Dec. 4, 2009, SELF REPRESENT; Rules of Court, Rule 37.06 may Rescind Court ORDER DATED October 20, 2009, obtained by Moncton City Mayor George LeBlanc who is also acting as lawyer for Royal Bank of Canada & Mecca Corporation of Fredericton N.B.
http://justicedonedirtcheap.blogspot.ca/ CLICK HERE Royal Bank of Canada & Mecca Corporation of 211 Doak Road, Fredericton, N.B. circumvented the Residential Tenancies Act. alternatively filed a Notice of Action & Statement of Claim (in a separate denies the Defendant a residential leasehold tenant Andre Murray, the legal protection as provided within the RESIDENTIAL TENANCIES ACT OF NEW BRUNSWICK. The Legislative Assembly of New Brunswick when drafting, issuing and ratifying subject RESIDENTIAL TENANCIES ACT OF NEW BRUNSWICK never intended that Court of Queens Bench would ever intervene between the Rentalsmen who is designated to oversight on all matters residential and with a "NOTWITHSTANDING all others Acts" provision. To further complicate matters Court of Queens Bench Moncton Trial Division learned trial judge Mr. Justice Zoel R. Dionne on hearing the Motion granted the subject requested eviction orders, despite the Court Hearing was ex parte: (Latin: one party only) Refers to situations in which only one party (and not the adversary) appears before a judge. Such meetings are in law usually forbidden. Defendant Andre Murray was caused by circumstances out of his control to not receive service of the Notice. The problem of lack of Process Service in this case appears to be the result of an intentionally contrived then executed plan to cause known Process Service while the Plaintiffs benefited by claiming in Court that Defendant Andre Murray had been avoiding Court Document Service. Affidavits of Service provided by Plaintiff's employee Process Server Dave Daneliuk A.K.A. David A. Daneliuk are exposed as perjury therefore filled with false allegation of failed attempted Process Service when if fact the Process Service could not reasonably occurred as Process Server Dave Daneliuk a.k.a.. David A. Daneliuk could not have had the subject Documents to serve Therefore, under the Rules of Court, Rule 37.06 may rescind The ORDER DATED 20th Day of October, 2009, which did require this (provided herein) copy of Amended Notice of Motion Dated Dec 4, 2009 regarding Rescinding impugned October 20, 2009 Order as Andre Murray did in good faith prepare and file in Court of Queens Bench Moncton Trial Division. Incredibly the request was denied.!
Court file MC-0642-09: IN THE COURT OF QUEEN’S BENCH OF NEW BRUNSWICK, TRIAL DIVISION, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF Moncton. Court File Number: MC/0642/09, BETWEEN: Plaintiffs ROYAL BANK OF CANADA, 501376 N.B. Ltd. a body corporate, and Defendant, ANDRE MURRAY.
http://justicedonedirtcheap.blogspot.ca/
The Lawsuit is over alledged conversion of property, and became litigation based on interpretation of the Residential Tenanies Act of New Brunswick and The Property Act of New Brunswick.
http://justicedonedirtcheap.blogspot.ca/ CLICK HERE Royal Bank of Canada & Mecca Corporation of 211 Doak Road, Fredericton, N.B. circumvented the Residential Tenancies Act. alternatively filed a Notice of Action & Statement of Claim (in a separate denies the Defendant a residential leasehold tenant Andre Murray, the legal protection as provided within the RESIDENTIAL TENANCIES ACT OF NEW BRUNSWICK. The Legislative Assembly of New Brunswick when drafting, issuing and ratifying subject RESIDENTIAL TENANCIES ACT OF NEW BRUNSWICK never intended that Court of Queens Bench would ever intervene between the Rentalsmen who is designated to oversight on all matters residential and with a "NOTWITHSTANDING all others Acts" provision. To further complicate matters Court of Queens Bench Moncton Trial Division learned trial judge Mr. Justice Zoel R. Dionne on hearing the Motion granted the subject requested eviction orders, despite the Court Hearing was ex parte: (Latin: one party only) Refers to situations in which only one party (and not the adversary) appears before a judge. Such meetings are in law usually forbidden. Defendant Andre Murray was caused by circumstances out of his control to not receive service of the Notice. The problem of lack of Process Service in this case appears to be the result of an intentionally contrived then executed plan to cause known Process Service while the Plaintiffs benefited by claiming in Court that Defendant Andre Murray had been avoiding Court Document Service. Affidavits of Service provided by Plaintiff's employee Process Server Dave Daneliuk A.K.A. David A. Daneliuk are exposed as perjury therefore filled with false allegation of failed attempted Process Service when if fact the Process Service could not reasonably occurred as Process Server Dave Daneliuk a.k.a.. David A. Daneliuk could not have had the subject Documents to serve Therefore, under the Rules of Court, Rule 37.06 may rescind The ORDER DATED 20th Day of October, 2009, which did require this (provided herein) copy of Amended Notice of Motion Dated Dec 4, 2009 regarding Rescinding impugned October 20, 2009 Order as Andre Murray did in good faith prepare and file in Court of Queens Bench Moncton Trial Division. Incredibly the request was denied.!
Court file MC-0642-09: IN THE COURT OF QUEEN’S BENCH OF NEW BRUNSWICK, TRIAL DIVISION, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF Moncton. Court File Number: MC/0642/09, BETWEEN: Plaintiffs ROYAL BANK OF CANADA, 501376 N.B. Ltd. a body corporate, and Defendant, ANDRE MURRAY.
http://justicedonedirtcheap.blogspot.ca/
The Lawsuit is over alledged conversion of property, and became litigation based on interpretation of the Residential Tenanies Act of New Brunswick and The Property Act of New Brunswick.
Dec. 4, 2009, SELF REPRESENT; Rules of Court, Rule 37.06 may Rescind Court ORDER DATED October 20, 2009, obtained by Moncton City Mayor George LeBlanc who is also acting as lawyer for Royal Bank of Canada & Mecca Corporation of Fredericton N.B.
http://justicedonedirtcheap.blogspot.ca/ CLICK HERE Royal Bank of Canada & Mecca Corporation of 211 Doak Road, Fredericton, N.B. circumvented the Residential Tenancies Act. alternatively filed a Notice of Action & Statement of Claim (in a separate denies the Defendant a residential leasehold tenant Andre Murray, the legal protection as provided within the RESIDENTIAL TENANCIES ACT OF NEW BRUNSWICK. The Legislative Assembly of New Brunswick when drafting, issuing and ratifying subject RESIDENTIAL TENANCIES ACT OF NEW BRUNSWICK never intended that Court of Queens Bench would ever intervene between the Rentalsmen who is designated to oversight on all matters residential and with a "NOTWITHSTANDING all others Acts" provision. To further complicate matters Court of Queens Bench Moncton Trial Division learned trial judge Mr. Justice Zoel R. Dionne on hearing the Motion granted the subject requested eviction orders, despite the Court Hearing was ex parte: (Latin: one party only) Refers to situations in which only one party (and not the adversary) appears before a judge. Such meetings are in law usually forbidden. Defendant Andre Murray was caused by circumstances out of his control to not receive service of the Notice. The problem of lack of Process Service in this case appears to be the result of an intentionally contrived then executed plan to cause known Process Service while the Plaintiffs benefited by claiming in Court that Defendant Andre Murray had been avoiding Court Document Service. Affidavits of Service provided by Plaintiff's employee Process Server Dave Daneliuk A.K.A. David A. Daneliuk are exposed as perjury therefore filled with false allegation of failed attempted Process Service when if fact the Process Service could not reasonably occurred as Process Server Dave Daneliuk a.k.a.. David A. Daneliuk could not have had the subject Documents to serve Therefore, under the Rules of Court, Rule 37.06 may rescind The ORDER DATED 20th Day of October, 2009, which did require this (provided herein) copy of Amended Notice of Motion Dated Dec 4, 2009 regarding Rescinding impugned October 20, 2009 Order as Andre Murray did in good faith prepare and file in Court of Queens Bench Moncton Trial Division. Incredibly the request was denied.!
Court file MC-0642-09: IN THE COURT OF QUEEN’S BENCH OF NEW BRUNSWICK, TRIAL DIVISION, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF Moncton. Court File Number: MC/0642/09, BETWEEN: Plaintiffs ROYAL BANK OF CANADA, 501376 N.B. Ltd. a body corporate, and Defendant, ANDRE MURRAY.
http://justicedonedirtcheap.blogspot.ca/
The Lawsuit is over alledged conversion of property, and became litigation based on interpretation of the Residential Tenanies Act of New Brunswick and The Property Act of New Brunswick.