I left Vancouver-based Grosvenor International Holdings, where I had been Group Controller, in 1986 and was effectively blacklisted so that I never again found permanent employment in Canada.
Years later I was told by a head-hunter that I had “a big problem with Grosvenor” and that the negative commentary on me had come “from all angles” so that “it had to be believed”.
It had to be believed they say, but nobody bothered to check the facts with me and indeed I wouldn't have expected it as I had done an excellent job for Grosvenor and can prove it. But thatʼs how Zersetzen works. Victor Santoro noted in his book, Gaslighting --
“the essence of defaming your target with rumours is that it not get back to him”
I should just mention that I had been told that Grosvenor had Spy Agency connections. Indeed years later the UK press would report that Grosvenor's owner had boasted about his connections with the intelligence community. Indeed his connections were a "who's who" of power elites spreading from Royalty to the Defense establishment.
I knew that an earlier leaver had effectively been blacklisted, and I had been told that a Spy Agency had been involved. But as I had done an excellent job, I didn't expect other than excellent references.
Not only had I done a first class job for Grosvenor (and previous companies as well), but I was twice asked by them to withdraw my resignation.
Indeed Grosvenor, who were using “The Caldwell Partners” as their head-hunter for my position (the actual head-hunters involved subsequently joined Korn Ferry in Vancouver) turned down the first short list interviewed on the grounds that none of the candidates measured up to me (I was told this by the then Executive Vice President who also provided me with an excellent written reference which I still have today). Incidentally,
"The Caldwell Partners" had advertised my position with Grosvenor as “Worldwide Controller … Likely the most senior Controllership role in Canada”.
I believe that the original lies that were spread about went just to my competence, but when you have Spy Agencies on the job there is no end to it. People will do what they think power wants; without being too much bothered by the truth.
Writing now many years later, false rumours have been spread about me over the years that wrongly painted me as -- a grossly incompetent employee, who has had some relationship with the drug trade, is a deranged suicidal maniac and a sexual deviant to boot.
In the world of the Spy Agencies this sort of professional slandering is known as KOMPROMAT.
There is not an iota of truth to any of it. It’s all manufactured lies. Yet people think: where there is smoke there must be fire. As one top head-hunter told me – I’m 95% sure you are telling the truth; but how could I take the risk of recommending you to a client unless I was 100% sure.
I should just mention that Grosvenor has denied any involvement in the blacklisting or the "Zersetzen" threats that followed on.
I donʼt know; there was certainly no logic to it. I do know that Grosvenor had blacklisted at least one other. My wife thinks it was about petty jealousies. In fact blacklisting in many ways is the worst part of Zersetzen since it ostracises one from one's community, and runs one out of money.
A top politico suggested to me that as it probably only took a 30 second call to blacklist me, the people involved didn't see it as a major issue and were actually very annoyed that I have made such an issue of it. So in a sense I have become a fairly major whistleblower, describing Zersetzen and itemizing, with huge proof, this illegal persecutory behaviour by the very security agencies that are supposed to be protecting us.
Whistleblowers, particularly those who demonstrate the illegal Gestapo side of our secret security agencies, are seen as a threat by these same agencies who seek to cover-up what they have done by terrorising the whistleblower into silence.
There is no logic to this persecution. Zersetzen is about throwing power around, not logic.
I recently made a submission under the "Access to Information Act" (ATIA) for any documentation that the CSIS (Canadian Security Intelligence Agency) has that relates to me.
CSIS responded by letter dated July 4 2014 that under 10(2) of the Act they “will neither confirm nor deny” that they have any documentation on me, but that if they did have it, then what they had on me would be exempt from disclosure anyway as it could reasonably be expected to relate to the efforts of Canada towards “detecting, preventing or supressing subversive or hostile activities. The appropriate sentence is the 5th paragraph of their 2014 letter to me
“Pursuant to subsection 10(2) of the Act we neither confirm nor deny that the records you requested exist”
So by citing 10 (2) the CSIS ducks the question by neither confirming nor denying the existence of any records on me. At the same time they leave a suggestion (a smell) of involvement in subversive activities
One business day after I filed my 125 page Application Record with the Court (basically my case and supporting sworn Affidavits) and 5 years after they had issued the “neither confirm nor deny” letter, in 2014, the CSIS appeared to change the goalposts as outlined in their letter to me dated January 18, 2019. The appropriate sentence is in the 3rd paragraph
“Portions of the material have been exempted from disclosure by virtue of one or more of sections 15 (1) (as it relates to the efforts of Canada towards detecting, preventing or supressing subversive or hostile activities)”
CSIS have abandoned reliance on clause 10 (2) of the Act -- The “neither confirm nor deny that records exist clause”. Now they are falsely inferring a straight accusation and are claiming exemption from disclosure because they are falsely stating that the requested records somehow relate to “detecting, preventing or supressing subversive or hostile activities”.
Yet it gets worse. Section 15 is further defined by clause 15 (2) of the Act and it gets even more serious. The phrase “subversive or hostile activities” also has a specific legal meaning in section 15. As summarized by myself, section 15(2) defines “subversive or hostile activities” to mean under the Act one or more of
(a) Espionage (b) Sabotage (c) Terrorism (d) Violent regime change (e) Gathering Intelligence information (f) Threatening the safety of Canadians.
So now CSIS is denying access to requested records on the grounds of some relationship (totally false I might add) with espionage, intelligence gathering … and so on.
It’s all Utter nonsense. Yet CSIS have not only changed the goalposts, but have managed to infer very serious though false allegations at the same time.
The smears and innuendos vary and are usually whoppers – this is the Big Lie technique.
This SITE has 10 sections. To navigate between them, click on the Hamburger Sign.