March 30 2007

Keswick, On. L4P 2P8

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: Provincial Government Corruption and Conspiracy Constitution Act, 1982 Non compliance Dear Randy Craig

March 27 2007

THIS IS NOT A PERSONAL MATTER

My mother and I met with you on November 14 2006 to request you investigate corruption which runs rampant through out the Provincial Government. I had brought s prodigious amount of evidence for you to review but you stated you don’t have time to look at the evidence. I wrote you on November 17 2006 to recap our meeting. (See pages 3-38) On several occasions since, I have addressed the issues and on March 24 2007 I forwarded you copies of Lawyer Files #s 1-7 Immediately following this e-mail I will resend Lawyer Files #s 1-7 which clearly documents the conspiracy and corruption within the Provincial government and as it clearly states on the OPP Anti-Rackets web site your department investigates such corruption. Immediately following the Lawyer Files #s 1-7, I will send you a copy of the 73 page letter to the Toronto Sun dated October 8 2006 in 2 Parts which contains the evidence that proves Don Wilson guilty as stated. 1

franklyone@h otmail.com

LAWYER FILE # 8

To: Province of Ontario OPP Randy Craig Detective Sergeant Anti-Rackets randy.craig@jus.gov.on.ca

From: Frank Gallagher 34 Riverglen Drive

You can view Lawyer Files # 1-7 on my web site along with this Lawyer File # 8 You will read that Don Wilson committed 2 acts of fraud under http://groups.google.ca/group/schizoholywar?hl=en and 1 count of filing a false information with the criminal code 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 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.

http://groups.google.ca/group/schizoholywar

On this day Tuesday, March 29, 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. 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. Thank you Frank Gallagher

2

November 17 2006 To: R.C.(Randy) CRAIG M.B.A., C.F.E. Detective Sergeant Economic Crime Investigation Anti-Rackets Investigation Bureau Ontario Provincial Police General Headquarters Lincoln M. Alexander Building 777 Memorial Avenue Orillia, On. L3V 7V3 From: Frank Gallagher 34 Riverglen Drive Keswick, On. L4P 2P8 Tel/Fax 905-476-8959 franklyone@hotmail.com Re: Our meeting on November 14 2006 Hi Randy

To: Senior Officer
Ontario Provincial Police Orillia

Tel. 705- 329- 6434 Fax: 705- 329- 6456

Thank you for meeting with my mother and I on November 14 2006. Not familiar with your system we had just dropped in without appointment and you agreed to meet and discuss my concerns which I had presented to the York Regional Police and the RCMP but they declined to deal with them. I had a brief case full of documentation about 4” thick organized to save time because it is a long story which began at an Ontario Rental Housing Tribunal hearing. Just for the record I had prepared a presentation accompanied with the pertinent documents for your review to investigate government corruption but you informed me that you do not have time to deal with such matters by reading the evidence and taking everything in context. I had only intended to leave them for somebody to review and then respond. That is what I did when I took my concerns to the YRP and the RCMP. I had read on the OPP web site that the Anti-Rackets division deals with such matters.

3

You informed me that people often come in with piles of documents and they often get more frustrated than I when you decline to deal with their concerns. Much more than an hour or so is needed to explain the situation and you use most of the time explaining why you can’t help. In my case the evidence was gathered over a period of 14 months and I had made great effort to present the case as simple and clearly as I possibly could but you insisted that you do not have time to do it my way. The investigation has already been done and documented and all that was required from your office is to read the evidence I brought you and then act upon it. I informed you that the York Regional Police and the RCMP had declined to investigate and that is why I came to the Anti-Rackets, OPP. You told me that the York Regional Police are the police having jurisdiction and I told you that quite a while ago I had addressed the matter to the OPP after the YRP and RCMP declined to deal with my concerns and they responded in similar fashion. But since then I have accumulated evidence which points to political corruption. The details of our conversation may have been useful if they had been recorded. If it is standard procedure then eventually they will become public record as I proceed to bring my concerns forward. I told you that I had written Michael Bryant the Attorney General and I had downloaded some info from his web site. I read that he may advise the police but it is up to the police to make the charges. Then it is up to him to decide whether or not to litigate. This presents somewhat of a problem since my concerns lead to him. Since the YRP and RCMP had declined to make the charges, that left only the OPP AntiRackets to do so. I told you how the situation began at the ORHT hearing where my former tenant Don Wilson had committed an offense under the Tenant Protection Act, 1997 of filing a false and misleading information (his dispute was all lies) His dispute stated that he had paid up rent until February 2009 through some kind of fabricated story dealing with shares of stock in his company Bio-Safe which I had invested in. I provided evidence to prove everything in his dispute was lies and you told me that wasn’t against the law. I told you it was an offense under the Tenant Protection Act . You said you don’t deal with Tenant Act concerns.

4

I told you how he had also denied ever seeing two agreements which he had signed agreeing to vacate my premises on May 31 2005 and acknowledge that he owed me so much rent at the time of signing. He had denied signing them and stated that it wasn’t his signature on the agreements. It was not his normal signature. He had signed them and I had provided the witness to one of the documents who attested to the fact. My mother Edythe, who you met, witnessed the other one. He had signed two agreements having a purchase value of over $ 100,000 and who knows the market value? These agreements also protected those who invested before me which I have no idea how much is involved. I also told you if I had not been able to provide evidence to rebut his dispute I would have lost $43,000 regarding the rent. You told me that the fraud that my former tenant, Don Wilson had committed at the ORHT hearing wasn’t fraud. Maybe it was perjury, but not fraud. I told you it wasn’t perjury because an oath had not been sworn. I showed you the response from Dave Grech of the Investigation and Enforcement Unit the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing and pointed out how confused he was. You said “so the man made an error.” I said, “I see, the guy made an error and that’s it, case closed” So there won’t be an investigation because he made an error. That is the point, Don Wilson broke the law and I have requested the appropriate charges be laid by the ORHT and Dave Grech who declined. The ORHT removed information from the recording of the tribunal hearing regarding the laying of charges and the ORHT didn’t record the second day of the hearing and that doesn’t concern you. I would say they made a couple of errors also. Crooks and murderers make errors and they are obligated to accept due punishment when they are caught. Dave Grech declined to investigate and I show you that he was confused when he wrote his response so you state “He made an error, where’s the corruption? I say “Where is the investigation?” I said “I have provided all the evidence to the Premier, the Ombudsman, My MP, my MPP , the YRP, the RCMP and the Attorney General, Michael Bryant among others who have declined to deal with the matter.” I told you how ridiculous the responses were from the Ombudsman.

5

I told you that they can’t all be as stupid as they write so they must be involved in the conspiracy. I told you that the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, Hon. John Gerretsen also declined to investigate stating that he trusts Dave Grech. You say so what, You trust so and so. I showed you Dave Grech’s letter proving that his response was not right and you back the Minister’s decision that he trusts him. Laws are enacted and people are trusted to obey them but when they don’t you people are supposed to be there to bring them to justice. Hell, if people could be trusted we wouldn’t need the whole damn legal system. We sure don’t need a system we can’t trust. The point is Dave Grech either made a mistake or he fabricated his response and no matter which he has declined to deal with the issue that he is responsible to do. I even drove down to his office but he was not available so I requested to see someone who could fill in for him in his absence. Off hand I forget his name, Raol, something like that met with me in the board room and he took copies of all the pertinent evidence and promised to give it to Dave Grech. When Dave declined to respond I wrote him again but he just refused to respond. There is no doubt his only response was not relative to the facts. I reiterate that I showed you and you acknowledged that you understood and said,“So he made an error” You say he erred. I say he is incompetent or part of a conspiracy. The Minister is obligated to investigate compliance under the Tenant Protection Act, 1997 and he has not done so. The offense doesn’t state anything about trust. We people all trust you government workers to do the job you are hired to do but you give us no reason to and in fact you give us every reason not to. You people like the term “threshold” You stated that the obvious fraud is not fraud by including the word in your statements. You mentioned section 380 under the criminal code which I could look up on the web. I did and didn’t see the word “threshold” there nor did I see it under section 397 or 400. The words I did see describe exactly the offenses that Don Wilson committed.

6

You mentioned you are concerned with dealing with cases where people lost huge amounts of money, their life savings. I mentioned that I have lost a huge amount of money relative to me and it was my life savings. You mentioned that you understand my frustration at not getting the answers I am looking for. The YRP also used that particular statement in their response. I take this opportunity to state that the majority of the people do not have larger life savings because the government takes most of what we don’t need to survive. If you were concerned about the wealthy you would nip people like Don Wilson in the bud instead of allowing them to spread the word that they can get away with fraud. You have the opportunity to let him and others know that our Charter Rights and Freedoms are guaranteed as the Act states. I expect a common sense answer to a common sense question and failing that I look else where until I get it. I have good sane reason to be frustrated. I record the ridiculous ones for future use like the ones I got from you. Like the one where you are too busy to deal with my problems because you are tending to the richer peoples concerns. I suppose they have more influential friends than I. This is a Constitutional matter. Phil Moreau of the York Regional Police, Standards Division spoke to me on the phone mentioning a little something about giving the richer folk preferred treatment. I wonder if it is common practice for the YRP to record the conversation. That would be public record I suppose. If you people were dealing with things properly you wouldn’t be so busy. A dog chasing his tail looks busy but accomplishes nothing. I filed a complaint with the Ontario Civilian Commission on Police Services on November 15 2006 against the York Regional Police and provided them a copy of most of the documents I had brought for you to review.

7

FOR THE RECORD You have investigated my concerns your way and declined to take action. You gave me your business card with e-mail and fax number on it. I will send you all the information I brought to you which you declined to review. I request that you review it all and reconsider your decision to not investigate. You may as well read it now in case you have your turn with the Ontario Civilian Commission on Police Services. If you would apply your efforts for the benefit of all Canadians you would actually be doing the job expected of you and would save us both needless aggravations. No matter your final decision please sign page 26 initialing beside items (1)-(6) to acknowledge that you have received the documents and copy it back to me. If you read them you will have a better understanding and know that what I state is true. That is just “How it is.” It’s best to know what you are talking about. If you will reiterate your statement that it is just” How it is” in the context you stated it at our meeting I would appreciate it. I am quite aware of “How it is” and that is why I write to make things right as they are supposed to be according to the Constitution Act, 1982.

I insist that it is your duty to investigate and your web site confirms this.
Due diligence is expected of you but you have not demonstrated that, however you have admitted that the way you dealt with my concerns is how you normally deal with the people coming to you for help. Hundreds of them you said. Do you have any idea how many victims do not bother reporting to you and perhaps that is your ideology. Only the naïve come to you. The ones who have not yet experienced the service you provide. It’s quite obvious the crooks appreciate it. Did I mention that Don Wilson was once a cop? His son is still a cop. I have addressed this letter to you and the Senior Officer of the Orillia detachment.
Please see that he or she gets a copy and the senior signs your response along with you if you remain steadfast to your original decision. If you will be reviewing the evidence an officer is welcome to stop off to get a copy of the disk which I could have left with you had you been so inclined. If you are prepared to discuss the matter further addressing the issue on hand rather than providing further evidence to back what I state in my writings I would be happy to meet any time and I will provide additional evidence when you are up to speed.

Thank you

8

Frank Gallagher Randy You stated that your department only deals with big organized crimes. After you have read the BLACK BOOK and other material I send, you will have the biggest organized crime in Canadian history to deal with. I have provided a prodigious amount of evidence to this end but the evidence is everywhere for the gathering. It’s in your files and in the York Regional Police and RCMP files. The YRP will confirm how they get frustrated over and over again by not being able to meet the threshold requirements to get a warrant. They will attest to the fact that they are trained to believe that common sense has nothing to do with the law. GIVE ME A BREAK Common sense has nothing to do with the way the law is administered.
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.

This section under Part 1, Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms of the Constitution Act, 1982 demands that the people of Canada’s Rights and Freedoms as guaranteed and provided for in the Act are protected and that means filing the proper charges to ensure the criminal element of society are aware that there antics won’t be tolerated. Every Ontario law must be read in conjunction with the Constitution Act, 1982 giving priority to the protection of the Rights and Freedoms of the Canadian People as a whole and my concerns are the concerns of everyone in Canada which includes the government and all of it’s human resources. When you are on duty you may consider yourselves of a different ilk and that is your prerogative but in matters of law you have sworn an oath and received pay to uphold and enforce the law and doing otherwise would be considered criminal. You hold a position of trust and that is “How it is” but that doesn’t mean that you are exempt from the law and in fact it means with all things considered that when you are found to be astray of the law you must be made to be seen and made good example of

9

what happens to those who would use their position of trust to make a mockery of those who trust you and who pays your wages. It is imperative that the punishment is significant to deter others who would use their position and power to mess with the guarantee of the Constitution which is the foundation of the Democracy of Canada In my book it could be viewed as Treason. Our rights are sacred to us and we must know they are being protected and guaranteed as enacted or the people will wonder by what authority their taxes are seized. It’s a take and give situation.

10

November 14, 2006 To: Anti-Racket (Hand Delivered November 14 2006 by Frank Gallagher and Mother, Edythe Gallagher) OPP We met with Randy Craig, Detective Sergeant 777 Memorial Avenue who declined to accept delivery of my documents. Orillia, On L3B 7B3 705-329-6400 From: Frank Gallagher 34 Riverglen Drive Keswick, Ontario Phone/Fax 905-476-8959 franklyone@hotmail.com Re: Government Corruption Incompetence Non compliance with Constitution Act, 1982 Non compliance with Tenant Protection Act, 1997 Attorney General-Conflict of interest Failure to provide a modus operandi to back the guarantee of: The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms Dear Anti-Racket Unit I have listed below the documents you will find attached which evidences corruption, cover up and conspiracy against the people of Canada by the government of Ontario. I hereby request and charge you with the responsibility to carry out an extensive, thorough and competent investigation of various government departments of the province of Ontario for the purpose of filing charges on behalf of the people of Ontario and Canada. Every word contained within the following documents is pertinent to this investigation and I expect you to conduct your investigation accordingly. Resign yourself to the fact that this is a major task that requires a competent authority to deal with it. This began as a very simple matter between myself and my former tenant which evolved into a matter of gigantic proportions regarding government departments and their responsibility to the people of Ontario and all of Canada.

11

The problem originated at the Ontario Rental Housing Tribunal where I had filed an application to evict my former tenant Don Wilson who was the President and Director of a company called BioSafe Natural Technologies Inc. which I am a major share holder. This is all explained in the accompanying documents. I am not requesting that you investigate any matters which you may consider to be my personal obligation. Heaven forbid you help me. I am requesting you deal with all the matters specifically mentioned in these documents and all others that evolve during your investigation in pursuant to resolving the issues contained therein. The issues will become abundantly clear after you have applied due diligence to my concerns. It is imperative that you are coherent to the truth about the Tribunal hearing that Don Wilson did (1) File a false and misleading document (dispute) with the ORHT which is an offence under the Tenant Protection Act, 1997. (2) Commit the act of Fraud regarding two agreements which I submitted to the ORHT. Failure of various departments to deal with these issues is the matter of my concerns which are the concerns of everyone in Canada and these are the concerns I am requesting you to investigate detailed in the following documents. Read first The ORHT evidence will be found in the document to the Toronto Sun dated October 8 2006 and I reiterate the importance of knowing for fact that Don Wilson, my former tenant is guilty of the offences (1) and (2) stated above. Having that clear in your mind and after reading the correspondence from the various government departments where they decline to file charges and their explanations as to why not, you will see the need for many investigations. These are just some of the evidence I have and will gladly meet with you at any time any place to discuss the matter in its entirety and provide any additional documentation which will help you in this investigation.

12

Please do not review these documents with blinders on as did the York Regional Police and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police who searched only for reason to pass the responsibility to me to guard the public interests This is all explained in the documents why it is not my responsibility but you will see that I am more responsible than the whole damn army of government employees who are paid to be responsible to the people of Canada. This investigation will lead you to the Attorney General and the Legislature You must understand the significance of this investigation though it may appear at first as a relatively small matter in the whole scheme of things it is in fact proof of the scheme. GOVERNMENT CONSPIRACY AND CORRUPTION I have provided you an abundance of evidence which clearly exposes a government conspiracy and corruption against the people of Canada. This evidence is just the tip of the iceberg and as you follow up on this many more trails will need to be followed to get to the bottom of this which will ultimately lead you to the top. I request that you initiate a preliminary investigation focused on the matter evolving from the Ontario Rental Housing Tribunal hearing under section 69, Tenant Protection Act, 1997 collecting all evidence available for the purpose of a wide scale investigation of the whole system. My particular case will take you to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, John Gerretsen, the Attorney General, Michael Bryant and the Legislature, MPP’s It is imperative that you follow my instructions on page 27 for the preliminary investigation and follow the trails where the evidence points according to common sense and due diligent professional investigative practice. The evidence I have provided affords me the obvious conclusions as previously stated but your duty is to gather all evidence in the course of the investigation to prove what ever the evidence proves to be fact. All evidence must be tabled and reviewed honestly to seek the truth. Case in point; The York Regional Police investigated my documents consisting of at least 400 pages and responded with 2 pages indicating they ignored and purposely avoided everything except the evidence to support their claim that the concerns were my problem.

13

They did not address my concerns and by so doing implicate them in the conspiracy.

24. (1) Anyone whose rights or freedoms, as guaranteed by this Charter, have been infringed or denied may apply to a court of competent jurisdiction to obtain such remedy as the court considers appropriate and just in the circumstances.

I may apply to a court but maybe I won’t A person could steal all my money and spend it leaving it a futile option to pursue the matter and it would be foolish to lose my house to finance lawyers. There are many reasons a person may not pursue. That leaves the criminal free to strike again and again and the word spreads and crime flourishes as does the government and lawyers. Society loses. That is not the ideology that Canada was founded on. Whereas Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law: Do the crime- serve the time The following is an excerpt from the BLACK BOOK pages 6 and 7 Now let me explain why we, the people can not be entrusted to back the Guarantee. 1) We do not have the wherewithal individually to fight crime. We do not have the means, resources or financials to take on such a challenge. 2) We do not have the time to give it the attention it needs. 3) We do not have the ability because we have trained in other fields of endeavor. The irony of this is those who suggest we should look after the guarantee has 2 of the 3 main ingredients to deal with this and as I ponder further I have to ask “WHY IN HELL THEY DO NOT HAVE THE THIRD” It is more than just a mere coincidence that the public servants have that which we lack in 2 of 3 and it could just be something to do with the fact that we have paid through the nose to see that these

14

departments were put in place to deal with the necessities of a democratic society. The fact that they lack as do we in ability to deal with such matters takes us to an example of absurdity to which heights is near impossible to top. All of us in the private sector know full well our chances of survival in a career not attended to is limited at best and yet those people, who are limited at best, rewarded best, financially and beneficially, have the gall to suggest that they know best. Some, I have felt certain they understood the plight, but they state their hands are tied and alas the system will just have to continue in its inane way for they are not insane. I know full well the difficulties and hardships of daring to correct the system which you will read in the gallagher papers. You will read of the Toronto Mayor’s office Cover Up of the existence of the gallagher papers. You will also read that it is okay with the Law Society of Upper Canada for their members to ignore peoples Constitutional Rights while they advance their crook clients interests. Apparently they can say what ever they like without an authority to back them.

P a rt I, C a n a di a n C h a
15

rt e r o f R ig h ts a n d F r e e d o m s
Whereas Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law: Guarantee of Rights and Freedoms 1. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society. 7. Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice. 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. 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.

THERE IS THE LAW
MORAL COMMON SENSE IS PRESUMED PROMINENT Whereas Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law:

16

Canada is a democratic society which has chosen the ways of God and the rule of law to back it. Common sense dictates, just by enacting the supreme law of Canada, the Constitution Act, 1982 the laws will not be obeyed. Sure would save a lot of time and money but alas that is “How it is”. Unfortunately, being of sound mind, we moral Canadians comprehend the necessity of financing a legal system to ensure the sanctity of the Constitution. Not only do we comprehend it but we also understand the need to put a system in place to ensure we all pay our fair share to this endeavor. That of course is a major challenge in itself because the immoral are not so inclined. The actual fact is that to be fair to the moral law abiding citizen we would not be charging them anything for the legal system for the system is necessary because of the immoral and they should be the ones that pay. In reality such a plan would not work at present but with proper guidance and conviction it could become reality. Guarantee of Rights and Freedoms 1. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society. Once again these are great words but we can not depend on the immoral to respect others rights and freedoms. I reiterate that the moral pay to finance the whole legal system to ensure the immoral respect our rights and freedoms. It’s not fair but common sense states we have to start somewhere and only the moral are coherent. 7. Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice. Again the moral fairly contribute unfairly to the financing. They are deprived from the moment the first dollar was taken to finance the legal system but they understand the necessity and they presume the necessity to be dealt with. It should be dealt with the goal to eliminate the necessity instead of nourishing it. Lawyers and others savor it. 17

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 only way every individual can be equal before and under the law and have the right to the equal protection and equal benefit is for the legal system to be consistent in their enforcement of the law. As I have stated time and time again, a law is just a piece of paper to the immoral unless you consistently police and enforce the law. As long as the immoral exist the moral will be deprived. Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection. All cases must be financed by the legal system for it is impossible to meet those terms any other way. Those people found guilty of the charges must be made to compensate their victims to their status before they were deprived with due regard for their inconvenience. Secondly they must contribute significantly and proportionately depending on their financial ability to a POT which is to be held in trust for the sole purpose of reducing the tax payer’s contributions to support the legal system. The purpose of the Constitution is to deter crime and a $5000 fine may be pocket change to one and a year’s savings to another. I reiterate that punishment must be equal in terms of deterrence with the goal to rid society of the necessity to finance a punitive legal system. Remove immoral inclination and remove the necessity. I recommend the POT accumulate for a period of perhaps 10 years in the hands of a competent investment authority such as OMERS with absolutely no way the government can put their greasy hands on it. This unit will be completely independent of the government although they must have full cooperation of the government for the purpose of reimbursing the tax payers who put their money up front.

18

Within the ten year period the government will have washed their hands and actually represent the people as intended.. So as not to deliver them into temptation they will absolutely not be allowed to put their clean hands on it. Meanwhile, there is only one way for the legal system to work to meet the terms of the Constitution Act and that is for the staff employed into the legal system to work for the purpose they were employed. Where do these words of wisdom come from? WHO KNEW? To remove the ambiguity, the purpose is to remove immoral inclination from society. We all know God’s way, but only the moral obey. It is ludicrous that they must pay for those who will not understand. They must be made to understand. That means a piece of paper that demands it and an enforcement system that supports the demand. Begin with the parents who have the best opportunity to make their children understand. They have the best opportunity to know where their children are and what they are doing. If they are held responsible and they certainly are responsible then they will do a better job and they will also see the need to get help at an early stage before they are irreversible. We must look at the way of God more closely, obviously since his way is the foundation of the Canadian Society. Those who would teach otherwise are a detriment to the cause and although we are guaranteed freedom of speech, religion and conscience we are not free to spread hatred or undermine the foundation of a moral society. God’s ways are understanding and easily understood by the moral but there are some lines that must not be crossed and of course freedom of immorality can not be tolerated. Promoting such immorality by any sect or group could be considered treason in a moral democratic society. God gave us brains capable of sending spaceships to the moon but we will never know the extent to which they are capable but our children’s children will know

19

ours as they are brought up to speed and in turn their children’s children and so on as they advance. We have wasted a humongous amount of time in lateral progression hindered by government and other influencing forces. With that said we know that God gave us brains capable of most anything, they need only be used. He gave us minds capable of experiencing a prodigious number of senses and experiences such as temptation (desire) and conscience in conjunction with the ability to separate right from wrong. DO ONTO OTHERS AS YOU WOULD HAVE THEM DO ONTO YOU is probably the best way to determine the difference. Honesty is a prerequisite for the application of these words for the moral Constitution of Canada. CONSCIENCE Minds capable of reason must concede that God’s wisdom is far superior to ours and yet we have identical brains as we were created in his image. Well that is something to think about but we must concede that He gave us conscience for good reason as He gave us everything for good reason. He did all the work We only need to use them for good reason. Like a radio, the majority of us only need to know how to turn it on and tune in. Conscience is probably the most important failsafe mechanism implanted to guide us in His ways. Unfortunately there are some religious sects who have strived so hard to translate the riddles of Jesus to present day verbatim that they missed the message. Of course I am no scholar on the subject but even they are undecided on the meaning of the Lord’s Prayer. Jesus told the people what they should say to the Lord but I have seen at least two different versions I downloaded from a web site. I have no doubt he said it in many different ways but they were all intended to mean the same thing.

20

Sometimes we don’t see the forest for the trees and sometimes we are lost in the woods. People pray asking God for their daily bread but know enough not to wait for Him to serve dinner. They ask God to not lead them into temptation and deliver them from evil and then confess their sins to be absolved by their religious leaders. The astute will concur this akin to a fart against the wind and a foul blow against mankind. It is quite obvious that Jesus meant for the people to hear themselves say the Lord’s Prayer. For over 2000 years they have been saying the words of Jesus but they don’t hear what they say. What are the chances of them hearing me asking them to pay attention the next time they pray? How did the religious leaders gain the power to forgive? It seems to me there was a power struggle between the Leaders and the Church in ancient times and eventually they decided to share the spoils agreeing to stay out of each other’s hair. Now they both want to play God. It’s obvious that God has no intention of intervening or He would have just given us all moral minds programmed to think like Him.. It is often said that God works in strange and mysterious ways and it is true to those who will not think. GOD wants you to hear yourself say” lead us not into temptation” and remember not to be lead into temptation. He wants you to know about evil and to know that it is wrong. He wants you to be forgiven of your sins but firstly He wants you to know that sin is not the way to go. The whole ideology is the same as the Constitution. They both give you something to think about. Do it before you act.

It’s not complicated.

21

Jesus has done his job well, the word has spread world wide. Now think for GOD’s Sake. God teaches us forgiveness but only the victim can do justice to the ideology. Remorse by words is as worthless as a Constitution not enforced. When the immoral compensate the victim and pay into the POT to repay the taxpayer for their sins we may presume they have shown some remorse and know that justice has been served. If one would beg forgiveness and accept the terms of the victim to show remorse, before being caught we would know honest remorse and could forgo the contribution to the POT Common sense states that a victim can be as immoral as the perpetrator and the perpetrator must be allowed to seek justice when victims become greedy. Some one or both must then pay into the POT JUSTICE IS IMPOSSIBLE TO ACHIEVE IF YOU DO NOT SEEK IT. Almost like Lemmings Like Lemmings we follow the Leaders with one exception. Human Leaders do not jump off a cliff. Humans surely have bigger brains capable of more intelligence than a Lemming and they prove it. They don’t need their leaders to show them the way. They can take instructions, snap their heals together, shout “Yes Sir” and jump. 8. Everyone has the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure. When evidence points to someone as possibly being guilty of a crime a sane person would consider it their moral and constitutional duty to society and should be pleased to cooperate to prove their innocence. 12. Everyone has the right not to be subjected to any cruel and unusual treatment or punishment. Every victim is subjected to cruel and unusual punishment. They must be given priority when considering this. 24(2) Where, in proceedings under subsection (1), a court concludes that evidence was obtained in a manner that infringed or denied any rights or freedoms guaranteed by this Charter, the evidence shall be excluded if it is established that, having regard to

22

all the circumstances, the admission of it in the proceedings would bring the administration of justice into disrepute. Given the evidence you must consider if the perpetrator’s rights are superior to that of the victim and the sanctity of the guarantee of the Charter . Sanity must prevail and you must consider that if the person had not first committed the crime the investigation would not have been necessary and of course the evidence would not be available to be had. If someone were to shoot me you can not let the perp go because he wasn’t read his Rights. He relinquished his rights when he ignored my right not to be shot. You must stay focused on the crime on hand. If the enforcement people, who are specialists in investigation have good reason to suspect someone we must not interfere with their duty to protect society. You must remember the concept is to rid society of immoral persuasion. Every person in Canada must be responsible to the sanctity of the society demanded by the Charter. If you uncover evidence of another crime during the course of investigation you must remember first that they have broken the law and their normal guaranteed rights have been voided. The administration of justice is obviously into disrepute

Guarantee of Rights and Freedoms 1. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society. The victim has already suffered due to the government’s failure to put a system in place to convince the perp not to do the crime and it serves no one if the perp doesn’t serve the time. Weird sense of justice to punish the victim further for the enforcement peoples mistake. Due punishment to those due punishment. I reiterate that the philosophy behind the Constitution is a mind thing where the people must know they will suffer due punishment if they don’t comply.

23

Do the job right and no one will need to be punished and no one will be victims The mind thing will not work if the enforcement people are prevented from doing the job they were deemed a necessity to do. It’s obvious you can’t go forward in neutral. Such laws purported to benefit a moral society, which only serve to protect and benefit the immoral are ludicrous. Having said that and common sense confirms it we must look at the people who write them and those who benefit from “How it is” Of course the enforcers must be kept in check as well as everyone. We must all comprehend and obey the ways of God and the Constitution IT IS THE LAW Whereas Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law:

BULLSHIT BAFFLES BRAINS UNTIL YOU USE THEM
PREDICTABLE

IS

PREVENTABLE

Seems I have heard that before. What does it mean? Is it something to pray about? It is a fact The sky is blue and humans err; More facts. Why in particular are we drawn to this fact? Are we to think about it? Okay I have.

HOW ABOUT YOU?
Preliminary Investigation Instructions (1) Read the 73 page letter to the Toronto Sun It is imperative that you know that my former tenant, Don Wilson committed the offense of filing a false and misleading information with the ORHT, File Number TNL-67103 under the Tenant Protection Act, 1997

24

It is equally important that you know that my former tenant, Don Wilson committed the act of Fraud right there at the hearing in a public building financed by the people to provide justice for the people. Once you have inspected the documents you will know this to be true beyond any doubt. This is the catalyst to the whole investigation. When you read the correspondence between me and various government departments you will understand my queries to find out why Don Wilson has not been charged with these offenses. You will not understand the various department’s responses to my concerns. I should clarify that statement by saying that I understand and so will you but the fact is they did not address my concerns. That is the purpose of this investigation. The conclusion is immediately apparent but I am requesting you fill in the details. During your inquiries you will hear inane rhetoric avoiding the important issues by attempting to divert attention to my personal matter with my tenant and therefore being a civil matter. I have clearly stated that my concerns started as a personal matter but evolved into a matter regarding the government vs the people. The government vs the people matters are the concerns I am requesting you to address. The government departments are unanimous in their responses implicating them all. (2) (a) Start with the ORHT and find out why they did not file charges. (b) Find out why they removed part of the recording of the first day of the hearing June 30 2005 regarding my comment “There oughta be a law and the judicator stating “ There is” and went on for a minute or two articulating this after she realized the tenant had filed a false and misleading information (his dispute) and had committed Fraud regarding two agreements which I had submitted. (c) Find out why the second day of the hearing July 28 2005 was not recorded. (3) (a) Find out if the other cases heard by her, Nancy Fahlgren, judicator on July 28 2005 were recorded. (b) If they were recorded why wasn’t mine? (4) (a) Read Dave Grech’s (coordinator of Investigations and Enforcement

25

Unit, Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing) response to my inquiry dated September 6 2005. (b) Find out why he responded in this manner considering the evidence I provided proves beyond a doubt that Don Wilson is guilty of the charges contrary to his statement that there is not enough evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt (c) Find out why he stated it would be just the tenants word against mine when I had provided all the pertinent evidence to prove beyond any doubt and the tenant provided no evidence at all to back his lies. (d) Find out what he means by his statement” although you claim there was never an agreement for you to accept shares in the tenants company there is no documentary evidence to support your claim, nor are we able to confirm that a verbal agreement did not exist.” WHAT THE HELL IS THAT ALL ABOUT?
They were unable to confirm that a verbal agreement did not exist. They are incapable to confirm anything. The tenant provided a dispute stating certain things to be true and he reiterated these at the hearing stating that he could provide documents to prove his statements. He did not provide one piece of evidence to support his claims stated the first day June 30 2005 and he had a month to bring such evidence to the second day of the hearing July 28 2005 but he did not because he could not. There simply is no evidence to back fabrications I provided evidence to prove every statement he made on the dispute to be lies. How can I possibly prove that something does not exist if there is no evidence to suggest that it does? I have good reason to believe that God exists but I am unable to confirm that. The onus is not on me to back his lies and they have no obligation to do so. I have proven they are lies. If I were to state that I had some kind of an agreement with Dave that allowed me to live in his house for 5 years and use his car, bank accounts and wife, would he be able to provide documentary evidence to prove his claim that such an agreement does not exist and would he be able to confirm that a verbal agreement did not exist and when could I move in? (e) Determine if he is just incompetent or involved with a conspiracy. (f) Ask Dave if he consulted with anyone before he wrote his response. (g) Did he discuss the matter with the Minister, Hon. John Gerretsen? (h) Did he discuss the matter with Michael Bryant? (i) Does he have any knowledge that the Minister discussed the matter with Michael Bryant?

(5) (a) Read the response from the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, Hon. John Gerretsen dated September 26 2006. (b) Find out why he refused to investigate the Investigator, Dave Grech? (c) Find out if Dave Grech consulted him before he wrote his September 6 2005 response to me. 26

(d) Find out when he first became aware of my concerns (e) Find out if he discussed the matter with Michael Bryant? (f) Find out when he first discussed the matter with Michael Bryant? (g) Given the evidence, why would he trust Dave Grech? Interview the following people finding out all they know about my concerns and how, when and where they became aware etc. (6) (7) (8) (9) Michael Bryant, Attorney General, MPP etal Tim Arkell, Ombudsman Premier Dalton McGuinty Julia Munro, my MPP It is imperative that you interview all of the above simultaneously so as to eliminate the opportunity for them to communicate. Of course you will record the date and time you do your interviews. For the record, all that I have written regarding this matter are concerns which must be dealt with and where you are not coherent to my concerns all you need do is write me for further clarification. These questions are obvious to the evidence at hand and are the minimum that would be expected in a competent investigation . During the investigation more questions will become obvious and they must be asked. It is presumptuous of me to believe you will do as I request because I did so but I reiterate that in general this is a diligent approach to the investigation and the least that I would expect. I have provided you a can of worms and upon opening you will find many more cans of worms. I expect you to detail every worm that you find and follow up on every detail until there is not another worm to find. When I come looking for answers I do not expect to find that you have all gone fishing unless of course it is in the line of duty. That’s supposed to be a joke. Of course you can’t go fishing in the line of duty but the evidence warrants an investigation. I expect you to file the appropriate charges against the ORHT, Dave Grech, Investigations and Enforcement Unit of the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing, the Minister, Hon. John Gerretsen as detailed in the attached documents.

27

I also expect you to lay all charges that evolve during your investigation. When you read the letter I faxed to Attorney General, Michael Bryant dated October 16 2006 you will see information I down loaded from the Attorney General web site. When you have finished reading this you will know that he wears many hats and the one he wears regarding the interests of the people is pulled down over his eyes and ears. I expect him to be charged with conflict of interest along with whom ever amalgamated, his responsibility to the people and their Constitutional interests, with his other hats. From my preliminary investigation I see that he may advise the police, but ultimately the police make the decisions as to whether or not charges will be laid. Once the charge is laid the decision as to whether the prosecution should proceed is for the attorney General What the hell is that all about? The Attorney General does not, however, direct or cause charges to be laid. While the Attorney General and the Attorney General's agents may provide legal advice to the police, the ultimate decision whether or not to lay charges is for the police. Once the charge is laid the decision as to whether the prosecution should proceed, and in what manner, is for the Attorney General and the Crown Attorney. If the police were to ask the Attorney General for advice as to whether or not to charge him with conflict of interest or whatever, there is a very good possibility that he would say no. Right? How can he conduct litigation in cases directly affecting the government, or its agencies and also litigate cases where there is a clear matter of public interest or public rights at stake when the case is one versus the other. He can’t and that is why the public interests have been not only neglected but left unprotected as I have stated in my writings. This is a very serious matter which demands a Public Inquiry

CONSTITUTION ACT, 1982
28

PART 1, CANADIAN CHARTER OF RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS
Whereas Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law:
Guarantee of Rights and Freedoms

1. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society. 7. Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice. 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 evidence within my papers proves government corruption. Two Tiered System
The government does not have a modus operandi in place capable of backing the guarantees set out in the Charter and therefore is not constitutional. The government serves the wealthy. The people serve the wealthy The people serve the government That’s how it is By declining to file the charges (see page 7) against Don Wilson my former tenant you have allowed him to continue in his immoral way and have sent the message that it’s okay according to law. This message causes crime to spread. Don Wilson told me I didn’t have a clue how the system worked and he was obviously right. He knew he could lie like hell at the OHRT hearing with nothing to lose and everything to gain.

29

You people aren’t going to believe this but the whole purpose of the legal system is to deter crime from spreading I have covered all this in the BLACK BOOK but I will briefly reiterate a few issues. It is the legal systems responsibility to protect us all equally.
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 York Regional Police fraud detectives told me this is my problem being a matter of a civil suit and explained to me that I should get a lawyer to pursue this matter against Don Wilson but the lawyer would be negligent if he didn’t inform me that it is unlikely that I would get my money back for many reasons and I would likely just be wasting more money. This is quite obvious to me as it is to anyone who has come looking for the system to do something about it. The police state that since the company is a corporation his crime falls under the Business Corporations Act and is a civil matter. The criminal act was done in the building of the ORHT right in front of the judicator and although they are an independent body at arms length so to speak they operate under the authority of the Tenant Protection Act, 1997 and the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing is responsible to ensure compliance with the Act. There is no doubt that they, as well as the Investigations and Enforcement Unit of the Ministry have obstructed and interfered with my right as a Landlord to seek justice under the Tenant Protection Act but there are also Constitutional matters involved at the very least in matters of interest as I have written. But even more so is the fact that when Don Wilson disobeyed the order to vacate my premises on a certain date he actually phoned to ask if he could stay another few days and I abruptly told him I wanted him out by midnight as per the order. He had a good laugh and said I didn’t have a clue how the system worked. I do now and I know it doesn’t work. When I went to the sheriff’s office as per the instructions on the order I was told to cough up $330 and they will take care of it. Don Wilson commits another crime and I am asked to pay. We innocent people don’t stand a chance and yet we are led to believe that we are protected under the Charter. We have no reason to believe otherwise until we need their help. The crooks know how these laws work and the laws actually serve the crooks rather than the people and in so doing keep those in the legal system busy.

30

We pay taxes for the benefit of society and crooks are not a necessity. The system acts in such a way as to create the necessity rather than deal with the matter in a manner so as to eliminate the necessity. Don Wilson committed Fraud regarding these two agreements in a building funded by the people for the purpose of providing justice for the people and such crimes can not be condoned by staff paid for by the people. Our Charter guarantee depends on due punishment for crimes committed. I have explained this in detail in the BLACK BOOK. It is a mind thing and as I have stated laws aren’t worth the paper they are written on if they are not enforced. The foundation of the Constitution is dependent on the rule of law and the fear of God. The moral people are those who understand God’s ways and they do have conscience. Some churches even over ride the purpose of conscience by taking confessions and absolving people of their sins. Is this a profit making scheme? Why don’t the churches just tell the people in simple terms to listen to what they say when they are doing the Lord’s Prayer. They have only been saying it for over 2000 years and yet so many do not get their daily bread. It is up to the people to make it on Earth as it is in Heaven but they don’t get it so let us pray. They have the vote and they know politicians lie and do not vie to make Heaven on Earth, so they pray. They have enough sense to not wait for God to serve them dinner but they wait for Him to serve them Heaven. Even the scholars don’t know for sure what the true meaning of the Prayer is but one thing for sure is that it is not to be taken verbatim as well as the words of Jesus who spoke in riddles. He told stories which required people to think and they use their brains to develop the best toys to blow each other up with. History shows the leaders have always led us to war for their own personal gain and as I have written the leaders in Canada and other democracies have found another way to keep us in line for their use without obvious bloodshed other than those who are left wondering where their next meal is coming from. For example they leave people in despair by allowing such low minimum wage. They take a good portion of what we earn for their whims leaving us struggling to pay for food, shelter, clothing and transportation to keep us fit so we may go to work for them and their wealthy friends who influence their decisions. The people making the least usually work the hardest and see no future. Often these hard working people live in lesser dwellings than those who choose a life on welfare. I know my ex wife lied to me that she loved to work, when I had told her if I ever got married I would expect my wife to work if we wanted to live a reasonably comfortable life. I caught on when she quit work a couple of months after marriage and told me that it is my job to work and she should stay home.

31

We lasted four years before she ended up in a welfare unit which was better than the basement apartments I could afford even though I didn’t have too bad of a job. Her welfare agent advised her not to go to work because she would be worse off. Nobody gives a damn about the working people other than to make sure they have enough to get to work to earn the tax money for the government. The little money they have left over after providing their necessities doesn’t go far when the products they buy are so inflated because of all the taxes that are included in the price to get the product to market. Then if that is not enough they charge another 15% in taxes when you spend your money. Attitude is the major problem with government. They are elected by the people for the people and they are the first to admit that but the evidence has always shown differently. It is everywhere. We can pray from now to doomsday, which is closing in rather fast now or we can do something. My life is closing in on the end one way or another but don’t any of you have children that you care about? I am not asking you people to do anything but obey the law. The Constitution Act, the supreme law of Canada. The YRP officers are frustrated when they attempt to bring charges before the courts like the ones I requested them to bring against my former tenant. Ask your officer’s if they have been frustrated? The YRP officers are informed that the laws have nothing to do with common sense. Are your officers told the same? Ask yourselves why you don’t take this opportunity to do the right thing instead of backing up the status quo with inane arguments. That brings to mind an incident that happened last summer. I was towing a 4x8 home made trailer which I had just loaded a few railroad ties which extended a couple of inches past the end of the trailer so I had not put the back up. I had tried to buy a safety chain at the lumber store to replace the one I had broken the day before but they didn’t have one. As luck would have it I had just driven up the road and an officer noticed the missing chain and pulled me over. Quite observant I thought. As he was writing out the ticket he mentioned that I should have the back up on the trailer. I had no qualms about the missing chain, I knew I was bad and deserved the fine but I questioned why the back needed to be up because the ties would not go any where. I just wanted to learn something, but he went on to say that I should at least have a tarp over them. I said why, so you can’t see them and he replied “I could be t-boned and they could fly and injure someone? I asked how the tarp would help but I never got the answer.

32

There could very well be a good reason but unfortunately I am left with the impression he gave me. You left me with the same kind of impression. The only answer I got from you that I understood was that’s just “How it is” You only confirmed that which I already knew. That of course is what I am writing about. “How it is”

It doesn’t have to be.
Sometimes you just have to stand back a little to get a better view. Perhaps ask the opinion of someone not so entangled with the law. Don’t be too frustrated when you don’t get the answer you were looking for. ************************************************************** ***
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.

Penalties favor the wealthy. If two people commit the same offense and the penalty is a $5,000 fine it could be pocket change to one and to another a year’s savings. It’s not a deterrence to the wealthy. This is a license for the wealthy to rob the people blind. The ordinary person can not afford the best lawyers to fight them nor should they have to. We have paid taxes and have been guaranteed equal protection and benefit.

33

34

35

36

37

If it were true that he had prepaid rent until February 2009 that would be 54 months. February 1 2004 to February 2009 =60 months- 6 months free= 54 months at $800 a month = $43,200 he was trying to beat me for

38

39

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful