a dictaphone, they sent a letter with the tapes saying if I didn't have a suitable machine to play-back the tapes they would \"try\" to find one I could come in and use\" - as opposed to allowing me come in and listen to the originals, like I suggested over a week ago. I don't yet know if they've messed with the tapes they've sent me but if not, I will have yet further proof of their deceit. I just asked one simple question and with it created this whole other problem for them to deal with, now I have them running around in circles.

That is the reason it is critical to keep pounding by asking them questions like:

Is it due process for me to come in and listen to the original tapes of the meeting?

Keep making inquiries into what is and is not due process. Now they have to make sure that no one else has been denied the opportinutiy to come in and listen to tapes. If one person was allowed to do so everyone should be allowed to do so otherwise they are subverting the Rule of Law and that can be and should be investigated by whomever has the duty to support and defend Parliamentary Soveriegnty and the Rule of Law. This just means you can take your claim of having probable cause to believe that someone is subverting the Rule of Law to the Parliament.

Darkmatter wrote:
Edward Williams wrote:
Maybe at some point you can come up with a hybrid model to help non-white people understand the difference between what they are doing and what you have done. Or you can help another non-white person do what you have done under the auspices that they produce the hybrid model. Either way the both of you will be going down the path to produce justice by helping the people who need help the most get the most help.
Yes that's a fantastic idea, I would definitely like to put together a hybrid model. It would help my understanding too. I have accumulated a lot of material since starting the process, so I'm not sure how I would go about putting it together, would it be possible to give me a few pointers to get me started?

Sure no problem. We can work that in anoither thread by outlining a counter-racism science experiment and have people test it.

Darkmatter wrote:
I'm supposed to be receiving the final report of their investigation in the next couple of weeks, so I could start putting the model together in the meantime. Much appreciated, thank you...

_________________
What is the reason YOU were born into a SYSTEM of INJUSTICE if not to replace it with a SYSTEM of JUSTICE?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Display posts from previous:
Post new topic†††Reply to topic †††Counter-Racism Work/Study Project Forum Index -> How to Counter Racism (White Supremacy) in the Work Place All times are GMT - 4 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
Page 3 of 6


Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group
Web CalendarShopping MallDonations