You are on page 1of 10

Formal Charges of Conflict of Interest

June 6 2008

To: Mary Elizabeth Dawson


Commissioner
Conflict of Interest
Frank Gallagher
Re: Charges of Conflict of Interest against
34 Riverglen Drive
Keswick, On
Federal Government and Personnel
L4P 2P8
The Parliament of Canada
905-476-8959
franklyone@hotmail.com
Prime Minister Stephen Harper www.cdf.name
frank@cdf.name
Office of the Prime Minister
M. Bredeson
Executive Correspondence Officer
for the Prime Minister's Office

Office of the Minister of Justice and


Attorney General of Canada
J. Brisebois
Manager
Ministerial Correspondence Unit

Minister of Justice and


Attorney General of Canada Evidence published or referenced on the following links
Robert Nicholson http://groups.google.com/group/charter-democracy-force
http://groups.google.com/group/the-cdf-documents
Former Minister of Justice www.cdf.name
Vic Toews

Minister of Public Safety


Stockwell Day

Dear Commissioner Mary Elizabeth Dawson

I have provided you a series of e-mails requesting you investigate the Federal Government
personnel listed above for Conflict of Interest

I have both e-mailed evidence to you and provided you with the original web site address of the
Charter Democracy Force http://groups.google.com/group/charter-democracy-force, the new web
site address of the Charter Democracy Force www.cdf.name and the CDF Documents web site,
where the irrefutable evidence is published and or referenced, but you have not yet informed me
as to the status of your investigation.

I request once again that you investigate the Federal Government personnel listed above for
Conflict of Interest

All of the accused have been provided the aforementioned evidence and the web site addresses

As you are aware the RCMP Commissioner has been charged with the responsibility to study the
evidence on the sites under the RCMP Act due me filing with the Commission for Public
Complaints against the RCMP on November 8 2007 for refusing to investigate government
organized crime of corruption and conspiracy.
On April 21 2008 I was informed I would be receiving the RCMP Final Letter of Disposition within
30 days but due to circumstances RCMP Staff Sergeant R.B. MacAdam who had been assigned
to the case informed me by Interim Report May 20 2008 that it would be delayed by a few days
which I am still waiting for.

This Final Letter of Disposition will be posted on the web sites and I will notify you when it comes
providing the path to it.

I expect it will decline an investigation because the evidence shows the RCMP Commissioner is
involved with the conspiracy and I offer you that so you you don’t use their decision to get you off
the hook of investing the above personnel for Conflict of Interest

The evidence shows the Government Office’s were corrupted prior to the political Ministers being
appointed and they have just carried on as per tradition..

There is a prodigious amount of evidence published on the various web sites to read which is all
relevant but I draw your attention to the following.

Constitution Act, 1982


Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms

The major concern is the Federal Government has failed to demonstrate due diligence to the
structuring of the legal system consistence with the Constitution conducive to the support of the
individual’s guaranteed Charter rights but have convincingly demonstrated the system is
designed for the profiteering of the members of the Law Societies where victims who became
victims due to their negligence to put a competent system in place capable of supporting every
individuals equal rights of protection and benefits before and under the law are further victimized
by the members of the law societies who charge extravagant rates to support their luxurious
lifestyles.

This is contrary to the Charter being discriminatory in many ways.

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.

The taxpayer pays for the defence of the majority of the criminal element who due their nature are
not likely to pay their fair share of taxes and are often not very well off financially which is inherent
to the system as they are entitled to lawyers provided by the government whereas the taxpayer
generally has to pay for his or her own legal counsel.

In such a system the wealthy have a humongous advantage over the not so well off and the big
corporate conglomerates weighing everything in dollar and cents have many lawyers as they plan
their modus operandi based on the likelihood of an individual challenging them in court being
limited in funds and due the incompetence of the system weighted in the corporations favour
generally are never challenged being too costly and just too damn much trouble to go through the
legal system to be recompensed.

This is a phenomenon not limited to corporations because it is just simply too much trouble to go
after someone for a $50 bad cheque for example which encourages such illegal actions, which I
have offered as evidence relative to the criminally fraudulent actions perpetrated against me.
On pages 13 and 14 of Lawyer File # 11 published on the the CDF Documents web site
http://groups.google.com/group/the-cdf-documents is a letter from Rod Bradbury of
EcoSafe who I had asked if he was the Vice-President of BioSafe which the president
sold me shares providing a prospectus shown on page 12 of Lawyer File # 11.
He responded that he never was and he had written off around $1000 that he was still
owed as a business experience.

The significance of this is the criminal element are aware of this weakness in the system
and they flourish creating a humongous number of victims who go unrecorded in the
statistics compromising the individuals guaranteed rights of protection.

Then when this same person commits fraud over $100,000 at the Ontario Rental Housing
Tribunal part of the Ontario legal system, financed by the taxpayer to administer and
enforce law consistent with the Constitution, witnessed and recorded by the judicator the
ORHT refuse to file charges in this matter and another of filing false and misleading
information an offense under section 206(2) of the Tenant Protection Act, 1997.

This is absurd allowing such occurrences clearly demonstrating they have no interest in
supporting the individual’s guaranteed Charter rights of protection where punishment is
the first line of defence attentive to deterrence where justice is difficult to be
recompensed if at all after becoming victamized.

I reiterate the system is designed for the profit of the members of the Law Societies
applying no deterrence allowing the immoral to flourish providing the lawyers a
luxurious lifestyle attending to the symptoms rather than nipping criminal inclination in
the bud.

It is absolutely incomprehensible that when they have the criminal dead to rights
committed right in the court they let him go where most often is the case it is difficult to
catch them and they have committed many crimes before they are caught leaving many
victims in their wake.

As pathetic as they are it is absurd that they would go to so much trouble fighting me off
trying to get the justice due me in accordance with the Constitution in support of the
rights of protection of every individual provided by the Charter.

Now if that is not bad enough they tampered with the recording removing pertinent
evidence and on the second day of the hearing the judicator announced they would not be
recording it.

From there it just continues into absurdity more detailed in the Mad Glad mostly Sad…
Why? document http://the-cdf-
documents.googlegroups.com/web/MadGladmostlySadWHY.doc?
gda=3fuJCUgAAABCWQx_x0HpiLdNaqsVlqbHjksKO9lujfWPc5HrAQObnmG1qiJ7U
bTIup-M2XPURDQPvPFo8HVLzg_iwmWsfX3d08Nh64l7DRKSFWPLQnu7OA
published on the same web site.
The entire Ontario Government obstructed justice and aided and abetted the criminal.
The evidence irrefutably proves the Ontario Government refuse to support the
individual’s guaranteed Charter rights which is the responsibility of the Ontario Attorney
General as stated in the “Roles and Responsibilities of the Attorney General” as
published on the Ontario web site.
http://www.attorneygeneral.jus.gov.on.ca/english/about/ag/agrole.asp

It clearly states he is the Guardian of the Public Interest and also the Guardian of the rule
of law, which brings us to another serious matter.

The very first line of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms states
Whereas Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the
rule of law

The “Roles and Responsibilities of the Attorney General” defines it as that most elusive
concept, a well established legal principle, hard to easily define that protects the
individual and society as a whole..

Obviously not competent to protect the individual’s guaranteed Charter rights but is
conducive to the luxurious money making ploy of the members of the Law Societies.

Notably there is no entry in the “Roles and Responsibilities of the Attorney General” of
the Charter convincingly suggesting they never intended to support the individual’s
guaranteed Charter rights although they would never admit it but inadvertently have done
so persistently throughout all the evidence published on the web.

***********************************************************************
*
That brings us to the federal government where it is the responsibility of the Minister of
Justice and Attorney General of Canada as the government chief legal advisor to advise
all the government departments and agencies.

This is stated in the DOJ letter dated January 22 2007 published on the Charter
Democracy Force site http://groups.google.com/group/charter-democracy-force on page 23 of
the Government Correspondence compiled September 1 2007

http://charter-democracy-
force.googlegroups.com/web/GovernmentCorrespondencecompiledSept12007.doc

J. Brisebois goes on to state the Parliament of Canada is responsible for enacting federal law
while administering those laws is a federal responsibility.

So obviously it is the responsibility of the Ontario Attorney General to administer those laws which
is confirmed in the “Roles and Responsibilities of the Attorney General”

So whose responsibility is it to see that the Attorney General lives up to his responsibilities?

The aforementioned link to the Government Correspondence clearly shows the Premier Dalton
McGuinty and my MPP Julia Munro do not consider it theirs.
Ultimately it is the responsibility of the federal government who made the guarantee who
purportedly never made any arrangements to assure the provinces supported it.

This suggests once again they never intended to support the Charter guarantee to every
individual.

So either they are required to support the guarantee they made under common law or they have
deliberately intended to misrepresent the fact that the people had guaranteed Charter rights while
in fact they do not as they do not as they obviously do not enforce it.

All the evidence shows they never intended to support the individual’s guaranteed Charter rights
and yet they are forever making comments on our Charter rights.

What was the point of guaranteeing all the rights if they never intended to back them”

Well, does not matter because the Constitution is the supreme law of Canada and they are
obliged to abide by it and enforce it.

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.

To be responsible the Attorney Generals must be competent responsible irreproachable with


fortitude and conviction to the support of the individual’s guaranteed Charter rights which
obviously they are not as irrefutably proven in the published documents.

What they are though is unscrupulous deceptive prevaricators which is consistently proven
throughout the documents.

Thiey are members of the Law Society of Upper Canada who have adamantly stated or implied
their members are not required to give a damn about the individual’s guaranteed Charter rights in
the 2 Part Law Society of Upper Canada document.

http://charter-democracy-force.googlegroups.com/web/Part1LawSocietyofUpperCanada.doc

http://charter-democracy-force.googlegroups.com/web/Part2LawSocietyofUpperCanada.doc

The Law Society also claim their members are not required to validate their clients charges
against the alleged before commencing proceedings which caused me undue hardship and
frustration illegally putting me in a position where I would require a lawyer to defend my position
which of course I decided not to do given the possibility of receiving justice as the evidence
shows is impossible where members of the Law Society hold every position of authority in the
legal system and why the majority of people just write it off as a lost cause.

Then the Society goes on to state they are not required to look at the supporting evidence of a
complaint I filed against one of their members as obviously the decision is made he is innocent
before the complaint is filed.

This consistency is obvious throughout the prodigious number of documents published on the
web sites.
There is much more to say about the Ontario Government but that is not in your jurisdiction but it
is available for you to read to see what happens when the federal government refuses to back the
guarantee they made to every Canadian individual.

The Accountability Act, 2006

Where common sense prevails a guarantee or law not enforced is not guaranteed or law if the
personals responsible are not held accountable and made responsible.

Obviously the provisions to every individual as guaranteed by the Charter require competent
responsible irreproachable government personnel with fortitude and conviction to the endeavour
and the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada is required to be responsible for
federal constitutional matters and the Ontario Attorney General is responsible fro the province of
Ontario constitutional matters clearly stated in the “Roles and Responsibilities of the Attorney
General” and the aforementioned letter from the DOJ dated January 22 2007.

So why would we need the Accountability Act, 2006 enacted by Prime


Minister Stephen Harper with the aid of the Minister of Justice and Attorney
General of Canada?

Prime Minister Stephen Harper and former Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada
Vic Toews were both provided the evidence prior to the enactment of the Accountability Act and
could have had some influence as to why it was enacted.

There are at least two ways of reasoning why it was enacted.

1) An attempt to cover up the incompetent irresponsible reproachable DOJ, Minister of


Justice and Attorney General of Canada who advises all the government departments
and agencies and responsible for ineptness of the federal legal system to support the
individual’s guaranteed Charter rights.
2) They never intended to back the individual’s guaranteed Charter rights

Either one would be difficult to explain to the people.

The book by British Columbia history professor Jonathan Swainger makes reference to a book by
Edmund Morgan who asserts the success of any form of government is dependent on their ability
to deceive the people and in a democracy it is necessary for the people to believe they have a
voice and the representatives are the people for the people..

http://books.google.com/books?
id=eRHTr2TCBMwC&pg=PA19&dq=roles+and+responsibilities+of+the+attorney+general+canad
a&sig=hi6yCnnxTgLu6Qjx9yJS2U80xG4#PPA19,M1

It also mentions something about not being caught or the government would collapse, no different
than any syndicated organized crime where it is forever necessary to deceive the people for
continued success.

Their can be no doubt this is a premeditated government internal problem that an individual could
not possible taken on by oneself which of course is the reason for its success and yet invariably
they tell me with tongue in cheek that I should get a lawyer and I could argue it out until I went
bankrupt or the government did.
So do we have guaranteed Charter rights or not?
Yes and no

The Constitution: Document is the supreme law of Canada signed by the


authorities in power at the time even though they were obviously unscrupulous as the “Roles and
Responsibilities of the Attorney General” attests as it defines that most elusive concept –the rule
of law- a well established legal principle, hard to easily define that protects the individual and
society as a whole.

The people are guaranteed their Charter rights no matter what they intended because it is hardly
likely they are going to come forward and say it was all just a big joke, so yes we are legitimately
guaranteed Charter rights.

But no, at present we do not have guaranteed Charter rights by the governments’ refusal to
support them.

They got a lot of splainin to do and a PUBLIC INQUIRY is the only viable option..

The rule of law is not competent to support a democratic form of government let alone a charter
democracy and they knew it when they entered it into the Charter being at the least criminally
fraudulent.

Democracy
Social equality, equality, egalitarianism

Egalitarianism
Parity, fairness, equal opportunity, impartiality

Justice
Fairness, impartiality, righteousness, even-handedness, fair dealing, honesty, integrity

It is the incompetence of the rule of law that deprives society of justice, the tax payers an
exorbitant amount to fund the system and the great rip offs by the lawyers who are provided free
to the criminal element who can not afford one which in itself is not constitutional with the
innocent tax payer having to provide for his or her own lawyer who get into inane long debates
due the incompetence of the system which severely compromises the individuals guaranteed
Charter rights and equal benefits.

A farly recent study within the past year showed govement personnel were far better paid with
much better benefits than the people in the private sector who not only contributed to their
benefits, but can not afford to provide them for themselves.

Minister of Public Safety Stockwell Day proved his involvement in the conspiracy very well where
a copy of his e-mail to me is enclosed in the Stockwell Day November 3 2007 document.
http://charter-democracy-force.googlegroups.com/web/StockwellDayNovember3.doc

He demonstrated how they deal with serious issues when the DOJ is linked to a crime as in the
RCMP Pension fund scandal.
When evidence linked the DOJ to the pension fund scandal and a Public Inquiry was warranted
Stockwell intervened stating it would just waste a lot of taxpayers’s money and a Task Force was
the way to go.

When the Task Force Report came in their was no mention of the DOJ.

Imagine that!!!!

What can you expect of professionally trained charlatans of deception and prevarication, which is
prominent throughout the evidence?

You have been provided a prodigious amount of evidence which irrefutably proves the
government is organized crime personified of corruption and conspiracy against the individual’s of
the Lower Tier which in itself is not constitutional.

Do your job and make things right.

Public Inquiry demanded.

Frank Gallagher

PS

Please acknowledge immediately your intention to review the evidence or not.

http://charter-democracy-force.googlegroups.com/web/LawyerFile7.doc

_____________________________________________
From: Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner/Commissariat aux conflits
d'intérêts et à l'éthique [mailto:CIEC-CCIE@parl.gc.ca]
Sent: June 4, 2008 8:23 AM
To: Frank Gallagher
Subject: Read: Efforts to understanding

Your message

To: info@flsc.ca; jherman@flsc.ca; fwilson@flsc.ca;


kwillfed@aol.com; pierre.leduc@rcmp-grc.gc.ca;
attorneygeneral@jus.gov.on.ca; garth@garth.ca; LeBlanc, Dominic -
député; webmaster@rcmp-grc.gc.ca; roy.steinebach@rcmp-grc.gc.ca;
brian.verheul@rcmp-grc.gc.ca; Primetimecrime@gmail.com;
webadmin@greenparty.ca; info@cba.org; mail@cba-alberta.org;
edmonton@cba-alberta.org; cba@bccba.org; admin@cbanb.com;
cba-nl@nl.rogers.com; cbanwt@lawsociety.nt.ca; cbans@ns.sympatico.ca;
info@oba.org; cba-pei@isn.net; cba.sk@sasktel.net;
cbayukon@internorth.com; Conflict of Interest and Ethics
Commissioner/Commissariat aux conflits d'intérêts et à l'éthique;
ndpaoatlantic@ns.aliantzinc.ca; information@forces.gc.ca;
ndpao-pacific@shaw.ca; ndpaocal@nucleus.com; NDPAO@bellnet.ca;
ndpao.mtl@videotron.ca; webmaster@forces.gc.ca; AdamsoV@erc-cee.gc.ca;
adavidov@torontohabitat.on.ca; aleadbea@infocom.gc.ca; Ambrose, Rona -
M.P.; ahorwath-qp@ndp.on.ca; ayala_disadvantage@hotmail.com;
admin@otla.com; Atkins, Norman; Angus, David; Bernier, Maxime - Député;
Baird, John - M.P.; bbalkissoon.mpp@liberal.ola.org;
bduguid.mpp@liberal.ola.org; Blackburn, Jean-Pierre - Député; Bacon,
Lise; Biron, Michel; Baker, George; bob.runciman@pc.ola.org;
bill.murdoch@pc.ola.org; bergeron_hater_1976@hotmail.com; Bellehumeur,
Gisèle; complaints@cpc-cpp.gc.ca; Clement, Tony - M.P.; Cannon, Lawrence
- Député; cdicocco.mpp.co@liberal.ola.org; bentley.mpp@liberal.ola.org;
Poilievre, Pierre - M.P.; robin.roberts@cpc-cpp.gc.ca; Ritz, Gerry -
M.P.; rbartolucci.mpp.co@liberal.ola.org; randy.craig@jus.gov.on.ca;
Rompkey, William; Ringuette, Pierrette; Russell, Marie; Rokosh, Gillian;
Ratte, Lise; sandra.conlin@rcmp-grc.gc.ca; Skelton, Carol - M.P.;
spupatello.mpp@liberal.ola.org; speters.mpp@liberal.ola.org; Strahl,
Chuck - M.P.; Solberg, Monte - M.P.; Smith, David; Smith, Carol;
Sibbeston, Nick; Spivak, Mira; St. Germain, Gerry; Stollery, Peter;
Stratton, Terrance R.; szwebmaster@yahoo.com; support@besthotfilms.com;
Symantec@reply.digitalriver.com; swainger@unbc.ca; Sweet, David - M.P.;
terryoc2001@yahoo.ca; tpulcine@privcom.gc.ca; Toews, Vic - M.P.;
Thompson, Greg - M.P.; Tardif, Claudette; Tkachuk, David;
victimsfirst@ombudsman.gc.ca; Verner, Josée - Députée;
vdhillon.mpp@liberal.ola.org; Van Loan, Peter - Riding 1; Van Loan,
Peter - Assistant 1; webadmin@justice.gc.ca;
warthurs.mpp@liberal.ola.org; Watt, Charlie; whistleblower@ctv.ca;
web@ps.gc.ca; willis@forces.gc.ca; Williams, John - M.P.; Wrzesnewskyj,
Borys - M.P.; Zimmer, Rod; philreporter1989@yahoo.ca;
editor@philreporter.com; sandra.conlin@rcmp-grc.gc.ca;
licia.corbella@calgarysun.com; info@vivelecanada.ca;
nphlstatistician@hotmail.com; press@transparency.org;
ti-can@transparency.ca; askgov@worldbank.org; sprayriver@yahoo.ca;
newsroom@globeandmail.com; news@citynews.ca; newsdesk@metronews.ca;
admin@georginaadvocate.com; admin@stouffvillesun.com;
keithbainmla@ns.sympatico.ca; bakermg@gov.ns.ca; barnetbe@gov.ns.ca;
mlashelburne@eastlink.ca; bolivargetson@eastlink.ca; educmin@gov.ns.ca;
min_dfa@gov.ns.ca; justmin@gov.ns.ca; mlaclarke@ns.sympatico.ca;
colwelkw@gov.ns.ca; vconrad@ns.aliantzinc.ca; healmin@gov.ns.ca;
ddexter@ns.sympatico.ca; dooksbf@gov.ns.ca; patdunnmla@ns.aliantzinc.ca;
hepstein@ns.aliantzinc.ca; billestabrooks@navnet.net;
elf@ns.sympatico.ca; gaudetw@gov.ns.ca; glavinla@gov.ns.ca
Subject: Efforts to understanding
Sent: Tue, 3 Jun 2008 16:41:47 -0400

was read on Wed, 4 Jun 2008 08:22:52 -0400