Lawyer File #12
Content
Frank Gallagher
34 Riverglen Drive Keswick, On L4P 2P8
CANADA
CONSTITUTION ACT, 1982 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:
MORAL COMMON SENSE ENFORCEMENT
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 the under the law and the the right to and 15. (1) Every individual is equal before and under andlaw and has the right to hasequal protectionthe equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin,discriminationsex, age or mental or physical disability. origin, colour, particular, without colour, religion, based on race, national or ethnic religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.
THE LAW SEEMS RELATIVELY SIMPLE ON PAPER
April 1 2007 Phil Moreau of York Regional Police Standards called yesterday around 3:30 PM to try to bring me onside with insanity. Bruce Herridge had passed on the Lawyer Files and had told Phil to tell me to stop sending all this paper to them and he mentioned there is over 100 pages this time. The first thing I said to him is there wasn’t much point in talking, just write me but the first thing you know we were talking and then I was raising my voice as if I could penetrate deaf ears. Sometimes I am so stupid. He said he had been reading my papers but he was still resistant to facts. He is a good example of why we will never have a peaceful society until we all are of one common belief in matters of THE LAW where truth, facts and integrity trumps beliefs. Hardly much point in having a system where the eventuality is to swear on a bible to tell the truth, nothing but the truth so help me God if the whole system is staffed by people who do not comprehend the concept. Reality is exactly what it is and all evidence proves it regardless of ignorance and case in point is that once the world was believed to be flat and with no evidence to prove otherwise the people remained ignorant. Poor Chris must have had many frustrating days explaing his theory but some how he managed and the world became round. (Actually a sphere and we all know it) to every ones benefit.
1
[email protected] m
From:
Lawyer Files #s 1- 11
Lawyer File # 12
April 1 2007
It’s actually a mind thing you know and if the people believed that the world was flat and adamantly stood by their beliefs, which may have been considered common sense for the times, really wasn’t common sense at all. The truth of the matter is the people had never proven it was flat, and how could they for if they set out to IIt’s actually a mind thing you know and if the the truth of two very important facts of prove their beliefs to be true they would have discovered people believed the world was flat and reality. adamantly stood by their beliefs which would have been considered common sense for the times When you seek the truth you will find it and when you faithfully trust a belief over fact and truth you will forever live devoid of the realities which could have been and lived those which needn’t have been. If only I knew then, what I know now. How long ago did the specialist in the environment inform the incompetent powers that be who have their minds on ulterior purpose while claiming they were looking after us? How long will you people continue to trust you are competent to look after us and how long will you say but this is how it has always been without taking the opportunity to change it. When will you understand that the world was always a sphere even when the wisest of all the powers that be believed it was flat? For those who just read in verbatim I suggest you begin trying to think in the spirit. Reality is always exactly what it is impervious to perception and yet perceptions play such a vital role in reality which could very well be the demise of reality itself. It’s all about understanding reality if one is to deal with it and the fact is we are all raised by our parents or guardians with their beliefs passed on to us and perhaps if we were all raised by the same parents we would live in harmony but I doubt it, for surely even though we would all be brother and sister some of us would think and then all hell would break loose. If the parents had told the truth that they didn’t know if the world is flat because nobody has been to the edge they would have grown up with that understanding and understand the significant difference between knowing and believing and the value fact has on ones perception. It was actually a very small world relative to the reality of the real world and if not for persistent thinkers capable of sound reasoning, able to say what if the world was round, they would still fear and be unprepared for what lay on the horizon. So many benefits to the people of the times came to the people of the east with no thought to the obstruction of progress their ignorance played on the person who was endeavoring to help them. But then what if they had remained ignorant about the world and still lived over in the east. Seems to me the world over here in the west would have been much better off without the white man for they seem to be as ignorant as hell when it comes to morality and fairness for surly they understand the concept and the important role it plays, they just don’t see what it has got to do with them personally. It is the responsibility of those who are informed, to inform the others for sound and sane reason so as to be able to communicate with each other on fair and common ground and if there was imminent danger such as a bridge out ahead it is their sane and moral duty to take appropriate action. Lies are obstructive and lethal. We all know the atrocities beliefs have on humanity when a powerful group believes they are of a superior race like Hitler’s purported philosophy and those who believed in slavery. Who knows for sure that was his belief or just his way of uniting the weak minds for his own ulterior purpose of ruling the world. It’s good he met his WATERLOO 2
The ignorant who just do not know any better, for obvious reason, trust they are being informed of the truth and become confident, especially if they get the information from the horse’s mouth. Unfortunately as it goes with ignorance, they don’t realize when it comes from the horse’s ass. In reality we know the detrimental affect lies have upon reality and we know the difference between trust and naivety or I should say there is no reason why we shouldn’t, for after all as kids we are taught to beware of strangers, so we must surely know that trust is earned and gained through familiarity. The power authorities have and how they affect people’s minds is astronomical and they must comprehend that and use the powers entrusted in them with due respect with no refuge in pleading ignorance. Hell, a fellow who worked with me once asked me to come and see his new car and I asked what color it was when we were walking to it. “White” he said, and I began to look for it and didn’t see it at first even when he approached a car and opened the door. It was grey and when I mentioned it to the fellow he said it is not and proved it by showing me the ownership which definitely said it was white. I mentioned that I used to be a surveyor and well experienced in putting evidence together and analyzing to sound conclusion and stood firm with my belief and attentively dealt with the owner so he may carry on life dealing with reality as it is. I am also quite familiar with laws which have just one wrong word in them, when taken verbatim and used in application without consistency of the spirit intended we are left with rather drastic conclusion. When such occurrences occur and you are dealing with reasonable people, competent in the pertinent subject matter it is relatively simple to explain and no harm done. Quite often such occurrences do not arise in your average everyday routine jobs which the less experience do and of course they will never get the experience until they are competent enough to deal with them. That’s the thing about routine, everybody passes on what they have done and what they know to the ignorant which they adapt as gospel and pass it on generation to generation. In my case they would call themselves surveyors, and as reality goes very seldom does anyone pass with 100% and they are not tested on every possible thing that could be tested but it is imperative they comprehend and are cognizant to reason for it is not about remembering what you did the last time you had a job similar for the evidence available is always different. You must know precisely what it is you are trying to achieve and know how to go about it in a sound manner which requires sensible thinking and the more consistent you are to that endeavor, which may be difficult at first running through all the relevant facts you must never lose track of that which you set out to do in the first place. One incapable of competent thinking in surveying could get themselves into lots of trouble and expenses if they were to mark out a property and put a high rise building in the wrong place and likewise if they don’t go through all the architectural and structural drawings before commencing a building for they build from all directions and it is a wee bit too late when they don’t meet as intended by the plans. I have never seen such plans correct and often was the case to wait until the problems arose in the field and then deal with them in the best way they could at that point at considerable cost. Everybody blames each other and lots of money is lost. 3
Before I came along and began doing apartments for the private company I was with they would send a man out for the day and be asked to mark out a couple of grid lines because they wanted to get started digging immediately. The fellow would mark them out and head to another job the next day. In construction things are always rush to get started and the surveyor is necessary to the task but time is sparse and everyone needs you. at once every day and some days you may be at 4 different sites. In this business if you make a mistake they raise a monument to it, a costly one which you will not find out 2 or 3 months later after the fact. You simply must be coherent to these realities and deal with them as organized as you can, never losing sight of reality. For example if I was called in a rush and I have other places to be I would communicate with the super and find out perhaps he has just one shovel waiting to excavate so I may just roughly place a couple of stakes to get him started knowing that I would be back the next day to set it out accurately and that can not be done until I go over all the drawings. Often I would spend most of the night getting just a couple of hours sleep but when I laid out the building the next day I was confident I could sleep without worry about the consequences if I had not taken the responsibility to apply what I knew to be fact. All I ever gained from my efforts was experience and knowledge which helped everyone else and I never claimed overtime because I am crazy I am told but I had great satisfaction in applying my self to the best of my ability and by doing so my abilities increased daily. It just works that way. I saved all the workers countless hours of sitting around waiting for the surveyor and saved many countless law suits and my boss always got return work and I was always requested and it works like that with everyone happy, including me who was not financially rewarded and sometimes when having a few moments to spare I gave the matter some thought. I am not sorry I took you through all this and I imagine you just skipped through it looking for something you can sink your teeth into and accomplish nothing as you have proven. Not once in my line of duty have I considered this or that not my responsibility for if I am aware something may happen if I do not deal with it, it is an unpleasant reality when it happens. Fact is when problems arise on buildings, the surveyor is the person who comes in and makes judgment as to who is at fault and this responsibility is not taken lightly. When all is said and done and the people moved in I know I did my best in my part to see they could rest comfortable and safe in this here country of ours, Canada, founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law. Being experienced in construction I can state unequivocally that the apartment begins with a solid foundation and everyone on site must be organized, from the ground up, recognize things that are not right even though it is not their particular responsibility for they know their objective is to get the building up safely at a cost people can afford to pay and live happily and safely ever after until their certain death of natural causes. Of course money is the driving force but ultimately they are all accountable to the people. 4
That is what it is all about. People. Without them, who will do the work? Who will buy the products? Who will buy the buildings you work in? Who would you be serving? When you think about it there would be no reality to deal with and given the choice I would have preferred it that way but since that is not the case it is only sane to deal with it. You people must be coherent to your moral responsibilities considering that is what you are paid to do, enforcing morality and if you don’t understand morality I do not see how you can be trusted to do so. We are talking about peoples lives here and each and every one of you know what that means relative to yourselves so you must treat each person and their safety as if it were your own. You must watch the money as if it were your own and don’t confuse that to mean the way you have come to know and that means watching each other. It is a completely new concept to you people and that is sad for you have all been breaking THE LAW. You can hardly deal with the spirit of THE LAW with the spirit you have demonstrated and I remind you that when you were a kid you couldn’t escape punishment from your parents by saying, “But mom, they all did it too” You people are so far removed from reality, bitching and complaining about this pain in your ass while you consistently provided me the evidence of your incompetence without me asking you to profess the system you have in place is incapable of providing and backing the peoples Constitutional rights. You know it. We people in Canada are dwelling under one roof, the Constitution in which has no solid foundation and from experience I can say the whole thing will assuredly collapse and take a fall which none of all the Kings can put Humpty Dumpty together again without immediate due diligence to reality. You may be happy to know that this is the last letter you will receive from me and whoever may be coherent to reality, I must state I have provided every opportunity to give it thought worthy of that expected and required of you. Those who use words such as threshold and proof beyond a reasonable doubt will soon be able to make such decisions competently but perhaps just a wee bit too late. By your incompetence and your personal perceptions which have led you astray you will face the realities which you have so ignorantly bestowed upon the people of Canada. I suggest you review the evidence now with concern for your own asses, I have a feeling some of you may be able to discern that reality. Frank Gallagher PS Have a look at the Roles and responsibilities of the Attorney General with a whole lot more attention than you have given my writings and see what you might come up with. (Pages 6-10) You need not go back and look at all my writings from day one because you have all that you need in my Dozen Lawyer Files you are now all in possession of. Those who do not have the revised March 30 2007 complete set may E-mail me and I will gladly send you the missing files in fact be pleased to see an interest Those who have tried to make sense of my writings will have the best opportunity to view them realistically and deal with them appropriately. It is time you became aware of other’s perceptions because we have lived the consequences of your’s. 5
Roles and Responsibilities of the Attorney General
The Attorney General has a unique role to play as a Minister. One part of the Attorney General's role is that of a Cabinet Minister. In this capacity the Minister is responsible for representing the interests and perspectives of the Ministry at Cabinet, while simultaneously representing the interests and perspectives of Cabinet and consequently the Government to the Ministry and the Ministry's communities of interest. The Attorney General is the chief law officer of the Executive Council. The responsibilities stemming from this role are unlike those of any other Cabinet member. The role has been referred to as "judicial-like" and as the "guardian of the public interest". Much has been written on the subject of ministerial responsibilities and the unique role of the Attorney General. There are various components of the Attorney General's role. The Attorney General has unique responsibilities to the Crown, the courts, the Legislature and the executive branch of government. While there are different emphases and nuances attached to these there is a general theme throughout all the various aspects of the Attorney General's responsibilities that the office has a constitutional and traditional responsibility beyond that of a political minister. The statutory responsibilities of the office are found in section 5 of the Ministry of the Attorney General Act. Section 5 states: The Attorney General, (a) is the Law Officer of the Executive Council; (b) shall see that the administration of public affairs is in accordance with the law; (c) shall superintend all matters connected with the administration of justice in Ontario; (d) shall perform the duties and have the powers that belong to the Attorney General and Solicitor General of England by law and usage, so far as those powers and duties are applicable to Ontario, and also shall perform the duties and powers that, until the Constitution Act, 1867 came into effect, belonged to the offices of the Attorney General and Solicitor General in the provinces of Canada and Upper Canada and which, under the provisions of that Act, are within the scope of the powers of the Legislature; (e) shall advise the Government upon all matters of law connected with legislative enactments and upon all matters of law referred to him or her by the Government; (f) shall advise the Government upon all matters of a legislative nature and superintend all Government measures of a legislative nature; (g) shall advise the heads of ministries and agencies of Government upon all matters of law connected with such ministries and agency; (h) shall conduct and regulate all litigation for and against the Crown or any ministry or agency of government in respect of any subject within the authority or jurisdiction of the Legislature;
6
(i) shall superintend all matters connected with judicial offices; (j) shall perform such other functions as are assigned to him or her by the Legislature or by the Lieutenant Governor in Council. " What follows is an overview of the various components of the Attorney General's roles and responsibilities, primarily as outlined in the Act.
Chief Law Officer of the Executive Council (s. 5(a))
The role of chief law officer might be referred to as the Attorney General's overall responsibility as the independent legal advisor to the Cabinet - and some have even suggested that the role possibly extends to the Legislature as well. The importance of the independence of the role is fundamental to the position and well established in common law, statutes and tradition. As chief law officer, the Attorney General has a special responsibility to be the guardian of that most elusive concept - the rule of law. The rule of law is a well established legal principle, but hard to easily define. It is the rule of law that protects individuals, and society as a whole, from arbitrary measures and safeguards personal liberties. The Attorney General has a special role to play in advising Cabinet to ensure the rule of law is maintained and that Cabinet actions are legally and constitutionally valid. In providing such advice it is important to keep in mind the distinction between the Attorney General's policy advice and preference and the legal advice being presented to Cabinet. The Attorney General's legal advice or constitutional advice should not be lightly disregarded. The Attorney General's policy advice has the same weight as that of other ministers.
Criminal prosecutions (s.5(d))
One of the most publicly scrutinized aspects of the Attorney General's role is the responsibility for criminal prosecutions encompassed in section 5 (d) and s. 92 of the Constitution Act, 1867. Section 92 gives the provinces authority to legislate in matters related to the administration of criminal justice and thereby gives the provincial Attorney General authority to prosecute offences under the Criminal Code. 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. It is now an accepted and important constitutional principle that the Attorney General must carry out the Minister's criminal prosecution responsibilities independent of Cabinet and of any partisan political pressures. The Attorney General's responsibility for individual criminal prosecutions must be undertaken - and seen to be undertaken - on strictly objective and legal criteria, free of any political considerations. Whether to initiate or stay a criminal proceeding is not an issue of government policy. This 7
responsibility has been characterized as a matter of the Attorney General acting as the Queen's Attorney - not as a Minister of the government of the day. This is not to suggest that decisions regarding criminal prosecutions are made in a complete vacuum. A wide range of policy considerations may be weighed in executing this responsibility, and the Attorney General may choose to consult the Cabinet on some of these considerations. However any decisions relating to the conduct of individual prosecutions must be the Attorney General's alone and independent of the traditional Cabinet decision making process. In practice, in the vast majority of cases, these decisions are made by the Attorney General's agents, the Crown Attorneys. An important part of the Crown's - and thus the Attorney General's - responsibility in conducting criminal prosecutions is associated with the responsibility to represent the public interest - which includes not only the community as a whole and the victim, but also the accused. The Crown has a distinct responsibility to the court to present all the credible evidence available. The responsibility is to present the case fairly - not necessarily to convict. This is a fundamental precept of criminal law, even if it is not a particularly well-understood concept among the general public. One of the Attorney General's responsibilities in fostering public respect for the rule of law, is to assist the public in understanding the nature and limits of the prosecutorial function. Ultimately the Attorney General is accountable to the people of the province, through the Legislature, for decisions relating to criminal prosecutions. Such accountability can only occur, of course, once the prosecution is completed or when a final decision has been made not to prosecute. The sub judicae rule bars any comment on a matter before the courts that is likely to influence the matter. The sub judicae rule strictly prohibits the Attorney General from commenting on prosecutions that are before the courts. Given the stature of the Attorney General's position, any public comment coming from the office would be seen as an attempt to influence the case. Although the Attorney general can become involved in decision-making in relation to individual criminal cases, such a practice would leave the Minister vulnerable to accusations of political interference. Accordingly, it is traditional to leave the day-to-day decision-making in the hands of the Attorney General's agents, the Crown Attorneys, except in cases of exceptional importance where the public would expect the Attorney General to be briefed.
Legislative Responsibilities (s. 5(e) and (f))
The Attorney General has broad responsibilities associated with Government legislation. These responsibilities have been described as twofold. One is to oversee that all legislative enactments are in accordance with principles of natural justice and civil rights (see also s. 5(b) above). This is obviously an important and broad area of responsibility.
8
The second aspect of this responsibility is to advise on the constitutionality and legality of legislation. The Attorney General's legislative responsibilities are played out in a variety roles. The Office of Legislative Counsel reports to the Attorney General. Legislative Counsel plays a key role in ensuring the legal integrity of Government legislation. Although the Legislative Counsel's reporting relationship to the Attorney General does allow the Attorney General to provide guidance and set standards, individual pieces of legislation are drafted on instructions from client ministries and are not within the sole control of Legislative Counsel or the Attorney General. It should also be noted that Legislative Counsel also has a direct responsibility to the Legislature as the Office also drafts all private member's bills. The Attorney General has a further role to play as part of whatever Cabinet Committee is formed to review legislation and regulations. Here the Minister has an opportunity to comment on the technical issues related to legislation and regulations prior to Cabinet consideration. The Attorney General's role on legislative matters is as an adviser to the Cabinet. Although unlikely, Cabinet could, in theory, receive the Attorney General's legal opinion on legislation and choose to disregard it. The Attorney General's role is not independent of Cabinet decision making as in the area of criminal prosecutions. As was noted earlier, the Attorney General must make careful distinctions about the legal opinions and policy or political preferences being offered about legislation.
Civil Litigation (s.5(h) and (d))
In addition to the specific responsibilities to conduct civil litigation on behalf of the Government and its agencies (s. 5(h)), the Attorney General has broader litigation responsibilities flowing from the historical powers of the Attorney General referred to in s. 5(d) of the Act. These powers are based on the Crown's parens patriae (parental) authority. The Attorney General's authority, therefore, is not only to conduct litigation in cases directly affecting the government or its agencies but also to litigate cases where there is a clear matter of public interest or public rights at stake. This has been characterized as a constitutional responsibility to ensure that the public interest is well and independently represented. It may involve interventions in private litigation or Charter challenges to legislation, even if the arguments conclude that the legislation does contravene constitutionally protected rights.
Responsibility for Court Administration (s. 5(c))
A key component of the Attorney General's responsibilities to ensure the administration of justice in the province is the administration of the courts and as a result the responsibility for maintaining liaison with the judiciary.
9
Given the fundamental importance of the independence of the judiciary, the responsibility for courts administration is often a very sensitive and delicate issue. Great care and respect for the principles of judicial independence must be exercised in this area. As chief law officer, the Attorney General has a special responsibility to be the guardian of that most elusive concept - the rule of law. The rule of law is a well established legal principle, but hard to easily define. It is the rule of law that protects individuals, and society as a whole, from arbitrary measures and safeguards personal liberties.
10
September 5 2006 To: Bruce Herridge Deputy Chief of Police York Regional Police 17250 Yonge Street Newmarket,On L3Y 4W5 From: Frank Gallagher 34 Riverglen Drive Keswick,On [email protected] Dear Bruce I am faxing you a copy of a file I have faxed to Premier Dalton McGuinty, presently consisting of 177 pages. On pages 111 & 112 you will find a copy of your letter to me dated January 12 2006 where on page 112 you state you will reiterate my concerns when asked for comments. Have you been asked and did you reiterate my comments and if so to whom and when please? Meanwhile I am forwarding you more information for your records which further prove Don Wilson is a fraud. I ask you to read the 177 page letter to the Premier and request that you reconsider your decision to not investigate Don Wilson. Thank you Frank Gallagher PS Letter to Premier Dalton McGuinty to follow
11
From: frank gallagher [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: July 15, 2006 3:16 PM To: [email protected] Subject: BioSafe July 14, 2006 To: Mr. Rod Bradbury Eco Safe Natural Products Inc. [email protected] From: Frank Gallagher 34 Riverglen Drive Keswick,On L4P 2P8 [email protected] Re: BioSafe Natural Products Inc. Dear Mr. Bradbury I am a major share holder of Bio Safe Natural Products Inc. second only to Don Wilson, Pres. CEO , whatever. That means that I am the biggest loser in his scam. I am not the least bit happy with this man because I have evidence beyond any and all reasonable doubt that he has scammed me for approximately $85,000 and many of my friends for an additional $50,000. The man is going to face the music so to speak and that you can take to the bank. So, what has this got to do with you?
Larry Honsberger has informed me that he has been communicating with you on several occasions and he has requested a letter regarding your involvement with BIO SAFE and Don Wilson and you agreed to send it each time. He tells me that you have nothing to do with the company and in fact he has stiffed you for about $4,000. Please give me your full attention. The stage is set and Don is nearing his day in court. I have two documents signed by him and I, one witnessed by my mother and the other by a friend of mine which he denied having ever seen at the Ontario Housing Rental Tribunal which I presented when I had him evicted from my premises. The signature he used on these documents is not the signature that he has used on all the other documents I have been party to and his denial of having ever seen them puts him in a tough spot.
12
This along with the fact that he has not issued the proper documents and certificates for our shares along with his refusal to carry on business as required under the Business Corporation Act leaves him adrift without a paddle. These documents consisting of 4 pages each, contained information concerning the rent he owed me and corporation matters. I presented the witness at the Tribunal hearing who attested to the fact that Don Wilson did indeed sign one of the documents and of course mother will be there to attest to the other one when I am ready to put him where he belongs. That is fraud and it is documented by the Tribunal and I have a digital recording of the hearing. In addition to that he completely fabricated the dispute he filed with the Tribunal and reiterated the crap at the hearing. I easily proved this with the relative documents and he was ordered to pay me $10,000 for back rent and of course he was ordered to leave my premises. That was last August and he has not paid me to date. Now all that remains for me is to clarify if in President of Research and Development as stated prospectus which he presented to me at the time showed me your site at ecosafenatural.com which fact you are the Vicein his business I invested. He also was quite impressive.
Please sign a statement before Notaries Public declaring you have never held the position of Vice- President of Research and Development or any other position with BioSafe Natural Products Inc. or any other company owned by Don Wilson if that is fact. Any other information you care to add would be appreciated such as how much he owes you and why? As you have promised to send it on several occasions and failed to do so I now wonder if you are as innocent as you told Larry.
This is very important that you send this immediately or I will have no choice but to name you in the law suit along with Don. As Don is likely to have no money you may be held liable. Thank you Frank Gallagher
13
Mark Mathews refuses to respond.
Rod Bradbury was never the Vice –President (See page 13) Fraud
14
-----Original Message----From: Ecosafe [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: July 18, 2006 7:39 PM To: 'frank gallagher' Subject: RE: BioSafe Frank I do not appreciate the threatening tone at the end of your email. I am a very busy man running my own business and have long since written off any money owed to me by Don Wilson. However I will give you the series of events you asked for as I see them. Firstly, I am founder and president of EcoSafe Natural Products Inc., a company incorporated in the province of British Columbia. I founded the company as EcoSafe Technologies, a sole proprietorship, in 1991 and incorporated it in 2000 when the name was also changed to EcoSafe Natural Products Inc.I am not an officer of any of Don Wilson’s Companies and never have been. It was back in the summer of 2003 that Don Wilson first contacted me. I’m not sure how he got my name, possibly from my company website. He had a lot of smooth talk and was talking about the fact that he had investors ready to put millions into his venture and needed my expertise to develop the products. The name he gave me for his company at the time was Agrotex International Inc. I soon realized this guy was unfocussed and flipped from one get rich quick idea to another. He talked about other companies he had or was founding --- EcoTurf Natural Products Inc., AquaSafe Environmental Products Ltd. I wrote him a proposal to do some work and started developing some herbicidal and insecticidal products. I sent him several samples to test and billed him for $4,661.35 for the work we had done in the lab and for the chemicals, time and courier charges. The bill was sent out at the end of November 2003. When I didn’t receive payment and heard he had changed the name of his company to BioSafe Natural Products Inc. I realized I had been taken for a mug. I should also inform that his address was changing on a monthly basis which really got me suspicious. He led me to believe he had an office which I later found was totally untrue. I then got a call from an investor of his Mark Matthews. Mark proceeded to tell me the truth about Don. Apparently he was cab driving for a living and had just bought a new Cadillac and was driving it around living the rich life but not making the payments on it. Mark said he expected the car to reposessed at any time. I sent Don several bill reminders in an attempt to get the money but his email kept changing and the emails were undeliverable and the letters came back. I wrote the whole episode off as a business learning experience and moved on. Then to my surprise in the summer of 2004 I received a call from Don saying he finally had the investment he had been looking for and was ready to start developing and selling products. Of course by now I didn’t trust him one inch and didn’t want to do business with him. However he was insistent and flew out here to
15
visit our lab. I informed him that we would do no further work until he paid his outstanding bill and that any future work that EcoSafe did would need to be paid for up front. He then back peddled and started to indicate that he hadn’t actually got any money yet but it was imminent. However much to my surprise he wrote EcoSafe a cheque for $3,500 and even more to my surprise it didn’t bounce when I cashed it. Over the next few weeks he began to push me more and more to do further work but I reiterated that when he settled up his account and gave me payment up front for any future work we could do business. This finally caused him to get abusive and threatening and I haven’t heard from him since. Regards....Rod Bradbury President EcoSafe Natural Products Inc. <http://www.ecosafenatural.com/> #7-6782 Veyaness Road Saanichton, BC Canada V8M 2C2 Tel. (250) 652-9150 Fax (250) 652-9190 <http://www.ecosafenatural.com/> ________________________________ July 19 2006 Rod I thank you very much for filling me in. I also apologize for what you took as a threat tone. It was meant as a nudge and to save us both any unnecessary inconveniences. You must understand that this is quite a serious matter to me. It was a normal undesirable recourse to get to the truth as I saw it and I am determined to get to the truth. Your statement "This finally caused him to get abusive and threatening and I haven’t heard from him since." leads me to believe that we are talking about the same man. That describes my last meeting with him. I have a from the I and my resorted copy of an e-mail from another person asking Don to refrain same. mother have also been threatened on many occasions and he has to smashing my furniture in my basement apartment and I have
16
had the police here on at least three occasions but they say there is nothing that they can do. Evidence I hold proves beyond any doubt in my mind that Don Wilson is a crook and his performance at the Ontario Housing Rental Tribunal documented it. Since the Tribunal hearing last August I have corresponded with the Tribunal, Enforcement and Investigations, York Regional Police and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police who all claim that there is nothing that they can do about it. I concluded that the system aids and abets the crooks and fails to protect the innocent. It is not about me, because my money is long gone. It is about the system and the likes of Don Wilson. I had a couple of meetings with the YRP fraud squad and they informed me that this type of thing goes on all the time and they are frustrated by the courts who refuse to grant them a warrant to investigate. They have no doubt that he is a con man but there is nothing they can do. They tell me I could get a lawyer but he would be negligent if he didn't inform me that it is highly unlikely that I will get my money back and I would just be wasting more money. People just usually write it off as you have. I have no doubt that my money is long gone but there is obviously something wrong with the system if people like Don who know the system are allowed to rob the people at will because those who create the system condone their actions.
I feel it is my moral duty to save others from the grief this man, and the like will bestow upon others if he is not reigned in. The immoral know the system well as do those who are mandated in Schedule A of the Constitution Act,1982 who are obliged to put a legal system in place to provide for a moral society as per Schedule B, Part 1, Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The evidence that I now hold through correspondence with the various public departments proves beyond a doubt that the system in place provides for an immoral society and there is no guarantee to protect our rights as provided by the Charter. Those mandated to protect society not only refuse to protect us but they have set up a system which thrives by condoning the actions of the immoral which in turn allows the immoral to flourish which allows them to flourish.
17
The system is so flawed that while it is their duty to rid society of the immoral and even though they take what they like through taxes to do so, they pass the buck back to each taxpayer to fight it out individually with the immoral and in most cases it is not financially feasible and the victim writes it off as you have. Hence these deprivations go unnoticed to the public. The system is self serving. They serve themselves and when the taxpayers go to them for help they say sorry, this is a self serve system. Please see the attachments to the Ombudsman and my MPP, Julia Munroe which explains better. So, once again I apologize but it is difficult to get help from either those we have paid to help us or those who have been victimized. That is the system. It is a huge challenge I have taken on and it is often difficult to find words to get a persons attention but no matter the difficulties of the task I state no threats, just fact. It would be most detrimental to the cause if I were to revert to immoral ways to achieve morality. The immoral would be the first to cry foul. Thank you, Frank Gallagher
18
34 Riverglen Drive Keswick, On L4P 2P8
CANADA
CONSTITUTION ACT, 1982 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:
MORAL COMMON SENSE ENFORCEMENT
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 the under the law and the the right to and 15. (1) Every individual is equal before and under andlaw and has the right to hasequal protectionthe equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin,discriminationsex, age or mental or physical disability. origin, colour, particular, without colour, religion, based on race, national or ethnic religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.
THE LAW SEEMS RELATIVELY SIMPLE ON PAPER
April 1 2007 Phil Moreau of York Regional Police Standards called yesterday around 3:30 PM to try to bring me onside with insanity. Bruce Herridge had passed on the Lawyer Files and had told Phil to tell me to stop sending all this paper to them and he mentioned there is over 100 pages this time. The first thing I said to him is there wasn’t much point in talking, just write me but the first thing you know we were talking and then I was raising my voice as if I could penetrate deaf ears. Sometimes I am so stupid. He said he had been reading my papers but he was still resistant to facts. He is a good example of why we will never have a peaceful society until we all are of one common belief in matters of THE LAW where truth, facts and integrity trumps beliefs. Hardly much point in having a system where the eventuality is to swear on a bible to tell the truth, nothing but the truth so help me God if the whole system is staffed by people who do not comprehend the concept. Reality is exactly what it is and all evidence proves it regardless of ignorance and case in point is that once the world was believed to be flat and with no evidence to prove otherwise the people remained ignorant. Poor Chris must have had many frustrating days explaing his theory but some how he managed and the world became round. (Actually a sphere and we all know it) to every ones benefit.
1
[email protected] m
From:
Lawyer Files #s 1- 11
Lawyer File # 12
April 1 2007
It’s actually a mind thing you know and if the people believed that the world was flat and adamantly stood by their beliefs, which may have been considered common sense for the times, really wasn’t common sense at all. The truth of the matter is the people had never proven it was flat, and how could they for if they set out to IIt’s actually a mind thing you know and if the the truth of two very important facts of prove their beliefs to be true they would have discovered people believed the world was flat and reality. adamantly stood by their beliefs which would have been considered common sense for the times When you seek the truth you will find it and when you faithfully trust a belief over fact and truth you will forever live devoid of the realities which could have been and lived those which needn’t have been. If only I knew then, what I know now. How long ago did the specialist in the environment inform the incompetent powers that be who have their minds on ulterior purpose while claiming they were looking after us? How long will you people continue to trust you are competent to look after us and how long will you say but this is how it has always been without taking the opportunity to change it. When will you understand that the world was always a sphere even when the wisest of all the powers that be believed it was flat? For those who just read in verbatim I suggest you begin trying to think in the spirit. Reality is always exactly what it is impervious to perception and yet perceptions play such a vital role in reality which could very well be the demise of reality itself. It’s all about understanding reality if one is to deal with it and the fact is we are all raised by our parents or guardians with their beliefs passed on to us and perhaps if we were all raised by the same parents we would live in harmony but I doubt it, for surely even though we would all be brother and sister some of us would think and then all hell would break loose. If the parents had told the truth that they didn’t know if the world is flat because nobody has been to the edge they would have grown up with that understanding and understand the significant difference between knowing and believing and the value fact has on ones perception. It was actually a very small world relative to the reality of the real world and if not for persistent thinkers capable of sound reasoning, able to say what if the world was round, they would still fear and be unprepared for what lay on the horizon. So many benefits to the people of the times came to the people of the east with no thought to the obstruction of progress their ignorance played on the person who was endeavoring to help them. But then what if they had remained ignorant about the world and still lived over in the east. Seems to me the world over here in the west would have been much better off without the white man for they seem to be as ignorant as hell when it comes to morality and fairness for surly they understand the concept and the important role it plays, they just don’t see what it has got to do with them personally. It is the responsibility of those who are informed, to inform the others for sound and sane reason so as to be able to communicate with each other on fair and common ground and if there was imminent danger such as a bridge out ahead it is their sane and moral duty to take appropriate action. Lies are obstructive and lethal. We all know the atrocities beliefs have on humanity when a powerful group believes they are of a superior race like Hitler’s purported philosophy and those who believed in slavery. Who knows for sure that was his belief or just his way of uniting the weak minds for his own ulterior purpose of ruling the world. It’s good he met his WATERLOO 2
The ignorant who just do not know any better, for obvious reason, trust they are being informed of the truth and become confident, especially if they get the information from the horse’s mouth. Unfortunately as it goes with ignorance, they don’t realize when it comes from the horse’s ass. In reality we know the detrimental affect lies have upon reality and we know the difference between trust and naivety or I should say there is no reason why we shouldn’t, for after all as kids we are taught to beware of strangers, so we must surely know that trust is earned and gained through familiarity. The power authorities have and how they affect people’s minds is astronomical and they must comprehend that and use the powers entrusted in them with due respect with no refuge in pleading ignorance. Hell, a fellow who worked with me once asked me to come and see his new car and I asked what color it was when we were walking to it. “White” he said, and I began to look for it and didn’t see it at first even when he approached a car and opened the door. It was grey and when I mentioned it to the fellow he said it is not and proved it by showing me the ownership which definitely said it was white. I mentioned that I used to be a surveyor and well experienced in putting evidence together and analyzing to sound conclusion and stood firm with my belief and attentively dealt with the owner so he may carry on life dealing with reality as it is. I am also quite familiar with laws which have just one wrong word in them, when taken verbatim and used in application without consistency of the spirit intended we are left with rather drastic conclusion. When such occurrences occur and you are dealing with reasonable people, competent in the pertinent subject matter it is relatively simple to explain and no harm done. Quite often such occurrences do not arise in your average everyday routine jobs which the less experience do and of course they will never get the experience until they are competent enough to deal with them. That’s the thing about routine, everybody passes on what they have done and what they know to the ignorant which they adapt as gospel and pass it on generation to generation. In my case they would call themselves surveyors, and as reality goes very seldom does anyone pass with 100% and they are not tested on every possible thing that could be tested but it is imperative they comprehend and are cognizant to reason for it is not about remembering what you did the last time you had a job similar for the evidence available is always different. You must know precisely what it is you are trying to achieve and know how to go about it in a sound manner which requires sensible thinking and the more consistent you are to that endeavor, which may be difficult at first running through all the relevant facts you must never lose track of that which you set out to do in the first place. One incapable of competent thinking in surveying could get themselves into lots of trouble and expenses if they were to mark out a property and put a high rise building in the wrong place and likewise if they don’t go through all the architectural and structural drawings before commencing a building for they build from all directions and it is a wee bit too late when they don’t meet as intended by the plans. I have never seen such plans correct and often was the case to wait until the problems arose in the field and then deal with them in the best way they could at that point at considerable cost. Everybody blames each other and lots of money is lost. 3
Before I came along and began doing apartments for the private company I was with they would send a man out for the day and be asked to mark out a couple of grid lines because they wanted to get started digging immediately. The fellow would mark them out and head to another job the next day. In construction things are always rush to get started and the surveyor is necessary to the task but time is sparse and everyone needs you. at once every day and some days you may be at 4 different sites. In this business if you make a mistake they raise a monument to it, a costly one which you will not find out 2 or 3 months later after the fact. You simply must be coherent to these realities and deal with them as organized as you can, never losing sight of reality. For example if I was called in a rush and I have other places to be I would communicate with the super and find out perhaps he has just one shovel waiting to excavate so I may just roughly place a couple of stakes to get him started knowing that I would be back the next day to set it out accurately and that can not be done until I go over all the drawings. Often I would spend most of the night getting just a couple of hours sleep but when I laid out the building the next day I was confident I could sleep without worry about the consequences if I had not taken the responsibility to apply what I knew to be fact. All I ever gained from my efforts was experience and knowledge which helped everyone else and I never claimed overtime because I am crazy I am told but I had great satisfaction in applying my self to the best of my ability and by doing so my abilities increased daily. It just works that way. I saved all the workers countless hours of sitting around waiting for the surveyor and saved many countless law suits and my boss always got return work and I was always requested and it works like that with everyone happy, including me who was not financially rewarded and sometimes when having a few moments to spare I gave the matter some thought. I am not sorry I took you through all this and I imagine you just skipped through it looking for something you can sink your teeth into and accomplish nothing as you have proven. Not once in my line of duty have I considered this or that not my responsibility for if I am aware something may happen if I do not deal with it, it is an unpleasant reality when it happens. Fact is when problems arise on buildings, the surveyor is the person who comes in and makes judgment as to who is at fault and this responsibility is not taken lightly. When all is said and done and the people moved in I know I did my best in my part to see they could rest comfortable and safe in this here country of ours, Canada, founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law. Being experienced in construction I can state unequivocally that the apartment begins with a solid foundation and everyone on site must be organized, from the ground up, recognize things that are not right even though it is not their particular responsibility for they know their objective is to get the building up safely at a cost people can afford to pay and live happily and safely ever after until their certain death of natural causes. Of course money is the driving force but ultimately they are all accountable to the people. 4
That is what it is all about. People. Without them, who will do the work? Who will buy the products? Who will buy the buildings you work in? Who would you be serving? When you think about it there would be no reality to deal with and given the choice I would have preferred it that way but since that is not the case it is only sane to deal with it. You people must be coherent to your moral responsibilities considering that is what you are paid to do, enforcing morality and if you don’t understand morality I do not see how you can be trusted to do so. We are talking about peoples lives here and each and every one of you know what that means relative to yourselves so you must treat each person and their safety as if it were your own. You must watch the money as if it were your own and don’t confuse that to mean the way you have come to know and that means watching each other. It is a completely new concept to you people and that is sad for you have all been breaking THE LAW. You can hardly deal with the spirit of THE LAW with the spirit you have demonstrated and I remind you that when you were a kid you couldn’t escape punishment from your parents by saying, “But mom, they all did it too” You people are so far removed from reality, bitching and complaining about this pain in your ass while you consistently provided me the evidence of your incompetence without me asking you to profess the system you have in place is incapable of providing and backing the peoples Constitutional rights. You know it. We people in Canada are dwelling under one roof, the Constitution in which has no solid foundation and from experience I can say the whole thing will assuredly collapse and take a fall which none of all the Kings can put Humpty Dumpty together again without immediate due diligence to reality. You may be happy to know that this is the last letter you will receive from me and whoever may be coherent to reality, I must state I have provided every opportunity to give it thought worthy of that expected and required of you. Those who use words such as threshold and proof beyond a reasonable doubt will soon be able to make such decisions competently but perhaps just a wee bit too late. By your incompetence and your personal perceptions which have led you astray you will face the realities which you have so ignorantly bestowed upon the people of Canada. I suggest you review the evidence now with concern for your own asses, I have a feeling some of you may be able to discern that reality. Frank Gallagher PS Have a look at the Roles and responsibilities of the Attorney General with a whole lot more attention than you have given my writings and see what you might come up with. (Pages 6-10) You need not go back and look at all my writings from day one because you have all that you need in my Dozen Lawyer Files you are now all in possession of. Those who do not have the revised March 30 2007 complete set may E-mail me and I will gladly send you the missing files in fact be pleased to see an interest Those who have tried to make sense of my writings will have the best opportunity to view them realistically and deal with them appropriately. It is time you became aware of other’s perceptions because we have lived the consequences of your’s. 5
Roles and Responsibilities of the Attorney General
The Attorney General has a unique role to play as a Minister. One part of the Attorney General's role is that of a Cabinet Minister. In this capacity the Minister is responsible for representing the interests and perspectives of the Ministry at Cabinet, while simultaneously representing the interests and perspectives of Cabinet and consequently the Government to the Ministry and the Ministry's communities of interest. The Attorney General is the chief law officer of the Executive Council. The responsibilities stemming from this role are unlike those of any other Cabinet member. The role has been referred to as "judicial-like" and as the "guardian of the public interest". Much has been written on the subject of ministerial responsibilities and the unique role of the Attorney General. There are various components of the Attorney General's role. The Attorney General has unique responsibilities to the Crown, the courts, the Legislature and the executive branch of government. While there are different emphases and nuances attached to these there is a general theme throughout all the various aspects of the Attorney General's responsibilities that the office has a constitutional and traditional responsibility beyond that of a political minister. The statutory responsibilities of the office are found in section 5 of the Ministry of the Attorney General Act. Section 5 states: The Attorney General, (a) is the Law Officer of the Executive Council; (b) shall see that the administration of public affairs is in accordance with the law; (c) shall superintend all matters connected with the administration of justice in Ontario; (d) shall perform the duties and have the powers that belong to the Attorney General and Solicitor General of England by law and usage, so far as those powers and duties are applicable to Ontario, and also shall perform the duties and powers that, until the Constitution Act, 1867 came into effect, belonged to the offices of the Attorney General and Solicitor General in the provinces of Canada and Upper Canada and which, under the provisions of that Act, are within the scope of the powers of the Legislature; (e) shall advise the Government upon all matters of law connected with legislative enactments and upon all matters of law referred to him or her by the Government; (f) shall advise the Government upon all matters of a legislative nature and superintend all Government measures of a legislative nature; (g) shall advise the heads of ministries and agencies of Government upon all matters of law connected with such ministries and agency; (h) shall conduct and regulate all litigation for and against the Crown or any ministry or agency of government in respect of any subject within the authority or jurisdiction of the Legislature;
6
(i) shall superintend all matters connected with judicial offices; (j) shall perform such other functions as are assigned to him or her by the Legislature or by the Lieutenant Governor in Council. " What follows is an overview of the various components of the Attorney General's roles and responsibilities, primarily as outlined in the Act.
Chief Law Officer of the Executive Council (s. 5(a))
The role of chief law officer might be referred to as the Attorney General's overall responsibility as the independent legal advisor to the Cabinet - and some have even suggested that the role possibly extends to the Legislature as well. The importance of the independence of the role is fundamental to the position and well established in common law, statutes and tradition. As chief law officer, the Attorney General has a special responsibility to be the guardian of that most elusive concept - the rule of law. The rule of law is a well established legal principle, but hard to easily define. It is the rule of law that protects individuals, and society as a whole, from arbitrary measures and safeguards personal liberties. The Attorney General has a special role to play in advising Cabinet to ensure the rule of law is maintained and that Cabinet actions are legally and constitutionally valid. In providing such advice it is important to keep in mind the distinction between the Attorney General's policy advice and preference and the legal advice being presented to Cabinet. The Attorney General's legal advice or constitutional advice should not be lightly disregarded. The Attorney General's policy advice has the same weight as that of other ministers.
Criminal prosecutions (s.5(d))
One of the most publicly scrutinized aspects of the Attorney General's role is the responsibility for criminal prosecutions encompassed in section 5 (d) and s. 92 of the Constitution Act, 1867. Section 92 gives the provinces authority to legislate in matters related to the administration of criminal justice and thereby gives the provincial Attorney General authority to prosecute offences under the Criminal Code. 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. It is now an accepted and important constitutional principle that the Attorney General must carry out the Minister's criminal prosecution responsibilities independent of Cabinet and of any partisan political pressures. The Attorney General's responsibility for individual criminal prosecutions must be undertaken - and seen to be undertaken - on strictly objective and legal criteria, free of any political considerations. Whether to initiate or stay a criminal proceeding is not an issue of government policy. This 7
responsibility has been characterized as a matter of the Attorney General acting as the Queen's Attorney - not as a Minister of the government of the day. This is not to suggest that decisions regarding criminal prosecutions are made in a complete vacuum. A wide range of policy considerations may be weighed in executing this responsibility, and the Attorney General may choose to consult the Cabinet on some of these considerations. However any decisions relating to the conduct of individual prosecutions must be the Attorney General's alone and independent of the traditional Cabinet decision making process. In practice, in the vast majority of cases, these decisions are made by the Attorney General's agents, the Crown Attorneys. An important part of the Crown's - and thus the Attorney General's - responsibility in conducting criminal prosecutions is associated with the responsibility to represent the public interest - which includes not only the community as a whole and the victim, but also the accused. The Crown has a distinct responsibility to the court to present all the credible evidence available. The responsibility is to present the case fairly - not necessarily to convict. This is a fundamental precept of criminal law, even if it is not a particularly well-understood concept among the general public. One of the Attorney General's responsibilities in fostering public respect for the rule of law, is to assist the public in understanding the nature and limits of the prosecutorial function. Ultimately the Attorney General is accountable to the people of the province, through the Legislature, for decisions relating to criminal prosecutions. Such accountability can only occur, of course, once the prosecution is completed or when a final decision has been made not to prosecute. The sub judicae rule bars any comment on a matter before the courts that is likely to influence the matter. The sub judicae rule strictly prohibits the Attorney General from commenting on prosecutions that are before the courts. Given the stature of the Attorney General's position, any public comment coming from the office would be seen as an attempt to influence the case. Although the Attorney general can become involved in decision-making in relation to individual criminal cases, such a practice would leave the Minister vulnerable to accusations of political interference. Accordingly, it is traditional to leave the day-to-day decision-making in the hands of the Attorney General's agents, the Crown Attorneys, except in cases of exceptional importance where the public would expect the Attorney General to be briefed.
Legislative Responsibilities (s. 5(e) and (f))
The Attorney General has broad responsibilities associated with Government legislation. These responsibilities have been described as twofold. One is to oversee that all legislative enactments are in accordance with principles of natural justice and civil rights (see also s. 5(b) above). This is obviously an important and broad area of responsibility.
8
The second aspect of this responsibility is to advise on the constitutionality and legality of legislation. The Attorney General's legislative responsibilities are played out in a variety roles. The Office of Legislative Counsel reports to the Attorney General. Legislative Counsel plays a key role in ensuring the legal integrity of Government legislation. Although the Legislative Counsel's reporting relationship to the Attorney General does allow the Attorney General to provide guidance and set standards, individual pieces of legislation are drafted on instructions from client ministries and are not within the sole control of Legislative Counsel or the Attorney General. It should also be noted that Legislative Counsel also has a direct responsibility to the Legislature as the Office also drafts all private member's bills. The Attorney General has a further role to play as part of whatever Cabinet Committee is formed to review legislation and regulations. Here the Minister has an opportunity to comment on the technical issues related to legislation and regulations prior to Cabinet consideration. The Attorney General's role on legislative matters is as an adviser to the Cabinet. Although unlikely, Cabinet could, in theory, receive the Attorney General's legal opinion on legislation and choose to disregard it. The Attorney General's role is not independent of Cabinet decision making as in the area of criminal prosecutions. As was noted earlier, the Attorney General must make careful distinctions about the legal opinions and policy or political preferences being offered about legislation.
Civil Litigation (s.5(h) and (d))
In addition to the specific responsibilities to conduct civil litigation on behalf of the Government and its agencies (s. 5(h)), the Attorney General has broader litigation responsibilities flowing from the historical powers of the Attorney General referred to in s. 5(d) of the Act. These powers are based on the Crown's parens patriae (parental) authority. The Attorney General's authority, therefore, is not only to conduct litigation in cases directly affecting the government or its agencies but also to litigate cases where there is a clear matter of public interest or public rights at stake. This has been characterized as a constitutional responsibility to ensure that the public interest is well and independently represented. It may involve interventions in private litigation or Charter challenges to legislation, even if the arguments conclude that the legislation does contravene constitutionally protected rights.
Responsibility for Court Administration (s. 5(c))
A key component of the Attorney General's responsibilities to ensure the administration of justice in the province is the administration of the courts and as a result the responsibility for maintaining liaison with the judiciary.
9
Given the fundamental importance of the independence of the judiciary, the responsibility for courts administration is often a very sensitive and delicate issue. Great care and respect for the principles of judicial independence must be exercised in this area. As chief law officer, the Attorney General has a special responsibility to be the guardian of that most elusive concept - the rule of law. The rule of law is a well established legal principle, but hard to easily define. It is the rule of law that protects individuals, and society as a whole, from arbitrary measures and safeguards personal liberties.
10
September 5 2006 To: Bruce Herridge Deputy Chief of Police York Regional Police 17250 Yonge Street Newmarket,On L3Y 4W5 From: Frank Gallagher 34 Riverglen Drive Keswick,On [email protected] Dear Bruce I am faxing you a copy of a file I have faxed to Premier Dalton McGuinty, presently consisting of 177 pages. On pages 111 & 112 you will find a copy of your letter to me dated January 12 2006 where on page 112 you state you will reiterate my concerns when asked for comments. Have you been asked and did you reiterate my comments and if so to whom and when please? Meanwhile I am forwarding you more information for your records which further prove Don Wilson is a fraud. I ask you to read the 177 page letter to the Premier and request that you reconsider your decision to not investigate Don Wilson. Thank you Frank Gallagher PS Letter to Premier Dalton McGuinty to follow
11
From: frank gallagher [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: July 15, 2006 3:16 PM To: [email protected] Subject: BioSafe July 14, 2006 To: Mr. Rod Bradbury Eco Safe Natural Products Inc. [email protected] From: Frank Gallagher 34 Riverglen Drive Keswick,On L4P 2P8 [email protected] Re: BioSafe Natural Products Inc. Dear Mr. Bradbury I am a major share holder of Bio Safe Natural Products Inc. second only to Don Wilson, Pres. CEO , whatever. That means that I am the biggest loser in his scam. I am not the least bit happy with this man because I have evidence beyond any and all reasonable doubt that he has scammed me for approximately $85,000 and many of my friends for an additional $50,000. The man is going to face the music so to speak and that you can take to the bank. So, what has this got to do with you?
Larry Honsberger has informed me that he has been communicating with you on several occasions and he has requested a letter regarding your involvement with BIO SAFE and Don Wilson and you agreed to send it each time. He tells me that you have nothing to do with the company and in fact he has stiffed you for about $4,000. Please give me your full attention. The stage is set and Don is nearing his day in court. I have two documents signed by him and I, one witnessed by my mother and the other by a friend of mine which he denied having ever seen at the Ontario Housing Rental Tribunal which I presented when I had him evicted from my premises. The signature he used on these documents is not the signature that he has used on all the other documents I have been party to and his denial of having ever seen them puts him in a tough spot.
12
This along with the fact that he has not issued the proper documents and certificates for our shares along with his refusal to carry on business as required under the Business Corporation Act leaves him adrift without a paddle. These documents consisting of 4 pages each, contained information concerning the rent he owed me and corporation matters. I presented the witness at the Tribunal hearing who attested to the fact that Don Wilson did indeed sign one of the documents and of course mother will be there to attest to the other one when I am ready to put him where he belongs. That is fraud and it is documented by the Tribunal and I have a digital recording of the hearing. In addition to that he completely fabricated the dispute he filed with the Tribunal and reiterated the crap at the hearing. I easily proved this with the relative documents and he was ordered to pay me $10,000 for back rent and of course he was ordered to leave my premises. That was last August and he has not paid me to date. Now all that remains for me is to clarify if in President of Research and Development as stated prospectus which he presented to me at the time showed me your site at ecosafenatural.com which fact you are the Vicein his business I invested. He also was quite impressive.
Please sign a statement before Notaries Public declaring you have never held the position of Vice- President of Research and Development or any other position with BioSafe Natural Products Inc. or any other company owned by Don Wilson if that is fact. Any other information you care to add would be appreciated such as how much he owes you and why? As you have promised to send it on several occasions and failed to do so I now wonder if you are as innocent as you told Larry.
This is very important that you send this immediately or I will have no choice but to name you in the law suit along with Don. As Don is likely to have no money you may be held liable. Thank you Frank Gallagher
13
Mark Mathews refuses to respond.
Rod Bradbury was never the Vice –President (See page 13) Fraud
14
-----Original Message----From: Ecosafe [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: July 18, 2006 7:39 PM To: 'frank gallagher' Subject: RE: BioSafe Frank I do not appreciate the threatening tone at the end of your email. I am a very busy man running my own business and have long since written off any money owed to me by Don Wilson. However I will give you the series of events you asked for as I see them. Firstly, I am founder and president of EcoSafe Natural Products Inc., a company incorporated in the province of British Columbia. I founded the company as EcoSafe Technologies, a sole proprietorship, in 1991 and incorporated it in 2000 when the name was also changed to EcoSafe Natural Products Inc.I am not an officer of any of Don Wilson’s Companies and never have been. It was back in the summer of 2003 that Don Wilson first contacted me. I’m not sure how he got my name, possibly from my company website. He had a lot of smooth talk and was talking about the fact that he had investors ready to put millions into his venture and needed my expertise to develop the products. The name he gave me for his company at the time was Agrotex International Inc. I soon realized this guy was unfocussed and flipped from one get rich quick idea to another. He talked about other companies he had or was founding --- EcoTurf Natural Products Inc., AquaSafe Environmental Products Ltd. I wrote him a proposal to do some work and started developing some herbicidal and insecticidal products. I sent him several samples to test and billed him for $4,661.35 for the work we had done in the lab and for the chemicals, time and courier charges. The bill was sent out at the end of November 2003. When I didn’t receive payment and heard he had changed the name of his company to BioSafe Natural Products Inc. I realized I had been taken for a mug. I should also inform that his address was changing on a monthly basis which really got me suspicious. He led me to believe he had an office which I later found was totally untrue. I then got a call from an investor of his Mark Matthews. Mark proceeded to tell me the truth about Don. Apparently he was cab driving for a living and had just bought a new Cadillac and was driving it around living the rich life but not making the payments on it. Mark said he expected the car to reposessed at any time. I sent Don several bill reminders in an attempt to get the money but his email kept changing and the emails were undeliverable and the letters came back. I wrote the whole episode off as a business learning experience and moved on. Then to my surprise in the summer of 2004 I received a call from Don saying he finally had the investment he had been looking for and was ready to start developing and selling products. Of course by now I didn’t trust him one inch and didn’t want to do business with him. However he was insistent and flew out here to
15
visit our lab. I informed him that we would do no further work until he paid his outstanding bill and that any future work that EcoSafe did would need to be paid for up front. He then back peddled and started to indicate that he hadn’t actually got any money yet but it was imminent. However much to my surprise he wrote EcoSafe a cheque for $3,500 and even more to my surprise it didn’t bounce when I cashed it. Over the next few weeks he began to push me more and more to do further work but I reiterated that when he settled up his account and gave me payment up front for any future work we could do business. This finally caused him to get abusive and threatening and I haven’t heard from him since. Regards....Rod Bradbury President EcoSafe Natural Products Inc. <http://www.ecosafenatural.com/> #7-6782 Veyaness Road Saanichton, BC Canada V8M 2C2 Tel. (250) 652-9150 Fax (250) 652-9190 <http://www.ecosafenatural.com/> ________________________________ July 19 2006 Rod I thank you very much for filling me in. I also apologize for what you took as a threat tone. It was meant as a nudge and to save us both any unnecessary inconveniences. You must understand that this is quite a serious matter to me. It was a normal undesirable recourse to get to the truth as I saw it and I am determined to get to the truth. Your statement "This finally caused him to get abusive and threatening and I haven’t heard from him since." leads me to believe that we are talking about the same man. That describes my last meeting with him. I have a from the I and my resorted copy of an e-mail from another person asking Don to refrain same. mother have also been threatened on many occasions and he has to smashing my furniture in my basement apartment and I have
16
had the police here on at least three occasions but they say there is nothing that they can do. Evidence I hold proves beyond any doubt in my mind that Don Wilson is a crook and his performance at the Ontario Housing Rental Tribunal documented it. Since the Tribunal hearing last August I have corresponded with the Tribunal, Enforcement and Investigations, York Regional Police and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police who all claim that there is nothing that they can do about it. I concluded that the system aids and abets the crooks and fails to protect the innocent. It is not about me, because my money is long gone. It is about the system and the likes of Don Wilson. I had a couple of meetings with the YRP fraud squad and they informed me that this type of thing goes on all the time and they are frustrated by the courts who refuse to grant them a warrant to investigate. They have no doubt that he is a con man but there is nothing they can do. They tell me I could get a lawyer but he would be negligent if he didn't inform me that it is highly unlikely that I will get my money back and I would just be wasting more money. People just usually write it off as you have. I have no doubt that my money is long gone but there is obviously something wrong with the system if people like Don who know the system are allowed to rob the people at will because those who create the system condone their actions.
I feel it is my moral duty to save others from the grief this man, and the like will bestow upon others if he is not reigned in. The immoral know the system well as do those who are mandated in Schedule A of the Constitution Act,1982 who are obliged to put a legal system in place to provide for a moral society as per Schedule B, Part 1, Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The evidence that I now hold through correspondence with the various public departments proves beyond a doubt that the system in place provides for an immoral society and there is no guarantee to protect our rights as provided by the Charter. Those mandated to protect society not only refuse to protect us but they have set up a system which thrives by condoning the actions of the immoral which in turn allows the immoral to flourish which allows them to flourish.
17
The system is so flawed that while it is their duty to rid society of the immoral and even though they take what they like through taxes to do so, they pass the buck back to each taxpayer to fight it out individually with the immoral and in most cases it is not financially feasible and the victim writes it off as you have. Hence these deprivations go unnoticed to the public. The system is self serving. They serve themselves and when the taxpayers go to them for help they say sorry, this is a self serve system. Please see the attachments to the Ombudsman and my MPP, Julia Munroe which explains better. So, once again I apologize but it is difficult to get help from either those we have paid to help us or those who have been victimized. That is the system. It is a huge challenge I have taken on and it is often difficult to find words to get a persons attention but no matter the difficulties of the task I state no threats, just fact. It would be most detrimental to the cause if I were to revert to immoral ways to achieve morality. The immoral would be the first to cry foul. Thank you, Frank Gallagher
18
