March 30 2007

Fax: 905-853-5810
LAWYER FILE # 9

L4P 2P8

franklyone@h
Keswick, On.
From: Frank

otmail.com
Deputy Chief

Gallagher

Riverglen
34
Bruce Herridge

Drive
York Regional Police
To: York Region

Part 1, Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedom

CANADA IS FOUNDED ON PRINCIPLES THAT RECOGNIZES THE
SUPREMACY OF GOD AND THE RULE OF LAW

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.

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.

15. (1) Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the
law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour,
religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.

Re: Constitution Act, 1982

Non Compliance THIS IS NOT A PERSONAL MATTER

Ref # 11063-05

Dear Bruce Herridge

On January 10 2006 you wrote to inform me that you would not commence proceedings against Don Wilson
(See pages 19 & 20) who had committed 2 acts of fraud under the criminal code in the Ontario Rental Housing
Tribunal building at 375 D’arcy Street, Newmarket, Ontario on June 30 2005 (See page 18)

I have attempted several times to get your office to demonstrate competence to enforce law and order in a
manner consistent with the Constitution Act, 1982 which guarantees certain rights and protection equally to
every individual of Canada under the Charter but you declined to do so.

On September 5 2006 I sent you a copy of the BLACK BOOK file which you forwarded to Detective Moreau
# 710 and eventually found its way to Inspector Karen Knoakes, #440, Executive Officer of the York Regional
Police Professional Standards Bureau who declined to act. (See pages 21 & 22)

I am no writer and I don’t do a whole lot of reading for pleasure but one thing I feel is very important when I
do read, is to keep it real and understand what it’s all about. I find if you go about it in a manner to prove
something you have already decided you will have difficulty putting it in words to make sense.
1
Perhaps, the best thing I can advise to you people is before you put words to paper is to have a good idea about
what you are talking about.

This is a very important job you people are doing and it requires you to give it the respect it deserves.

The people trust you and unfortunately that is a huge problem.

People who come to you have no idea about how law works and that is no surprise because they have careers
in other walks of life.
If you went to them for services such as a plumber, carpenter, electrician or whatever they could write about
their job or just go ahead and do it which is the preferred choice of their clients and themselves for both want
the job done soon as possible so they can move on.

When the job is done you see it and feel it and it is satisfying.
It’s all just common sense and things go smoothly.

When it comes to law where common sense would seem to be the way to go it hasn’t worked that way.
Some of the officers I have talked to have expressed their frustration as you have mentioned in your writings
and from what I understand is they have been frustrated for a long time experienced enough to purportedly
know what is considered to meet the criterion of evidence required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt.

I was informed you can take the same evidence to two different judges to apply for a warrant and 1 will grant
and the other deny. You didn’t try with my evidence.

Perhaps one of the keys here is the consistent frustration and I ask if it is frustrating then one must believe the
evidence is sound but I am informed that officers learn early in their careers that law has nothing to do with
common sense, in fact this is passed on to new recruits.

So this has to be a very frustrating career if you attempt to hang on to your sanity and when you find others
getting ahead and yourself not I imagine it is very trying times until you let go.

So you people in law who have the experience of working together smoothly in an insane manner comprehend
each other quite well and confidently confirm each others idiocy when the public question you.

The general public has difficulty, being ignorant and all about the law as you people are of plumbing or
electricity so they accept what you have to say especially if others reiterate your statements.

Those who have had run in with the law relate their stories and try to top each other as to who has the best
ridiculous story about the law.

But they all get over them and move on because they have different careers and don’t have time to look into it
and after all it takes some time to get educated in law considering you need lawyers in criminal courts.

So lawyers cost money to those people who have property and nothing to those who don’t and irrelevant to
those who are well off.

This gives a huge advantage to those on either side of the average person who is struggling to pay off their
mortgage and save for their kid’s education and all the realities of life.

So right there we have a pathetic inconsistency with the Charter.

2
15. (1) Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and
equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race,
national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.

So like in my particular case Fred Kerr suggested after telling me one judge may warrant and another not
and standing firm that my only recourse is to get a lawyer and go to civil court, but the lawyer would be
negligent if he didn’t mention that the odds of getting my money back were slim. I know these things.

So, here we are after the ORHT never followed through with charges against Don Wilson who had
committed the criminal act of fraud in their building in front of the judicator, Nancy Fahlgren who knew
full well that Don had committed the crime and after I had said “There ought to be a law” she responded
”There is” and went on to articulate for a couple of minutes on how she has the authority, when cases
warrant to forward them onto Investigations and Enforcement.

She would not answer directly as to whether she would proceed.

At the end of the hearing of the first day June 30 2005 I asked her what the thing was beside her and
started to say “is that a… and she said yes it is a recorder and I asked if I could get a copy of the
recording after the hearing was done and said yes through the ORHT office.

The second day of the hearing, July 28 2005 she commenced by stating there was no recorder that day.

When I received the Tribunal order dated August 8 2005 she found for me which meant that she had
found the evidence I provided to be true and the dispute Don Wilson filed false.

And why not because it was the craziest wildest story and he even provided a story to account for why he
didn’t have any evidence to support it.
Don had signed the two agreements I had to support the truth and contradict his lies on his dispute, with a
signature other than the one he has used on all other documents including the dispute he filed.

I introduced Dave Kirby to Nancy Fahlgren, the fellow who witnessed one of the agreements who attested to
the fact that Don had signed every page of the April 13 2005 agreement.

Nancy expressed that she now sees what’s going on and one by one I provide the evidence to prove every
statement on Don’s dispute which he had filed to be a lie and everything in the agreements to be true.

It just doesn’t get better than that in legal matters and the Tribunal Order file TNL-67103 which I received
August 10 2005 found for me.

So far everything was coincidental to common sense.

The Order didn’t mention anything about charging Don and I have no idea if it would if Nancy was charging
him so I made a few phone calls to find that I could not communicate with the judicator, and you can read the
rest in Lawyer File # 1.

On August 10 2005 I phoned for a copy of the Tribunal recording and wrote the Investigations and
Enforcement Unit to have them file charges against Don Wilson.
This was quite a challenge and much correspondence but finally on September 6 2005 Dave Grech writes me
to explain why his Unit would not be commencing proceedings against Don Wilson.

His writings were as strange to me as Don Wilson’s dispute, not coincidental with reality and the pertinent
facts.

3
I won’t go through all this again because it is covered in the evidence which I am providing in this round.

I then decided to take the matter to the York Regional Police and after meeting with F. Kerr and G. Rorke
I provided the evidence to the RCMP, Mr.Goulet at the Harry Walker Parkway Office south of Davis Drive
who forwarded it onto Michael Thomson who deals with such matters.

I continued to correspond with the York Regional Police which led to a meeting with Michael Fleming
Inspector, I believe off hand, and he confirmed that which F.Kerr and G.Rorke had stated.

He knew the frustration and stated he knew he was a con artist but alas this is how it is.
He explained to me how they are taught that the law has nothing to do with common sense and we left it at that
with me agreeing.

I had asked if there was a complaints department to deal with matters under the Corporations Act and he said
he would look into it.
He e-mailed later that day and provided me information from the Act which I had already downloaded from
the web site but it required me to get a lawyer which I had already decided was not a feasible way to go and
why should I when Don had committed obvious crimes right there in a building financed by the people to
administer justice.

As F. Kerr stated if I went to a lawyer he would be negligent if he didn’t inform me of the odds of getting my
money back and I would just be throwing good money after bad.

When the RCMP responded negatively I had it quite clear in my mind that common sense had nothing to do
with the law and the YRP and RCMP have adapted to insanity and were well experienced where us plain
simple folk are at a disadvantage having no experience communicating in the legal environment where insanity
must be common to harmonize.

Our only means of communicating in this environment is to retain an interpreter to act on our behalf but
ultimately the decision is up to us.

It gets quite confusing and in relatively small matters, say $1000 dollars it may be just too much trouble to
pursue and the matter is dropped.

These agreements firmed up the phony Certificates which he had provided when I and friends of mine invested
with Bio Safe. A lawyer had told me these were evidence that we paid money for stock but as official as they
looked they were not the proper certificates and they were not signed.

The agreements cleared up this matter and others which not only supported my and my friend’s investments
but covered those who had invested before us. Very important documents at face value over $100,000 and Don
denied having ever seen them or signed them but had signed them with a phony signature for obvious purpose
of deception commonly known as FRAUD in the common sense world.

Anyway with all the realities of life to ponder to make a decision and with a copy of the Constitution Act, 1982
I decided to stick with common sense, the one the people are most familiar with, and considering there are
substantially more just plain folk so to speak relative to the ½ million government employees I decided
to hang on to reality with a common sense approach. The same common sense I used for my 40 years in my
legal survey career. We have lots of laws, rules and regulations, statutes and evidence, Acts, By-Laws and all
kinds of stuff like that. We used them for a definite purpose to provide society with a service which was
unbiased to ensure all people of society got exactly what property they were entitled to by their purchase.
Our records were legal documents which must be held in perpetuity for all to see and be challenged at any time
by other surveyors who were required to abide by the pertinent laws. Evidence is what it is all about.
4
Evidence includes documentation and physical evidence on the ground called for in the documents and when
abutting deeds describe the adjoining property lines differently we must base our decisions upon Laws and
Acts and all kinds of things where facts trump beliefs and always with the purpose to reestablish things exactly
how they were according to the original survey which separated it from the whole township lot.
Priorities, priorities always priorities is the name of the game and when two properties abut each other and the
descriptions do not place the property line between them in the same place after a thorough search for original
physical evidence and original documentary evidence fails to solve the matter priority is given to the deed
which was first registered to separate from the township lot for the very simple reason it was already sold to
someone else and the owner of the original lot can not sell any part of that which he had originally sold to
someone else.

It all fits with logic and common sense. It has served me well, and especially well when I was employed with
the Province of Ontario for 10 years and the City of Toronto for 14 where common sense is not common.

It has to do with cash for life and experience defined as how many years they have put in idly counting their
number of days to retirement.

Anyway the Laws and Acts and all the stuff we use in the private sector still all mean the same thing even in
government so I learned quickly the value of staying with the law and facts instead of arguing with those who
have faith in that which was passed on to them generation after generation.

You would be surprised how much fun the job is doing it the way it was intended according to law and the way
all the property lines can be reestablished in their original places coincidental to documents when you apply
your self to the task with common sense.

Of course to use the common sense approach you have to know what the hell you are talking about.

It boils down to this. When someone of authority orders me to do something contrary to law I simply write in
my report that I was instructed to do so by so and so and have them sign it before I sign it.

That’s what makes the difference. They have always refused to sign showing the power of law has more
authority over even the most perfect jackass.

These idiots think they can use their authority to do as they like and when the shit hits the fan they blame it on
the fellow who did the job and signed it.

I found if you are going to take the shit it is a damn good idea to know what you are talking about and make
sure there is no evidence available for others to rebut your decisions. Never did catch any shit.

Kind of closes the door on the ignorant asses and I like it that way.
Surely that is how it should be especially when my purpose is to see that everyone gets what they are entitled
to.

It just doesn’t get better than that, but alas there remains the problem that there exists so many with unjustified
authority and so many who worship assholes that the people of the world suffer to them.

When these idiots put laws in place in a democracy where the people are supposed to benefit and the laws
themselves prove otherwise what would you expect from the courts which the Attorney General has significant
influence over and in fact has significant influence over the laws themselves.

These laws by the way have no authority legally unless they are consistent with the spirit of the Constitution.

5
 PRIORITIES

Those people who are employed in the public services are there under the authority of the Constitution Act,
1982 (THE LAW) and they all are obliged to comply with the THE LAW as well as everyone in Canada.

COMMON SENSE must prevail for it is what we use to learn everything about life.

By common sense we know that if rules are not set out in society the thoughtless immoral will take advantage
of the moral.

Only when we address the facts reality provides, with integrity and common sense will we be able to have a
reality of choice.

It is so important to be attentive to reality when you attempt to put thoughts to paper and with computers we
have a huge advantage because as our original thoughts go down and laid out we can find some thoughts
which appear to contradict earlier words written and we have the opportunity to ponder these and edit them to
express exactly that which we are trying to convey.

Leaves room for argument if you appear to be arguing with yourself in your own writings so you must take the
time to argue these out with yourself. Does wonders for your own common sense when you have nothing to
argue about with yourself.

In matters of the Constitution of Canada

The IDEAL of course is to have everyone in Canada to have sense together in common for sense to prevail.

In matters of THE LAW we must presume COMMON SENSE to prevail and that is priority number one or the
rest is meaningless.

With COMMON SENSE we can determine that COMMON SENSE is not consistent within society and the
fact The Constitution was enacted supports that, so as to set out the spirit of the society it aspires to achieve.

Purpose: Everything must have purpose

Whereas Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law:

That makes it perfectly clear. Moral purpose and the rule of law to enforce it. Works for me.

Exudes COMMON SENSE

Immorality can exist without THE LAW and one hell of a lot cheaper.

Given that MORAL COMMON SENSE is prerequisite in matters of THE LAW and the provisions of the
CHARTER which guarantees equality in all matters of THE LAW we can simplify all the words into one
statement.

DO ONTO OTHERS AS YOU WOULD HAVE THEM DO ONTO YOU

That’s it, that’s all there is to it, except I should emphasize that this in no way infers special rights to masochists

6
Obviously if we are to have a moral peaceful society we can not have immorality tugging in the opposite
direction. Morality is the only possible solution to a peaceful society.
If society voted for immorality to be the society of choice we would forever be beating our selves up.

So priority is to morality, COMMON SENSE and consistency

There is not one person who can say that COMMON SENSE is not mandatory in matters of THE LAW

BUT, BUT……..To hell with BUTs….There is no argument that will trump the spirit of THE LAW

MORAL COMMON SENSE

and there is no rule that will trump
DO ONTO OTHERS AS YOU WOULD HAVE THEM DO ONTO YOU

Every one of us has the same bodies that require the same necessities to sustain them, we all have emotions and
senses and we all are prone to error

We understand the difference between intentional and accidental harm and carelessness predictable to causing harm

As we know from reality laws do not do anything by themselves although the moral people with common sense know
them before they are written, so if we are to have a MORAL COMMON SENSE society as THE LAW demands we must
have MORAL ENFORCEMENT

MORAL ENFORCEMENT OF A MORAL COMMON SENSE SOCIETY

Every last one of us who have any sense at all will agree that to be true or reveal their incompetence or ulterior
purpose which of course is not consistent to the ideology.

Everyone with moral common sense knows what is not conducive to moral common sense.

That’s right, immoral common sense and everyone knows how to identify the immoral even if they stand alone.
They are the one’s spewing words which don’t make sense to the moral and do make sense to the immoral

It is all very simple mathematics and when things don’t add up you must check the facts.

You must have an unbiased competent mind to check the facts for when you look for evidence to support a lie
when lies are all around you, you will support it to the fact you are a liar or ignorant your choice but neither
conducive to MORAL ENFORCEMENT OF A MORAL COMMON SENSE SOCIETY.

We know from reality that everyone will attest they are moral and competent as they slip their hands into our pockets
We know if we let them they will and we know it is better to stop them before they do.

It’s all there, the priorities of a moral society as per the spirit of the Constitution

MORAL ENFORCEMENT OF A MORAL COMMON SENSE SOCIETY

DO ONTO OTHERE AS YOU WOULD HAVE THEM DO ONTO YOU

7
There you have it, the plain truth and it is all just as simple as that yet with everything going for moral,
common sense, THE LAW which makes sense, the supremacy of God whose ways make sense, we have hell on
earth instead of Heaven On Earth

If I were to say let’s change it to the way it is supposed to be, desired by everyone there will be people who say I
am an IDEALIST not dealing with reality.

I will say I am a REALIST knowing you must deal with reality to change it to the IDEAL

As a realist and having 24 years experience in government employ and 16 in the private sector in the same field
of endeavor namely surveying and quite competent in matters of law and you can verify that by asking me, I
adamantly state I know the way and it only requires people to use Moral Common Sense

I am not a magician nor brilliant but I do see reality as it is and I know where the problems lie and I know how
to deal with reality and I do know how to deal with immorality.

Unfortunately, I have the authority to deal with it alone but not the financial ability and those who have the
power and the money of the people do not have the authority to do what they do.

I have proven from top to bottom precisely where the problem lies and it can be dealt legally within a democracy
yet it is because of where the problem lies that we have our biggest detriment to a moral society.

The cops unfortunately are of weak mind and the lawmakers are of weak morality that use the powers granted to
them in trust by the people for their own ulterior purpose.

Every investigative authority I have corresponded with have proven their incompetence to investigate and it is
well documented for anyone to see but those with the power to do something are the only people who have seen
the documents and are so well organized in consistent immoral common sense which makes it somewhat
difficult to access my right to freedom of the press which by their actions prove which side they are on.

Once you know what you are dealing with it is much simpler to find a way to deal with it.

All these fine words of wisdom wasted on me who already know them. Such a shame

If perhaps the police would search their minds and decide just what it is they are there for maybe we people
would have a chance.

If they are immoral and know it then of course that makes my chance to help the people a little bit harder so it’s
best to determine for certain by me giving all I got to that endeavor and see what becomes of that.

It’s all good for the purpose because facts and truth serve best which ever be the final route to success.

So for the people, if you care for the people, which will be determined by your actions, I ask you to throw away
all that you believe to be law and instill in your minds the purpose of the supreme law of Canada and deal with
the matters referenced in these writings.

Lawyer Files #s 1-8 and this file # 9 and the 73 page letter to the Toronto Sun dated October 8 2006

8
 Lawyer File # 9 Page 9 Reality Check

MORAL COMMON SENSE SOCIETY

INTEGRITY IS A MUST

Review your training about law having nothing to do with common sense
Review the correspondence from all sources and see what they have to do with common sense
Do you know the source of this ideology and would they admit it in public?

Why are you a cop?

To enforce law, any law sane or not, just give me a law I can enforce and exert my power.
To enforce law, a sane law for the benefit of society.

Do you enforce it to the best of your ability?

Do you just put in a day to collect a pay check?

Reality makes such answers difficult to admit to anyone.

You must be honest with yourself to benefit yourself
Reality is always there to attest to all truths
In Reality we have liars
Liars have no good reason to lie
Reality attests to why one lies

MORAL HAVE COMMON SENSE

IMMORAL HAVE COMMON CENTS
DO ONTO OTHERS AS YOU WOULD HAVE THEM DO ONTO YOU

Knowledge of reality is beneficial to everyone and everyone makes their choice

Immoral choice is a detriment to the moral
Moral choice must be a detriment to the immoral

Who knows what lay in the mind of a human being until they act?

By one’s actions we know what lay in their mind

A lie is for their cause
A truth used in a lie is for their cause

A truth professed and backed with action is for our cause

When one has a duty to perform their actions or inactions bare the Truth

One who states their hands are tied when they are visibly not, reveal what’s in their invisible mind

You people have the power of God, the people and THE LAW on your side if you use them as intended.

9
Everyone of you people play a vital role in the system to preserve the sanctity of the Constitution of Canada
which guarantees each and every individual equality in all matters of law which must be addressed in the spirit
intended by the Constitution.

Each and every individual person’s lives are in your hands to guard and protect equally and the system has
done nothing but aid the immoral in so many ways which I have reiterated upon reiteration in the documents I
have provided you all.

The Constitution itself if taken verbatim is constantly inconsistent with itself which demands it be read with
the spirit intended which is moral purpose and enforcement to back it.

Common sense alone wouldn’t give credence to law and order to protect the immoral but the author knew full
well what to expect from humans so it was written in the very first line of the Charter .

Whereas Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law:
morality moral ways of God enforcement

It’s very clear to someone with moral common sense and I am being prejudiced against immorality and
let me suggest if you join me in that prejudice you will serve society well.

Immorality has no place in society and in the spirit as intended by the Constitution there can be no
interpretation that gives immorality any rights to be protected under the Constitution.

The following was extracted from the Law Society of Upper Canada Lawyers Rules of Conduct.

(103) Interpretation
(f) rules of professional conduct cannot address every situation, and a lawyer should observe the rules in the spirit
as well as in the letter.

.The Law Society knows that but the people who administer enforcement under their standards do not.

The Constitution (Document) and common sense avers the spirit to be administered.

All the correspondence I have from all you people responsible to administer the law under the Constitution
have consistently demonstrated you are possessed of the wrong spirit and with all my efforts to help you see
the error of your ways, you have remained steadfast to your convictions.

Now if we can get you people to be as consistent as you have demonstrated and apply your convictions to the
spirit intended you will be well received.

All you people have been sponsored by the people of Canada to play as one team for the people of Canada and
it is each and every one of you people’s responsibility to point out to each other when you have scored in the
wrong net immediately with an effort to deter reoccurrence.

People will be immoral if they believe they can get away with it which you people have demonstrated quite
well so now you must demonstrate conviction to the eradication of such a belief which creates havoc upon a
society striving for morality.

You must become coherent to reality before you can deal with it and I suggest you exert your right to freedom
of thought and use it for the purpose intended to preserve the sanctity of the Constitution which so many have
died for.

10
Everyone of you know full well what they fought and died for and are still fighting and dying for and you
understand the necessity when someone else is doing the fighting and dying but when you are asked to just
stand up and be counted in support of our rights, you prove our people are fighting and dying for nothing.

That can’t be good for their spirits and I can tell you it has done nothing for mine.

It is a completely different issue if you were not cognizant to this absurdity but I have informed you over and
over again as I endeavor to do now.

I can not over emphasize the importance of being coherent in every aspect of reality when dealing with matters
of law, for your decisions and actions affect the lives of real people which is a very, very important matter to
be considered.

In your profession being of an investigative nature it is tremendously important that you be cognizant to all
facets of reality so that you may piece everything together to make appropriate decisions.

There is a lot more to the job than just going through the motions of providing a decision to every complaint
because though you may feel you have processed some paper work from off your desk you must comprehend
that is not your purpose but in fact you are required to be able to read a complaint and be cognizant to what the
complaint is. That would be a prerequisite of all persons who are assigned to deal with complaints and I
reiterate the particular importance of your field of endeavor and the affects your decisions have upon society.

We are not talking about a complaints department in a department store, where if the customers don’t get
satisfaction they needn’t do their business with them.

Another thing about decisions is if you are going to write them out and send them they are there for all to see
so it is best you are attentive to the purpose you are hired to address.

We are not talking about hearsay and taken out of context and all that stuff that sees no end to any dispute for
we are talking about truths and relative facts.

I made a little more effort to that point of fact so you may pay particular attention to the fact or evidence which
I have earlier addressed that Kathy Knoakes informed me by letter dated October 13 2006 (pages 21 & 22) of
the York Regional Police decision to not investigate and in this letter she relates the evidence as she
understands it.

It is unbelievable, sorry, I should rephrase that for it is quite believable to me now after 19 months trying to
communicate with you people, that you people in top positions in investigative service can not comprehend the
complaint and address it in a coherent manner which of course leaves the problem not dealt with.

Karen Knoakes has informed me that your officers Detective F. Kerr # 110 and Detective/Constable G. Rorke
who have considerable experience in fraud investigation and are widely respected throughout the department
as being the foremost authorities on the topic advised that my dealings were civil in nature and I was referred
to the necessary agencies (Rental Tribunal Court Hearing and the Canada Business Corporations Act to assist
in resolving my complaint. I was further advised to contact and retain a lawyer to assist in dealing with these
matters.(See page 21)

Don Wilson has committed the criminal act of fraud in a court room of the province right there in front of the
judicator of the ORHT, an independent body at arms length to the Provincial Government which has been
empowered to administer justice in the province which deals with relatively minor situations and ignores a
criminal act right there in court. How can they possibly make adequate decisions on minor issues if they can’t

11
make an adequate decision in a crime that was committed in front of them and has been proven far beyond any
doubt, if they can not even identify the crime after I do it for them and walk them through the evidence. They
surely are incompetent to deal with any matters that require decisions that affect the lives of others. One wrong
decision automatically steals from one and gives it to another and all you people are hired to: number one,
determine who has been deprived and two, see that they get it back.

When it comes to dealing with evidence it all is evident to something which may not be apparent immediately
but it all is and remains to be evidence.

People in your positions should be alert to this and those who assign duties must be held responsible for the
actions of those to whom they assign.

It’s a common concept in the real world and to expand on that it goes like this.

We have been talking about law here and reality so I will remain focused if you and Karen would like to try it
please. It just works out so much better when people are attempting to communicate and I reiterate the
significance of the topic and the detrimental affect a bad decision has upon society.

In this particular case the evidence is so obviously clear and the fact that I have spent 19 months due to all your
incompetence demonstrates the undesirable affects your bad decisions have upon a moral society.

The evidence is always there in reality and I am quite adamant that you deal with reality when you are dealing
with matters under the law and I suggest it is wise to use it at all times, but that is your prerogative.

I was going to address every statement that Karen Knoakes has made in her letter which are not coherent to
fact but that would take a lot of addressing so I simply ask that you start afresh with empty heads which should
be the easiest request I have made of you.

Begin with and stay with the facts without trying to squirm out, as you read starting with the letter to the
Toronto Sun dated October 8 2006 and then the Lawyer Files in order, 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8 and back to this one #9.

Do it honestly as demanded of an investigation and you will see the truth and perhaps have a better
understanding of reality.

Perhaps it is difficult for you people at the lower end of the power chain to comprehend what is going on at the
top but surely you must understand the fundamentals of the law.

In Ontario you people are administering the laws which come from higher up which the Attorney General
seems to have his fingers into everything, wearing so many hats and all.
We must remember he is human as we all are in matters of the law and we err but we are still all responsible to
the supreme law of Canada.

It is Attorney General Michael Bryant who has an awesome number of responsibilities but ultimately he is
accountable to the people of Canada and I am one of those people.

You must look at the evidence with the view as to whether or not the people are being served consistent with
the Constitution Act by the application of the laws which were enacted by the province.

You people have answered that in your writings attached.

There is nothing to argue just look at the evidence. Look at what you have written and see if it even addresses
the issues I have stated. No buts and diversions, stay focused on the principle matter of concern.
12
You must remember the mind is capable of wandering and everyone is permitted to believe and think as they
will under the Constitution, but when they act they must do so consistent with the Constitution and in that
endeavor priority must be given to the spirit of the Constitution for many sane reasons which I have related a
few.
Reality is impervious to perception although highly influenced by perception as is the case of me still writing 19
months after the fact to have it addressed in the manner the facts show it must be according to the Constitution.

When one puts their perception to paper it is there for all to see and it will betray them if it is not coincidental to
THE LAW.

Communications are a wonderful opportunity to let your perceptions be known which provides opportunity for
another to comment on and then when they are dealt with in an organized manner by presenting facts which
trump beliefs, which are just hearsay you will come to an honest reasonable conclusion coincidental to the task
at hand.

If you have now done as I requested and are competent in matters of law as you certainly must be you will see
the most obvious problem.

In such matters as I have presented, considering the importance of the topic it would be irrational to just handle
the situation by oneself and the obvious method of dealing with it is to present it to your supervisor and if that
person decides to make the decision and cause action upon that decision then they are responsible for it and the
consequences.

It is a must because they are handing out a decision which others suffer the consequences.

So obviously if you are not positive of a decision then you pass the decision to be made higher up.
Once again I address the importance of this particular decision because in any sane society criminal acts can not
be condoned in a court of competent jurisdiction for reasons as stated above and for the sake of maintaining
sanity throughout Canada.

So with that thought in mind I request that you inform me who you consulted in these matters so I may address
the matter to one competent to address them.

People out here generally don’t have time to play silly bugger with you people whose minds are all over the
place without consideration for the people you are hired to protect.

So by approaching the matter systematically we can reach where the problem lies and once again I state…..

Well let me try it another way.

When I go to McDonalds and order a hamburger with fries at the first window and pay for them at the second
window I am not likely to leave until I get them.
Normally the McDonalds person is coherent to the fact and with a little communication between us the matter is
resolved promptly. If they are incompetent and respond negatively I will not move my vehicle until I get what I
paid for which would create a bit of a how do ya do with people behind me so a higher authority will take care of
the situation and make sure such an asinine occurrence doesn’t reoccur. The person who had the opportunity to
deal with the situation had already demonstrated incompetence and will most likely utter comments in defense
which demonstrates no coherence to the reality for though in their mind they will blame me, for if not for me
they wouldn’t have suffered the emotional setback but in reality I am the person who was correct for obvious
reason and another is the customer is always right in general terms. Reality is always, regardless of perceptions.

13
So the matter I am addressing could have been handled by a McDonald’s person very well at the second window
where first the problem arose and the only way the matter could be resolved is to have someone face to face with
me who had the authority to make the proper decision.

Those of you who have corresponded with me know I am persistent and I am not one to argue insignificance nor
am I one to argue something that I am not certain of, backed with evidence and certainly all you people are
aware that a person wouldn’t stand pat for so long on a hand if it wasn’t solid.

Not once have you people addressed the issues raised by me and that is a significant factor.

Well anyway, just a little more sense for you to ponder and then I will move on to Lawyer File # 10 which will
be available soon on my web sites.

I’ll use the McDonalds scenario again because I believe you people relate well there, so everything is going like
clockwork all day perhaps and then I come along to blow it for them.

I didn’t get up that morning with thoughts in mind to spoil their day and when all I did is say I didn’t get what I
paid for I ended up with that which I paid for and I went away.

Fair is fair and mistakes happen all the time so I eat my hamburger and fries and move on to whatever reality has
in store.

You all know if what happened to me happened to you, you wouldn’t be satisfied and I remind you we are not
talking about spilled milk or such.

What happened should not have happened to me or anyone but you have proven that it has happened over and
over again and your officers are forever frustrated and I can assure you the victims are a whole lot more
frustrated and with very, very good reason and if you can accept that you are half way to the cure because such
happenings are not acceptable in a moral society, as simple as that.

Obviously the problem does not go away as you had hoped but hoping has nothing to do with reality other than
some times the wheel spins a match.

If you people were coherent to the consequences of your actions upon society and were the responsible type, of
the spirit of the Constitution as you are required to be you would have taken the matter I addressed to you to the
source of the problem for it is not my duty to run into McDonalds and fry up my own hamburger and slap it
together how I would like it and any of you can reason that out to the same conclusion.

To say C’est la vie and shrug your shoulder’s is not a legitimate option but you opted for it and I continue to
demonstrate the consequences which you don’t really understand until the consequences are detrimental to you.

I will see that you understand.

If you consider how things work and understand that no matter how well a person applies themselves to a task
such as enacting laws or drafting plans when they are put in to action problems arise which I can personally
attest to for in my career as a surveyor I sent many architectural, structural and site plans back to the drawing
board before damage was done. I comprehend how these things work and so must you.
The errors happen all the time but with attentiveness to the situation, coherence to the consequences if the errors
are not found and dealt with, and believe me there are always errors to be found, I would be left holding the bag.
In this case I have pointed out the problems over and over and over again and I who am coherent to the
consequences have not yet left the site and will not until it is dealt with for although I am not responsible
14
for the problem I expect the same respect I get from the architects and engineers who thank me for saving their
asses.
That is the part that you people do not comprehend because while you put our asses on the line yours are never
considered and that is the key to a successful product and explains clearly why we live in hell on earth rather
than the Heaven On Earth as is God’s aspiration, our supreme master under the Constitution Act, 1982, Part 1,
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Canada is founded on principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law

For those who ask “How long am I going to continue to repeat myself” I say to you “How long?”

Everything you need to know regarding these issues are in you hands, the people who are responsible to deal
with them.

When you deal with reality when you have the opportunity to do so you need not deal with realities that provide
you no options.
Once the consequence is upon you, you may ponder all that you might have done and wonder why you never
pondered them at the apropos time.

Well, for my final effort to you and Karen, please see that Karen is provided a copy of all the info provided
herein and I advise as I stated above that you apply due diligence in these matters which ever way you assign.

The issues concern the people of Canada and their well being and indirectly you can help the world by setting
the course of the future.

If you can not comprehend the bottom line you should not be playing a role which messes with it.

Please deal with all matters you can deal with yourself and forward those you are not qualified to deal with on to
the proper authority. Follow it up. It is too serious a problem to entrust with anyone, especially you people who
have adequately demonstrated you are not worthy of the trust handed to you.

Each of you has been handed down a trust from the top and in common sense practice when laws are legislated
which must be consistent with the Constitution Act, 1982 and presuming great care has been diligently applied,
but when enacted fails in application those authorized to apply the laws are the first to be alert to their
inadequacies for they are the specialist in their areas and the responsibility lay with them to see the matter
resolved?

It is absolutely absurd that you people would say your hands are tied when you tied them yourselves. You have
all the freedom in the world to assert your opinions and I advise that you do so in writing to document your
efforts to preserve your ass.

Due, Due, Due diligence is required in such matters which result in detrimental realities inflicted on human
beings.

You must treat such cases as if your ass is on the line and it could very well be in so many ways.

It is time for you to think about it, especially if you refuse to think about ours.

I could use a little help here.

15
 You can view Lawyer Files # 1-8 on my web site along with
this Lawyer File # 9

You will read that Don Wilson committed 2 acts of fraud under
http://groups.google.ca/group/schizoholywar?hl=en
the criminal code and 1 count of filing a false information with
the ORHT which is an offense under the Tenant Protection Act,
1997 s.206(2)

Several people mandated to deal with these charges have

declined to do so which is an offense under the Tenant
Protection Act, 1997 s. 206 (1)

It is all clearly explained in the Lawyer Files and there will be

http://groups.google.ca/group/schizoholywar
quite a few more added to my web site which clearly documents
the conspiracy and corruption as stated.
I have a prodigious amount of evidence which proves that
which I state and is available for your inspection but I have
provided you with sufficient evidence to prove beyond any
doubt that which I state is true.

On this day Tuesday, March 27, 2007 I formally request you fulfill your obligations to the people of Canada
who are all obliged to comply with the Constitution Act, 1982 and are guaranteed certain rights and protection under the
Charter.
The people I have addressed are funded by the people of Canada and the Province of Ontario to administer law
consistent with the Constitution Act, 1982 which they have not only declined to do so but have provided me with
evidence which proves their policies, laws, and application of them in Ontario do not support or protect the individual as
guaranteed which of course means society is not protected from the immoral as is the intent of the spirit of the
Constitution
Obviously the intent is not to protect the immoral but by their actions an immoral society is predictable.
Don Wilson committed fraud over $100,000 right in front of the judicator of the ORHT, now the Landlord Tenant Board
I was informed yesterday, but the ORHT declined to commence proceedings.

I have addressed this issue to many people and departments representing the people of the Province of Ontario
who have not been responsive.

Obviously, if they condone criminal acts to occur in provincial buildings which administer justice in Ontario,
the individual does not have a hope in hell of ever receiving justice and great possibility of becoming a victim.

By their actions they have proven they are not applying due diligence to deterrence of immorality which is law
enforcement 101.

No matter how efficient and competent a system is there will be victims but having proven they have no line of defense
is incomprehensible considering they have been financed by the people to put a system in place to deter immoral
inclination.

I have presented the reality of what has occurred and attempted to describe their pathetic excuse of a legal system in layman terms
but the facts are there and I and the people expect you to act in the spirit of the Constitution Act, 1982 to apply due punishment as a
deterrence to ensure such gross immoral inconsistencies with the spirit of the Constitution never reoccur again within the system
responsible to eradicate immorality. ,

Criminal acts have occurred in the ORHT building 375 D’arcy Street, Newmarket which is the jurisdiction of
the York Regional Police and I hereby request you deal with them.
16
Lawyer File # 1

Don Wilson, former tenant filed a false and misleading dispute with the ORHT dated June 10 2005
stating he had prepaid rent as of August 1 2004 until February 2009. (Aprox.value $43,000) Fraud?
He claimed we had a verbal agreement to do with shares of his company Bio Safe.
He opened the door about the Corporation so I entered as evidence my purchase agreement which detailed how
the stock was purchased and the April 13 2005 and the May 6 2005 agreements which are pertinent documents
attached to the purchase of shares clarifying and amending discrepancies with the purchase agreement, to prove
Don’s dispute was false and misleading information, which is an offense under the Tenant Protection Act,
1997 s.206(2)

Don Wilson denied having ever seen these 2 agreements or signed them which the witness to him signing all the
pages of the April 13 2005 was present to attest to the fact he signed it. That is Fraud over $100,000 under the
Criminal code.

I may file charges under the Corporations Act but that is not feasible and that is not what this is about.
I should also point out that although I may, I also may not, which is not consistent with the spirit of the
Constitution which demands you consistently deal with the immoral.

Enforcement does not have that option. You can not have a MORAL COMMON SENSE SOCIETY by letting
the obvious immoral free to do as they please
The ramifications are many if you don’t give him due punishment for the crime and people must know of all
places you can not commit crime right in front of our judiciaries in our buildings administering justice.

Your top experienced players, highly respected in these matters are incompetent in these matters just observers,
apers, parrots.fooled by the crooked establishment and wonder why they walk away with their tails dragging,
frustrated. These crooks are making fools of your guys because they are bloody idiots.
When you don’t know what the hell you are dealing with you will be lead.

I am quite familiar with incompetence and know how to spot them. They are the ones who know everything and
accomplish nothing.

Learn the concept of law, know the law and then put the immoral bastards in jail.

In these writings are the law, deal with the immoral which is your purpose and don’t listen to bloody lawyers for
Christ sake if they tell you different, arrest them. You aren’t going to get a warrant from a judge to arrest a judge

Accept the facts you know which I have provided you and deal with the matter realistically.

The ORHT is corrupt, they have tampered with the evidence, didn’t record the second day. Refused to file
charges an offense under the law. Who enforces laws if you don’t?
Start with the ORHT and then move on up until it hits the news and away we go.

Go to 100 judges or justices of the peace until you get a warrant and I suggest you do it simultaneously so they
can’t get the word out and stop a warrant. There is no reason at all with the evidence provided unless they are
corrupt.
Your purpose is clear, don’t come back whining the crooks won’t let you do your job. Find a way.
Thank you
Frank Gallagher

17
18
19
20
21
22