September 27, 2006

To: John Gerretsen

Minister of Municipal Affairs
and Housing
mininfo@mah.gov.on.ca

From: Frank Gallagher

34 Riverglen Drive
Keswick On.
franklyone@hotmail.com

Dear John

To be straight with you I have never had the opportunity to send a Dear John letter, not that there is
anything wrong with that, so I take this opportunity to do so.

I have just received today your response dated September 26, 2006 to my fax correspondence dated
August 31 2006, a copy of which is filed in the BLACK BOOK pages 12-45.
The BLACK BOOK is the name I have chosen for the compilation of files I have addressed to the
Premier of Ontario, Dalton McGuinty of which the cover page is dated September 1 2006.
Page 15 of the BLACK BOOK indicates that I have also sent you a copy of the correspondence to Dalton
McGuinty which consists of the cover page and pages 1-11

The BLACK BOOK consists of a cover page, 3 index pages, 266 pages and a back cover page and this
file has now been closed.

I have opened a new folder which I refer to as the BLUE BOOK dated September 15 2006 in which I
am filing all correspondence pertinent to the BLACK BOOK.

On September 25 2006 I faxed you along with others but apparently it has not yet reached your desk.

Having said that, back to Dear John

I have also chosen to address you in the familiar form because I feel I know you and if you knew me you
will know that I intend nothing personal in the contents of my writings to date and have been merely
expressing my frustrations with the system.

When you have finished reading the BLACK BOOK I believe that you will find that the modus operandi
of the various authorities administering law are incapable of backing the guarantee of the people’s rights
and freedoms as provided by the Charter and therefore we people are being robbed, not only of our
protection but also the money we pay for it.

Your response has confirmed which I have stated in my writings that the authorities are either
incompetent or brilliantly incompetent in matters of the Constitution Act, 1982. I believe I have zeroed in
on the problem from all approaches but I think at this time it would be prudent to say that the problem
exists due to both of the reasons stated but for different reasons depending on ones station and some are
quite understandable and forgivable before my writings and I also understand that the public servants are
in a very precarious dammed if you do and damned if you don’t position.

1
All the services provided by the public servants are the products of the whole, and it is the product I have
been writing about, it is unfair to judge any individual on the basis of the product of the whole.

It has been quite apparent to me and I do not stand alone when I say the product we are receiving is over
priced and that is obviously due to no competition.

This factor has huge ramifications in matters of costs and the development of products which the public
want and need.

Competition is the only way to know for sure what the people want and the only way to see that they get it
at a reasonable price.

This is concluded on the basis of sound reasoning but by further reasoning we can also determine that it is
unreasonable to apply this reasoning for the very reason of reason.

We taxpayers sure don’t want to pay for three or four different company agencies to do the same thing,
for the sake of competition and most likely some entity would control them all and we would be in worse
shape than we are now.

By the use of reasoning, having the same reason to reason we can reason that a group of people
having the same knowledge would reason to the same conclusion and of course would be the ideal.

By the very use of reasoning we could also reason that is not the case and can not possibly be nor is it a
desirable situation to reason for because who would we learn from and wouldn’t life be boring.

I am getting bored right now and I suspect so are you but I hope you got warmed up so that we can apply
some very good reasoning to the matter at hand.

We will assume from now on that we are all reasonable people and I will assume that you all know that I
consider there to be a problem that needs to be fixed and I am quite aware that there are many who see no
problem at all and there are just as many who see me as a problem and I could go on and on that line of
reasoning as could you all but here is the point.

We all live in Canada and we are all equal in the eyes of the law and we all have equal rights and
freedoms because that is the law. Not only is it the law, we are guaranteed it and the law is very fair and
quite explicit.

The law actually is the result of some very wise reasoning and given the circumstance in heavy print
above we would have the ideal.

Of course we don’t have the ideal ingredients such as people of equal knowledge but for the very reason
that we do not have the same reason to reason The Constitution Act, 1982 was enacted to provide us all
with a very good reason to reason the same in matters of law.

There is nothing to argue because it is the law.

Unfortunately the Constitution Act is just a piece of paper with words on it until we put the personnel in
place to enforce the law and we put a system in place to finance it.

Both are done and yet we do not have the ideal of the Constitution.

2
I wonder why?
.
If you and you and you are not wondering why then you are part of the problem.

If you do not care then you just aren’t into the spirit of the law and quite possibly are selfish and don’t
give a damn about fair.

That’s okay, Constitution allows you to feel as you like. Believe what you like and whatever but when it
comes to matters of law you had better believe the rights and freedoms of everyone are equal to yours and
mess with them and you will be punished significantly until you believe it.

Punishment must be distributed equally in the same manner as we are entitled to equal justice.

Common sense and sound reasoning must be used to the extent of the very reasoning behind the Act and
the purpose of the Act.

Again there is nothing to argue for we know the law is as sound as can be, its only weakness is in those
who are mandated to administer it.

Like the reasoning applied to the tax system….mmmm perhaps that is a bad example and when we learn
to reason we can revisit that.

Let’s use charities then and the ability to pay, no even better how about child support.
I think that’s a good one.

Separated parents who have left their family know full well of the consequence of a broken marriage and
a lot of reasoning has been done on the subject and I suspect there is a lot more reasoning that needs to be
done but the reasoning goes that its not the fault of the children and they must suffer the least financially.
If we are to err we must err on the side of the innocent children.

Seems fair to me.

So, when a person decides to act in contravention of the Charter they have committed a crime against
society and in matters of the Constitution we are all one big family and it is up to all to look after each
other and when some of us stray we must show them the way.

If two people do exactly the same crime and you punish them with the same fine of let’s say $5,000 then
that would be fair if they both had the same income and the same total worth considering assets and all.

But when the fine is pocket change to one and a year’s savings to another we are neither being fair nor
would we accomplish the purpose of punishment which is to deter immoral inclinations for the support of
the guarantee.

This is a very serious matter that must be considered but even more is the matter of the victim.
It is every one of our responsibilities to see that we do not become victims and we must remember that the
victim could just as easily be you or I.

The victim must be compensated so as if the crime never occurred.

Generally there is no reason to leave the compensation up to this judge or that for it could all be
computerized.
3
Everything we do we apply due diligence for our own safety. Like watching where we are walking,
looking both ways when crossing the road and keeping stairways clear so that nobody trips and falls.
Just a bunch of common sense, like walking a dog on a leash and we know the disastrous consequences if
the dog were to bite someone.

Many issues can be resolved with reason, good sound unbiased reasoning.

So, if we are clear in mind and coherent in matters of law we must obey it and reason for the benefit of the
whole and not for the benefit of one group or another nor the beliefs of another.

We simply must stay focused.

Strange enough that goes against the very way we vote now in this here democratic society doesn’t it?

Three or four parties striving to have it their way gives us something to think about.
No problem with the voting system if the people could be held responsible as well as the parties.

Need a lot of work there to and it will all come together if we shore up the foundation of the Constitution
and patch the holes.

So here is the problem as I have reiterated and reiterated. The administers of the Constitution have failed
to put a modus operandi in place capable of backing the guarantee of the Charter and in so doing allows
the immoral to flourish at the expense of the people.
The people have paid to see the immoral decline and it is their hope that they will disappear over time.
By doing so, so will the taxes..

As the evidence in the BLACK BOOK attests, so do you and the Ombudsman and you have put it on
paper for us all to have a look at.

For various reasons the administers have disregarded the supreme law of Canada and the authorities of
Ontario have put it in writing. Right there in their Acts for all to see.

There is nothing to argue, just correct them. Correct the minds of the people who write them and the
minds of those who administer them and we are set to go.

In your case you were asked to investigate into the reason why the Investigations and Enforcement Unit
declined to charge Don Wilson with Fraud.

And you state, let’s see, what did you state? Oh yes, you have every confidence in the professionalism
and expertise of the Investigations and Enforcement Unit and see no reason to revisit the conclusions
reached by Mr. Grech.

I have provided you the evidence but you trust Dave Grech. Like the wisdom of a mother’s love for her
children you have decided. This is not acceptable for a person who is in a position of trust and personally
I do not see any logical reason for you to keep that position of trust.

Have a look at the fax I sent you on September 25 2006 with special attention to the laws and get back to
me ASAP please.

4
Are you saying they are above the law?

5
September 28 2006

To Honourable John Gerretsen

Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing

From: Frank Gallagher PRWP

Peoples Representative Without Portfolio

Honourable John Gerretsen. September 28 2006

Who would they be to teach?

Brain washing would best describe.
Who allows them to do this?
Who empowers the minister?
Who enacts the Act?
So many questions, so many people paid by the taxpayer and yet no answers.
If you can answer these questions, pleas to do so.
Thank you.
September 28, 2006 Frank Gallagher

Words I wish I had said but didn’t but am now.

The evidence shows perhaps the Tribunal applies impartial treatment. No matter who you are all victims will receive
the same treatment and all the immoral will receive the same treatment although different than
the treatment for the victims.

The Tribunal like government services has a special place in their hearts for the immoral as they relate best with
them. They are their bread and butter. Without them they would be out of business. When one of their bread winner’s
is caught up with the law it is in the best interests to the Tribunal to get the immoral back on the road.

At the same time they have to do something to appear as if they are there for the people so they order him to pay me
what he owes me but don’t enforce it. Then to make it like there is some pressure for him to pay me they order that
4% interest will be paid on outstanding balance as of the court date.

So, because of him not paying me I am paying 16-18% on credit cards I was forced to use in lieu.

Not exactly a punishment to deter the immoral, and in no way will that back the guarantee of the Constitution.
He was not ordered to pay me interest for the term from August 1 2004- August 8 2005 the date of the order.
If the tenant had given me a deposit I would have been ordered to pay 6% for the term.

(6) A landlord of a rental unit shall pay interest to the tenant annually on the amount of the rent
deposit at the rate of 6 per cent per year

The Tribunal has infringed upon my equality rights and supports the immoral and punishes the victim contary to the
Constitution. On and on the people are being betrayed.

6
 Administration and Enforcement

Duties of Minister

200. The Minister shall,

(a) monitor compliance with this Act;

(b) investigate cases of alleged failure to comply with this Act; and

(c) where the circumstances warrant, commence or cause to be commenced

proceedings with respect to alleged failures to comply with this Act. 1997, c. 24, s. 200.

Delegation

201. The Minister may in writing delegate to any person any power or duty vested in the Minister
under this Act, subject to the conditions set out in the delegation. 1997, c. 24, s. 201.

Investigators and inspectors

202. The Minister may appoint investigators for the purpose of investigating alleged offences
and inspectors for the purposes of sections 154 and 155. 1997, c. 24, s. 202.

Protection from personal liability

205. (1) No proceeding for damages shall be commenced against an investigator, an inspector,
a member of the Tribunal, a lawyer for the Tribunal or an officer or employee of the Ministry or
the Tribunal for any act done in good faith in the performance or intended performance of any
duty or in the exercise or intended exercise of any power under this Act or for any neglect or
default in the performance or exercise in good faith of such a duty or power.
good faith is the key

Crown liability

(2) Despite subsections 5 (2) and (4) of the Proceedings Against the Crown Act, subsection (1)
does not relieve the Crown of any liability to which it would otherwise be subject in respect of a
tort committed by an investigator, an inspector, a member of the Tribunal, a lawyer for the
Tribunal or an officer or employee of the Ministry or the Tribunal. 1997, c. 24, s. 205

7
Offence

206 (1) Any person who knowingly does any of the following

6. Harass, hinder, obstruct or interfere with a landlord in the exercise of,

i. securing a right or seeking relief under this Act or in the court, or

ii. participating in a proceeding under this Act.

(2) Any person who does any of the following is guilty of an offence:

1. Furnish false or misleading information in any material filed in any proceeding under this Act
or provided to the Tribunal, an employee or official of the Tribunal, an inspector, an investigator,
the Minister or a designate of the Minister.

31. Nothing in this Charter extends the legislative powers of any body or authority.

32. (1) This Charter applies (a) to the Parliament and government of Canada in
respect of all matters within the authority of Parliament including all matters
relating to the Yukon Territory and Northwest Territories; and (b) to the legislature
and government of each province in respect of all matters within the authority of
the legislature of each province.

52. (1) The Constitution of Canada is the supreme law of Canada, and any law that
is inconsistent with the provisions of the Constitution is, to the extent of the
inconsistency, of no force or effect.

Dear John.Gerretsen

This is not about a dispute between a landlord and a tenant.

It is a request for you to review the decision of Dave Grech of Investigations and
Enforcements who has refused to charge Don Wilson (Tenant) under 206(2) of the Tenant
Protection Act, 1997

Don Wilson has obviously and deliberately filed a dispute which was false and misleading information.
Don Wilson signed it. Don Wilson claimed he had paid rent up to February 2009 .

Don has committed Fraud regarding two documents which I filed to support my application.
Don Wilson signed both of these and it was proven at the hearing
Don Wilson denied having ever seen either of these two documents and he denied having ever signed
them He agreed to vacate my premises on May 31 2005 and he agreed that he owed me so much for rent
at the time of signing the agreement.

By order TNL-67103 under section 69 Tenants Protection Act, 1997

It was determined that:
1) Don Wilson has not paid the rent
2) Don Wilson gave notice to terminate the tenancy as of May 31 2005.
If that isn’t proof beyond a reasonable doubt Nancy Fahlgren ORHT is dispensing injustice.
8
 That was proof enough for Don to vacate the premises and he has had a year to file a complaint.
Lets see August 2005- February 2009 42 months at $800 =$33,600 he tried to do me for.
He would not have tried it if he thought he couldn’t get away with it and he obviously was right so far.

The failure of the ORHT and the Investigations and Enforcement Unit of the Ministry of Municipal
Affairs and Housing to file charges against this man for filing a false and misleading information
under Section 206 (2) is a an offence under Section 206(1)

This is an offence that you are now guilty of.

You are also guilty of Ministering the Tenant and Protection Act, 1997 which is inconsistent with
the Constitution Act, 1982 in matters of equal rights regarding interest rates and obstructing my
right to justice regarding his filing a dispute of false and misleading information and his committing
fraud regarding the two agreements.

If the decision had of found for him the value of the fraud would have exceeded $200,000 on paper.

The fact is he has already defrauded us of $150,000 and you will see in the September 25 2006 fax to you
that on the prospectus he provided me at investment time he claims Rod Bradbury who owns a lab out in
Vancouver is the Vice President of the company. He has an impressive web site and Don showed me that.
You will also find a letter from Rod Bradbury stating that he is not and never was the Vice-President of
BioSafe nor has he held any position with BioSafe.

I have evidence that proves he was trying to frame me for stealing $7,000 and he tried to file charges
against me with the police because I told him I wanted him out of my house on December 17 2004 when
he and my Son attempted to oust me. On December 24 2004 he signed documents with my son declaring
a document that Don and I had signed December 17 2004 was null and void and my son was the witness
to that document so he was going to side with Don. On that very same day he signed a document
declaring that the December 17 2004 agreement with me was valid.
It just goes on and on and then when the ORHT has an opportunity to do the right thing you turn out to be
no different than this man.
Your letter confirms that which the evidence shows in the 266 page BLACK BOOK. This man harassed
my ex wife and my ex girl friend and threatened me and my mother. He promised to pay me back
about $15,000 he owed me when he collected $50,000 from a potential investor and when he got it went
missing for three weeks and I never saw my money. That is the short story.

It is not likely he has any money now and I have resigned myself to that fact but you can damn well bet I
won’t quit until he has his day in court and any one who obstructs my right to justice will have their day
in court also.
That is the law under the Tenants Protection Act and the Constitution Act.
That can’t be too difficult to understand.

You are all guilty under section 205(1) and you will have a difficult time proving you acted in good
faith with the evidence being so obvious and so plentiful.

What the hell is wrong with you people?

Gee, there I go again. I wonder what the hell is wrong with me?

Sincerely
Frank Gallagher
9