Fresh Amended February 2007 Court File

ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

BETWEEN: George A. Sheppard Applicant AND

Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada Respondent

PREAMBLE

RECORD

VOLUME “A”

Address of Court House: 393 University Avenue, 10th Floor Toronto, Ontario M5G 1T3

FROM: George A. Sheppard 386 Davisville Avenue Toronto, Ontario M4S 1H5 Website: www.george-sheppard.com Fax: 416-483-9785 e-mail: [email protected] (Acting in Person)

TO: The Federal Department of Justice 130 King Street West, 34th Floor Toronto, Ontario M5X 1K6 Phone: 416-973-0942 Fax: 416-973-3004

1

PREAMBLE:

The Applicant would like, in advance, to thank all who gave their support to him and his family in their plight for justice.

The Applicant guarantees that all who process the right credentials et al and who have taken time to submit a pro bono publico legal brief, pro or con, your legal briefs will become a part of this process by way of an attachment. Interveners, your payment may be conditional on the court’s granted orders.

Upon reading the Applicant’s legal briefs, which are located on his website et al, www.george-sheppard.com, there will manifest itself the grounds that support a prima facia case of the existence of corruption by certain officers of the court, public servants, individuals, both crown and other corporations, who hereinafter are to be known collectively as “arrogant giants.”

Members of the media! Maybe you do not know it, but the Applicant is alleging the existence of a smear-campaign, a conspiracy to discredit his credibility. During the swearing-in ceremony of His Worship Mel Lastman, former Mayor of Toronto, a gentleman with the purported same first and last name as the Applicant, and who could pass as his twin at that time, interrupted the proceedings, leaving others, including the Applicant’s mother and his family doctor to conclude it was the Applicant. Days later, as reported by the media, this gentleman was arrested by police. At the time of this occurrence, medical records will prove that the Applicant was present in his family doctor’s office. If you demand, police should confirm or deny same.

All have a pivotal role to play in this Constitutional challenge to inform the public

of the existence of this process for their pro or con support! Notwithstanding Charter 1. et

al, there will manifest themselves grounds to demonstrably justify a Charter 52. (1) (2) (a) (b) 2

(c) 3. judge-and-jury trial. The Applicant verily believes that there exist grounds in rare cases where persons can prove that they been turned into nonentities et al, unlike

Truscott, Marshall, Moran, and Mahar, to proceed exclusively under Charter 52. (1) (2) (a)

(b) (c) (3). Mahar was lucky after he was afforded a public enquiry in January 2007. The media reported that Mahar sidestepped the judicial process, and through his rent-a-judge;

his dispute was amicably settled, making the process contrary to Charter 15. (1), unless the Applicant et al is afforded the same treatment. In the past, persons who have been forced to act as a defendant and when the results turned out to be a miscarriage of justice through the misconduct of the public servants entrusted to ensure fairness, how do you stop these “arrogant giants?” This elitist system cannot and sometimes will not reverse themselves! The Applicant verily believes that the judicial system has to be accountable to the public.

All officers of the court, judges, police, lawyers et al have, knowingly and willingly, taken part in turning the Applicant et al into a nonentity through varying degrees of corrupt practices in their dealings with him. These corrupt practices will manifest themselves in the following ways:

– Contrary to Charter 9., police would arbitrarily the Applicant six times.

– Contrary to Charter 24. (2) “Incompetent,” politically-appointed judges are prejudicial against the Applicant (suing their appointers), his own legal counsel,

and particularly judges do not want to hear from anyone acting in person, a

discriminatory practice, contrary to Charter 15. (1) and use court costs as punitive

measures against anyone acting in person.

The Applicant is attempting to empower all the rights of the poor. Unconstitutionally, the rights of the poor are dependent on the goodwill of others. Whoever manifests themselves – these ignorant, unlawful, moronic, drunk, psychopathic, cowardly, and power-drunk individuals – have to be made examples of as a warning to others who might further engage in subjecting any citizens to tyranny. Particularly, 3 citizens living in southern Ontario are not a part of a nation of laws, rather a nation of persons. With the right pedigree, the authorities will treat these individual as super human beings and being above the law.

“Manifest Destiny” will determine your fate! The Applicant has been denied, in most cases, the right to obtain the names of all those who were parties to these criminal offences against him. Your actions and inactions are contrary to CC s. 19; accordingly, you will not be permitted the defence, “I was only following orders.” All take judicial notice, regardless of whether or not your name manifests itself throughout these documents, if you are parties to offences that have subjected the Applicant and his family to tyranny, you can and will be brought to justice by way of court order. Others will not fail! Specifically, you elected officials, you do not have to agree with the contents that have manifested itself throughout this process regarding the Applicant’s allegations of corruption in our judicial system, not limited to. However, you do have to support the Applicant’s guaranteed Constitutional Rights to proceed with this process. Accordingly,

some of you may have committed indictable offences under the CC s. 122. Breach of trust by public officer.

June 3, 1947 was the year that the Applicant was born. He is a husband, father of two adult children, and a grandfather. He is not a scholar, but he believes that his twenty- five years as a captain of industry should compensate for any lacking scholastics. Other eminent individuals have described him as a gentleman, and police profiling states, “He does not have a mean bone in his body.” Still others, in sworn affidavits, confirm his gentlemanly approach to life, and they support and confirm his belief that the pen is mightier than the sword. Others have made him into a nonentity, virtually denying him all of his Constitutional Rights, provoked and tested him daily on his freedom of speech and expression. These responsible cowards are aware of his tenacity and his righteous will, and he has sworn to bring these individuals to justice. 4

The Respondent, Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada/Ontario, has been granted certain Constitutional guarantees. One of her rights is that she may make rules and lawful orders under enacted legislation. She is not just a figurehead of state. Charter

15. (1) makes both of us equal before the law. As due process, the Applicant wrote to Her Majesty’s agents, the office of the Lieutenant Governor of Ontario. Her staff’s response to the Applicant’s concerns rises to the level of a high and serious degree of gross negligence. Among other things, Her Majesty through her agents refused to investigate the fact that the Applicant has been arbitrarily and falsely arrested and tortured by police six times et al.

1993 was the start of this dispute upon the approval and unlawful denial of the increased renewal of the Applicant’s mortgages with Canada Mortgage and Housing

Corporation, a federal crown corporation and by law “lenders of last resort,” hereinafter known as CMHC. Certain immoral employees and their approved lenders ignored the Applicant’s lawful financial information. They unlawfully wrote false credit reports about the Applicant and spread same throughout the financial community. Upon learning about their error, they would, knowing and willingly, through their actions and inactions,

subject the Applicant to Charter 12. treatment. Later, in an attempt to conceal their wilful misconduct, they would continue to write false credit reports to mislead the process. They conspired with police by using a criminal false pretence about their offer to help the Applicant. These vicious, hateful individuals took part in a criminal conspiracy to prosecute an innocent person, the Applicant, the start of being subjected to tyranny!

The Applicant asked for a review of CMHC’s discriminatory decision, and he provided the correct financial information. Throughout the process, there will prove a

repeated, unconstitutional, discriminatory practice, contrary to Charter 15. (1). Further, CMHC’s day-to-day practices as they apply to the Applicant’s rights et al under the

Canadian Human Rights Act 1976 – 77, c. 33, s. 1., and as they are being applied to the Applicant and other self-employed by CMHC, are discriminatory. 5

To ensure fairness, the Applicant contacted both his MP, The Honourable David Collenette, and the Minister responsible for CMHC, at that time, The Honourable David

Dingwall. As a last resort, the Applicant would demand his lawful rights under CHAPTER C 7, Directions 5. (2) The Corporation shall comply with any directions given to it from time to time by the Minister respecting the exercise or performance of its powers, duties and functions.

The Applicant made telephone contact with the Minister responsible for CMHC. “In a telephone conversation between Ms. Donna Achimov of The Honourable David Dingwall's Office and the Applicant, Achimov reported to him that Dingwall in a meeting with others stated that Dingwall intended to put him down in the cracks of sidewalks of Toronto.” This was accomplished through the legal department of the CMHC and "furthered by The Honourable David Collenette after his refusal to fulfil his duty to the Applicant, and the Liberal Party of Canada, through the Prime Minister of Canada, The Right Honourable Jean Chrétien, failed in their promise to the Applicant et al to do something about the fact that the self-employed have to put their homes up against their businesses and their businesses against their homes when it came to arranging credit for either.”

Further, the Applicant verily believed a detective of the Toronto police when he told the Applicant that Dingwall had full knowledge of the prosecution of an innocent person, the Applicant. Collenette, through the media, has made the statement, “There is more than one way to disembowel a person.” The Applicant verily believes that this statement was directed at him. A detective of the Toronto Police told the Applicant that “Collenette has one of the largest files on the Applicant that he has ever seen on any person.” For what reason? The Applicant verily believes that these statements were the beginning of his being subjected to tyranny.

6

The Law Society of Upper Canada, hereinafter known as LSUC, is empowered by provincial legislation the Law Society Act to govern our member lawyers in accordance with what is best in the public interest only!

As will manifest itself, the Applicant is no stranger to LSUC and certain staff, as he had made numerous complaints prior to the start of this dispute about professional misconduct committed against him by his retained lawyers, members of LSUC! To no avail! The following, in part, makes allegations of the Applicant’s attempt to reverse the continuing torts committed against him by LSUC et al.

LSUC retained the services of Mr. Joel Skapinker to represent the Applicant’s former solicitors and other private individuals. Among them, they only produced one hearsay sworn affidavit from Skapinker’s secretary. In the secretary’s affidavit, she never admits to believing the contents. All of the Applicant’s former solicitors have never denied the contents of this dispute, through sworn affidavits or otherwise. Mr. Joel Skapinker, in conversation with the Applicant told him, “the misappropriated trust money could be returned to him.”

“The Applicant had made contact with the Toronto police legal department where the in-house lawyer agreed with the Applicant and was preparing waivers against any police officers who were named at that time in the process. The Applicant felt it was the just thing to do, as he verily believed that police were lied to by others. The Applicant verily believes that Skapinker was instrumental in convincing the police lawyer not to bother with the waivers.”

Further, in the Applicant’s attempt to correct these injustices, he is subjected to sham court proceedings. Not limited to, he is ordered to pay $5,000.00 in costs as a punitive measure for leaving the court after being ordered by the presiding judge “to sit down and shut up.” If the learned judge would have allowed the Applicant to be heard, he 7 would have learned that one of the litigants, the Toronto Star, had retained legal counsel that the Applicant had had prior client/solicitor dealings with on the same matter that he was hearing. Further, the learned judge would have learned that the Star’s lawyers had used the wrong court file number. Remembering, in part, the Respondents were arguing

that the Applicant’s pleadings were contrary to the Rules of Civil Procedure and unacceptable.

The Applicant’s decision to leave the court was after the presiding judge announced in court, while hearing oral argument from one of the Respondents, that it would not be necessary to hear from the Applicant. Accordingly, the Applicant realized that he was not going to be heard by the court and the fact that the Applicant was up against insurmountable odds with the Respondents having probably some of the best legal minds in the country.

Further, in the Applicant’s pleadings, the presiding judge refused to consider the

Applicant’s request under the Rules of Civil Procedure, specifically Rule 2.03 Non-Compliance

with the Rules or, in the alternative, order legal aid for the Applicant and/or adjourn the matter until such time as the Applicant retained appropriate counsel to perfect his pleadings. This cruel and unusual procedure caused him to be sick, and he left the court under protest and without permission.

The Applicant verily believes that this court process was a sham, and its participants, knowingly and willingly, had intended to subject the Applicant, contrary to

Charter 24. (1), to a court of incompetent jurisdiction.

The Applicant verily believes that we Canadians were once the envy of the world when it came to our judicial systems. Eminent others as follows agree with the Applicant in principle that our judicial system is corrupt. 8

The Applicant verily believes the contents of the following paragraphs attributed to Bank Governor Dodge (December 2004), wherein he states his interpretation, personal knowledge, and experience with our judicial system . He, in part, concludes the same as the Applicant. – “There is a very common refrain that we hear when we visit markets in New York or in Boston or in London or in Europe, a perception that somehow, this is kind of a little bit more of a wild west up here in terms of the degree in which rules and regulations are enforced and the perception doesn’t really help us when we go and try to raise money on foreign markets,” – “But part of the problem has related to the lack of skills on the part of our police forces which are in the end very important to this and on the part of prosecutors, and certainly on the part of the regulatory agencies themselves to effectively pursue to completion cases where rules have been breached,”

Attention media: Charter 2 (b) et al guarantees all freedom of the press and other media communications! Who, what, when, where, and why does a citizen have their rights to

Charter 2. (b)? (cost?). The Applicant adopts as his own, and he verily believes the following quotes that were adduced from the Toronto Star, by-line Ms. Carol Goar, dated May 29, 2006: – “When citizens see wealthy politicians spending hundreds of thousands of dollars — in Mulroney’s case $2 million — to prove the Mounties made a mistake, they wonder how ordinary Canadians fight back.” – “When they see journalists who work for large media organizations bullied by the RCMP, they wonder how people without access to publicity and resources get fair treatment.”

The Applicant’s response to the above as will follow: 9

The Applicant’s family is suffering from a medical condition known as “Stockholm Syndrome.” The Applicant’s family, save one, have bonded with police (abusers), a survival strategy for them. They have witnessed these immoral human beings arbitrarily arrest and detain their husband and father, the Applicant, realleging, on six

separate occasions. On the sixth occasion they, contrary to the CC , attempted to murder him.

Certain police officials are unlawfully keeping the Applicant under police investigation. The Applicant verily believes that the Toronto Police were responsible for prejudicial conduct against him when the Intelligence Branch ordered police to be present in the civil courts when he was trying to present his civil disputes. The Applicant alleges that police are trying to deter him from continuing with this process as he has named police officers in previous lawsuits. It is an attempt, in part, to prevent him from asking the people’s government to come to his aid.

All individuals living in southern Ontario live in a police state and are subject to police justice. In the absence of reasonable and probable cause, the Applicant realleges that he has been arbitrarily arrested six times. Through the process, the Applicant “has been told by senior police officials that he would receive no police services as long as long as the Applicant intended to name police officers in this process.” The Applicant “has been threatened with bodily harm” and an attempt to murder him by the police. Further, the Applicant was told that “he would be arrested if he attended civil court.” The Applicant has been arbitrarily and unlawfully given driving infractions. The police have refused to investigate the Applicant’s stolen vehicle. He was tortured for a long period of time by having handcuffs put on too tightly, causing permanent hand damage, stripped naked in a jail cell with the heating turned off and the receiving door intentionally left open, denied food and medication, and repeatedly accused of having mental health problems, contrary to numerous doctors’ reports to the contrary. All of these actions are 10 an attempt to torture, intimidate, and extort the Applicant’s Constitutional Rights of due process and prevent him from proceeding with this process.

The Applicant realleges that the Toronto police, with the use of deadly force, and given the nature of this dispute where the Applicant is alleging misconduct by the police, the police officer in charge, knowingly and willingly incited others to come forward with fabricated evidence in an attempt to murder the Applicant. Months prior, this same officer in charge told the Applicant in words to the effect that, “he was going to come to the Applicant’s place of residence with some of the boys for the purpose of assaulting the Applicant.” Further, he told the Applicant that, “he was going to go to jail for a long time.” This same officer stated that, “he had made arrangements with a crown attorney to ensure that this would happen.”

Realleging, on November 15, 2001, the Applicant was again arbitrarily arrested for the sixth time and, as will manifest itself, with the use of a bogus Fenny arrest warrant, which was purportedly issued by a Justice of the Peace. The Applicant alleges police repeatedly provoked him. Police figured the Applicant would stand his ground and fight for his rights. The Applicant verily believes that with the deadly force being used by police he was facing, he would have been killed. Accordingly, when police arrived to murder the Applicant, he bolted his door and made arrangements for a member of Police Internal Affairs to arrest him. This was a ploy that gave him time for cooler heads to prevail. The Applicant alleges that the pen is mightier than the sword. Knowing when he had lost, surrendered to fight another day, as words are more powerful than bullets in these types of disputes.

The Applicant realleges that he was falsely arrested and imprisoned on November 15, 2001. While he was in custody, the court ordered a psychiatric review and treatment. At the request of the court-appointed psychiatrist, with the judge being employer/master of his servant, the psychiatrist, the Applicant “was assaulted by jail guards who held him 11 down, while a doctor forcefully injected him with, what will manifest itself, as a very powerful, mind-altering drug,” for a medical condition that the Applicant did not have. Now he believes that he is suffering from permanent memory loss! The Applicant alleges that this was an attempt to erase his memory surrounding this process. As will manifest itself at that time, there existed prior to this psychiatrist’s involvement, four separate psychiatric analyses stating that the Applicant does not suffer from any mental illnesses. This court psychiatrist ignored their reports and recommended to the court that the Applicant should be locked up with the criminally insane for his health and well-being. This court psychiatrist does not believe in the Applicant’s Constitutional Right to proceed

with this process. The Applicant verily believes that, contrary to Charter 15. (1), this court- appointed psychiatrist comes from a third-world country where it is commonplace for individuals like the Applicant to live in a cast society.

The Applicant alleges that these custodians of the judicial system are threatening democracy because of their political appointments and their possible prejudice against the Applicant and others when they may be suing the appointee. Example: The Applicant is alleging through this process that numerous MP’s, MPP’s, two ex-Premiers, and an ex- Prime Minister of Canada have committed misconduct against him. Notwithstanding the existence of one named defendant in this process, others may choose to third-party these persons. The Applicant alleges that Ex-Prime Minister Chrétien has unconstitutionally appointed many of these judges. Even if certain judges believe it to be proper to recuse themselves, it will still not be enough. It is a constitutional guarantee for all to an unbiased judicial proceeding. With leave, this dispute will end up in the Supreme Court of Canada. Accordingly, the Applicant will be denied equality before the law and the unfettered right to due process. There does not exist a process for alternative judges to hear a dispute in the Supreme Court of Canada.

As will manifest themselves, others have followed the leader. It does not matter what the intent was of making public statements. It is how it is going to be interpreted by 12 others. Sometimes it could be dire! The following elitist quotes, which are contrary to

Charter 15. (1), (all may receive justice but at what price!), were adduced and attributed, in part, to Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin et al during 2006. These and other demonizing remarks go to the Applicant’s plight of being denied due process by these politically- appointed judges, subjecting the Applicant et al to tyranny and creating anarchy for the public at large! – “Yet for average Canadians, access to justice remains an ideal, not a reality.” – “Lack of legal representation presents particular problems for judges.” – “Courts are struggling to render justice.” – “Help lawyerless litigants, judges urged.” – “Courts are not a mirror image of government.” – “B.C. Judge rejects legal aid test case.” – ”Justice Minister Vic Toews’ response to B.C. judge: “Only the rich have genuine access.”

The following hypocritical quotes by McLachlin are not a reality for the Applicant et al, but a prayer:

“Canadians have a unique and highly value concept of justice. Though we may not think about it often, our way of life depends on this concept.

“Our expectations about how we will be treated by our government, our employers, our neighbours, our families, our friends, and other citizens are based on our trust that we are protected by a powerful system designed to encourage and enforce right behaviour, which is defined in our Constitution and our law books.

“When we enter a courtroom, we trust that the judge before us decides on the basis of two things only: the law and the facts.

13

“We have the right to appeal such decisions to a higher court. “We expect the highest level of conduct from our judges — on and off the bench. Justice matters, not just because it is fundamental to our way of life as Canadians, but because it underpins our trust in the value of that way of life.”

Particularly, the following in-part quote that is subjective is attributed to the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada, which is contrary to Charter 52. et al as the Applicant verily believes it to be an elitist, conjured-up statement in favour of lawyers to deny all their Constitutional Rights. The Applicant’s statement is not inferring that knowledgeable lawyers would not be better to represent an individual in a judicial proceeding. Sometimes lawyers are cost prohibitive. Acting-in-person is Constitutional and the courts have to be patient. – “Non-lawyers do not understand the nuances of the law.”

Further, notwithstanding the Applicant’s Charter Rights, under the Canadian Human

Rights Act. 1976 – 77, c. 33, s. 1. 2. et al, the Applicant has been denied all hope as guaranteed in that section et al through discriminatory practices of others, especially certain judges et al who are under Charter 24. (1) (2) “Incompetent.”

From the Throne Speech on February 2, 2004 by The Honourable Paul Martin, the following quotes were adduced that are admissions of misconduct, as will manifest itself in their dealings with the Applicant, by certain Members of the Liberal Party of Canada.

“Change in the way that things work in Ottawa – That means reconnecting citizens with their members of Parliament – to restore the public’s faith and trust in the integrity and good management of government – To the end, it will, as a first step, immediately table in Parliament an action plan for democratic reform. 14

– This will include significantly more free votes, so that members can represent the views of their constituents as they see fit.

Restoring trust and accountability – Democratic renewal must also restore trust. Too many Canadians are alienated from their governments. This must be reversed. – Where people are treated with dignity”

In a copy of a question and response from Progressive Conservative Prime Minister Stephen Harper, regarding corruption of the Liberal Party of Canada, dated 01 February 2006, the answer and response was adduced from Harper’s report. “Mr. Gomery has asked why no one has accepted responsibility for the abuses committed in the administration of sponsorship initiatives, and no one has provided an answer,” said Mr. Harper. “Our government will pursue those answers. We will hold people accountable who committed wrongdoing and we will act to find what happened to the missing money.”

The right of anyone to act in person is a fallacy, as it only goes to ensure fairness in the process. But, the first right of refusal to act in person is a decision of the bestowed! What is the cost of justice? Judges have the powers to order legal aid in the interest of justice. (Not all should be entitled to legal aid). Courts are a mirror image of government when it comes to legal aid. Absent from the any quotes is any existence of public statements from the judiciary et al encouraging the public to please come to your court system to settle your disputes, rather than taking the law into your own hands. The judicial system is a debacle!

Our Constitution guarantees that citizens are paramount in society! As will manifest itself, your Constitutional Rights are not guaranteed; they are totally dependent 15 on the goodwill of someone else! Accordingly, gross denial of anybody’s Constitutional Rights has to be dealt with by the criminal courts!

The Applicant repeats and relies on the CC s. 11. Civil remedy not suspended – No civil remedy for an act or omission is suspended or affected by reason that the act or omission is a criminal offence. The Applicant verily believes that this federal legislation supersedes any Ontario statute, specifically, the Courts of Justice Act and any rules emanating as a result of this act.

In the past, the Applicant’s pleadings about references to the CC have been used to defeat this process.

To conceal conspiracy is conspiracy!

To conceal fraud is fraud!

Through this process, there exists documentary proof of a Constitutional crisis that should concern all Canadians. Starting with Her Majesty the Queen, the Applicant is asking, in addition to the $1.5 billion which would be paid by others, further the courts order Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II to pay the Applicant a $2.00 judgement for the breach of trust by her representative here in Ontario. Her tenure represents hypocrisy,

after factoring in Charter 15. (1). Notwithstanding the fact that it probably costs Canadians in excess of $100 million yearly to maintain this fairytale status quo, some Canadians do not want their tax dollars spent this way. Further, we are sending out the wrong message to some that we are a class society, with some being more equal than others in our judicial system.

The existence of corruption, in our judicial system unconstitutionally has separated the Applicant from his properties, and a continuing conspiracy by persons most responsible has prevented the Applicant from having his day in court. 16

This is not a vexatious proceeding! Rather, it is a special case to be heard through the civil process under Charter 52 et al. Others have turned this into a criminal process and most definitely a grey area for the presiding judge. Nevertheless, this process is permitted under the Constitution.

The Applicant was inspired by media-reported remarks that were attributed to The Late Honourable John Sopinka of the Supreme Court of Canada, when he stepped down from his Bench and announced words to the effect, “If individuals did not stand up for their rights they would lose them.” The Applicant took this statement literally and acted accordingly.

The Applicant was surprised and astonished that certain entities/individuals, who are most responsible to ensure democracy, have openly opposed his efforts, with some, knowingly and willingly, going to extraordinary measures to stop him. Realleging, one of the most serious accounts being that they tried to murder him.

A fundamental expectation in a democracy is that we all have a duty to act fairly among ourselves. It is the basis of civilized humanity! All should be outraged when a fellow citizen is subjected to tyranny the way this Applicant has been. The Applicant alleges that those of you who are aware of his plight, your actions and inactions surmount to gross misconduct toward the Applicant. You have to be brought to justice!

All lawyers, particularly those of you who are in the public employ, your fiduciary responsibilities are limited to your good faith dealings on behalf of your clients/the public. Specifically, you have no clients who get involved in misconduct inadvertently or otherwise; particularly, elected officials, public servants, and their respective boards of directors. Your conduct, in part, has to be viewed by your actions and inactions. Your gross negligence is covered under CC s. 141. (1) Compounding indictable offence et al. 17

The unconstitutional and criminal existence of super human beings will manifest itself throughout this process. These individuals act as if they are above the law. Their existence and perceived special status in some cases are as a result of provincial statutes. Others believe that they have obtained this elitist status through their connections. Politicians, judges, police, government employees pay legal counsel to mislead and obstruct justice and sometimes rent a retired judge. The corruption of these individuals

have literally put an end to Charter 15. (1) as it applies to the Applicant and for sure others.

There will manifest itself evidence that will bring the administration of justice into disrepute. The Applicant is a victim of crime and has been subjected to tyranny. Some of

the responsible parties’ actions and inactions rise to the level of sedition.

The Applicant is attempting to invoke his Constitutional Rights through this process to teach these unlawful individuals, if you partake in any action that limits or denies anybody’s Constitutional Rights, no matter what walk of life you come from, you can and will face severe consequences if you, knowingly and willingly, make a person a victim of your diabolical ways.

Those who have a duty to protect the Applicant and his family have subjected them to the cruellest, unlawful, and inhumane treatment. Further manifestations will prove that these vicious, vindictive individuals followed the Applicant from one business deal to another, denying him the right to mitigate his losses by knowingly, willingly, and intentionally harming the Applicant by the use of false pretences. These cowardly individuals underestimated the Applicant’s tenacity. Now, in their own self-defence, they have to work even harder to try to deter the Applicant from this process; accordingly, imprisoning themselves in their own minds, thinking that the Applicant may choose to abandon his philosophy that the pen is mightier than the sword and resort to the use of violence to protect his and his family’s Constitutional Rights. Accordingly, their actions 18 and inactions are keeping the Applicant unconstitutionally, criminally under police investigation (summer 2006).

All trusts and authorities arise out of the people’s Constitution, starting with Her

Majesty the Queen. Charter 15. (1) guarantees that we are all equal before the law. All involved with government cannot rise above the position as a public servant; accordingly, these public servants/officers have a duty to the public. Individuals’ rights will not be limited to the good will or interpretation of others, particularly in dealings with government services. CC s. 122. Breach of trust by public officer will deal with public servants! The Applicant alleges that far too often Constitutional Rights are lost, and the reasons are disguised as red tape, when it can be sometimes attributed to the wilful misconduct of the public servants who are administering the various services.

The Applicant will prove that certain individuals in the private sector and specifically certain public servants believe that they are super human beings and above the law. These immoral individuals have denied the Applicant and others the following that was adduced from the Canadian Bill of Rights; accordingly, subjecting all to cruel and unusual punishment, resulting in all being subjected to tyranny. Throughout this process, these individuals will manifest themselves. These guilty parties have to be sent a clear message that if you participate in the denial of guaranteed due process afforded to all, you can and will be brought to justice. “Affirming also that men and institutions remain free only when freedom is founded upon respect for moral and spiritual values and the rule of law.”

Notwithstanding the previous paragraph, the following quote is attributed to Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin where the Applicant is questioning the morality of her quote. All knowledgeable persons know that the judicial system has nothing to do with the truth (Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?) (criminal perjury) and is sometimes relying on conjured-up facts. The more 19 expensive lawyer you hire, and under the rules, they can turn the truth into a lie by using enough facts to fool the courts. – “When we enter a courtroom, we trust that the judge before us decides on the basis of two things only: the law and the facts.

Further, the Ontario Rules of Civil Practice are purported to be permitted under the

Courts of Justice Act. The Applicant alleges that they are a recipe for theft and fraud in the hands of the diabolical. They can turn right into wrong and be used to obstruct and mislead a judicial proceeding. These rules most definitely prevent the facts/truth from being brought forward. All litigants’ Constitutional Rights to be equal before the law are put on hold until they pass a means test, and you only receive your rights after being graded by judges on your compliance to these rules. Regardless of the merits/facts of your particular dispute, you will lose when the courts are enforcing these overly rigid, diabolical rules. The Applicant alleges, in the interest of justice, persons without means should be seriously allowed at anytime to stand up in the appropriate court and ask to be heard, and maybe the presiding judge should have the power in certain cases to order

Legal Aid for that individual. The Applicant alleges that the rules pursuant to the Courts of

Justice Act are unconstitutional because of their complexity and their overly rigid enforcement and should only be permitted as a guide at all times. In the alternative, the federal government, ensuring everyone the same treatment wherever in the country they may need to access a court, should enact both civil and criminal rules of procedures. Further, arguably, the many changes in the rules cast suspicion on all previous case precedents that are being proffered to the courts, purported to be helping the judges to make a determination in a court dispute.

Throughout this process, the Applicant will be justified in describing himself as a political prisoner because of the involvement of elected officials, not limited to these MPs, Collenette and Dingwall. In previous lawsuits, the Applicant was claiming an amount of $50 million. This amount was adduced from The Right Honourable Brian 20

Mulroney’s legal dispute. The amount chosen was a symbolic amount to show the difference between the “haves” and “have nots.” The Applicant verily believes Mulroney’s action was limited to one issue. The Applicant is now claiming an amount of $1.5 billion. The Applicant believes that some of these psychopathic corporations and individuals have to be held accountable for their unlawful actions, with actual and punitive damages to act as a deterrent and not just the cost of doing business. Specifically, not the puny judgements the courts have been awarding.

The Applicant is attempting, to the best of his ability, to combat tyranny and the use of unlawful force by the authorities. He realizes that this process could be considered to be lacking when compared to a competent litigator and relies on the following: CC s.19. Ignorance of the law – Ignorance of the law by a person who commits an offence is not an excuse for committing that offence. The existing laws and their current applications are complex and convoluted for the professionals and, particularly, for the laypersons’ interpretation.

Consequently, their implication in the day-to-day living of the citizens makes CC s. 19 above unconstitutional. Charter 15. (1) guarantees that the right to equal justice is not to be interfered with by government-enacted laws, with the poor and sometimes ignorant being discriminated against in their plight for justice by judges denying people, like the Applicant, who are forced to act in person, their Constitutional Right to be heard.

The Applicant is guilty only of showing courage in the face of adversity in his continuing fight against a corrupt judicial system. Certain police in their unlawful line of duty have, knowingly and willingly, subjected the Applicant to tyranny. Realleging, the Applicant has been arbitrarily arrested and falsely imprisoned six times by the police. He has been repeatedly threatened with bodily harm by certain police officers. Further, on another occasion the day before the Applicant was to appear in another civil court proceeding, he was arbitrarily arrested. Again threatened that if he were to appear in a civil court proceeding, he would be arbitrarily arrested and jailed. (He did not appear!) 21

Certain police have, knowingly and willingly, disobeyed the Applicant’s lawfully granted court Orders. They have refused enforcement of the Applicant’s legitimate court Orders, but acted on bogus court Orders from others. Falsely, knowingly and willingly, they have prosecuted an innocent person, the Applicant, for disobeying a bogus civil court Order. They have criminally harassed the Applicant and tortured him while in custody, resulting in a personal permanent hand injury. Continually and unlawfully they are keeping the Applicant under investigation because of the actions and inactions of super human beings/others, specifically, those who have a duty towards him. Suspect police stole the Applicant’s vehicle, criminally libelled and slandered him by being called notorious, a cop hater, known to police, all resulting in police attempting to legally murder him. The Applicant alleges that by his naming numerous police officers in this legal process, unlawfully in defence of their own, police are trying to prevent him from having his day in court. His only crime is getting up each and every time after he has been knocked down; he does not have a criminal record.

The Applicant verily believes that, when citizens are subjected to tyranny by individuals who have sworn an oath of allegiance to protect the public (and are permitted to carry a gun et al), these guilty individuals have, knowingly and willingly, misconducted themselves. These individuals’ by their actions and inactions have to be held accountable for their misconduct under the CC “Sedition”!

When citizens are denied the right of access to a fair and impartial judicial system and have been refused the right to be heard by our legislators to have their disputes resolved, sometimes they will take the law into their own hands. History teaches that to deny same is a recipe for rebellion by the oppressed. The media have reported the efforts of the founder and leader of the Ontario Collation Against Poverty (OCAP), Mr. John Clark. In one instance, Clark and his supporters were accused of starting a riot outside the Ontario Legislature. Certain media have refused to support the Applicant’s quiet plight; accordingly, without public support, police are criminally continuing to harass the 22

Applicant (summer 2006). Realleging! He has been arbitrarily arrested and imprisoned six times. The Applicant believes that the pen is mightier than the sword: some do not.

Contrary to the CC s. 140. Public mischief (a) (b), throughout the process, the Applicant will prove, in part, that some individuals/corporations have misconducted themselves. There exist covert operations to cover up the truth: sometimes by misleading and obstructing justice, silence in not admitting their wrongdoing, and knowingly and willingly retaining legal counsel to corrupt the judicial system, thus denying the Applicant his guaranteed Constitutional Rights.

Some individuals/corporations are guarding against their own past and continuing self-incrimination. There exists a discriminatory practice when public officers/employees are afforded the right of legal counsel, most of the time in-house counsel and other times the very, very best of our independent legal firms, and persons like the Applicant/poor are left to their own means. CMHC legal department do not believe that their dealings are limited to their good faith dealings on behalf of the public. Further, they do not believe that they have a fiduciary responsibility to the public, rather they believe that they are to conceal intentional misconduct committed by those whom they perceive as their clients.

The Applicant has been denied all of his Constitutional Rights and unlawfully made into a nonentity, in part, when he was denied due process. In the absence of the Applicant being unable to retain legal counsel or a court to order legal aid, he decided to take up his own plight by preparing, issuing, and serving his own court documents, only to have politically-appointed, presiding, learned judges subject the Applicant and all citizens to anarchy when these judges deny them/the Applicant the right to make oral arguments, limited defence or objections, and rebuttals in their own defence.

The Applicant states that his acting in person was of the last resort. The Applicant was tricked and lied to by legal counsel representing Legal Aid in the hallways of the 23

Milton Courts, when they told him that Legal Aid did not fund civil disputes. The Applicant voluntarily withdrew his Motion where he was asking the court to order the law firm of McCarthy Tetrault to act for him and to be funded by Legal Aid. Through that process, these lawyers, knowingly and willingly, obstructed and misled the courts. The Applicant unsuccessfully approached some of the larger law firms to handle his case on a pro bono basis. Many of the smaller law firms excluded themselves because of the volume and the complexity of work.

Government legal departments act unlawfully when they fail to realize that their tenure is limited to their good faith dealings on behalf of the public. They should facilitate a resolution whenever possible. Criminally, they could care less about individuals’ rights. These legal departments are widely used as a bunker or an escape for cowardly government officials to not admit wrongdoing or misconduct on their part or on the part of individuals under their control. These professional lawyers have allowed their employers to exercise too much control over their decisions. Sometimes they do not exercise all of their legal skills, and certain Crown Attorneys have, knowingly and willingly, taken part in the prosecution of an innocent person, the Applicant. If their misconduct fits the definition of reasonable and probable cause, maybe the court should make an order to disbar certain lawyers without prejudice. It is a privilege to be a lawyer, not a right!

The court system had better hear from people like the Applicant. The current judicial process does discriminate against anyone acting in person no matter how qualified they are to speak to a matter. The Applicant is alleging that any gross loss of Constitutional Rights has to be criminal. The Applicant verily believes that the first right of refusal to be heard by acting in person in a judicial procedure is the right of the individual, save maybe where the learned judge verily believes that the individual is incompetent and orders Legal Aid for the individuals, if they qualify. 24

The Applicant is a continuing victim of criminal fraud perpetrated against him, for the most part, by his own legal counsel. All have a right to act-in-person. Notwithstanding the previous statement, the Applicant is forced to act in person, in part, as a result of no funds, resulting from the misappropriation of his trust monies by his lawyers and his unlawful denial of Legal Aid. His plight is compounded by the continuous criminal breach of trust by public servants and individuals who have a duty and, particularly, a fiduciary responsibility toward him. Further, certain others, who have sworn an allegiance to the state, by refusing to take up his plight, have, knowingly and willingly, criminally conspired to prosecute an innocent person, the Applicant. Still other individuals have taken part in denying him due process as guaranteed by the Constitution.

The courts have jurisdiction over all public employees, private corporations, and individuals who may have committed indictable offences under the CC. If their misconduct fits the definition of reasonable and probable cause, the Applicant is requesting that the court make an order for a special prosecutor, complete with investigators, to bring these individuals to justice. Some have displayed contempt and a vicious and vindictive hate toward the Applicant, displayed symptoms of substance abuse, low moral turpitude, tunnel vision, desire to win at all costs, and moronic intelligence. As will manifest itself, these individuals have knowingly, willingly, criminally, and grossly denied the Applicant his Constitutional Rights.

Credibility of the parties presenting their arguments in court proceedings has become an issue. Both judges and lawyers have used a selective memory process in their dealings with the Applicant. The Applicant alleges that if cameras and recording equipment were permitted in the courts, all of the Applicant’s proof and arguments would have not been left in the wake of the lies of others. Accordingly, he has been denied due process as guaranteed by the Constitution.

25

Polygraph tests should also be a part of our judicial system, if only to be used at the court’s discretion. The test may enable the court to seek out the truth. Sometimes, even if it is only inferred, this type of evidence being admissible in the court may deter some from proceeding as an unlawful litigant.

Self-regulatory bodies have subjected the Applicant to tyranny. These self- regulatory bodies, by way of legislation, are allowed to regulate their professional members in accordance with what is best in the public interest. They have acted unlawfully in their investigation of the Applicant’s complaints. They are largely responsible for the Applicant’s cruel and unusual treatment by adopting a policy of acting as public relations for its members with disciplinary actions playing a very minimal role. This practice is not in the public interest. Government is negligent for not being stricter in their regulating the regulators. No more should these self-regulators be allowed to use provincial legislation to conceal federal, criminal, indictable offences committed by their

members. Non-professionals have to face stricter legislation under the CC, a

discriminatory practice contrary to Charter 15. (1). Example: The Applicant’s properties were criminally sold and hospitals and surgeons criminally have left him in a life- threatening condition. The authorities have tried to murder him, arbitrarily he has been falsely arrested and imprisoned on six separate occasions, and still some continue to conspire with others to prosecute an innocent person, the Applicant.

The Applicant alleges that there are no civil frauds. Frauds are covered under the

CC. It has been suggested by the LSUC that the theft of the Applicant’s trust monies is a civil fraud. To date, the LSUC and its Benchers have concealed member lawyers’

indictable offences contrary to federal law, the CC. Their continued concealment is

making them parties to these offences. The Law Society Act allows the lawyers to police themselves in accordance with what is supposed to be in the best interest of the public. The Applicant’s complaints to the LSUC fall into the category of criminal. The Applicant alleges that the bad faith dealings by the LSUC’s employees, in part, have to be 26 considered in the disposition of this dispute. Charter 15. (1) guarantees equality before the law. Federal law has to be interpreted before any consideration that will manifest itself in

the Law Society Act, a provincial statute. Example: Contrary to the Applicant’s instructions to counsel, his properties were sold with the proceeds of the sale being misappropriated, and in criminal proceedings, the Applicant’s lawyers have refused to take lawful direction from him; accordingly, they are negligent after they had refused to use all of their legal skills.

Some Chief Justices, over the years, have continually made prejudicial statements to the media about the Applicant and others who are either forced or have chosen to act- in-person in a judicial proceeding. The entire judicial system, through the media, has been made aware of these prejudicial statements. These elitist officers of the court have turned the judicial process into a gristmill to grind every cent from the public with their unconstitutional, diabolical rules. Further, as will manifest itself, the Applicant has been ordered to pay punitive, exorbitant amounts of unconstitutional court costs. Contrary to

Charter 15.(1), individuals acting in person are being discriminated against, as the courts will not award costs to anyone but lawyers. Example: “The lawyer for the other side in one

case was aware of the contempt by the courts for individuals acting in person. Repeatedly he would start a Motion to collect costs and bragged to the Applicant about the fact he did not have to bill his client.” Accordingly, he was successful in beating the Applicant with the unlawful use of costs.

Further for the most part, in the Applicant’s dealings with the courts, he has been denied rights to any trials. All of his efforts have been defeated by Motions Courts. Further, in part, the Applicant has been limited in his right to orally address the court, whether it is in defence or to present argument. Accordingly, his Constitutional Rights to due process/justice have been denied. Example: Not limited to this case example, when the Applicant was permitted to speak, he was granted two Orders, only to have them disobeyed, with the presiding judge still ordering the Applicant to pay exorbitant, 27 punitive costs. In another Motion in the same case, an Order for Summary Judgement was granted to the other side by a learned, uncertified judge in Case Management procedure. There does not exist provisions for summary judgement in Case Management proceedings. Accordingly, the presiding judge ordered the Applicant to forfeit a $10,000 deposit. Further, absent throughout that process are any Form 3’s. The Applicant retained legal counsel to appeal with an understanding that they were the Applicant’s attorneys of record. After the Applicant learned that the Appeal documents did not contain enough proper legal argument/documentation, including mentioning the improper Summary Judgement, “The Applicant instructed his lawyers not to file the Appeal.” However, his lawyers did file the Appeal. Then they immediately and successfully obtained an Order to get off record. In still another Motion, “in the sick absence of the Applicant, and in a telephone conversation between the parties, the other side’s lawyer would not consent to an adjournment,” the Appeal Court ordered outrageous, punitive costs in the amount of $4,000.00. The Applicant was unconstitutionally subjected to cruel punishment and punitively beaten by costs

The Applicant realleges that he has been arbitrarily arrested and imprisoned six times by the authorities. “One occasion, on police authority, he re-entered one of his disputed properties, only later to be charged with disobeying a bogus civil court Order.” No such charges were laid when others disobeyed court Orders. As will manifest itself, there were others, including police, who, knowingly and willingly, have disobeyed court Orders.

The Applicant realleges that anyone who has been persecuted and subjected to tyranny has the right to be outraged. “He has never used or threatened the use of violence.” The following is stated results of police profiling. Realleging! “The Applicant doesn’t have a mean bone in his body.”

28

The nature of this dispute is a combination of civil and criminal; accordingly, vexatious proceedings have to be redefined by the courts as they apply to individuals acting in person. The learned judges maybe should take a broader look at the pleadings of anyone acting in person. Repeatedly, unconstitutionally, the Applicant has been denied his rights of freedom of expression. Further, the Applicant has the fullest respect for all judicial proceedings. The Applicant verily believes that it may be impossible for anyone acting in person to remove all of their emotions from their writings and oral arguments.

This dispute started in 1993, and as of Summer 2006, police (master criminals) continue to torture, intimidate, and oppress the Applicant. Therefore, Toronto Chiefs of Police McCormack, Boothby, Fantino, and Blair, and past and current Police Services Board Members, et al, who will manifest themselves throughout this process, for the most part, were in positions to stop the corruption and these master criminals from continuing to subject the Applicant and his family to tyranny. They have, knowingly and willingly, contrary to CC s. 122. Breach of trust by public officer, when they failed in their duties to ensure that the Applicant was not being subjected to tyranny. Accordingly, their actions and

inactions are contrary to CC s. 21. (1) Parties to offence (a) (b) (c) of CC s. 465. (1) Conspiracy (b) and CC s. 239. Attempt to commit murder. As will manifest itself, the Applicant has broken no laws! Police (master criminals) motive for subjecting the Applicant to tyranny is as a result of this process where the Applicant is naming numerous police officers who have committed indictable offences (blue wall of silence).

The Applicant alleges that he has been wrongfully, criminally charged and could have been convicted with the amount of fabricated evidence proffered by the police. As will manifest itself throughout this process, there exists a cowardly, vicious hate by the authorities against the Applicant and others. Still further, there exists unwillingness by crown attorneys of the judicial system to back off and admit when they are wrong. A cruel, unlawful/unconstitutional practice to win at all costs using tunnel vision, is resulting in persons being wrongfully convicted. 29

Guilty until proven innocent should not be tolerated, particularly from the police. Their blue wall of silence is an affront to all citizens’ rights to due process, if you believe that police represent the front line of justice. As will manifest itself, police routinely are reluctant to be held accountable through their public overseers/Police Service Boards. They routinely lie and cheat to protect their own. In many instances, media have reported that any police officer who would like to be promoted had better be prepared to participate in a process to prosecute an innocent person, specifically as in the Applicant’s case. Many times, individuals are wrongfully accused, as the Applicant was, by police fabricating evidence and/or refusing to keep an open mind throughout their investigations.

The Applicant alleges it is in the public interest for the court to make an Order to fire, without prejudice, all police officers who are suspect, others who have committed indictable offences, and still others who are parties to an offence. It is a privilege to be a custodian in the justice system, not a right. Any laws to the contrary are discriminatory under Charter 15. (1).

The Applicant realleges that certain individuals of the LSUC and its benchers, who have personal knowledge of his plight, knowingly and willingly, took part in

concealing indictable offences under the CC that its members may have committed. To

conceal fraud is fraud. Provincial statutes do not supersede federal legislation. The CC deals with the misconduct of all Canadians. Whether it be expressed and implied, no provincial statute totally covers the interests of the public. As the Law Society Act is being

administered, it is a discriminatory and unacceptable practice covered under Charter 15. (1).

The Applicant alleges that the current practice of appointing judges is unconstitutional and, in one instance, criminal. In this case, a lawyer was appointed judge as a political favour for doing an unlawful act against the Applicant by obstructing and misleading justice while he was a practising lawyer. Further, this lawyer/judge gives the 30 appearance that he paid for a judgeship when he thought that he had made a secret payment of $5,000.00 to a bogus campaign attempt by an MP to become Prime Minister.

All public officers/employees believe that if a matter is before the courts, they should not get involved, as it may be perceived as trying to unduly influence the outcome of a court decision. They are correct in most cases, but not in this matter. As will manifest itself, certain politicians and police are unlawfully using public services in their own personal interest and, in part, are responsible for corrupting the courts, with some judges taking part in unconstitutional procedures against the Applicant, with their conduct rising to the level of criminal misconduct. They have caused the Applicant to be continuously, unlawfully investigated. These individuals are guilty of many indictable offences under

the CC.

Lawyers are misleading and obstructing justice by unlawfully using the civil courts, in some cases, to conceal the criminal activity of their clients. Civil disputes should only consist of a dispute between the parties who cannot agree on the disposition of joint interests if laws do not exist. If one party decides not to follow these statutes/laws, then maybe the presiding judge should refer all breaches of the law to the Crown Attorney’s Office to instruct police to investigate and possibly lay criminal

charges, in part under the CC s. 126. 1 Disobeying a statute.

The Federal Government of Canada; the Provincial Government of Ontario; the former Cities of North York and Etobicoke, now known as the City of Toronto, hereinafter known as the City, in part, are parties to numerous offences, and certain individuals have failed in their sworn responsibilities and duties to protect the Constitutional Rights of the Applicant. These elected officials, who have embroiled themselves into this dispute, have abjured their respective oaths and have incited their subordinates to act in such a manner that it denied the Constitutional Rights of the

Applicant, when you factor in Charter 15. (1). The City of Toronto, some elected officials, 31 and public servants have been involved in criminal activity. Other legal departments and police, knowingly and willingly, took part in the concealment of these indictable offences.

The Applicant alleges that some previously elected Progressive Conservative MPPs in the former Premier Harris’s Ontario government are in breach of their trust. While others, knowingly and willingly through the public legal departments, took part in prosecuting the Applicant, an innocent person. The Ontario Premier’s office has full knowledge of the Applicant’s plight. Another MPP promised the Applicant that if he voted for him he would help the Applicant with his plight. In part to date, this MPP has failed to do so. Other MPPs rejected the Applicant’s repeated request for help and threatened him through their staff with prosecution, if he were to continue with this process.

Further, the Harris government was responsible for repealing a section of the

Mental Health Act that deals with police instructions on how to deal with a suspect of a mental defect. They were to take the person to a hospital and wait for the doctor’s diagnosis and, in the absence of any mental defect, drive that person home. This was the case in the Applicant’s arbitrary arrest No. 5. Weeks later and after repealing part of the Act, the Applicant would be arrested for the sixth time, and through that process, as will manifest itself, the Applicant was subjected to a situation where he had to dodge police guns and a judge’s staff psychiatrist who wrongly disallowed other more eminent psychiatrists’ and doctors’ reports that the Applicant does not suffer from a mental defect. Upon reading this entire section, all would have to conclude that the Applicant was subjected to every conceivable constitutional violation that exists, and the actions and

inactions of the participants rise to the highest level of misconduct sedition.

Our political parties have proven themselves to be undemocratic in their dealings with the Applicant. The Applicant wrote the Liberal Party of Canada and asked for their 32 involvement in his plight and the possible disciplining of The Honourables Dingwall and Collenette. There was no response from them. The Liberal Party of Canada is the organization responsible, in part, for all Liberal federal and provincial politicians. The Liberals, the government of the day in Ontario, used a discriminatory, unconstitutional practice and tried to use their elected powers in an attempt to prevent the proper, constitutional existence of another political party, the New Democratic Party, herein known as the NDP, by denying them equal funding that should be afforded all elected parties and MPPs.

Further, the Federal Liberals have been described by the media, under the former leadership of The Right Honourable Jean Chrétien, as a quasi dictatorship. The Applicant realleges that he has named Chrétien in previous lawsuits and this lawsuit for his breach of trust to the Applicant and other self-employed individuals. The Honourable Paul Martin, at the time described by the media as the next Prime Minister in waiting, has stated publicly that he intends to introduce democracy in government. The antics of these political parties have to be investigated by the public and limit their authority to policy and the implementation of this policy. Their gang mentality and their unscrupulous and criminal behaviour have to be dealt with by the courts. Accordingly, their actions and

inactions could rise to the level of sedition.

The Senate purported to be a part of our government system is being described by the media as a retirement home for burnt-out and washed-up politicians and friends of government. Its existence is unconstitutional. These Senators do not have one elected vote amongst them and have no democratic/constitutional authority to approve or disapprove any Acts of Parliament. In their own self-interest, they definitely have demonstrated repeatedly that they will allow themselves to be used as a rubber stamp for the government of the day. This is contrary to what is in the best interest of the public. The Applicant requested their involvement in his plight, with a resounding, “No!.” There 33 is a role for a publicly elected Senate as a sober, second review of all government proposed legislation already supported by the Charter.

As will manifest itself, politically-appointed justices are prejudiced against the

Applicant and anyone acting in person. They are responsible for subjecting the Applicant to tyranny. They have created anarchy while sitting on the bench. The Applicant realleges, in part, that this process was politically motivated. Accordingly, all judges would be prejudiced against any complainant who alleges misconduct of politicians. Accordingly, any gross unconstitutional acts committed by whomever have to be considered criminal.

The Applicant repeats and relies on Rule 2 – Non Compliance with the Rules. This

process may not comply with the Ontario Rules of Civil Practice that are purported to be

made in accordance with the Courts of Justice Act. These overly rigid rules and their interpretation by persons with a diabolical mind have obstructed and denied the Applicant his Constitutional Rights to be able to present evidence as may be required to prove his individual cases. Past judges have repeatedly, contrary to the interest of justice, denied

the Applicant any considerations under Rule 2.

Manifestations! Throughout this process, all have to conclude that certain individuals have committed offences against the public order. In conspiracies to conceal their misconduct, they have committed offences against the administration of law and justice. The Gomery Report et al, commissioned by the Liberal Government regarding corruption (ad scam) goes to the roots that form the nature of this dispute. In reality, starting with the hypocritical tenure of Her Majesty the Queen in right of Canada and her possible misconduct under the laws and Constitution of Canada will go unpunished.

Gomery has created super human beings, contrary to Charter 15. (1). On the other hand, the Applicant is a victim of repeated crime by individuals who are supposed to be protecting him, and he verily believes that if he should attempt to proceed in the courts, he could 34 again be arbitrarily arrested and/or subjected to tyranny with the use of fabricated evidence by others.

Notwithstanding the previous and the following, mid-winter 2006 the media reported the Gomery Enquiry Report findings about misconduct of certain individuals and party members of the Liberal Party of Canada. Justice Gomery has, knowingly, willingly, and unconstitutionally, elevated these certain Canadians as super human beings in his smoke and mirrors report when he failed to properly assign, by law, the misconduct (where are the police?) that had manifested itself throughout his investigation. Notwithstanding Justice Gomery’s interpretation of his mandate by the Liberal Party of Canada, the public expected that the alleged guilty would be held accountable for their misconduct as guaranteed under Charter 15. (1). Proof of this type of criminal behaviour is and continues to be adjudicated in the courts. As case reference, ask anyone who has been caught shop lifting (theft)! Notwithstanding the conviction of lower public servants.

The Applicant is expressing his concerns about the real possibility of bias against him by judges et al! In part, certain Respondents (Prime Minister Chrétien) were responsible for the appointment of the alleged biased judges, specifically, certain members of the Supreme Court of Canada who could possibly be hearing his dispute. The following quotes were adduced from a media article, dated February 4, 2006, by Sandra Cordon of Canadian Press. Ms. Cordon is purported to be quoting Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin. “The short answer is no,” when McLachlin was asked if Parliament should be given a more active role in the appointment of judges process. The Applicant alleges

that the current appointment process defies Charter 15. (1), and to make the process more democratic and accountable to end users like himself, we have to not only have a process that is perceived as unbiased but is in actuality. A further quote, McLachlin believes that the Constitution gives the Prime Minister the final say on appointments to the top court, and “I respect that and that is the Constitution.” Argument, all who receive remuneration for their public services can never rise above the level of a public servant! Under what 35 circumstances does any public servant (Her Majesty the Queen) stand in the way of any citizen’s rights guaranteed under Charter 15. (1)? Chief Justice McLachlin is wrong! Her and others’ tenures that are not in the public interest is moot! Citizens are paramount in society!

Manifestations! Throughout this process, all have to conclude that certain individuals have committed offences against the public order. In conspiracies to conceal their misconduct, they have committed offences against the administration of law and justice, specifically they turned the Applicant into a nonentity!

The Applicant believes that some of these psychopathic corporations and individuals have to be held accountable for their unlawful actions, with actual and punitive damages to act as a deterrent and not just the cost of doing business! Specifically, not the puny judgements the courts have been awarding!

The Interpretation Act 17. Her Majesty not bound or affected unless stated! “The Applicant was told by a Mr. Richard A. Berthelsen of the Lieutenant Governor’s Office that Her Majesty would not be exercising all of her authorities, due to her concerns about the repeated separation of Quebec!”

The Applicant does not speak French, to his shame! Contrary to Charter 16. (1), he has been denied his rights to access government! In certain cases, when he asked to speak to someone who spoke English, their response was to hang up on him, leaving the

Applicant being discriminated against, contrary to Charter 15. (1). Notwithstanding the fact that not all of the Francophones did not hang up on him, it is suspect that the embitterment of certain Francophones really did an injustice to the Applicant based on his race, contrary to Charter 15. (1).

36

A fundamental expectation in a democracy is that we all have a duty to act fairly among ourselves. It is the basis of civilized humanity! All should be outraged when a fellow citizen is subjected to tyranny the way this Applicant has been. The Applicant alleges that those of you who are aware of his plight, your actions and inactions surmount to gross misconduct toward the Applicant. You have to be brought to justice!

Certain elected officials, police, public employees, and others throughout our mutual dealings have all, knowingly and willingly in varying degrees, committed misconduct, treated the Applicant with malice, some took part in torturing and maliciously prosecuting the Applicant, and further some took part in misleading and obstructing justice both criminally and civilly; accordingly, denying the Applicant virtually all of his Constitutional Rights resulting in the Applicant becoming a nonentity.

All of you who are repeatedly and continually in breach of your trust as a public officer and who have knowledge or a direct involvement have subjected the Applicant to tyranny! Your actions and inactions and to conceal a “ conspiracy is a conspiracy” cause your misconduct to rise to the level of sedition!

NOTICE TO READERS: The following specific preamble item numbers correspond with the tabs throughout.

1. My Legal Briefs et al

(1) As shown in the Applicant’s Sworn Affidavit, there are numerous legal briefs produced by the Applicant in an attempt to put an end to his being subjected to tyranny. The Applicant is a victim of crime that was as a result of political interference by certain MPs, with the police allowing these MPs to influence an outcome of a criminal investigation against the Applicant 37

that would see him, contrary to Charter 9., being arbitrarily arrested and imprisoned on six (6) separate occasions. Accordingly, numerous police officers would, knowingly and willingly, oppress et al the Applicant,

contrary to CC s. 122. Breach of trust by public officer, with the most serious offence committed by police, they attempted to murder the Applicant.

2. My Business Dealings Prior to 1993 et al

(1) The Applicant was a past holder of a diplomatic passport issued by the Canadian Government during his tenure in Washington DC, USA. A senior detective of the Toronto Police unlawfully investigated the Applicant’s business dealings prior to 1993. He reported to the Applicant words to the effect that “the Applicant had conducted lawful business dealings.” Through the unlawful investigation, police ruined the Applicant’s good name and reputation.

3. Misappropriation of Trust Funds et al

(1) The mutual solicitors (master criminals) would, knowingly and willingly, misappropriate twenty-three thousand four hundred and sixty-two dollars and fifty-one cents ($23,462.51) of the Applicant’s trust money. The Applicant reported same to LSUC, with a response of asking for more and more information, and in the end, not doing anything, with a senior investigator, Mr. Scott Kerr, LL.B. making the following statement to the Applicant. “It was not the policy of the Society to investigate complaints, rather to act as public relations for its lawyer members.” As will manifest itself, in this and other sections, these certain lawyers have, knowingly and willingly, committed perjury, fraud, and abuse of trust et al. Particularly, CMHC/AGF Trust Company, hereinafter known as 38

AGF/our mutual solicitors would, knowingly and willingly, destroy the Applicant’s business dealings with his former mortgagors by not allowing him to approach them for future financing.

4. False Credit Reporting et al

(1) Manifestations! All of the lawyers et al, knowingly and willingly, took part in a fraud against the Applicant and the courts, commit perjury and prosecutorial misconduct when they conspired to keep information from the Applicant and the courts about wrongly advising the Applicant to place a second mortgage on his property, 16 Park Glen Drive, that made him and the second mortgagor (Ivanhoe) in breach of federal mortgage conditions. (In part, the real reason for the parties not to renew the Applicant’s mortgages.) The Applicant tried to have Mr. John Daniels LL.B. release his file by paying Daniels lawyer’s lien. Shortly after that time, Daniels,

contrary to CC s. 140. (1) Public mischief (a) (b) (c), “called police and falsely accused the Applicant and his wife of trespass and theft of his car.”

(2) CMHC/AGF/certain employees would, contrary to federal legislation et al, disallow the Applicant his lawful rights to receive his mortgage renewal, a

Certificate of Insurance that he had previously been approved for. Later, CMHC/AGF, knowingly and willingly, produced false credit reports and circulated same throughout the financial community. By law, CMHC is

described as Lenders of Last Resort. The Applicant appealed to CMHC senior management to reverse the tort they had committed against him. Rather

than issue the Certificate of Insurance that he had previously been approved for directly by CMHC, instead they used a false pretence in saying that they were helping the Applicant to find mortgage financing. Angry words between the parties caused CMHC, the angry giant, to take part in a process 39

to, knowingly and willingly, falsely have the Applicant charged under the

CC. Further, CMHC/AGF/certain employees would, knowingly and willingly, disobey many laws; commit fraud, perjury and prosecutorial misconduct. 5. CMHC Contempt of Parliament et al

(1) Contempt of parliament includes all, particularly, its elected MPs. The Applicant had been subjected to tyranny by CMHC. The Applicant properly turned to his elected MPs and the Liberal Party of Canada for their intervention to fulfil their campaign promise to do something about the fact that self-employed persons in order to receive financing would have to put their homes against their businesses and their businesses against their homes. Particularly, to stop CMHC under the responsible minister’s

authority, Chapter C 7, Directions 5. (2), from reporting false information about the Applicant and follow the law and issue the Applicant’s already

approved increased mortgage Certificate of Insurance. Rather, these vicious, hateful individuals, as has manifested itself, got into name calling rising to

the level of seditious words and counselled the police, contrary to Charter 9, to

falsely have the Applicant charged under the CC.

6. May 1993 Start of Unlawful Foreclosures on 16 Park Glen Drive and 812 – 451 The West Mall et al

(1) Both properties were sold through a constructive fraud against the Applicant, with his own legal counsel being incompetent and ignorant of the law. They, knowingly and willingly, disobeyed both written and verbal instructions not to transfer title of the property and to appeal other court decisions. Accordingly, CMHC/AGF/the parties’ lawyers were contrary to

CC s. 387. Fraudulent sale of real property. They would misappropriate the trust

money, and others would receive monies, as described under CC s. 463 (3) (1) 40

“Proceeds of Crime” (a), with CMHC to this date attempting to extort $35,390.59 as unlawful costs from the Applicant. The Applicant reported this misconduct to LSUC, with LSUC instructing lawyers not to act for the Applicant. Accordingly, LSUC’s actions rise to the level of parties to offences of fraud, perjury, and prosecutorial misconduct et al.

7. Court File No. 93-CQ-42361 et al

(1) The Applicant, as a last resort for him, verily believed that he was being forced to act in person and produced and had issued with the court this proceeding. This was after LSUC instructed the Applicant’s legal counsel,

Daniels, not to act for him further. Contrary to Charter 24. (1), while acting as a Respondent in a Motion Court process for the reasons as will manifest themselves, the Applicant would further encounter corruption by a process server and courts of incompetent jurisdiction by both the presiding judge and his own legal counsel et al. Years later, Daniels when “the Applicant attempted to retrieve his files by paying Daniel’s fee. Daniels refused. Days later, Daniels falsely reported to police allegations that the Applicant stole his vehicle and the Applicant’s wife trespassed on his property. Daniels knows that he lied to the police. The Applicant has personal knowledge that he and his wife did not commit the criminal offences Daniels claimed to have witnessed.”

8. My/Applicant’s Arbitrary Arrest and Detention No. 1 of 6 et al

(1) Manifestations! Through the efforts of master criminals, the Applicant has lost 16 Park Glen Drive, 812 – 451 The West Mall, and 15 Cassidy Place. The Applicant and his family are forced to live with family, and later the 41

Applicant would rent 16 Dartmouth Crescent, where he would be unlawfully evicted. After the eviction, the Applicant would purchase with a family member a condominium unit at 1022 – 451 The West Mall. Police would make a condition before they would not perjury themselves that he would sell that property. Presently, the Applicant resides in a rented unit 207 – 306 The West Mall. Now, police are keeping their distance, at the insistence of whom?

(2) Realleging, manifestations! Master criminals’ “(police’s) admission to the Applicant in his arbitrary arrest No. 5 was that they agreed with the Applicant using their words that he was ‘screwed over.’ Further they told the Applicant that they had previous experience with others and took the appropriate action, only to have the presiding judge order them not to bring forward this type of dispute to the courts.” The police should have appealed

the court’s decision under Charter 24. (1) “Incompetent” as the court’s decision

was contrary to Charter 15. (1) and started a public awareness campaign of emerging super human beings being recognized by the courts.

(3) Realleging, all of the Applicant’s arrests and detentions are contrary to Charter

9. and, particularly, this first arrest and detention, which was influenced by politicians, allows the Applicant to state that he is a political prisoner. (Now innocent or guilty, he is known to police and subjected to their asinine analysis.) The prosecution of innocent persons is not limited to this Applicant. As will manifest itself, the Applicant is a victim of police vigilantes (master

criminals), who unconstitutionally and contrary to Charter 15. (1) will arbitrarily arrest and detain only persons they believe they can bully. The Applicant complained to the Police Standards Department for a review of police misconduct with no intelligent response. The Applicant tried to invoke 42

his Constitutional Rights under Charter 24. (1), only to encounter prosecutorial misconduct and an incompetent court.

(4) Realleging, all of the Applicant’s arbitrary arrests and detentions were

contrary to Charter 9. Specifically, Nos. 1 and 2 of 6, as has and will further

manifest itself, both MP’s, Dingwall and Collenette, contrary to CC s. 319.

(2) Wilful promotion of hatred, because the Applicant is poor, directed and/or

influenced police to charge the Applicant under the CC, making all contrary

to CC s. 59. (1) Seditious words (1) (2) (3) (4) (a) (b). Accordingly, by their actions and inactions against the Applicant all, knowingly and willingly, turned

him into a non-entity et al! Charter 3. et al guarantees the Applicant that he is the government!

(5) Realleging, the Applicant’s attempts to stop the torts against him under

Charter 20. (1) through letter writing and phone calls produced no positive results! The Applicant is a political prisoner! Our judicial system is an

arrogant giant! Police are mandated under Charter 15. (1) to act when anyone has been turned into a non-entity! Through police corruption, they would,

knowingly and willingly, contrary to Charter 9., arrest and detain the

Applicant on six separate occasions! Contrary to Charter 12., Charter 15. (1)

and Charter 24. (1), the politically-appointed, prejudicial judges are

incompetent as they discriminate against anyone acting in person, you are rarely allowed to be heard orally, never awarded court costs, and they use court costs as a punitive determent for you to not show up in court without a lawyer!

(6) Realleging, notwithstanding the above, citizens are paramount in society!

Charter 15. (1) makes the Prime Minister and all under him, who receive

remuneration from taxpayers, “public servants”! Accordingly, their actions and 43

inactions are limited to their good faith dealings on behalf of the public

(harbour no malice). At all times, their tenure is limited to the Interpretation

Act, 23. (1), and if their misconduct rises to the level of the definition of just

cause this would be grounds for just dismissal. Particularly, the arrogant judicial custodians et al who will manifest themselves throughout this process and particularly in this section, your actions and inactions are

contrary to Charter 9., Charter 11. (d) (h), Charter 12., Charter 15. (1), and Charter 24.

(1), not limited to, as the Applicant has been turned into a nonentity!

(7) Realleging, as has and will further manifest itself throughout the Applicant’s plight to combat tyranny that started in 1993 and is continuing, for the most part, is corruption in the judicial system, police who form the frontlines of justice, lawyers, crown attorneys, and the most trusted of all, the judges. All of these different aspects that make up the composition/public servants as custodians of our constitution, because of no real accountability, they have to be described as an arrogant giant.

(8) Realleging, Notwithstanding, the Applicant did appear before certain

justices whose actions and inactions were contrary to the Canadian Bill of

Rights 1. (a), 2. (b) (e). The Applicant, as has and will manifest itself, while

acting in person et al, was repeatedly denied due process et al to be properly notified of a judicial proceeding against him, to be heard orally, and,

particularly, the overly-rigid Rules of Civil Procedure are contrary to Charter 52.

(1), accordingly making the presiding justices contrary to Charter 24. (1), incompetent, with any Orders emanating from that process, bogus.

(9) Realleging, police subjected the Applicant to tyranny! Police powers are

absolute! CC s. 493. Definitions “officer in charge” grants police (individual) enormous Constitutional powers to deny anyone’s liberty on the individual 44

officer’s interpretation of the situation after assessing all of the elements described in the definition of what constitutes “reasonable and probable cause” (the use of deadly force). Police only become involved in situations when all else has failed! Police are to ensure that the enforcement of all laws is in accordance with all persons’ Constitutional Rights, specifically

with Charter 15. (1) et al being their governance. (Arrest certain judges.)

(10) Realleging, notwithstanding the previous paragraph, it would appear from the Applicant’s perspective, police do not possess the intellect and/or training to deal with the issues that have been raised throughout this process! Courts have ruled Toronto police as racist; certain cowardly police have used too much force against the Applicant (permanent hand damage); police will defend one of their own at all expense (no officer has taken up the plight of the Applicant); police when they have committed criminal offences, their Constitutional Rights are paramount; certain police are drunks and unlawful drug users! Accordingly, for the most part, police do not practise or believe that their tenure is limited to their good faith dealings on behalf of the public.

(11) Realleging, police have conjured up and verily believe in their minds that the Applicant is a boogie man. The Applicant verily believes that for the most part these officers get their courage from being allowed to carry a gun and falsely believing that other police officers are better men/women than they are.

9. Continuing Court File No. 93-CQ-42361 et al

(1) As has manifested itself, the Applicant was responsible for the implementation of this court process. (In addition to having to deal with the 45

civil procedures, now he is having to deal with fabricated criminal charges.) The Applicant’s first lawyers on the advice of LSUC were not to act further for him. The Applicant’s second lawyer was so incompetent that he fired him. Further manifestations will prove that CMHC/AGF/Ivanhoe Investments Inc., hereinafter known as Ivanhoe/parties’ lawyers did, knowingly, willingly, and contrary to many laws, commit fraud, breach of trust, perjury et al. The Applicant would complain to LSUC and receive the same response as before from them, now making certain individuals parties to criminal offences. Police would be continuing to investigate and oppress

the Applicant, contrary to CC s. 122. Breach of trust by public officer, as they believe that it is their duty, even though their actions and inactions would

be contrary to Charter 15. (1).

10. Court File No. 3784/93 et al

(1) All of the parties resided in Toronto. CMHC/AGF retained legal counsel in the City of Hamilton, Ontario, to have the Statement of Claim issued. (Why?) CMHC/AGF service of documents was unlawful. As has manifested itself, the Applicant was fighting POS on 16 Park Glen Drive, and further manifestations, he is involved in the purchase of a new property, 15 Cassidy Place, and now having to defend POS on 812 – 451 The West Mall, with CMHC/AGF unlawfully denying the Applicant mortgage renewal, denying the Applicant the right to make mortgage

payments, and attorning the rents. Originally, the Applicant was acting in

person. Later, he requested his new lawyers, Zender & Klotz, to become Attorneys of Record. They agreed. Through this process, all of the parties would, knowingly and willingly, commit fraud, perjury, and the unlawful sale of 16 Park Glen Drive, and in this dispute, secretly reinstated 812 – 46

451 The West Mall in the Applicant’s name, contrary to Court Orders and the Applicant’s approval.

11. Court File No. C18133 et al

(1) This Appeal Court procedure was prepared and issued by the Applicant’s lawyers, Zender & Klotz, that contained false information and not enough of detail that has manifested itself throughout this process. The Applicant verily believes that Zender & Klotz did, knowingly and willingly under a criminal false pretence, generated this document and others for no other purpose than to justify their legal costs. Accordingly, the parties did, knowingly and willingly, commit against the Applicant fraud, perjury, and a criminal breach of trust against all of the interests of all litigants.

12. Court File No. 6953/94 et al

(1) As has manifested itself, the Applicant had no knowledge that his former solicitors, Zender & Klotz, had, contrary to his written instructions sold 16 Park Glen Drive. Particularly, months later when the Applicant was unlawfully served with court documents, he learned that 812 – 451 The West Mall had been reinstated back into his name. (Previously, the court ordered CMHC/AGF could have the property but no costs. It would not be prudent for the Applicant to agree with the reinstatement.) Further they aborted the Applicant’s offer to settle in which he was to receive a fifty thousand dollars ($50,000.00) agreed-upon settlement. Accordingly, the parties committed against the Applicant fraud and perjury.

47

13. Court File No. C20604 et al

(1) The Applicant acted in person in an attempt to do a Notice of Appeal of the

previous Court File No. 6953/94, as contrary to Charter 24. (1), the Applicant verily believed that in this previous dispute, he was subjected to a court of incompetent jurisdiction. The presiding judge’s actions and inactions surmounted to calling the Applicant a perjurer and with no actionable procedure. She instructed CMHC/AGF lawyers to counsel the Applicant in

the court’s corridors under Charter 6. (3) (a) any laws or practices of general

application in force in a province, which in its interpretation by this court is

diabolical and contrary to Charter 15. (1). The Appeal was never heard as it was dismissed by the Registrar on March 6, 1995, for procedural reasons

under the Rules of Civil Procedure. Realleging, the Applicant had no knowledge of the reinstatement of 812 – 451 The West Mall. Accordingly, by their actions and inactions, the parties did commit against the Applicant fraud and perjury.

14. Unlawful Denial of Access to Information Requests et al

(1) There exist more than fifty (50) written and verbal requests by the

Applicant to CMHC under the Access to Information Act, for disclosure. In a telephone conversation with the CMHC person responsible for preparing these disclosures, “she confirmed that there exists many documents that their legal department claimed to have sent to him that he has never received.” The Applicant knows that the CMHC legal department, which oversees the access to information requests, have decided to continue their concealment of self-incriminating documents by not providing the Applicant with his Constitutional and lawful requests. Others have refused 48

to turn over the Applicant’s legal files in tact. Crown Attorneys, in conjunction with police, have knowingly and willingly withheld disclosure documents in criminal proceedings. Accordingly, their actions and inactions against the Applicant surmount to fraud, perjury, and prosecutorial misconduct.

(2) Notwithstanding, CMHC had advised the Applicant to complain to the Privacy Commissioner. With the Applicant’s knowing that CMHC’s entire Legal Department has to guard against their own self-incrimination, CMHC, knowingly and willingly, have and further will mislead and obstruct the process. The Applicant verily believe that the only way to ensure proper, legal disclosure is for the authorities to seize all of these documents under whatever authority is appropriate.

(3) It is not the Applicant’s understanding that the role of the Privacy Commissioner is to police the unlawful activities of government departments. They are only to make rulings on the contents in the documents that have been disclosed. How could they order disclosure, if the documents are being hidden? The Applicant verily believes that after numerous years of dealing with these CMHC employees, they are corrupt.

(4) Police and Crown Attorneys have, knowingly and willingly, denied the Applicant full disclosure as required by law in a criminal proceeding and have made erroneous deletions in the disclosure document process. They have fabricated evidence and, accordingly, they have, knowingly and willingly, misled and obstructed justice.

(5) The Applicant has promised his family not to request documents from police. They fear further retaliation against him and his family. 49

(6) Repeatedly, certain lawyers have refused to turn over to the Applicant his legal files intact. (7) Doctors and hospitals have unlawfully refused the Applicant his entitled medical records intact.

15. 15 Cassidy Place Purchase and Sale et al

(1) Manifestations! The Applicant is astonished and amazed that he has not been successful in convincing CMHC/AGF et al to stop subjecting him and his family to tyranny! Further, others unlawfully failed to rescind the false credit reporting about him, did have him arbitrarily arrested and detained (No. 1 of 6), fraudulently sold his properties, and subjected him to courts of incompetent jurisdiction. All of the participants did, knowingly and willingly, take part in fraud, perjury, and prosecutorial misconduct. Specifically, the authorities would participate in enabling certain psychopathic MPs to continue to fulfil, realleging, the following statements: The Honourable David Dingwall stated, “He intended to put the Applicant down in the cracks of the sidewalks of Toronto!” The Honourable David Collenette stated, “There is more than one way to disembowel a person!”

(2) The Applicant and his family decided to cut their losses and move on; he purchased 15 Cassidy Place, which was a run-down and in-need-of- renovations property. The seller would change the agreed-upon and signed purchase price three times. The asinine Applicant at that time was influenced “after viewing a televised interview with CMHC/Mr. Bill Mulvihill when he told the public that it was the opinion of CMHC that the residential real estate market was going to rebound this year. (The Applicant has been denied documentation from CMHC regarding 50

dates and times.) Based on that asinine, false information, the Applicant agreed to purchase 15 Cassidy Place and change his plans to undertake major renovations. In actuality the residential real estate market got worse, and one media report described that the market overnight fell like an elevator.”

16. 15 Cassidy Place Renovations and Second Floor Addition et al

(1) Manifestations! Both of the Applicant’s properties, 16 Park Glen Drive and 812 – 451 The West Mall are under the control of master criminals who are unlawfully disobeying the Applicant’s lawful directions and are

proceeding, contrary to the CC, to dispose of the Applicant’s properties. Now! Both the Applicant and the previous owner of 15 Cassidy Place, Tughan, are under the control of the same and other master criminals.

(2) The start of the Applicant’s new project, 15 Cassidy Place, was hopeful and promising. The Applicant was unaware of the fact that he would not receive the $50,000.00 negotiated settlement between the parties on his previous properties, was not expecting a lawsuit from the realtors, and had taken all of the necessary steps to obtain all of the construction Permits et al,

specifically, that were required under the Ontario Building Code Act, Sect. 8 (1).

(3) The Applicant was influenced, realleging, as has manifested itself, by CMHC/Mulvihill’s televised interview about a bouyant resale real estate market. Accordingly, the Applicant cancelled his application to the City for a Variance (6 to 12 months process) and proceeded with a procedure through the City for a Building Permit, permitting him to do exhaustive renovations and a second-storey addition to 15 Cassidy Place. “Further, 51

the Building Inspector (being the same inspector for the renovations to 16 Park Glen Drive) also encouraged the Applicant to abandon his Committee of Adjustment Hearing and proceed with a second-storey addition.”

(4) The Applicant verily believes that the master criminals, who have manifested themselves throughout this process, would continue to be instrumental in subjecting the Applicant to tyranny. Now! The City/certain

building officials/elected officials, contrary to CC s. 122. Breach of trust by

public officer, would, knowingly and willingly, take part in prosecutorial misconduct, fraud, and perjury against the Applicant after they denied the facts surrounding the issuance of Building Permits.

(5) Accordingly, the actions and inactions of the City/certain building

officials/elected officials were contrary to CC s. 429. (1) Wilfully causing event to

occur, causing the Applicant, in part, to lose title of the property and causing police to believe that the Applicant was of questionable moral turpitude.

The City/others falsely reported that the Applicant, contrary to CC s. 127. (1)

Disobey order of court (bogus order); accordingly, asinine police (master

criminals) would contrary to Charter 9., arbitrarily arrest and detain the Applicant, No. 2 of 6.

(6) The Applicant involved the LSUC and attempted to make them aware of the misconduct of the mutual solicitor, Kassabian, and especially Kassabian’s refusal to release the Applicant’s file. The LSUC ordered Kassabian to release the Applicant’s file, and through that process, it manifested itself that Kassabian had misappropriated the Applicant’s trust money.

52

(7) Further manifestations! The Applicant is now on social assistance and is forced again to act in person. The LSUC has instructed the Applicant’s previous lawyers to not further act for him. Kassabian is afforded a lawyer with the LSUC paying for same. Later in this process, the LSUC would pay Law Professor Joel Skapinker (Skapinker would commit a fraud and perjury on the courts) to represent lawyer members and other non-lawyers in an attempt to oppress the Applicant; accordingly, further denying the Applicant his Constitutional Rights to due process through the judicial system.

(8) May 2, 1994, the Applicant was approved by the City of Toronto for a second-storey addition to his residence, 15 Cassidy Place. Substantial completion of the construction was in the fall of 1994. Accordingly, the value was increased to more than $600,000.

(9) It was through this process, realleging that certain City elected officials and public servants conspired to prosecute an innocent person, the Applicant. They, knowingly and willingly, fabricated evidence and committed perjury after they used same in a judicial proceeding.

(10) Our City’s Legal Department would slander the title of 15 Cassidy Place when they, knowingly, willingly, and falsely, registered on its title that the Applicant had not received the necessary permits, inspections, and approvals

as mandated by the Ontario Building Code! They were wrong! “A certain Legal Department employee (Gino Visceo), who would act as prosecutor told the Applicant that he intended to make representation to the courts to have 15 Cassidy Place demolished.”

53

(11) The Mayor and certain Councillors refused to permit the Applicant to appear before Council for a possible resolution on behalf of the City for their part in this dispute. Their denial constitutes wilful misconduct, and their unconstitutional behaviour caused the Applicant to lose 15 Cassidy Place when they knew Mr. Sing, the City Inspector, had done all of the inspections

as required by the Ontario Building Code. “Further, the City’s Engineer, Ross, with his flamboyant and cavalier behaviour, knowingly and willingly, fabricated an erroneous fictitious list of building code violations, after he knew that Mr. Sing, the Building Inspector, had witnessed and approved the installation of a laminated beam that would become the subject of the dispute. Ross claimed that the beam was not laminated. He is wrong!” Ross disbelieved the City Inspector, the Applicant, and the Applicant’s employees. He further refused any sworn affidavits from the individuals most knowledgeable.

(12) The Applicant realleges that City in-house Legal Department through George Dixon LL.B. did, knowingly and willingly, slander the title of 15 Cassidy Place, and “Vescio, who would act as City Prosecutor, told the Applicant that the City intended to ask the court to have 15 Cassidy Place demolished.”

(13) Realleging! The Applicant was arbitrarily charged under the Ontario Building

Code. The Applicant alleges that this was an abuse of the process by the City. Accordingly, this process prevented the Applicant the necessity and ability to refinance 15 Cassidy Place to generate a cash flow as he had done on 14 similar properties.

(14) Public employees, City Engineers Uzumeri and Mori, in conjunction with others, knowingly and willingly, conspired to prosecute an innocent person, 54

the Applicant. Accordingly, at that time, their actions and inactions would cause the Applicant irreversible monetary damage.

(15) Madam Justice Wilson heard the dispute between the Applicant and the

mortgagor (Tughan), and contrary to the Courts of Justice Act, Section 96 (1) (2), ordered 15 Cassidy Place to be sold "as is". In the absence of a court order stating otherwise, the parties may not deviate from that existing court order!

(16) The Applicant, after learning about the theft of his permit drawings for 15

Cassidy Place from the City (by whom?), believed that he had a colour of right to enter the property to retrieve his drawings while men were working there. Through that process, the Applicant discovered unauthorized work being done in an unprofessional manner and below industry standards. Realleging! “The Applicant reported to the police about the theft of his drawings and others disobeying an order of the court, with police taking no action, claiming that it was civil and not criminal.” The Applicant also reported same to the City Licensing Commission asking the Licensing Commission to stop them from proceeding with shoddy workmanship as they were not licensed contractors. Manifestations! The Applicant acted on the advice of police and re-entered the property and took possession, only later to be

charged by police under the CC with disobeying an order of the court.

(17) Later the Applicant realized that Fanjoy, lawyer for the mortgagor, Tughan, did not intend to obey this order, and the Applicant approached the police and spoke to Staff Inspector Derek Neeson. At that time, it was disclosed that Neeson would do a criminal investigation and stated to the Applicant that there would be no trespass charges laid against him for re-entering 15 Cassidy Place.

55

17. 16 Park Glen Drive and 812 – 451 The West Mall et al

(1) Realleging, manifestations! Both 16 Park Glen Drive and 812 – 451 The West Mall, and now, 15 Cassidy Place have been manipulated and controlled by master criminals/lawyers/public officials/police. Their actions and inactions resulting in the Applicant being subjected to tyranny, contrary

to Charter 15. (1). CMHC continues to not admit their torts against the Applicant.

(2) Realleging, manifestations! The Applicant was successful in his defence of

the bogus criminal charge, CC s. 372. (3) Harassing telephone calls, No. 1 of 6. The court dismissed the charge after hearing only fifteen minutes of testimony for the lack of credible evidence (fabricated evidence); but, not without causing the Applicant and his family monetary, emotional pain and suffering.

(3) Realleging, in this section, now that the Applicant’s conditions for bail have been removed that prevented him from making contact with CMHC, he foolhardy believed that CMHC is probably only guilty of bureaucratic bungling. The Applicant verily believed that if he made another attempt to point out CMHC’s errors, CMHC would do the honourable thing and correct the torts they have committed against the Applicant. As will and as has manifested itself, not only was CMHC unwilling to take a sober second review, CMHC/et al would increase their vicious, hateful attack against the Applicant, leaving the Applicant to conclude that certain individuals are cowardly psychopaths.

56

(4) Realleging, there exists a moot reference to Public Works and Government Services, hereinafter known as PWGS. The Applicant’s company has taken the position that it would never be able to recover the sums of money from PWGS that it had made a lawful claim for under the terms and conditions of the contract. The only reason it appears in this section is because PWGS decided to retain the same lawyers as CMHC, Borden & Elliot.

(5) Realleging, CMHC, contrary to CC s. 139. (1) Obstructing justice, et al, did, knowingly and willingly, unlawfully retain the services of three separate law firms for the reason of obstructing justice by preventing the Applicant from having his day in court.

(6) Realleging, CMHC/et al do not believe that their tenure is limited to their good faith dealings on behalf of the public. Accordingly, they would, knowingly and willingly, commit fraud, perjury, and prosecutorial misconduct against the Applicant and all citizens of Canada.

18. Court File 95-CQ62854 et al

(1) As has manifested itself, 16 Park Glen Drive, while under the control of

master criminals who did, knowingly and willing, contrary to CC s. 322. (1)

Theft (a), transferred the title of the property out of the name of the Applicant

and making others contrary to CC s. 21. (1) Parties to offence (a) (b) (c), resulting in the Applicant being forced on to social assistance!

(2) This Court File begs to ask the question why didn’t the Plaintiff, Johnston & Daniels Limited, hereinafter known as J & D, the Applicant’s realtor, who knew months prior to closing that the Applicant was disputing their seller commission, not take immediate action before the sale of the property 57

when the Applicant was purported at that time to have legal counsel? Further, everyone’s minds were fresh, and why didn’t J & D, also agents

for the purchasers, include in their Statement of Claim their names? If there were a conspiracy between the purchaser and seller to defraud J & D, why wouldn’t prudent lawyers sue all parties?

(3) Accordingly, J & D and their solicitors, Holden Day Wilson and later Miller Thomson, did, knowingly and willingly, commit and were parties to

fraud and perjury when they had this Statement of Claim issued in the courts.

19. 15 Cassidy Place et al

(1) Manifestations! The Applicant’s former properties are out of his reach and under the control of master criminals. (Police involvement is limited to

their intellect.) Soon they will, contrary to Charter 9., arbitrarily arrest and detain the Applicant, No. 2 of 6.

(2) Notwithstanding the former owner of 15 Cassidy Place, Tughan, may be perceived as a victim. As will manifest itself, in his dealings with the Applicant his hands are not clean (stole drawings from the City belonging to the Applicant and disobeyed Orders of the Court). Further, Tughan has become an individual of questionable moral turpitude. His former neighbours would have unkind things to say about him with respect to his attempts to create an easement on their properties by using a short cut across their properties for his own purposes. For years, Tughan would unlawfully construct a very, very large sail boat in his backyard (so large it could not be manoeuvred out of his backyard/side yard, he had to use a crane) that was described as a nuisance, causing undue noises et al. (Tughan takes short cuts!) 58

20. Court File No. 95-CU-83351 et al

(1) Realleging, manifestations! The Applicant is astonished and amazed that he has not been successful in convincing CMHC/AGF et al to stop subjecting him and his family to tyranny! Further, others unlawfully failed to rescind the false credit reporting about him, did have him arbitrarily arrested and detained (No. 1 of 6), fraudulently sold his properties, and subjected him to courts of incompetent jurisdiction. All of the participants did, knowingly and willingly, take part in fraud, perjury, and prosecutorial misconduct. Specifically, the authorities would participate in enabling certain psychopathic MPs to continue to fulfil, realleging, the following statements: The Honourable David Dingwall stated, “He intended to put the Applicant down in the cracks of the sidewalks of Toronto!” The Honourable David Collenette stated, “There is more than one way to disembowel a person!”

(2) Realleging, manifestations! the Applicant and his family decided to cut their losses and move on; he purchased 15 Cassidy Place, which was a run- down and in-need-of- renovations property. The seller would change the agreed-upon and signed purchase price three times. The asinine Applicant at that time was influenced “after viewing a televised interview with CMHC/Mr. Bill Mulvihill when he told the public that it was the opinion of CMHC that the residential real estate market was going to rebound this year. (The Applicant has been denied documentation from CMHC regarding dates and times.) Based on that asinine, false information, the Applicant agreed to purchase 15 Cassidy Place and change his plans to undertake major renovations. In actuality the residential real estate market got worse, and one media report described that the market overnight fell like an elevator.” 59

(3) Realleging, The Applicant is served with a Notice of Sale Under Mortgage on 15 Cassidy Place by Tughan’s realtors, HomeLife, for alleged Damages in the amount of $15,000.00 for conspiracy to conceal the sale of 15 Cassidy Place during the term of an exclusive listing agreement executed by the defendant Tughan. “At no time, did the Applicant conspire with others to defraud Tughan’s realtors.” This is another example where mutual solicitor, Garen Kassabian’s, further negligence caused the Applicant to be defamed and named in a lawsuit.

21. Court File No. 95-CU-86950CM aka 95 CU8650 aka 95CU86950 et al

(1) Realleging, manifestations! All of the Applicant’s dealings with respect to 16 Park Glen Drive and 812 – 451 The West Mall are under the control of master criminals (his own lawyers et al). Accordingly, the Applicant has no input or say about the disposition of the properties or the proceeds of the sale. Specifically, the $50,000.00 negotiated settlement that the Applicant personally made would not be recognized.

(2) Realleging, manifestations! The Applicant’s current property, 15 Cassidy Place, is under the control of different master criminals (City inspectors et al). Through their corrupt practices, they caused the Applicant to default on his mortgage/financial obligations, in part, causing the Applicant to lose his businesses and being forced upon social assistance.

(3) Realleging, manifestations! Accordingly, on January 30, 1995, the Applicant was served by his mortgagor/Tughan notice of default on his mortgage commitments. Further manifestations! The Applicant’s business practice in times of poor cash flow was to mortgage his home to raise the necessary cash flow. Because the City registered on title a Notice to 60

Comply and verbally informed the Applicant of their intention to have 15 Cassidy Place demolished, it was impossible to approach lenders for mortgage purposes that would enable the Applicant to be responsible for his financial obligations.

(4) Realleging, manifestations! The Applicant and Tughan would become business partners after Tughan agreed with the Applicant and gave him permission to do construction to his property, 15 Cassidy Place, while he was the registered owner. Others (Tughan’s four different lawyers) failed to inform him of the risk of permitting the Applicant to carry out construction to his property in his name.

(5) Realleging, notwithstanding the previous paragraph, and as has manifested itself, Tughan’s hands are not clean. Through this section Tughan would, knowingly and willingly, commit extortion, fraud, perjury, prosecutorial misconduct, theft, and disobeyed an Order of the Court. His interference with the Applicant’s lawful right in marketing and selling 15 Cassidy Place would cause the Applicant to be unable to sell the property himself and fulfil his contractual obligations to his partner, Tughan. When Tughan participated in covert operations, he would constructively in effect fire his partner, the Applicant, and rightly Tughan has to pay the Applicant the proven $300,000.00 investment that the Applicant made on the mutual property. Tughan has been unjustly enriched by the Applicant’s efforts.

(6) Realleging, the Applicant through this process in this section, would be arbitrarily arrested, No. 2 of 6. The Applicant first learned about these pending criminal charges from his new lawyer, Mr. Gary Clewley, LL.B. Clewley is a prominent criminal lawyer retained by the Applicant to review the entire process to date. Unknown to the Applicant, Clewley only 61

represents police officers who have been charged for misconduct under the

CC. Once Clewley learned about the pending charge, No 2 of 6, against the Applicant through his police sources, he immediately and without a Court Order arbitrarily refused to act further for the Applicant and returned his retainer, leaving the Applicant to twist in the wind.

22. My Arbitrary Arrest and Detention No. 2 of 6 et al

(1) Manifestations! Through the efforts of master criminals, the Applicant has lost 16 Park Glen Drive, 812 – 451 The West Mall, and 15 Cassidy Place. The Applicant and his family are forced to live with family, and later the Applicant would rent 16 Dartmouth Crescent, where he would be unlawfully evicted. After the eviction, the Applicant would purchase with a family member a condominium unit at 1022 – 451 The West Mall. Police would make a condition before they would not perjury themselves that he would sell that property. Presently, the Applicant resides in a rented unit 207 – 306 The West Mall. Now, police are keeping their distance, at the insistence of whom?

(2) Realleging, as has manifested itself, 16 Park Glen Drive and 812 – 451 The West Mall, and now 15 Cassidy Place, are all under the control of master criminals who would, knowingly and willingly, continue to subject the Applicant and his family to tyranny!

(3) Realleging, the complainant shown in police documents is Samuel Tughan. He was not the owner of 15 Cassidy Place. The Applicant’s spouse was

shown as the owner under the Land Transfer Act. Notwithstanding the previous statement, the property was under the control of the courts. There existed what the Applicant is describing as a bogus court Order. The 62

Applicant ensured that police were fully informed about his concerns and remedies. Accordingly, police did, knowingly and willingly, fail in their

duties of what constitutes “reasonable and probable cause” before arbitrarily

arresting and detaining the Applicant under the bogus charges of mischief

and disobey court order. As will manifest itself, Tughan et al did, knowingly and willingly, commit many indictable offences and were never charged.

(4) Realleging, manifestations! Master criminals’ “(police’s) admission to the Applicant in his arbitrary arrest No. 5 was that they agreed with the Applicant using their words that he was ‘screwed over.’ Further they told the Applicant that they had previous experience with others and took the appropriate action, only to have the presiding judge order them not to bring forward this type of dispute to the courts.” The police

should have appealed the court’s decision under Charter 24. (1) “Incompetent”

as the court’s decision was contrary to Charter 15. (1) and started a public awareness campaign of emerging super human beings being recognized by the courts.

(5) Realleging, all of the Applicant’s arrests and detentions are contrary to Charter

9. and, particularly, this first arrest and detention, which was influenced by politicians, allows the Applicant to state that he is a political prisoner. (Now innocent or guilty, he is known to police and subjected to their asinine analysis.) The prosecution of innocent persons is not limited to this Applicant. As will manifest itself, the Applicant is a victim of police vigilantes (master

criminals), who unconstitutionally and contrary to Charter 15. (1) will arbitrarily arrest and detain only persons they believe they can bully. The Applicant complained to the Police Standards Department for a review of police misconduct with no intelligent response. The Applicant tried to invoke 63

his Constitutional Rights under Charter 24. (1), only to encounter prosecutorial misconduct and an incompetent court.

(6) Realleging, all of the Applicant’s arbitrary arrests and detentions were

contrary to Charter 9. Specifically, Nos. 1 and 2 of 6, as has and will further

manifest itself, both MP’s, Dingwall and Collenette, contrary to CC s. 319.

(2) Wilful promotion of hatred, because the Applicant is poor, directed and/or

influenced police to charge the Applicant under the CC, making all contrary

to CC s. 59. (1) Seditious words (1) (2) (3) (4) (a) (b). Accordingly, by their actions and inactions against the Applicant all, knowingly and willingly, turned

him into a non-entity et al! Charter 3. et al guarantees the Applicant that he is the government!

(7) Realleging, the Applicant’s attempts to stop the torts against him under

Charter 20. (1) through letter writing and phone calls produced no positive results! The Applicant is a political prisoner! Our judicial system is an

arrogant giant! Police are mandated under Charter 15. (1) to act when anyone has been turned into a non-entity! Through police corruption, they would,

knowingly and willingly, contrary to Charter 9., arrest and detain the

Applicant on six separate occasions! Contrary to Charter 12., Charter 15. (1)

and Charter 24. (1), the politically-appointed, prejudicial judges are contrary

to the Canadian Bill of Rights, 1. (a) (b), incompetent, as they discriminate

against anyone acting in person, you are rarely allowed to be heard orally, never awarded court costs, and they use court costs as a punitive determent for you to not show up in court without a lawyer!

(8) Realleging, notwithstanding the above, citizens are paramount in society!

Charter 15. (1) makes the Prime Minister and all under him, who receive

remuneration from taxpayers, “public servants”! Accordingly, their actions and 64

inactions are limited to their good faith dealings on behalf of the public

(harbour no malice). At all times, their tenure is limited to the Interpretation

Act, 23. (1), and if their misconduct rises to the level of the definition of just

cause this would be grounds for just dismissal. Particularly, the arrogant judicial custodians et al who will manifest themselves throughout this process and particularly in this section, your actions and inactions are

contrary to Charter 9., Charter 11. (d) (h), Charter 12., Charter 15. (1), and Charter 24.

(1), not limited to, as the Applicant has been turned into a nonentity!

(9) Realleging, as has and will further manifest itself throughout the Applicant’s plight to combat tyranny that started in 1993 and is continuing, for the most part, is corruption in the judicial system, police who form the frontlines of justice, lawyers, crown attorneys, and the most trusted of all, the judges. All of these different aspects that make up the composition/public servants as custodians of our Constitution, because of no real accountability, they have to be described collectively as an “arrogant giant.” Accordingly, the actions and inactions of these “arrogant

giants” make them, in part, contrary to the Canadian Bill of Rights, Preamble et al.

(10) Realleging, notwithstanding, the Applicant did appear before certain

justices whose actions and inactions were contrary to the Canadian Bill of

Rights 1. (a), 2. (b) (e). The Applicant, as has and will manifest itself, while

acting in person et al, was repeatedly denied due process et al to be properly notified of a judicial proceeding against him, to be heard orally, and,

particularly, the overly-rigid Rules of Civil Procedure are contrary to Charter 52.

(1), accordingly making the presiding justices contrary to Charter 24. (1), incompetent, with any Orders emanating from that process, bogus.

65

(11) Realleging, police subjected the Applicant to tyranny! Police powers are

absolute! CC s. 493. Definitions “officer in charge” grants police (individual) enormous Constitutional powers to deny anyone’s liberty on the individual officer’s interpretation of the situation, after assessing all of the elements described in the definition of what constitutes “reasonable and probable cause” (the use of deadly force). Police only become involved in situations when all else has failed! Police are to ensure that the enforcement of all laws is in accordance with all persons’ Constitutional Rights, specifically

with Charter 15. (1) et al being their governance. (Arrest certain judges.)

(12) Realleging, notwithstanding the previous paragraph, it would appear from the Applicant’s perspective, police collectively do not possess the intellect and/or training to deal with the issues that have been raised throughout this process! Courts have ruled Toronto police as racist; certain cowardly police have used too much force against the Applicant (permanent hand damage); police will defend one of their own at all expense (no officer has taken up the plight of the Applicant); police when they have committed criminal offences, their Constitutional Rights are paramount; certain police are drunks and unlawful drug users! Accordingly, because of police culture, for the most part, they do not practise or believe that their tenure is limited to their good faith dealings on behalf of the public.

(13) Realleging, police have conjured up and verily believe in their minds that the Applicant is a boogie man. The Applicant verily believes that, for the most part, these officers get their courage from being allowed to carry a gun and falsely believing that other police officers are better men/women than they are (false courage).

66

23. My Appeal to My Respective Elected Officials et al

(1) As has manifested itself, the Applicant is being subjected to tyranny, and as a result, he is being turned into a nonentity, in part, by elected officials.

When are elected officials permitted, contrary to Charter 3., the right to deny citizens their Constitutional Right of representation in the various parliaments and when should they become accountable for their personal actions and inactions? (sedition)

(2) At the time the Applicant was ignorant to the fact of the practices and

policies, contrary to Charter 15. (1), because he was poor the courts verily

believed that they may deny him due process with legal counsel and acting in

person.

(3) The right of anyone to act in person is a fallacy, as it only goes to ensure fairness in the process. But, the first right of refusal to act in person is a decision of the bestowed! What is the cost of justice? Judges have the powers to order legal aid in the interest of justice. (Not all should be entitled to legal aid). Courts are a mirror image of government when it comes to legal aid. Absent from the quotes is any existence of public statements from the judiciary et al encouraging the public to please come to your court system to settle your disputes, rather than taking the law into your own hands. The judicial system is a debacle!

(4) As will manifest themselves, others have followed the leader. It does not matter what the intent was of making public statements. It is how it is going to be interpreted by others. Sometimes it could be dire! The following

elitist quotes, which are contrary to Charter 15. (1), (all may receive justice 67

but at what price!), were adduced and attributed, in part, to Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin during 2006. These and other demonizing remarks go to the Applicant’s plight of being denied due process by these politically- appointed judges, subjecting the Applicant et al to tyranny and creating anarchy for the public at large! – “Yet for average Canadians, access to justice remains an ideal, not a reality.” – “Lack of legal representation presents particular problems for judges.” – “Courts are struggling to render justice.” – “Help lawyerless litigants, judges urged.” – “Courts are not a mirror image of government.” – “B.C. Judge rejects legal aid test case.” – ”Justice Minister Vic Toews’ response to B.C. judge: “Only the rich have genuine access.”

The following hypocritical quotes by McLachlin are not a reality for the Applicant et al, but a prayer:

“Canadians have a unique and highly value concept of justice. Though we may not think about it often, our way of life depends on this concept.

“Our expectations about how we will be treated by our government, our employers, our neighbours, our families, our friends, and other citizens are based on our trust that we are protected by a powerful system designed to encourage and enforce right behaviour, which is defined in our Constitution and our law books.

68

“When we enter a courtroom, we trust that the judge before us decides on the basis of two things only: the law and the facts. “We have the right to appeal such decisions to a higher court.

“We expect the highest level of conduct from our judges — on and off the bench.

“Justice matters, not just because it is fundamental to our way of life as Canadians, but because it underpins our trust in the value of that way of life.”

(5) Particularly, the following in-part quote that is subjective is attributed to the

Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada, which is contrary to Charter

52. et al, as the Applicant verily believes it to be an elitist, conjured-up statement in favour of lawyers to deny all their Constitutional Rights. The Applicant’s statement is not inferring that knowledgeable lawyers would not be better to represent an individual in a judicial proceeding. Sometimes lawyers are cost prohibitive. Acting-in-person is Constitutional and the courts have to be patient. – “Non-lawyers do not understand the nuances of the law.”

(6) Further, notwithstanding the Applicant’s Charter Rights, under the Canadian

Human Rights Act. 1976 – 77, c. 33, s. 1. 2. et al, the Applicant has been denied all hope as guaranteed in that section et al through discriminatory practices

of others, especially certain judges et al who are under Charter 24. (1) (2) “Incompetent.”

(7) From the Throne Speech on February 2, 2004 by The Honourable Paul Martin, the following quotes were adduced that are admissions of 69

misconduct, as will manifest itself in their dealings with the Applicant, by certain Members of the Liberal Party of Canada. “Change in the way that things work in Ottawa – That means reconnecting citizens with their members of Parliament – to restore the public’s faith and trust in the integrity and good management of government – To the end, it will, as a first step, immediately table in Parliament an action plan for democratic reform. – This will include significantly more free votes, so that members can represent the views of their constituents as they see fit.

Restoring trust and accountability – Democratic renewal must also restore trust. Too many Canadians are alienated from their governments. This must be reversed. – Where people are treated with dignity”

(8) The Applicant throughout this process made the Liberal Party of Canada aware of the alleged misconduct of some of its members. They did not respond! Leaving the Applicant to conclude that he has absolutely no rights in his dealings with them. Further, the Liberal-dominated Canadian Senate did respond to the Applicant with a resounding, “No.”

(8) The Applicant alleges that the Liberal Party has proven to be undemocratic in his dealings with them. Accordingly, unconstitutionally, it is suspect whether or not the party system is in the best interest of the Canadian citizens.

(9) Prior to the latest general election and before the people gave the Liberals another mandate to form our next federal government, the Liberal Party had 70

elected Mr. Paul Martin to be their/our Prime Minister, but the Right Honourable Jean Chrétien has refused to vacate the Prime Minister’s Office.

(10) Further, Chrétien has been described in the media as a dictator! Prime Minister Martin’s admission that he intends to introduce democracy to government! The Provincial Liberal Government of Ontario’s admission of a prohibited, discriminatory practice when they were quoted in the media to be denying the New Democratic Party (NDP), whom the Applicant voted for, equal funding for all members of parliament. Further, my MP, The Honourable Michael Bryant, among his many responsibilities, he is responsible for democracy renewal.

(11) Certain politicians and public servants, knowingly and willingly, took part in the prosecution of an innocent person, the Applicant! They caused the Applicant to lose his homes and businesses. Realleging! Certain individuals of the Federal Government of Canada; the Provincial Government of Ontario; and the City of Toronto, in part, are parties to indictable offences. Accordingly, they have failed in their sworn responsibilities and duties to protect the Constitutional Rights of the Applicant. Particularly, these elected officials, who have embroiled themselves into this dispute, have abjured their respective oaths and have incited their subordinates to act in such a manner that it denied the Constitutional Rights of the Applicant,

when you factor in 15(1) of the Charter. Realleging! The City of Toronto, some councillors, and public servants have been involved in criminal activity. Our legal departments and police, knowingly and willingly, took part in the prosecution of the Applicant, an innocent person, and the concealment of indictable offences committed by them.

71

24. Court File No. 95-CU-90314 et al

(1) This above court file was as a result of the Applicant’s efforts to correct torts committed against him by CMHC et al. As has manifested itself, the Applicant is a victim of crime by master criminals, particularly his former

solicitors et al, and previously, contrary to Charter 9., arbitrarily and detained on two separate occasions with the use of fabricated evidence. Therefore, the Applicant has been reduced to social assistance.

(2) As will manifest itself, the Honourable Justice Wilkinson was the original judge to hear an ex parte motion from CMHC and granted them a default judgement. Justice Wilkinson would be the presiding judge to her the

Applicant’s dispute, contrary to the COURTS OF JUSTICE ACT, 132. A judge shall not sit as a member of a court hearing an appeal from his or her own decision. R.S.O. 1990, c. C.43, s. 132.

(3) Justice Wilkinson, contrary to Charter 24. (1) “Incompetent,” did not want to

hear from the Applicant as he was acting in person and ordered the Applicant to retain legal counsel. As will and has manifested itself, the Applicant is a victim of crime by master criminals. Without financial resources, later the court decided to remove this dispute from the court list.

(4) Manifestations! CMHC et al did, knowingly and willingly, commit theft, fraud, and perjury against the Applicant and had the courts sanction their criminal misconduct!

72

25. My Arbitrary Arrest and Detention No. 3 of 6, My Alleged Purported Mental Illness, and My Landlord/ Tenant Dispute et al

(1) Manifestations! Through the efforts of master criminals, the Applicant has lost 16 Park Glen Drive, 812 – 451 The West Mall, and 15 Cassidy Place. The Applicant and his family are forced to live with family, and later the Applicant would rent 16 Dartmouth Crescent, where he would be unlawfully evicted. After the eviction, the Applicant would purchase with a family member a condominium unit at 1022 – 451 The West Mall. Police would make a condition before they would not perjury themselves that he would sell that property. Presently, the Applicant resides in a rented unit 207 – 306 The West Mall. Now, police are keeping their distance, at the insistence of whom?

(2) Realleging, Manifestations! My current and previous lawyers all have committed professional misconduct when they, knowingly and willingly, “refused to consider the contents of this process in my defence putting me under enormous stress, as I did not commit any of the alleged

offences!” Others, contrary to CC s. 429. (1) Wilfully causing event to occur.

(3) Realleging, manifestations! Three of the Applicant’s former solicitors were disbarred for professional misconduct by the LSUC prior to this dispute, with one of them doing substantial jail time! “Each and every time, the Applicant suffered financially!” The Applicant is no stranger to the LSUC, with certain of its employees hating him! The LSUC is mandated by legislation to oversee its member lawyers, ensuring that all member lawyers are morally conducting business that is constitutionally based on behalf of their clients, notwithstanding, any enacted legislation! Others who have had dealings with LSUC will have no problem is agreeing with the Applicant 73

that under CC s. 22.1 Offences of negligence – organizations (a) (i) (ii) (b), the LSUC in its day-to-day operation constitutes a criminal organization!

(4) Realleging, as has and will further manifest itself, LSUC was responsible for retaining the services of Ms. Judy Goldring LL.B., daughter of Mr. Warren Goldring, President and CEO of AGF, an approved CMHC lender.

Ms. Goldring would knowingly and willingly, contrary to CC s. 464.

Counselling offence that is not committed (a) (b), when she failed to advise her client, the Applicant’s former landlord, that there was no merit in his

dispute! Accordingly, she would further counsel her client, contrary to CC s.

137. Fabricating evidence that was used in a judicial proceeding when her client falsely claimed that he wanted the apartment unit for a family member. This whole process was an unlawful, constructive attempt to evict the Applicant and his family. Accordingly, the judge hearing the Landlord

Tenant dispute was contrary to Charter 24. (1) “Incompetent.”

(5) This section, in part, has to do with a bogus attempt by police (master criminals) to fabricate evidence. (Knowledgeable persons will tell you not to talk to police. Why? Because “it is not what you say, but what they say you said.”). As has and will manifest itself, the police investigation into this dispute was prejudiced against the Applicant, and the investigating officers who were more concerned about protecting their own (Applicant suing police), seized this opportunity in an attempt to label the Applicant as

a mentally-ill person (psychiatrists say “no”). Police do not realize Charter

15. (1) guarantees persons with a mental disability are equal and not to be arrested. If you believe police that the Applicant was suffering from a mental defect, why was he still cognizant enough to act in person and have the presiding judge issue an order in favour of the Applicant, only to have police refuse to enforce the order. 74

(6) Realleging, manifestations! Master criminals’ “(police’s) admission to the Applicant in his arbitrary arrest No. 5 was that they agreed with the Applicant using their words that he was ‘screwed over.’ Further they told the Applicant that they had previous experience with others and took the appropriate action, only to have the presiding judge order them not to bring forward this type of dispute to the courts.” The police

should have appealed the court’s decision under Charter 24. (1) “Incompetent”

as the court’s decision was contrary to Charter 15. (1) and started a public awareness campaign of emerging super human beings being recognized by the courts.

(7) Realleging, all of the Applicant’s arrests and detentions are contrary to Charter

9. Particularly, the first arrest and detention, which was influenced by politicians, allows the Applicant to state that he is a political prisoner. (Now innocent or guilty, he is known to police and subjected to their asinine analysis.) The prosecution of innocent persons is not limited to this Applicant. As will manifest itself, the Applicant is a victim of police vigilantes (master

criminals), who unconstitutionally and contrary to Charter 15. (1) will arbitrarily arrest and detain only persons they believe they can bully. The Applicant complained to the Police Standards Department for a review of police misconduct with no intelligent response. The Applicant tried to invoke

his Constitutional Rights under Charter 24. (1), only to encounter prosecutorial misconduct and an incompetent court.

(8) Realleging, all of the Applicant’s arbitrary arrests and detentions were

contrary to Charter 9. Specifically, Nos. 1 and 2 of 6, as has and will further

manifest itself, both MP’s, Dingwall and Collenette, contrary to CC s. 319.

(2) Wilful promotion of hatred, because the Applicant is poor, directed and/or

influenced police to charge the Applicant under the CC, making all contrary 75

to CC s. 59. (1) Seditious words (1) (2) (3) (4) (a) (b). Accordingly, by their actions and inactions against the Applicant all, knowingly and willingly, turned

him into a non-entity et al! Charter 3. et al guarantees the Applicant that he is the government!

(9) Realleging, the Applicant’s attempts to stop the torts against him under

Charter 20. (1) through letter writing and phone calls produced no positive results! The Applicant is a political prisoner! Our judicial system is an

arrogant giant! Police are mandated under Charter 15. (1) to act when anyone has been turned into a nonentity! Through police corruption, they would,

knowingly and willingly, contrary to Charter 9., arrest and detain the

Applicant on six separate occasions! Contrary to Charter 12., Charter 15. (1)

and Charter 24. (1), the politically-appointed, prejudicial judges are

incompetent as they discriminate against anyone acting in person, you are rarely allowed to be heard orally, never awarded court costs, and they use court costs as a punitive determent for you to not show up in court without a lawyer!

(10) Realleging, notwithstanding the above, citizens are paramount in society!

Charter 15. (1) makes the Prime Minister and all under him, who receive

remuneration from taxpayers, “public servants”! Accordingly, their actions and inactions are limited to their good faith dealings on behalf of the public

(harbour no malice). At all times, their tenure is limited to the Interpretation

Act, 23. (1), and if their misconduct rises to the level of the definition of just

cause this would be grounds for just dismissal. Particularly, the arrogant judicial custodians et al who will manifest themselves throughout this process and particularly in this section, your actions and inactions are

contrary to Charter 9., Charter 11. (d) (h), Charter 12., Charter 15. (1), and Charter 24. 76

(1) “Incompetent,“ not limited to, as the Applicant has been turned into a nonentity!

(11) Realleging, as has and will further manifest itself throughout the Applicant’s plight to combat tyranny that started in 1993 and is continuing, for the most part, is corruption in the judicial system, police who form the frontlines of justice, lawyers, crown attorneys, and the most trusted of all, the judges. All of these different aspects that make up the composition/public servants as custodians of our constitution, because of no real accountability, they have to be described as an arrogant giant.

(12) Realleging, Notwithstanding, the Applicant did appear before certain

justices whose actions and inactions were contrary to the Canadian Bill of

Rights 1. (a), 2. (b) (e). The Applicant, as has and will manifest itself, while

acting in person et al, was repeatedly denied due process et al to be properly notified of a judicial proceeding against him, to be heard orally, and,

particularly, the overly-rigid Rules of Civil Procedure are contrary to Charter 52.

(1), accordingly making the presiding justices contrary to Charter 24. (1)

“incompetent,” with any Orders emanating from that process, bogus.

(13) Realleging, police subjected the Applicant to tyranny! Police powers are

absolute! CC s. 493. Definitions “officer in charge” grants police (individual) enormous Constitutional powers to deny anyone’s liberty on the individual officer’s interpretation of the situation after assessing all of the elements described in the definition of what constitutes “reasonable and probable cause” (the use of deadly force). Police only become involved in situations when all else has failed! Police are to ensure that the enforcement of all laws is in accordance with all persons’ Constitutional Rights, specifically

with Charter 15. (1) et al being their governance. (Arrest certain judges.) 77

(14) Realleging, notwithstanding the previous paragraph, it would appear from the Applicant’s perspective, police do not possess the intellect and/or training to deal with the issues that have been raised throughout this process! Courts have ruled Toronto police as racist; certain cowardly police have used too much force against the Applicant (permanent hand damage); police will defend one of their own at all expense (no officer has taken up the plight of the Applicant); police when they have committed criminal offences, their Constitutional Rights are paramount; certain police are drunks and unlawful drug users! Accordingly, for the most part, police do not practise or believe that their tenure is limited to their good faith dealings on behalf of the public.

(15) Realleging, police have conjured up and verily believe in their minds that the Applicant is a boogie man. The Applicant verily believes that for the most part these officers get their courage from being allowed to carry a gun and falsely believing that other police officers are better men/women than they are.

(16) This process should send a cautionary warning to you readers whose intelligence, courage, and tenacity may exceed that of others! Individual police of moronic intelligence, who are now trying to guard against their own self-incrimination, by stating that the Applicant suffers from a mental defect because he is different, have subjected the Applicant to cruel, unlawful, and inhumane treatment, a smear campaign to criminally libel and slander his good name and reputation, and attempted to murder him, in hopes of discouraging him not to proceed with this process.

(17) As will manifest itself, the Applicant has subjected himself to a panel of three psychiatrists for the determination of his current and past mental state. 78

Their conclusion was based upon the reality of the written contents of this process, as reported to them by knowledgeable persons in the legal profession, and a review of his past psychiatric reports. These imminently qualified doctors have put an end to the Applicant being branded mentally ill by his enemies, the conspirators.

(18) The Applicant does not now or ever did suffer from a mental defect, as will manifest itself in this section and throughout this process. Rather, both his family and extended family have been subjected to contempt and hate that still continues. Repeatedly the Applicant has been denied his Constitutional Rights throughout the judicial process. He is a victim of politically motivated terrorism perpetrated against him by police and compounded by a corrupt judicial system. The Applicant admits in his dispute with the authorities that he would not become a coward and quit this process by stating to police words to the effect, “The only way he could be stopped was for police to kill him.” The police took the Applicant’s statement literally! Accordingly, he was met by cowardly police and arbitrarily arrested by members of the Emergency Task Force, who get their courage from carrying guns, and they falsely believe that there are better persons backing them!

(19) The following quote was adduced from a media article that goes to explain the Applicant’s beliefs in his dealings with police. Guilty or not guilty: this is the mentality that any member of the public can expect from police if you are dubbed “to be known to police.” “Joseph Conrad, who literally wrote the book on the darkness of men’s hearts, who once said that the terrorists and the policemen both come from the same basket.”

79

(20) Mr. Greg Dimitriou LL.B. was a lawyer retained in one of my court proceedings by the other side. Dimitriou, days before my arbitrary arrest and detention No. 2 where police were alleging that the Applicant suffered from a mental defect, argued before presiding Madam Justice Molloy of the Ontario Superior Court that, “The Applicant was the most intelligent person he had ever met, with Molloy concurring. The Applicant later again appeared before Molloy on a different matter. Upon the Applicant introducing himself to the court, when asked Molloy remembered him from his previous appearance before her and confirmed the statement about his intelligence,” when the Applicant asked her to recollect.

(21) For the most part, the Applicant realleges that his arbitrary arrests and detentions involved unqualified individuals when they publicly stated that the Applicant suffered from a mental defect. These unlawful conspirators did so in their own self-defence to guard against their continuing self- incrimination and other interests. Accordingly; these parties, not limited to, knowingly and willingly, took part in the prosecution of an innocent person, the Applicant.

(22) Prior to the Applicant’s arbitrary arrest and detention No. 6, and further alleged, bogus criminal offences purported to have been committed by the Applicant, and before Detective Constable Bart Evans of the Toronto Police obtained a fabricated, bogus, fenny warrant, which the Applicant is alleging was an attempt to murder the Applicant, Evans told the Applicant, “He was going to come over to the Applicant’s home with some of the boys for the purposes of assaulting the Applicant and that the Applicant would be going to jail for a long time, as this was agreed upon by the Crown Attorney’s Office.”

80

(23) Unknown court duty counsel, who was not representing the Applicant, “stood up in court and concurred with the Crown that the Applicant was to be locked up with the criminally insane.” The Applicant asked the court to be heard. The Presiding Judge Hogg was reminded by the Applicant that “His Honour Hogg was prejudiced against all persons charged with a crime.” The media had reported Hogg had announced in court words to the effect “that the backlogs in court cases would necessitate the immediate withdrawal of charges against these individuals, and Hogg further stated that there would be a lot of crooks released,” contrary to their Constitutional Rights of being innocent until proven guilty. The Applicant requested to appear before another judge instead, unconstitutionally, Hogg referred the Applicant to a psychiatrist directly under his control and in his employ. Notwithstanding Hogg’s judicial powers, realleging, Dr. V. Srinivasan’s relationship with him was one of master and servant, with Hogg being the master.

(24) An Ontario statute, the Mental Health Act, in part, is purported to be the governance in these situations, only if an individual suffers from a mental defect. Responsible others knew through “police profiling that the Applicant does not have a mean bone in his body Dr. Srinivasan confirmed that the Applicant has never been violent “ There exists documentary proof by other eminent doctors that the Applicant does not suffer any mental defects.

(25) The Applicant verily believes that Srinivasan comes from a cast society! She, unconstitutionally, subjected the Applicant to her beliefs that all are not equal! She further compounded her unlawful ways when she allowed only a 60-second doctor-patient consultation with the Applicant. She immediately thereafter had the Applicant restrained and unlawfully 81

proceeded, with the use of force, to inject the Applicant with a powerful mind-altering drug. That was detrimental to the Applicant’s health! She unlawfully and repeatedly continued over months to assault the Applicant with these injections. Regardless of other patients’ particular symptoms, her admission to the Applicant was, “All of my patients receive the same treatment.” Her prescribed standard of care was woefully inadequate and does not meet the standard that other professional doctors are offering their patients.

(26) Prior to the Mental Health Act being unconstitutionally changed, the same physician could not complete the Admission and the later Assessment Forms on a patient. Realleging! The Applicant does not suffer from a mental health defect. Dr. Srinivasan unlawfully, knowingly, willingly, and contrary to prudent practice as the physician, erroneously completed a false diagnosis of the Applicant. Further, was responsible for the admission and the later assessment, realleging after a 60-second doctor-patient consultation. Srinivasan has a duty to the patient to ensure that her diagnosis is correct. “Dr. Ben Arron, the prison doctor, disagreed with Srinivasan’s diagnosis and removed the Applicant from Srinivasan’s prescribed medication.” The Applicant questioned Srinivasan about Arron’s rediagnosis. Her response was contrary to the doctor’s Hippocratic Oath as she verbally assaulted him with unprofessional and unkind words about his character. The Applicant “alleges Srinivasan became enraged after Arron questioned her diagnosis.” Arron embroiled himself into this dispute when he failed to release the Applicant and guarantee his safety by not removing the Applicant from the prison’s general population, knowing that the Applicant had been unlawfully drugged by Srinivasan and could display abnormal behaviour patterns.

82

(27) Canadian Mental Heath Association, hereafter known as CMHA, and Srinivasan only shared office space in the Court House. Why did Srinivasan allow the CMHA purported health staff to produce hearsay, unqualified, false medical records on the Applicant? Srinivasan and certain CMHA

employees’ conduct is contrary to the Criminal Code. There does not exist any provision in law for CMHA to be present in any capacity in the field of mental health in their dealings with the Applicant.

(28) All justices, duty counsels, police officers, doctors, and the Applicant’s own legal counsel did, knowingly and willingly, conspire to prosecute an innocent person, the Applicant, when they did not ensure that the Applicant’s rights were being protected. Their continuing misconduct rises

to the level of sedition!

(29) The Applicant tried not to show up for his appointments, but CMHA would call his mother’s home. The Applicant agreed with family to continue his scheduled appointments. The next-door neighbour, Dr. Johnston, psychiatrist, was contacted by the Applicant to elicit her help. In turn, she provided the Applicant with the names of other psychiatrists. When contacted, they all claimed to be not taking on any more patients. The Applicant’s lawyer was requested to use the psychiatrist who he had contact with. He blatantly refused. Upon learning of the death of Srinivasan’s mother, the Applicant took advantage of Srinivasan’s vulnerability, and on April 22, 2002, Srinivasan agreed to release the Applicant to his wife’s psychiatrist, Dr. Watt. Before the Applicant was to attend his first appointment with Watt, police, with no conditions of continued psychiatric help, withdrew the charges.

83

(30) Realleging! The Toronto Police has manifested itself to be a terrorist organization. They have arbitrarily arrested and tortured the Applicant six (6) times. My Ex 98, Vol 22, Pgs 6519 – 6537 is a must-be-read exhibit. In part, there exists documentary evidence where police are dime store psychiatrists questioning the Applicant’s mental health. On September 24, 1998, in the Applicant’s letter to police, he states, “You are wrong about my mental state. You provide me with the name of your personal psychiatrist and I will agree to see him for a review, as you do not believe the courts.” The previous quote is an obvious reference to the Applicant’s court-ordered psychiatric review of November 5, 1996 from Dr. Hans J. Arndt. The Applicant knows why police believe him to be suffering from a mental defect. The people in southern Ontario live in a police state. Accordingly, these police will not be held accountable for their actions! Police believe anyone questioning their procedures is crazy! The Applicant has been tortured, threatened, given unlawful driving infractions, arbitrarily arrested and detained. Others have received unprovoked beatings. These schoolyard bullies have to be stopped! As has manifested itself, the Applicant has made it his business to fight corruption wherever and whenever it crosses his path.

26. 62 Lakeshore Drive Financing et al

(1) Manifestations! Through the efforts of master criminals, the Applicant has lost 16 Park Glen Drive, 812 – 451 The West Mall, and 15 Cassidy Place. The Applicant and his family are forced to live with family, and later the Applicant would rent 16 Dartmouth Crescent, where he would be unlawfully evicted. After the eviction, the Applicant would purchase with a family member a condominium unit at 1022 – 451 The West Mall. Police would make a condition before they would not perjury themselves that he 84

would sell that property. Presently, the Applicant resides in a rented unit 207 – 306 The West Mall. Now, police are keeping their distance, at the insistence of whom?

(2) The Applicant and his family will try to cut their losses and mitigate their damages after a family member agrees to pay the Applicant $78,000. The Applicant negotiates the purchase of 62 Lakeshore Drive, a seven-plex apartment building.

(3) Through that process, the Applicant would make contact with CMHC Legal Department in an attempt to settle the past disputes for the consideration of NHA financing that he would require to upgrade the building, possibly add a full third storey, and maybe a fourth storey as permitted.

(4) CMHC, these arrogant, vicious, hateful people rejected the Applicant outright, forcing the Applicant to appeal to AGF, Mr. Warren Goldring, CEO and President, to no avail. They, in turn, as will manifest itself, introduced the Applicant to his new lawyers, who turned out to be master criminals.

(5) “The Applicant, through a family member, made application through the Toronto-Dominion Bank and was approved for financing.” Unknown to the Applicant et al, TD under their authority with CMHC had

intended to insure the mortgage under the National Housing Act et al.

(6) “Both CMHC and TD, contrary to Charter 15. (1) and the Canadian Human

Rights Act. 1976 – 77, c. 33, s. 1. 3. (1), denied the mortgage with TD saying and in writing, the family member was ‘ineligible due to age’. Further 85

CMHC’s Mr. John Jarvis verbally told the Applicant that no Sheppard would ever be approved from CMHC financing.”

27. Court File Nos. 96-CU-101690CM and C-26272 et al

(1) Both of the above Court File Nos. represent the Applicant’s plight for

justice. In the first Court File No. the Applicant was acting in person, where he was attempting to have the courts recognize a tort against him by the seller of 62 Lakeshore Drive who had, knowingly and willingly, breached

the contract of Purchase and Sale between both. The seller and his lawyer would, knowingly and willingly, commit fraud and perjury et al before and through the court process. The presiding judge, as will manifest itself, was

contrary to Charter 24. (1) “Incompetent.” Further through that process, the Applicant would encounter through his own legal counsel the works of master criminals who would be connected to the Applicant’s past disputes.

(2) The second Court File No. was originated by the Applicant’s new lawyers, Owens & Wright. As will manifest itself, the Applicant instructed his new lawyers not to proceed to the Ontario Court of Appeal for the reasons the Applicant verily believed that the documents prepared by them did not contain enough information. Owens & Wright disobeyed the Applicant’s instructions and had the legal briefs issued with the courts. Forthwith, they did a Notice of Motion to be removed as Solicitor of Record, making their actions and inactions dire for the Applicant!

28. Court File No. 97-CV-127585SR et al

(1) Manifestations! The Court of Appeal dismissed the Applicant’s lawsuit Court File No. C-26272 without prejudice! Now the Applicant has included 86

these litigants in this process. Appellant Judge Madam Justice Arbour “announced in court that she had read the Applicant’s documents and concluded that she did not have jurisdiction!” She could have dismissed with prejudice, instead “it was her advice to the Applicant that he should issue documents in the lower courts!”

(2) The Applicant is acting in person, and in his legal brief is requesting the court

in the interest of justice, under the Ontario Civil Practice, RULE 2 – NON-

COMPLIANCE WITH THE RULES, to have his dispute heard under that Rule. The Applicant was denied due process when, in part, he was not permitted oral argument. If the Applicant had been permitted due process, he would have

reminded the court that his guaranteed Constitutional Charter 52. rights

supersede Rules set out in the Ontario Civil Practice. The Applicant would have further argued that these Rules are a recipe in the hands of the diabolical to present any asinine arguments you wish to proffer before the courts in hopes of finding a judge who would agree with you!

(3) The above Court File was naming 102 Defendants, particularly in part, some of the Applicant’s previous lawyers. Note! There only existed one

sworn affidavit from Skapinker’s secretary that was contrary to CC s 131. (1)

Perjury. This process was going to be the Applicant’s attempt to have the courts reverse all of the torts against him that have manifested themselves

prior to this section. Instead the presiding judge was contrary to Charter 24.

(1) “Incompetent”, and he was whispering with Joel Skapinker LL.B., lawyer for some of the Defendants and particularly LSUC.

(4) Accordingly, There was merit in the Applicant’s dispute! Mr. Justice Day’s only decisions should have been to order the Applicant to retain legal counsel and/or upon learning of the Applicant’s dire financial straits, order 87

legal aid, and/or grant the Applicant and his counsel time to perfect, and/or in the alternative an adjournment sine die! No judge has the Constitutional authority to arbitrarily dismiss anyone’s lawsuits that have merit in it!

Justice Day’s decision is contrary to Charter 12. as it constitutes cruel and unusual punishment!

(5) Manifestations! Motions by the respondents were brought to dismiss the Applicant’s disputes! Each and every time, all lawyers were disputing the Applicant’s pleadings, probably with the knowledge of inside information with respect to the Applicant’s request for non-compliance with the Rules would not be granted! Absent from their pleadings are any sworn affidavits denying the Applicant’s allegations! The Applicant stood up in court several times to point out to the judge what he considered gross irregularities being presented by the Defendants’ legal counsel! The Applicant was ordered to sit each and every time! “Joel Skapinker confirmed to the Applicant in a telephone conversation that Justice Day said to him, ‘sit down and shut up’!” Later, after hearing “the presiding Justice Day tell Professor Joel Skapinker that it would not be necessary for the court to hear from the Applicant,” he left the court in protest!

(6) Manifestations! Some of the litigants are the LSUC and 24 of its members, whom the Applicant is alleging for the most part were his former solicitors

with a fiduciary responsibility to him! All have conspired, contrary to CC s

131. (1) Perjury, in their failure to properly explain to the Applicant in writing what if any would be his misunderstanding about our dealings! Notwithstanding their legal counsel reminding them of their rights to guard

against their own Charter 13. rights of self-incrimination, their failure to respond in affidavit form is an admission of wrong doing! Why did their 88

legal counsel, Professor Joel Skapinker retained by the LSUC, decide to proceed in this manner?

(7) “The Applicant had arranged through the police legal department to provide waivers for the certain police officers! The Applicant was told and he believes that the waivers were being prepared by a female purported lawyer with the Toronto police!” The Applicant verily believes that Skapinker convinced the police lawyer to stop preparing these documents in favour of Skapinker’s conspiracy to mislead and obstruct justice!

(8) Manifestations! It was Skapinker’s objective to deny the Applicant justice by arguing before the courts that his pleadings did not meet the standards

imposed under the Rules of Civil Procedure. Under the Rules, Skapinker had

personally and repeatedly denied the Applicant in writing a Notice of or Change of Solicitor.

(9) Further, the Applicant knew that Skapinker represented LSUC and the Applicant’s former solicitors. The Applicant in a telephone conversation learned that Skapinker represented others. Later, after the Motion process, the Applicant learned that the other specific litigants were the Applicant’s former landlord, his life partner, and neighbours at 16 Dartmouth Crescent, Tantillo, Innerbichler, MacPherson, Raffiek, Lysecki, and Bown. As has manifested itself in previous sections, they did, knowingly and willingly commit fraud, perjury, and prosecutorial misconduct against the Applicant. As these criminals were previously represented through LSUC by Ms. Judy Goldring LL.B., why, when the LSUC had full knowledge of the misappropriation of the Applicant’s trust funds by their members and the LSUC, would they not pay the Applicant’s legal fees? 89

(10) Skapinker, the solicitor for the Applicant’s former lawyers, knowingly and willingly, misled and obstructed justice! Skapinker/LSUC failed the public to ensure that the Applicant’s former lawyers fully explained to the courts what exactly happened to the $23,565.34 et al. Their failure to disclose gave the courts the impression that there existed a full investigation by the LSUC and my dispute was frivolous! Skapinker and others have committed

indictable offences under the CC in their failure to take non-partisan, appropriate actions against the Applicant’s former lawyers! Further, Skapinker told the Applicant in a meeting with him that “he could probably have the disputed trust moneys turned over to him!”

(11) Realleging, this proceeding was another failed attempt by the Applicant to correct many injustices perpetrated against him, only to be subjected to a sham proceeding! Skapinker, who was retained by the LSUC to be legal counsel for some of the defendants. Justice Day ordered the Applicant in his vexatious ruling, in part, to pay $5,000.00 in punitive costs, which is

contrary to Charter 12. cruel and unusual punishment.

29. Court File Nos. 3101/97 and 97CV-138475 et al

(1) Manifestations! In previous and further sections, the Applicant has proven and will prove fraud, perjury, and prosecutorial misconduct by his former lawyers and crown and duty counsel in both civil and criminal procedures. In both of these court file numbers above, the Applicant is attempting to correct the torts that have been committed against him by members of

LSUC by suing them. For sure, LSUC is mandated by society under the Law

Society Act to investigate citizens’ complaints against its members and can never, never rise above being an honest broker. Accordingly, their actions and inactions in dealing with the Applicant are criminal. 90

(2) Court File No. 3101/97 has Mr. Brian Horrocks’, Hamilton court counter staff, endorsement, proof that the judge refused to hear the Applicant. On December 18, 1997, these court-issued Application documents were originally filed in the Hamilton Court House, to be heard ex parte! That date the Applicant did appear before Justice Scime, who “told the Applicant that he felt sorry for him!” The Applicant verily believes that it was a Freudian slip on the judge’s part (previously this judge issued a judgement against the Applicant in the same matter) because he had a personal involvement and knowledge of the conspiracy by certain of his

colleagues to deny the Applicant justice! Scime, contrary to Charter 24. (1)

“Incompetent” ordered the Applicant to remove the documents from the Hamilton Court, later refiled in the University Avenue Court House, Toronto.

(3) Court File No. 97CV-138475 was issued on January 5, 1998 in Toronto, University Avenue Court House. As has manifested itself, LSUC retained the legal services of law professor, Joel Skapinker to represent themselves and certain former lawyers of the Applicant. (All commit fraud and perjury on the courts.) Through that process, there does not exist a further explanation or denial from the Applicant’s former lawyers and particularly no sworn affidavits save the sworn affidavit of Vivian Lefurgey, a purported secretary in the offices of Skapinker & Associates. (Lefurgey does not believe the contents of her affidavit. She knows it is misleading and obstructing justice.) On more than one occasion, the Applicant cautioned Lefurgey about her involvement in his dispute, only to be treated with contempt and distain by her! The Applicant verily believes that Lefurgey does have extraordinary knowledge of his plight! Lefurgey’s sworn affidavit constitutes perjury

91

30. My Failed Attempt to Invoke Diplomacy and Compassion et al

(1) In this section, the Applicant is delusional in his belief that the truth should prevail. The following quote is attributed to Chief Justice Beverly McLachlin and is further proof that our judicial system has nothing to do with the truth. The absence of moral turpitude by the presiding judge et al will produce a miscarriage of justice. A good lawyer can conjure up under the rules as many facts as you can afford. “When we enter a courtroom, we trust that the judge before us decides on the basis of two things only: the law and the facts.

(2) The Applicant is reattempting to invoke a duty by all to act fairly. As has manifested itself, his past LSUC member lawyers had committed professional misconduct in their dealings with him and, particularly, LSUC certain staff members had instructed his lawyers not to further act for him. Accordingly, their actions and inactions have subjected the Applicant to tyranny and turned him into a nonentity. Particularly, throughout this

process, the Applicant has been, contrary to Charter 9., arbitrarily arrested and detained by police, sometimes with false statements and fabricated evidence from the Applicant’s own lawyers.

31. The LSUC et al

(1) LSUC members’ day-to-day practices are mandated by a provincial statute,

the Law Society Act, and any subsequent rules that may be permitted under that Act. LSUC, as it is currently being permitted by the public to be administered by its own lawyers/administrators, is purported to be in the public interest. The Applicant alleges that this is not true! Manifestations! 92

LSUC by design is prejudicial against all complainants. Definitely there exists a discriminatory practice by LSUC and, for sure, their member lawyers are being treated by LSUC as super human beings.

(2) The Law Society Act and its day-to-day application does not meet the minimum standard of care for complainants and, unconstitutionally, defies

Charter 15. (1). Mr. Scott Kerr, former Chief Investigator for LSUC, told the Applicant in words to the effect, “The primary function of LSUC was to act as public relations for its member lawyers!”

(3) Ms. Zeynet Onen, a later Chief Investigator for LSUC, stated words to the effect, “LSUC has a fiduciary responsibility towards all complaints!” The following quote was adduced from Onen’s letter after the Applicant requested an investigation into the many allegations of misconduct by member lawyers that have manifested themselves throughout this document. Onen’s response to the Applicant was “This matter will not be perused.“

(3) Mr. Richard Tinsley, past Treasurer with LSUC, wrote to the Applicant about the same matter that his colleagues have commented on. He never suggested that there is no merit in the Applicant’s plight, rather, he suggested that this is a matter for the courts.

(4) Manifestations! The Applicant has unconstitutionally been denied his guaranteed judicial rights by all, specifically by police and LSUC. Police believe that LSUC has carriage over this matter, and the LSUC on more than one occasion told the Applicant to contact police. By way of explanation, “Sergeant Parino of the Toronto Police told the Applicant in words to the effect that police have no credibility with the courts in 93

these types of disputes as they have failed repeatedly in the past with similar disputes, and they were not going to pursue my dispute. Further, Parino alleged discrimination. He stated that the lawyer- culture profession, past and present, would pervert and defeat the course of justice in protection of one of their own”.

(5) All agree with the Applicant that there exists a cause of action in his favour. Both police and LSUC have, knowingly and willingly, gone to extraordinary steps to prevent the Applicant from having his day in court. Unconstitutionally, they have subjected the Applicant to contempt and hate.

Accordingly, all are guilty, under CC s. 122. Breach of trust by public officer.

(6) The CC, federal legislation, takes precedence over the Law Society Act, a provincial statute. When LSUC investigators fail to report criminal activity committed by its member lawyers to police/crown, which they may have uncovered through their investigation, their misconduct is covered under

the CC s. 141. (1) Compounding Indictable Offence. LSUC investigators do have a fiduciary responsibility towards the complainants; therefore, there does exist lawyer-client privilege. If the complainant wishes to waiver privilege or instructs the investigator to notify the police, then the LSUC investigator has to follow the complainants’ lawful instructions.

(7) Accordingly, LSUC benchers, lawyers, and employees are engaged in a

criminal false pretence in their day-to-day administrating of the Law Society Act. Further, certain members have taken part in the subversion of the judicial system by, knowingly and willingly, misleading and obstructing justice with the full knowledge of its purported public overseers, LSUC. LSUC, its benchers, and certain employees have, knowingly and willingly, participated in a criminal organization. 94

(8) All lawyers, particularly those of you who are in the public employ, your fiduciary responsibilities are limited to your good faith dealings on behalf of your clients/the public. Your actions are limited to what is in their best interests. Specifically, you have no clients who get involved in wilful misconduct inadvertently or otherwise; particularly, elected officials, public employees, management, and their respective boards of directors. Any misconduct committed by others and concealed by you may be perceived as not being in the public interest, and your actions, and inactions are covered

under the CC s. 141. (1) Compounding indictable offence.

32. Public Works and Government Services (PWGS) et al

(1) Manifestations! If misconduct manifests itself on the part of any public servant, all legal counsel et al are not to conceal that fact as it is not in the public interest. The Applicant verily believes that all government employees et al in their dealings on behalf of taxpayers, and particularly outside legal counsel’s actions and inactions, are limited to their good faith dealings on behalf of the public.

(2) How and why did CMHC learn about the Applicant’s dispute with Public Works and Government Services, hereinafter known as PWGS? (The Applicant’s construction company successfully completed a government contract, and through that process arose a dispute for extras to the contract.) CMHC would dismiss their first choice of public lawyers, Borden & Elliot, after the Applicant proved criminal, professional misconduct by them and for the reasons as follows.

95

(3) The parties from the Justice Department and PWGS broke privacy laws in providing (false) information about the Applicant and his company as CMHC had previously hired Borden & Elliot as public lawyers.

(4) “Mr. John Matheson of Borden & Elliot told the Applicant that he and his law firm were not to accept any proposals for settlement with regard to outstanding monies from the PWGS contract.”

(5) Mr. Todd Archibald, who was the lead counsel, only practised criminal law. “He threatened the Applicant with further prosecution in his dealings with him.”

(6) The Applicant’s concerns were why CMHC and PWGS were retaining the same solicitor and exchanging private and confidential information about him. The Applicant’s dispute with PWGS had nothing to do with CMHC. The Applicant notified the Minister responsible, the Honourable David Dingwall. As has manifested itself, realleging “Dingwall, is attributed to the following statement that he intended to put the Applicant down into the cracks of the sidewalks of Toronto.”

(7) The following verbatim quotes were adduced from Borden & Elliot’s letter dated February 16, 1995, from lawyers John A. Matheson and Todd L. Archibald, who purport to be legal counsel for PWGS! The Applicant verily believes that their actions and inactions, in part, were to fulfil Dingwall’s promise! Realleging! “To put the Applicant down in the cracks of the sidewalks of Toronto!” – “This is not PWGSC’s departmental policy, and you have not provided any substantive evidence to support your allegation. In the 96

absence of any evidence, we can only conclude that this allegation has no merit.” – “We note that throughout, you have been quick to ;level accusations, both orally and in writing, at PWGSC employees, without offering a shred of evidence to substantiate them. At law, such allegations may constitute libel and\or slander. Please understand that libel or slander of the PWGSC or its employees will not be tolerated and that we have been instructed to pursue the remedies of the Government, and its employees, to the full extent of the law.” – “As we are now handling this matter for PWGSC, kindly direct all inquiries, of any kind in writing, regarding the matters herein, to John A. Matheson and Todd L. Archibald.”

(8) The following verbatim quote was adduced, in part, from KCI’s letter, dated February 23, 1995, responding to the above! – “As per telephone conversation this a.m. I will not be intimidated by the threat of a law suit for libel slander nor threats under the law.”

(9) Manifestations! The Applicant, contrary to Charter 12.,verily believes that the Liberal Party of Canada members, Collenette and Dingwall, were instrumental in subjecting him to hate and contempt.

(10) The Applicant has never witnessed or been involved in such an asinine procedure. John Matheson in a telephone conversation with him admitted, “he was retained to do whatever was necessary to prevent the Applicant from having his day in court!” Todd Archibald is a practising criminal lawyer only.

97

(11) The Applicant has repeatedly reminded all involved that their duties and responsibilities are limited to their good faith dealings on behalf of the public.

(12) “The Applicant stands by all of his allegations asserted by him in this section”! Specifically, the two asinine, gutless wonders, Matheson and Archibald, were successful in having both CMHC and PWGS remove the files from Borden & Elliot! What kind of proof did the Applicant possess causing them to lose both files (a goose that lays golden eggs)?

33. Breach of Trust by Public Officers et al

34. Consumer Reporting Agencies et al

35. The Toronto Star et al

36. Ontario Police Services Boards et al

(a) Those, police/others who verily believe, in their tenure as public servants, that their administering and enforcement of laws that we, as a society, have permitted under the Constitution are their preserve. They are wrong!

Specifically, their wrong decision is contrary to Charter 15. (1) when they 98

denied the Applicant due process. Accordingly, they have committed

indictable offences under the Criminal Code 122. Breach of trust by public officer, not limited to. Their actions and inactions in the performance of their duties continually allowed others to subject the Applicant to tyranny.

(b) Realleging! Certain police in the protection of their own through their blue wall of silence have caused the Applicant to be continually, unlawfully investigated and have failed to properly investigate the Applicant’s numerous complaints. Further, the Applicant alleges that the past internal police investigations unit is corrupt!

(c) The Applicant was relying on Police Services Board members as a sober second-review of his complaints about certain police. With no response! Further, certain board members unlawfully have, knowingly and willingly, perverted the judicial process and has caused anarchy for its citizens. One member committed indictable offences and was never charged. He chose to rent judge and paid to have this judge render a favourable decision. Another member, in conjunction with police, should have been charged with theft. Rather, he was allowed to go to the Ontario Civilian Commission on Police Services, hereinafter known as OCCPS for the theft of public property. Still another member is suspect with his involvement with others in the misappropriation of tens of millions of dollars that has manifest itself throughout a public enquiry regarding the purchasing practice for city computers. Realleging! The former Mayor of the City of Toronto and Police Services Board member, Lastman, publicly threatened a media reporter that if he were to publish the proven fact that his wife was a thief, he claimed to know individuals that would kill this reporter. On the other hand, Lastman and his wife did not spend anytime in jail, whereas the Applicant has been arbitrarily arrested on six separate occasions. 99

(d) Chief Fantino of the Toronto Police’s tenure may be unlawful! His application for the Chief’s job was surrounded by controversy when the President of the Police Union handed the Police Services Board members a note stating words to the effect, “We want Fantino!” The Applicant hearsays that the Board Members looked at each other and said, “I guess it’s Fantino,” to the detriment of the other applicants. The process was corrupted! The Board was remiss in their duty when they failed to tell Mr. Craig Bromell, the Police Union President, that the appointment of a Chief of Police is in the domain of the Police Board only; any undue influence may be suspect as a threat and intimidation; accordingly criminal. Any police officers who fail to obey the lawful commands of their civilian masters, have taken part in seditious act.

(e) Chief Fantino has exhibited bad judgement in the performance of his day- to-day running of the police force. He has displayed contempt of court on numerous occasions. Accordingly, he is sending the wrong message to the police rank and file. He is not a politician! In a democracy, persons trusted to carry guns have to be subservient to their civilian masters. in this case, the public’s Police Services Board. Further, there has to be a tactical advantage in not exposing our police to the media by making any kind of statements. Sometimes, someone will misinterpret what is being said and draw a conclusion that some police officers are not too smart. Further, one of the Chief’s purported officers told the Applicant that the consensus in the rank and file is that “Fantino is a media hound!”

(f) There have been failed efforts by the public to curtail police from using unprovoked and unnecessary force/violence against alleged criminals. Chief Fantino is purported to be a reformed racist in a multi-cultural city. We deserve better! Repeated media reports characterize Chief Fantino as an 100

anarchist. After reading media reports, the Applicant alleges and verily believes that Chief Fantino’s embitterment is representative of the rank and file.

(g) As an officer of the court, Chief Fantino has been in contempt of Supreme Court of Canada rulings and does not believe in the Constitution of this country that a person is innocent until proven guilty. Once found guilty through the courts and having paid their debt to society, police are not to interfere with these individuals as has manifested itself in the Applicant’s dealings with the police. Unlawfully and unconstitutionally, the Applicant is purported to be known to police.

(h) Realleging! The following quote was adduced from a media article that goes to explain the Applicant’s beliefs in his dealings with police. Guilty or not guilty, this is the mentality that any member of the public can expect from police if you are dubbed to be “known to police.” “Joseph Conrad, who literally wrote the book on the darkness of men’s hearts, once said that the terrorists and the policemen both come from the same basket.”

(i) The Applicant agrees with Chief Fantino and anyone else who suggests that the judicial system may be unjust. Further, media reports specifically about Chief Fantino and the failure of the Police Services Board to properly offer leadership on behalf of Toronto citizens. For their failure, they are responsible for subjecting the citizens to anarchy.

(j) It is totally inappropriate for police to be making any political statements, no matter how important the issue might be. The Applicant is alleging that each and every time the media reports on Chief Fantino’s plight, true or otherwise, he is an asinine poster boy for criminals worldwide to come and 101

set up shop in Toronto, when he publicizes for whatever reason, police may not be able to catch them in their criminal activities.

(k) The role of all police officers should be one of silence and carrying a big stick. We do not want police acting as salesmen! Further, it is perceived by the Applicant that persons who are entrusted with guns had better be subservient to their masters, the public. The Applicant realleges that their conduct is seditious. Ignorance of the law will not apply.

(l) The actions of the police in southern Ontario lead the Applicant to believe that their loyalty is solely towards government. They are to remain neutral at all times. Realleging! Citizens are paramount in society! The Applicant has been subjected to tyranny by the authorities who are supposed to safeguard the Constitutional Rights of its citizens. They are the frontline of justice!

(m) One of their own, a police officer, has described certain officers as substance and family abusers. Police have physically beaten others for unprovoked reasons. The Applicant has been arbitrarily arrested on six separate occasions, criminally harassed, tortured, and continually kept under unlawful investigation in an attempt to discourage him from continuing with this process.

(n) The Applicant is alleging and he verily believes, in part, that some officers have taken part in the unlawful beating of its citizens at one time or another, with other officers being witnesses and parties to an offence. Police, unconstitutionally, believe that any citizen who happens to cross their paths is probably guilty of an offence, contrary to the charter of being innocent until proven guilty. 102

(o) Media has reported that in order for police officers to receive promotions, they had better be prepared to participate in a conspiracy to prosecute an innocent person. If there is any truth in the previous sentences, and if you believe that police are to be held to the minimum definition of “reasonable and probable cause” in the performance of their duties before denying any citizens their Constitutional Rights, can we trust them to be either subjective or objective? The Applicant says, “No!”

(p) The Applicant made contact with both the Ontario Provincial Police, hereinafter known as the OPP and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, hereinafter known as the RCMP. He went one step further in contacting the Special Investigations Unit, hereinafter known as the SIU, after receiving a personal injury by police. All failed to respond to the Applicant’s lawful request for their involvement as mandated by law and the Constitution. Realleging! Police do not believe that its citizens are paramount in society. Accordingly, their unconstitutional actions are criminal, with some

individuals’ actions and inactions rising to the level of sedition. (

(q) CMHC employees, knowingly and willingly, took part in an unlawful process to prosecute an innocent person, the Applicant, by using their security department employee, an ex-RCMP officer, to contact the Toronto Police, and as a professional courtesy to this ex-RCMP officer, the Toronto Police conspired with them to prosecute an innocent person, the Applicant.

(r) Realleging! Members of the Toronto Services Board and its current Chief, Julian Fantino, are parties to the offences committed by others and repeatedly have taken part in the concealment of these indictable offences. They have failed to perform their duties and have continually allowed others to subject the Applicant to tyranny. They have caused the Applicant 103

to be continually, unlawfully investigated by police, when they have failed to properly respond to the Applicant’s numerous complaints. Further, they are aware that the internal police investigations unit is corrupt. By their actions and inactions, they have condoned police corruption and have allowed their own board members to be corrupt.

(s) The Applicant realleges that the past and current Toronto Police Services Board members have failed in their duty to him. Accordingly, unlawfully, they have kept him under police investigation. Further, they have failed to properly address the Applicant’s many requests for help. Since January 2004, the Toronto Police Services Board, as reported by the media, five members have embroiled themselves into controversial issues, with one found guilty of misconduct. Specifically, it is alleged a senior police officer, among others, was responsible for a leaked police memo regarding the current Police Services Board Chair, Mr. Alan Heisey, alleging that he held controversial views on child pornography and may have tried to influence a matter before the courts. The following quote is attributed to retired Judge Sydney Robbins, who was appointed to conduct an independent investigation and who exonerated Heisey, purported as saying that he was the victim of a smear campaign. “Manifestly calculated to damage Mr. Heisey’s reputation and undermine, if not destroy, his ability to continue as chair.” No consideration was afforded the Applicant as he was subjected to the identical smear campaign as Heisey. Equality has been denied to the Applicant as will manifest itself. Accordingly, that as a society, we have created superhuman beings by discriminating against some.

(1) Manifestations! Through the efforts of master criminals, the Applicant has lost 16 Park Glen Drive, 812 – 451 The West Mall, and 15 Cassidy Place. 104

The Applicant and his family are forced to live with family, and later the Applicant would rent 16 Dartmouth Crescent, where he would be unlawfully evicted. After the eviction, the Applicant would purchase with a family member a condominium unit at 1022 – 451 The West Mall. Police would make a condition before they would not perjury themselves that he would sell that property. Presently, the Applicant resides in a rented unit 207 – 306 The West Mall. Now, police are keeping their distance, at the insistence of whom?

(1) Realleging, manifestations! Master criminals’ “(police’s) admission to the Applicant in his arbitrary arrest No. 5 was that they agreed with the Applicant using their words that he was ‘screwed over.’ Further they told the Applicant that they had previous experience with others and took the appropriate action, only to have the presiding judge order them not to bring forward this type of dispute to the courts.” The police should have appealed

the court’s decision under Charter 24. (1) “Incompetent” as the court’s decision

was contrary to Charter 15. (1) and started a public awareness campaign of emerging super human beings being recognized by the courts.

(1) Realleging, all of the Applicant’s arrests and detentions are contrary to Charter

9. and, particularly, this first arrest and detention, which was influenced by politicians, allows the Applicant to state that he is a political prisoner. (Now innocent or guilty, he is known to police and subjected to their asinine analysis.) The prosecution of innocent persons is not limited to this Applicant. As will manifest itself, the Applicant is a victim of police vigilantes (master

criminals), who unconstitutionally and contrary to Charter 15. (1) will arbitrarily arrest and detain only persons they believe they can bully. The Applicant complained to the Police Standards Department for a review of police misconduct with no intelligent response. The Applicant tried to invoke 105

his Constitutional Rights under Charter 24. (1), only to encounter prosecutorial misconduct and an incompetent court.

(2) Realleging, all of the Applicant’s arbitrary arrests and detentions were

contrary to Charter 9. Specifically, Nos. 1 and 2 of 6, as has and will further

manifest itself, both MP’s, Dingwall and Collenette, contrary to CC s. 319.

(2) Wilful promotion of hatred, because the Applicant is poor, directed and/or

influenced police to charge the Applicant under the CC, making all contrary

to CC s. 59. (1) Seditious words (1) (2) (3) (4) (a) (b). Accordingly, by their actions and inactions against the Applicant all, knowingly and willingly, turned

him into a non-entity et al! Charter 3. et al guarantees the Applicant that he is the government!

(3) Realleging, the Applicant’s attempts to stop the torts against him under

Charter 20. (1) through letter writing and phone calls produced no positive results! The Applicant is a political prisoner! Our judicial system is an

arrogant giant! Police are mandated under Charter 15. (1) to act when anyone has been turned into a non-entity! Through police corruption, they would,

knowingly and willingly, contrary to Charter 9., arrest and detain the

Applicant on six separate occasions! Contrary to Charter 12., Charter 15. (1)

and Charter 24. (1), the politically-appointed, prejudicial judges are

incompetent as they discriminate against anyone acting in person, you are rarely allowed to be heard orally, never awarded court costs, and they use court costs as a punitive determent for you to not show up in court without a lawyer!

(4) Realleging, notwithstanding the above, citizens are paramount in society!

Charter 15. (1) makes the Prime Minister and all under him, who receive

remuneration from taxpayers, “public servants”! Accordingly, their actions and 106

inactions are limited to their good faith dealings on behalf of the public

(harbour no malice). At all times, their tenure is limited to the Interpretation

Act, 23. (1), and if their misconduct rises to the level of the definition of just

cause this would be grounds for just dismissal. Particularly, the arrogant judicial custodians et al who will manifest themselves throughout this process and particularly in this section, your actions and inactions are

contrary to Charter 9., Charter 11. (d) (h), Charter 12., Charter 15. (1), and Charter 24.

(1), not limited to, as the Applicant has been turned into a nonentity!

(5) Realleging, as has and will further manifest itself throughout the Applicant’s plight to combat tyranny that started in 1993 and is continuing, for the most part, is corruption in the judicial system, police who form the frontlines of justice, lawyers, crown attorneys, and the most trusted of all, the judges. All of these different aspects that make up the composition/public servants as custodians of our constitution, because of no real accountability, they have to be described as an arrogant giant.

(6) Realleging, Notwithstanding, the Applicant did appear before certain

justices whose actions and inactions were contrary to the Canadian Bill of

Rights 1. (a), 2. (b) (e). The Applicant, as has and will manifest itself, while

acting in person et al, was repeatedly denied due process et al to be properly notified of a judicial proceeding against him, to be heard orally, and,

particularly, the overly-rigid Rules of Civil Procedure are contrary to Charter 52.

(1), accordingly making the presiding justices contrary to Charter 24. (1), incompetent, with any Orders emanating from that process, bogus.

(7) Realleging, police subjected the Applicant to tyranny! Police powers are

absolute! CC s. 493. Definitions “officer in charge” grants police (individual) enormous Constitutional powers to deny anyone’s liberty on the individual 107

officer’s interpretation of the situation after assessing all of the elements described in the definition of what constitutes “reasonable and probable cause” (the use of deadly force). Police only become involved in situations when all else has failed! Police are to ensure that the enforcement of all laws is in accordance with all persons’ Constitutional Rights, specifically

with Charter 15. (1) et al being their governance. (Arrest certain judges.)

(8) Realleging, notwithstanding the previous paragraph, it would appear from the Applicant’s perspective, police do not possess the intellect and/or training to deal with the issues that have been raised throughout this process! Courts have ruled Toronto police as racist; certain cowardly police have used too much force against the Applicant (permanent hand damage); police will defend one of their own at all expense (no officer has taken up the plight of the Applicant); police when they have committed criminal offences, their Constitutional Rights are paramount; certain police are drunks and unlawful drug users! Accordingly, for the most part, police do not practise or believe that their tenure is limited to their good faith dealings on behalf of the public.

(9) Realleging, police have conjured up and verily believe in their minds that the Applicant is a boogie man. The Applicant verily believes that for the most part these officers get their courage from being allowed to carry a gun and falsely believing that other police officers are better men/women than they are.

108

37. General Property Management (GPM) and York Condominium Corporation No. 52 (YCC 52) et al

38. Criminal Denial of Legal Aid et al

39. My Arbitrary Arrest and Detention No. 4 of 6 et al

(1) Manifestations! Through the efforts of master criminals, the Applicant has lost 16 Park Glen Drive, 812 – 451 The West Mall, and 15 Cassidy Place. The Applicant and his family are forced to live with family, and later the Applicant would rent 16 Dartmouth Crescent, where he would be unlawfully evicted. After the eviction, the Applicant would purchase with a family member a condominium unit at 1022 – 451 The West Mall. Police would make a condition before they would not perjury themselves that he would sell that property. Presently, the Applicant resides in a rented unit 207 – 306 The West Mall. Now, police are keeping their distance, at the insistence of whom?

(1) Realleging, manifestations! Master criminals’ “(police’s) admission to the Applicant in his arbitrary arrest No. 5 was that they agreed with the Applicant using their words that he was ‘screwed over.’ Further they told the Applicant that they had previous experience with others and took the appropriate action, only to have the presiding judge order them not to bring forward this type of dispute to the courts.” The police should have appealed 109

the court’s decision under Charter 24. (1) “Incompetent” as the court’s decision

was contrary to Charter 15. (1) and started a public awareness campaign of emerging super human beings being recognized by the courts.

(1) Realleging, all of the Applicant’s arrests and detentions are contrary to Charter

9. and, particularly, this first arrest and detention, which was influenced by politicians, allows the Applicant to state that he is a political prisoner. (Now innocent or guilty, he is known to police and subjected to their asinine analysis.) The prosecution of innocent persons is not limited to this Applicant. As will manifest itself, the Applicant is a victim of police vigilantes (master

criminals), who unconstitutionally and contrary to Charter 15. (1) will arbitrarily arrest and detain only persons they believe they can bully. The Applicant complained to the Police Standards Department for a review of police misconduct with no intelligent response. The Applicant tried to invoke

his Constitutional Rights under Charter 24. (1), only to encounter prosecutorial misconduct and an incompetent court.

(2) Realleging, all of the Applicant’s arbitrary arrests and detentions were

contrary to Charter 9. Specifically, Nos. 1 and 2 of 6, as has and will further

manifest itself, both MP’s, Dingwall and Collenette, contrary to CC s. 319.

(2) Wilful promotion of hatred, because the Applicant is poor, directed and/or

influenced police to charge the Applicant under the CC, making all contrary

to CC s. 59. (1) Seditious words (1) (2) (3) (4) (a) (b). Accordingly, by their actions and inactions against the Applicant all, knowingly and willingly, turned

him into a non-entity et al! Charter 3. et al guarantees the Applicant that he is the government!

(3) Realleging, the Applicant’s attempts to stop the torts against him under

Charter 20. (1) through letter writing and phone calls produced no positive 110

results! The Applicant is a political prisoner! Our judicial system is an

arrogant giant! Police are mandated under Charter 15. (1) to act when anyone has been turned into a non-entity! Through police corruption, they would,

knowingly and willingly, contrary to Charter 9., arrest and detain the

Applicant on six separate occasions! Contrary to Charter 12., Charter 15. (1)

and Charter 24. (1), the politically-appointed, prejudicial judges are

incompetent as they discriminate against anyone acting in person, you are rarely allowed to be heard orally, never awarded court costs, and they use court costs as a punitive determent for you to not show up in court without a lawyer!

(4) Realleging, notwithstanding the above, citizens are paramount in society!

Charter 15. (1) makes the Prime Minister and all under him, who receive

remuneration from taxpayers, “public servants”! Accordingly, their actions and inactions are limited to their good faith dealings on behalf of the public

(harbour no malice). At all times, their tenure is limited to the Interpretation

Act, 23. (1), and if their misconduct rises to the level of the definition of just

cause this would be grounds for just dismissal. Particularly, the arrogant judicial custodians et al who will manifest themselves throughout this process and particularly in this section, your actions and inactions are

contrary to Charter 9., Charter 11. (d) (h), Charter 12., Charter 15. (1), and Charter 24.

(1), not limited to, as the Applicant has been turned into a nonentity!

(5) Realleging, as has and will further manifest itself throughout the Applicant’s plight to combat tyranny that started in 1993 and is continuing, for the most part, is corruption in the judicial system, police who form the frontlines of justice, lawyers, crown attorneys, and the most trusted of all, the judges. All of these different aspects that make up the 111

composition/public servants as custodians of our constitution, because of no real accountability, they have to be described as an arrogant giant.

(6) Realleging, Notwithstanding, the Applicant did appear before certain

justices whose actions and inactions were contrary to the Canadian Bill of

Rights 1. (a), 2. (b) (e). The Applicant, as has and will manifest itself, while

acting in person et al, was repeatedly denied due process et al to be properly notified of a judicial proceeding against him, to be heard orally, and,

particularly, the overly-rigid Rules of Civil Procedure are contrary to Charter 52.

(1), accordingly making the presiding justices contrary to Charter 24. (1), incompetent, with any Orders emanating from that process, bogus.

(7) Realleging, police subjected the Applicant to tyranny! Police powers are

absolute! CC s. 493. Definitions “officer in charge” grants police (individual) enormous Constitutional powers to deny anyone’s liberty on the individual officer’s interpretation of the situation after assessing all of the elements described in the definition of what constitutes “reasonable and probable cause” (the use of deadly force). Police only become involved in situations when all else has failed! Police are to ensure that the enforcement of all laws is in accordance with all persons’ Constitutional Rights, specifically

with Charter 15. (1) et al being their governance. (Arrest certain judges.)

(8) Realleging, notwithstanding the previous paragraph, it would appear from the Applicant’s perspective, police do not possess the intellect and/or training to deal with the issues that have been raised throughout this process! Courts have ruled Toronto police as racist; certain cowardly police have used too much force against the Applicant (permanent hand damage); police will defend one of their own at all expense (no officer has taken up the plight of the Applicant); police when they have committed criminal 112

offences, their Constitutional Rights are paramount; certain police are drunks and unlawful drug users! Accordingly, for the most part, police do not practise or believe that their tenure is limited to their good faith dealings on behalf of the public.

(9) Realleging, police have conjured up and verily believe in their minds that the Applicant is a boogie man. The Applicant verily believes that for the most part these officers get their courage from being allowed to carry a gun and falsely believing that other police officers are better men/women than they are.

Purported Mental Heath Defect et al

(a) This process should send a cautionary warning to you readers whose intelligence, courage, and tenacity may exceed that of others! Individual police of moronic intelligence, who are now trying to guard against their own self-incrimination, by stating that the Applicant suffers from a mental defect because he is different, have subjected the Applicant to cruel, unlawful, and inhumane treatment, a smear campaign to criminally libel and slander his good name and reputation, and attempted to murder him, in hopes of discouraging him not to proceed with this process.

(b) As will manifest itself, the Applicant has subjected himself to a panel of three psychiatrists for the determination of his current and past mental state. Their conclusion was based upon the reality of the written contents of this process, as reported to them by knowledgeable persons in the legal profession, and a review of his past psychiatric reports. These imminently qualified doctors have put an end to the Applicant being branded mentally ill by his enemies, the conspirators.

113

(c) The Applicant does not now or ever did suffer from a mental defect, as will manifest itself in this section and throughout this process. Rather, both his family and extended family have been subjected to contempt and hate that still continues. Repeatedly the Applicant has been denied his Constitutional Rights throughout the judicial process. He is a victim of politically motivated terrorism perpetrated against him by police and compounded by a corrupt judicial system. The Applicant admits in his dispute with the authorities that he would not become a coward and quit this process by stating to police words to the effect, “The only way he could be stopped was for police to kill him.” The police took the Applicant’s statement literally! Accordingly, he was met by cowardly police and arbitrarily arrested by members of the Emergency Task Force, who get their courage from carrying guns, and they falsely believe that there are better persons backing them!

(d) The following quote was adduced from a media article that goes to explain the Applicant’s beliefs in his dealings with police. Guilty or not guilty: this is the mentality that any member of the public can expect from police if you are dubbed “to be known to police.” “Joseph Conrad, who literally wrote the book on the darkness of men’s hearts, who once said that the terrorists and the policemen both come from the same basket.”

(e) Mr. Greg Dimitriou LL.B. was a lawyer retained in one of my court proceedings by the other side. Dimitriou, days before my arbitrary arrest and detention No. 2 where police were alleging that the Applicant suffered from a mental defect, argued before presiding Madam Justice Molloy of the Ontario Superior Court that, “The Applicant was the most intelligent person he had ever met, with Molloy concurring. The Applicant later again appeared before Molloy on a different matter. Upon the Applicant introducing himself to the court, when asked Molloy 114

remembered him from his previous appearance before her and confirmed the statement about his intelligence,” when the Applicant asked her to recollect.

(f) For the most part, the Applicant realleges that his arbitrary arrests and detentions involved unqualified individuals when they publicly stated that the Applicant suffered from a mental defect. These unlawful conspirators did so in their own self-defence to guard against their continuing self-incrimination and other interests. Accordingly; these parties, not limited to, knowingly and willingly, took part in the prosecution of an innocent person, the Applicant.

(g) Prior to the Applicant’s arbitrary arrest and detention No. 6, and further alleged, bogus criminal offences purported to have been committed by the Applicant, and before Detective Constable Bart Evans of the Toronto Police obtained a fabricated, bogus, fenny warrant, which the Applicant is alleging was an attempt to murder the Applicant, Evans told the Applicant, “He was going to come over to the Applicant’s home with some of the boys for the purposes of assaulting the Applicant and that the Applicant would be going to jail for a long time, as this was agreed upon by the Crown Attorney’s Office.”

(h) Unknown court duty counsel, who was not representing the Applicant, “stood up in court and concurred with the Crown that the Applicant was to be locked up with the criminally insane.” The Applicant asked the court to be heard. The Presiding Judge Hogg was reminded by the Applicant that “His Honour Hogg was prejudiced against all persons charged with a crime.” The media had reported Hogg had announced in court words to the effect “that the backlogs in court cases would necessitate the immediate withdrawal of charges against these individuals, and Hogg further stated that there would be a lot of crooks released,” contrary to their Constitutional Rights of being innocent until proven guilty. The Applicant requested to appear before another judge instead, unconstitutionally, Hogg 115

referred the Applicant to a psychiatrist directly under his control and in his employ. Notwithstanding Hogg’s judicial powers, realleging, Dr. V. Srinivasan’s relationship with him was one of master and servant, with Hogg being the master.

(i) An Ontario statute, the Mental Health Act, in part, is purported to be the governance in these situations, only if an individual suffers from a mental defect. Responsible others knew through “police profiling that the Applicant does not have a mean bone in his body Dr. Srinivasan confirmed that the Applicant has never been violent “ There exists documentary proof by other eminent doctors that the Applicant does not suffer any mental defects.

(j) The Applicant verily believes that Srinivasan comes from a cast society! She, unconstitutionally, subjected the Applicant to her beliefs that all are not equal! She further compounded her unlawful ways when she allowed only a 60-second doctor-patient consultation with the Applicant. She immediately thereafter had the Applicant restrained and unlawfully proceeded, with the use of force, to inject the Applicant with a powerful mind-altering drug. That was detrimental to the Applicant’s health! She unlawfully and repeatedly continued over months to assault the Applicant with these injections. Regardless of other patients’ particular symptoms, her admission to the Applicant was, “All of my patients receive the same treatment.” Her prescribed standard of care was woefully inadequate and does not meet the standard that other professional doctors are offering their patients.

(k) Prior to the Mental Health Act being unconstitutionally changed, the same physician could not complete the Admission and the later Assessment Forms on a patient. Realleging! The Applicant does not suffer from a mental health defect. Dr. Srinivasan unlawfully, knowingly, willingly, and contrary to prudent practice as the physician, erroneously completed a false diagnosis of the Applicant. Further, 116

was responsible for the admission and the later assessment, realleging after a 60- second doctor-patient consultation. Srinivasan has a duty to the patient to ensure that her diagnosis is correct. “Dr. Ben Arron, the prison doctor, disagreed with Srinivasan’s diagnosis and removed the Applicant from Srinivasan’s prescribed medication.” The Applicant questioned Srinivasan about Arron’s rediagnosis. Her response was contrary to the doctor’s Hippocratic Oath as she verbally assaulted him with unprofessional and unkind words about his character. The Applicant “alleges Srinivasan became enraged after Arron questioned her diagnosis.” Arron embroiled himself into this dispute when he failed to release the Applicant and guarantee his safety by not removing the Applicant from the prison’s general population, knowing that the Applicant had been unlawfully drugged by Srinivasan and could display abnormal behaviour patterns.

(l) Canadian Mental Heath Association, hereafter known as CMHA, and Srinivasan only shared office space in the Court House. Why did Srinivasan allow the CMHA purported health staff to produce hearsay, unqualified, false medical records on the Applicant? Srinivasan and certain CMHA employees’ conduct is contrary to the

Criminal Code. There does not exist any provision in law for CMHA to be present in any capacity in the field of mental health in their dealings with the Applicant.

(m) All justices, duty counsels, police officers, doctors, and the Applicant’s own legal counsel did, knowingly and willingly, conspire to prosecute an innocent person, the Applicant, when they did not ensure that the Applicant’s rights were being

protected. Their continuing misconduct rises to the level of sedition!

(n) The Applicant tried not to show up for his appointments, but CMHA would call his mother’s home. The Applicant agreed with family to continue his scheduled appointments. The next-door neighbour, Dr. Johnston, psychiatrist, was contacted by the Applicant to elicit her help. In turn, she provided the Applicant with the 117

names of other psychiatrists. When contacted, they all claimed to be not taking on any more patients. The Applicant’s lawyer was requested to use the psychiatrist who he had contact with. He blatantly refused. Upon learning of the death of Srinivasan’s mother, the Applicant took advantage of Srinivasan’s vulnerability, and on April 22, 2002, Srinivasan agreed to release the Applicant to his wife’s psychiatrist, Dr. Watt. Before the Applicant was to attend his first appointment with Watt, police, with no conditions of continued psychiatric help, withdrew the charges.

(o) Realleging! The Toronto Police has manifested itself to be a terrorist organization. They have arbitrarily arrested and tortured the Applicant six (6) times. My Ex 98, Vol 22, Pgs 6519 – 6537 is a must-be-read exhibit. In part, there exists documentary evidence where police are dime store psychiatrists questioning the Applicant’s mental health. On September 24, 1998, in the Applicant’s letter to police, he states, “You are wrong about my mental state. You provide me with the name of your personal psychiatrist and I will agree to see him for a review, as you do not believe the courts.” The previous quote is an obvious reference to the Applicant’s court-ordered psychiatric review of November 5, 1996 from Dr. Hans J. Arndt. The Applicant knows why police believe him to be suffering from a mental defect. The people in southern Ontario live in a police state. Accordingly, these police will not be held accountable for their actions! Police believe anyone questioning their procedures is crazy! The Applicant has been tortured, threatened, given unlawful driving infractions, arbitrarily arrested and detained. Others have received unprovoked beatings. These schoolyard bullies have to be stopped! As has manifested itself, the Applicant has made it his business to fight corruption wherever and whenever it crosses his path.

118

40. Court File No. 98-CV-150743 et al

41. My April 23, 1998, Legal Brief et al

42. CMHC President, Chairman, and Board of Directors et al

43. Department of Justice Canada et al

44. Toronto Star et al

45. Legal Aid Ontario and Court File No. M17650/99 et al

46. College of Physicians and Surgeons et al

(a) The Hippocratic Oath defies the Constitution as it encourages the professionals who have sworn to uphold its principles to be above the law 119

by their concealment of indictable offences that may be committed by other doctors. The Applicant alleges certain unlicensed doctors performed botched unnecessary surgery on him. Later others proceeded to perform further botched corrective surgery, and to this date, has left the Applicant with what has been described by other doctors as a time bomb, life- threatening situation. As will manifest itself, the Applicant has not been successful in convincing other doctors to perform this life-threatening surgery. The Applicant contacted the Minister responsible for their intervention, without any positive response.

47. General Property Management GPM et al

(a) The Applicant has knowledge of two (2) condominium units in the same building where GPM has been the property managers and YCC 52 the Board of Directors,

whose mandate is covered under the Condominium Act!. Their unlawful conduct in the performance of their duties has caused the Applicant to be charged under the

Criminal Code, and all parties responsible have conspired to prosecute an innocent person, the Applicant.

48. My Arbitrary Arrest and Detention No. 5 of 6 et al

(1) Manifestations! Through the efforts of master criminals, the Applicant has lost 16 Park Glen Drive, 812 – 451 The West Mall, and 15 Cassidy Place. The Applicant and his family are forced to live with family, and later the Applicant would rent 16 Dartmouth Crescent, where he would be unlawfully evicted. After the eviction, the Applicant would purchase with a family member a condominium unit at 1022 – 451 The West Mall. Police would make a condition before they would not perjury themselves that he 120

would sell that property. Presently, the Applicant resides in a rented unit 207 – 306 The West Mall. Now, police are keeping their distance, at the insistence of whom?

(1) Realleging, manifestations! Master criminals’ “(police’s) admission to the Applicant in his arbitrary arrest No. 5 was that they agreed with the Applicant using their words that he was ‘screwed over.’ Further they told the Applicant that they had previous experience with others and took the appropriate action, only to have the presiding judge order them not to bring forward this type of dispute to the courts.” The police

should have appealed the court’s decision under Charter 24. (1) “Incompetent”

as the court’s decision was contrary to Charter 15. (1) and started a public awareness campaign of emerging super human beings being recognized by the courts.

(1) Realleging, all of the Applicant’s arrests and detentions are contrary to Charter

9. and, particularly, this first arrest and detention, which was influenced by politicians, allows the Applicant to state that he is a political prisoner. (Now innocent or guilty, he is known to police and subjected to their asinine analysis.) The prosecution of innocent persons is not limited to this Applicant. As will manifest itself, the Applicant is a victim of police vigilantes (master

criminals), who unconstitutionally and contrary to Charter 15. (1) will arbitrarily arrest and detain only persons they believe they can bully. The Applicant complained to the Police Standards Department for a review of police misconduct with no intelligent response. The Applicant tried to invoke

his Constitutional Rights under Charter 24. (1), only to encounter prosecutorial misconduct and an incompetent court.

121

(2) Realleging, all of the Applicant’s arbitrary arrests and detentions were

contrary to Charter 9. Specifically, Nos. 1 and 2 of 6, as has and will further

manifest itself, both MP’s, Dingwall and Collenette, contrary to CC s. 319.

(2) Wilful promotion of hatred, because the Applicant is poor, directed and/or

influenced police to charge the Applicant under the CC, making all contrary

to CC s. 59. (1) Seditious words (1) (2) (3) (4) (a) (b). Accordingly, by their actions and inactions against the Applicant all, knowingly and willingly, turned

him into a non-entity et al! Charter 3. et al guarantees the Applicant that he is the government!

(3) Realleging, the Applicant’s attempts to stop the torts against him under

Charter 20. (1) through letter writing and phone calls produced no positive results! The Applicant is a political prisoner! Our judicial system is an

arrogant giant! Police are mandated under Charter 15. (1) to act when anyone has been turned into a non-entity! Through police corruption, they would,

knowingly and willingly, contrary to Charter 9., arrest and detain the

Applicant on six separate occasions! Contrary to Charter 12., Charter 15. (1)

and Charter 24. (1), the politically-appointed, prejudicial judges are

incompetent as they discriminate against anyone acting in person, you are rarely allowed to be heard orally, never awarded court costs, and they use court costs as a punitive determent for you to not show up in court without a lawyer!

(4) Realleging, notwithstanding the above, citizens are paramount in society!

Charter 15. (1) makes the Prime Minister and all under him, who receive

remuneration from taxpayers, “public servants”! Accordingly, their actions and inactions are limited to their good faith dealings on behalf of the public

(harbour no malice). At all times, their tenure is limited to the Interpretation

Act, 23. (1), and if their misconduct rises to the level of the definition of just 122

cause this would be grounds for just dismissal. Particularly, the arrogant judicial custodians et al who will manifest themselves throughout this process and particularly in this section, your actions and inactions are

contrary to Charter 9., Charter 11. (d) (h), Charter 12., Charter 15. (1), and Charter 24.

(1), not limited to, as the Applicant has been turned into a nonentity!

(5) Realleging, as has and will further manifest itself throughout the Applicant’s plight to combat tyranny that started in 1993 and is continuing, for the most part, is corruption in the judicial system, police who form the frontlines of justice, lawyers, crown attorneys, and the most trusted of all, the judges. All of these different aspects that make up the composition/public servants as custodians of our constitution, because of no real accountability, they have to be described as an arrogant giant.

(6) Realleging, Notwithstanding, the Applicant did appear before certain

justices whose actions and inactions were contrary to the Canadian Bill of

Rights 1. (a), 2. (b) (e). The Applicant, as has and will manifest itself, while

acting in person et al, was repeatedly denied due process et al to be properly notified of a judicial proceeding against him, to be heard orally, and,

particularly, the overly-rigid Rules of Civil Procedure are contrary to Charter 52.

(1), accordingly making the presiding justices contrary to Charter 24. (1), incompetent, with any Orders emanating from that process, bogus.

(7) Realleging, police subjected the Applicant to tyranny! Police powers are

absolute! CC s. 493. Definitions “officer in charge” grants police (individual) enormous Constitutional powers to deny anyone’s liberty on the individual officer’s interpretation of the situation after assessing all of the elements described in the definition of what constitutes “reasonable and probable cause” (the use of deadly force). Police only become involved in situations 123

when all else has failed! Police are to ensure that the enforcement of all laws is in accordance with all persons’ Constitutional Rights, specifically

with Charter 15. (1) et al being their governance. (Arrest certain judges.)

(8) Realleging, notwithstanding the previous paragraph, it would appear from the Applicant’s perspective, police do not possess the intellect and/or training to deal with the issues that have been raised throughout this process! Courts have ruled Toronto police as racist; certain cowardly police have used too much force against the Applicant (permanent hand damage); police will defend one of their own at all expense (no officer has taken up the plight of the Applicant); police when they have committed criminal offences, their Constitutional Rights are paramount; certain police are drunks and unlawful drug users! Accordingly, for the most part, police do not practise or believe that their tenure is limited to their good faith dealings on behalf of the public.

(9) Realleging, police have conjured up and verily believe in their minds that the Applicant is a boogie man. The Applicant verily believes that for the most part these officers get their courage from being allowed to carry a gun and falsely believing that other police officers are better men/women than they are.

Purported Mental Heath Defect et al

(a) This process should send a cautionary warning to you readers whose intelligence, courage, and tenacity may exceed that of others! Individual police of moronic intelligence, who are now trying to guard against their own self-incrimination, by stating that the Applicant suffers from a mental defect because he is different, have subjected the Applicant to cruel, unlawful, and inhumane treatment, a smear 124

campaign to criminally libel and slander his good name and reputation, and attempted to murder him, in hopes of discouraging him not to proceed with this process.

(b) As will manifest itself, the Applicant has subjected himself to a panel of three psychiatrists for the determination of his current and past mental state. Their conclusion was based upon the reality of the written contents of this process, as reported to them by knowledgeable persons in the legal profession, and a review of his past psychiatric reports. These imminently qualified doctors have put an end to the Applicant being branded mentally ill by his enemies, the conspirators.

(c) The Applicant does not now or ever did suffer from a mental defect, as will manifest itself in this section and throughout this process. Rather, both his family and extended family have been subjected to contempt and hate that still continues. Repeatedly the Applicant has been denied his Constitutional Rights throughout the judicial process. He is a victim of politically motivated terrorism perpetrated against him by police and compounded by a corrupt judicial system. The Applicant admits in his dispute with the authorities that he would not become a coward and quit this process by stating to police words to the effect, “The only way he could be stopped was for police to kill him.” The police took the Applicant’s statement literally! Accordingly, he was met by cowardly police and arbitrarily arrested by members of the Emergency Task Force, who get their courage from carrying guns, and they falsely believe that there are better persons backing them!

(d) The following quote was adduced from a media article that goes to explain the Applicant’s beliefs in his dealings with police. Guilty or not guilty: this is the mentality that any member of the public can expect from police if you are dubbed “to be known to police.” “Joseph Conrad, who literally wrote the book on the 125

darkness of men’s hearts, who once said that the terrorists and the policemen both come from the same basket.”

(e) Mr. Greg Dimitriou LL.B. was a lawyer retained in one of my court proceedings by the other side. Dimitriou, days before my arbitrary arrest and detention No. 2 where police were alleging that the Applicant suffered from a mental defect, argued before presiding Madam Justice Molloy of the Ontario Superior Court that, “The Applicant was the most intelligent person he had ever met, with Molloy concurring. The Applicant later again appeared before Molloy on a different matter. Upon the Applicant introducing himself to the court, when asked Molloy remembered him from his previous appearance before her and confirmed the statement about his intelligence,” when the Applicant asked her to recollect.

(f) For the most part, the Applicant realleges that his arbitrary arrests and detentions involved unqualified individuals when they publicly stated that the Applicant suffered from a mental defect. These unlawful conspirators did so in their own self-defence to guard against their continuing self-incrimination and other interests. Accordingly; these parties, not limited to, knowingly and willingly, took part in the prosecution of an innocent person, the Applicant.

(g) Prior to the Applicant’s arbitrary arrest and detention No. 6, and further alleged, bogus criminal offences purported to have been committed by the Applicant, and before Detective Constable Bart Evans of the Toronto Police obtained a fabricated, bogus, fenny warrant, which the Applicant is alleging was an attempt to murder the Applicant, Evans told the Applicant, “He was going to come over to the Applicant’s home with some of the boys for the purposes of assaulting the Applicant and that the Applicant would be going to jail for a long time, as this was agreed upon by the Crown Attorney’s Office.”

126

(h) Unknown court duty counsel, who was not representing the Applicant, “stood up in court and concurred with the Crown that the Applicant was to be locked up with the criminally insane.” The Applicant asked the court to be heard. The Presiding Judge Hogg was reminded by the Applicant that “His Honour Hogg was prejudiced against all persons charged with a crime.” The media had reported Hogg had announced in court words to the effect “that the backlogs in court cases would necessitate the immediate withdrawal of charges against these individuals, and Hogg further stated that there would be a lot of crooks released,” contrary to their Constitutional Rights of being innocent until proven guilty. The Applicant requested to appear before another judge instead, unconstitutionally, Hogg referred the Applicant to a psychiatrist directly under his control and in his employ. Notwithstanding Hogg’s judicial powers, realleging, Dr. V. Srinivasan’s relationship with him was one of master and servant, with Hogg being the master.

(i) An Ontario statute, the Mental Health Act, in part, is purported to be the governance in these situations, only if an individual suffers from a mental defect. Responsible others knew through “police profiling that the Applicant does not have a mean bone in his body Dr. Srinivasan confirmed that the Applicant has never been violent “ There exists documentary proof by other eminent doctors that the Applicant does not suffer any mental defects.

(j) The Applicant verily believes that Srinivasan comes from a cast society! She, unconstitutionally, subjected the Applicant to her beliefs that all are not equal! She further compounded her unlawful ways when she allowed only a 60-second doctor-patient consultation with the Applicant. She immediately thereafter had the Applicant restrained and unlawfully proceeded, with the use of force, to inject the Applicant with a powerful mind-altering drug. That was detrimental to the Applicant’s health! She unlawfully and repeatedly continued over months to assault the Applicant with these injections. Regardless of other patients’ particular 127

symptoms, her admission to the Applicant was, “All of my patients receive the same treatment.” Her prescribed standard of care was woefully inadequate and does not meet the standard that other professional doctors are offering their patients.

(k) Prior to the Mental Health Act being unconstitutionally changed, the same physician could not complete the Admission and the later Assessment Forms on a patient. Realleging! The Applicant does not suffer from a mental health defect. Dr. Srinivasan unlawfully, knowingly, willingly, and contrary to prudent practice as the physician, erroneously completed a false diagnosis of the Applicant. Further, was responsible for the admission and the later assessment, realleging after a 60- second doctor-patient consultation. Srinivasan has a duty to the patient to ensure that her diagnosis is correct. “Dr. Ben Arron, the prison doctor, disagreed with Srinivasan’s diagnosis and removed the Applicant from Srinivasan’s prescribed medication.” The Applicant questioned Srinivasan about Arron’s rediagnosis. Her response was contrary to the doctor’s Hippocratic Oath as she verbally assaulted him with unprofessional and unkind words about his character. The Applicant “alleges Srinivasan became enraged after Arron questioned her diagnosis.” Arron embroiled himself into this dispute when he failed to release the Applicant and guarantee his safety by not removing the Applicant from the prison’s general population, knowing that the Applicant had been unlawfully drugged by Srinivasan and could display abnormal behaviour patterns.

(l) Canadian Mental Heath Association, hereafter known as CMHA, and Srinivasan only shared office space in the Court House. Why did Srinivasan allow the CMHA purported health staff to produce hearsay, unqualified, false medical records on the Applicant? Srinivasan and certain CMHA employees’ conduct is contrary to the

Criminal Code. There does not exist any provision in law for CMHA to be present in any capacity in the field of mental health in their dealings with the Applicant. 128

(m) All justices, duty counsels, police officers, doctors, and the Applicant’s own legal counsel did, knowingly and willingly, conspire to prosecute an innocent person, the Applicant, when they did not ensure that the Applicant’s rights were being

protected. Their continuing misconduct rises to the level of sedition!

(n) The Applicant tried not to show up for his appointments, but CMHA would call his mother’s home. The Applicant agreed with family to continue his scheduled appointments. The next-door neighbour, Dr. Johnston, psychiatrist, was contacted by the Applicant to elicit her help. In turn, she provided the Applicant with the names of other psychiatrists. When contacted, they all claimed to be not taking on any more patients. The Applicant’s lawyer was requested to use the psychiatrist who he had contact with. He blatantly refused. Upon learning of the death of Srinivasan’s mother, the Applicant took advantage of Srinivasan’s vulnerability, and on April 22, 2002, Srinivasan agreed to release the Applicant to his wife’s psychiatrist, Dr. Watt. Before the Applicant was to attend his first appointment with Watt, police, with no conditions of continued psychiatric help, withdrew the charges.

(o) Realleging! The Toronto Police has manifested itself to be a terrorist organization. They have arbitrarily arrested and tortured the Applicant six (6) times. My Ex 98, Vol 22, Pgs 6519 – 6537 is a must-be-read exhibit. In part, there exists documentary evidence where police are dime store psychiatrists questioning the Applicant’s mental health. On September 24, 1998, in the Applicant’s letter to police, he states, “You are wrong about my mental state. You provide me with the name of your personal psychiatrist and I will agree to see him for a review, as you do not believe the courts.” The previous quote is an obvious reference to the Applicant’s court-ordered psychiatric review of November 5, 1996 from Dr. Hans J. Arndt. The Applicant knows why police believe him to be suffering from a mental defect. The people in southern Ontario live in a police state. Accordingly, 129

these police will not be held accountable for their actions! Police believe anyone questioning their procedures is crazy! The Applicant has been tortured, threatened, given unlawful driving infractions, arbitrarily arrested and detained. Others have received unprovoked beatings. These schoolyard bullies have to be stopped! As has manifested itself, the Applicant has made it his business to fight corruption wherever and whenever it crosses his path.

49. Court File Nos. 24892/00 and 24986/00 et al

50. Breach of Trust by Public Officers et al

51. Court File No. 01-CV-222013 et al

52. My Arbitrary Arrest and Detention No. 6 of 6 et al

(1) Manifestations! Through the efforts of master criminals, the Applicant has lost 16 Park Glen Drive, 812 – 451 The West Mall, and 15 Cassidy Place. The Applicant and his family are forced to live with family, and later the Applicant would rent 16 Dartmouth Crescent, where he would be unlawfully evicted. After the eviction, the Applicant would purchase with a family member a condominium unit at 1022 – 451 The West Mall. Police would make a condition before they would not perjury themselves that he 130

would sell that property. Presently, the Applicant resides in a rented unit 207 – 306 The West Mall. Now, police are keeping their distance, at the insistence of whom?

(1) Realleging, manifestations! Master criminals’ “(police’s) admission to the Applicant in his arbitrary arrest No. 5 was that they agreed with the Applicant using their words that he was ‘screwed over.’ Further they told the Applicant that they had previous experience with others and took the appropriate action, only to have the presiding judge order them not to bring forward this type of dispute to the courts.” The police

should have appealed the court’s decision under Charter 24. (1) “Incompetent”

as the court’s decision was contrary to Charter 15. (1) and started a public awareness campaign of emerging super human beings being recognized by the courts.

(1) Realleging, all of the Applicant’s arrests and detentions are contrary to Charter

9. and, particularly, this first arrest and detention, which was influenced by politicians, allows the Applicant to state that he is a political prisoner. (Now innocent or guilty, he is known to police and subjected to their asinine analysis.) The prosecution of innocent persons is not limited to this Applicant. As will manifest itself, the Applicant is a victim of police vigilantes (master

criminals), who unconstitutionally and contrary to Charter 15. (1) will arbitrarily arrest and detain only persons they believe they can bully. The Applicant complained to the Police Standards Department for a review of police misconduct with no intelligent response. The Applicant tried to invoke

his Constitutional Rights under Charter 24. (1), only to encounter prosecutorial misconduct and an incompetent court. (2) Realleging, all of the Applicant’s arbitrary arrests and detentions were

contrary to Charter 9. Specifically, Nos. 1 and 2 of 6, as has and will further 131

manifest itself, both MP’s, Dingwall and Collenette, contrary to CC s. 319.

(2) Wilful promotion of hatred, because the Applicant is poor, directed and/or

influenced police to charge the Applicant under the CC, making all contrary

to CC s. 59. (1) Seditious words (1) (2) (3) (4) (a) (b). Accordingly, by their actions and inactions against the Applicant all, knowingly and willingly, turned

him into a non-entity et al! Charter 3. et al guarantees the Applicant that he is the government!

(3) Realleging, the Applicant’s attempts to stop the torts against him under

Charter 20. (1) through letter writing and phone calls produced no positive results! The Applicant is a political prisoner! Our judicial system is an

arrogant giant! Police are mandated under Charter 15. (1) to act when anyone has been turned into a non-entity! Through police corruption, they would,

knowingly and willingly, contrary to Charter 9., arrest and detain the

Applicant on six separate occasions! Contrary to Charter 12., Charter 15. (1)

and Charter 24. (1), the politically-appointed, prejudicial judges are

incompetent as they discriminate against anyone acting in person, you are rarely allowed to be heard orally, never awarded court costs, and they use court costs as a punitive determent for you to not show up in court without a lawyer!

(4) Realleging, notwithstanding the above, citizens are paramount in society!

Charter 15. (1) makes the Prime Minister and all under him, who receive

remuneration from taxpayers, “public servants”! Accordingly, their actions and inactions are limited to their good faith dealings on behalf of the public

(harbour no malice). At all times, their tenure is limited to the Interpretation

Act, 23. (1), and if their misconduct rises to the level of the definition of just

cause this would be grounds for just dismissal. Particularly, the arrogant judicial custodians et al who will manifest themselves throughout this 132

process and particularly in this section, your actions and inactions are

contrary to Charter 9., Charter 11. (d) (h), Charter 12., Charter 15. (1), and Charter 24.

(1), not limited to, as the Applicant has been turned into a nonentity!

(5) Realleging, as has and will further manifest itself throughout the Applicant’s plight to combat tyranny that started in 1993 and is continuing, for the most part, is corruption in the judicial system, police who form the frontlines of justice, lawyers, crown attorneys, and the most trusted of all, the judges. All of these different aspects that make up the composition/public servants as custodians of our constitution, because of no real accountability, they have to be described as an arrogant giant.

(6) Realleging, Notwithstanding, the Applicant did appear before certain

justices whose actions and inactions were contrary to the Canadian Bill of

Rights 1. (a), 2. (b) (e). The Applicant, as has and will manifest itself, while

acting in person et al, was repeatedly denied due process et al to be properly notified of a judicial proceeding against him, to be heard orally, and,

particularly, the overly-rigid Rules of Civil Procedure are contrary to Charter 52.

(1), accordingly making the presiding justices contrary to Charter 24. (1), incompetent, with any Orders emanating from that process, bogus.

(7) Realleging, police subjected the Applicant to tyranny! Police powers are

absolute! CC s. 493. Definitions “officer in charge” grants police (individual) enormous Constitutional powers to deny anyone’s liberty on the individual officer’s interpretation of the situation after assessing all of the elements described in the definition of what constitutes “reasonable and probable cause” (the use of deadly force). Police only become involved in situations when all else has failed! Police are to ensure that the enforcement of all 133

laws is in accordance with all persons’ Constitutional Rights, specifically

with Charter 15. (1) et al being their governance. (Arrest certain judges.)

(8) Realleging, notwithstanding the previous paragraph, it would appear from the Applicant’s perspective, police do not possess the intellect and/or training to deal with the issues that have been raised throughout this process! Courts have ruled Toronto police as racist; certain cowardly police have used too much force against the Applicant (permanent hand damage); police will defend one of their own at all expense (no officer has taken up the plight of the Applicant); police when they have committed criminal offences, their Constitutional Rights are paramount; certain police are drunks and unlawful drug users! Accordingly, for the most part, police do not practise or believe that their tenure is limited to their good faith dealings on behalf of the public.

(9) Realleging, police have conjured up and verily believe in their minds that the Applicant is a boogie man. The Applicant verily believes that for the most part these officers get their courage from being allowed to carry a gun and falsely believing that other police officers are better men/women than they are.

Purported Mental Heath Defect et al

(a) This process should send a cautionary warning to you readers whose intelligence, courage, and tenacity may exceed that of others! Individual police of moronic intelligence, who are now trying to guard against their own self-incrimination, by stating that the Applicant suffers from a mental defect because he is different, have subjected the Applicant to cruel, unlawful, and inhumane treatment, a smear campaign to criminally libel and slander his good name and reputation, and 134

attempted to murder him, in hopes of discouraging him not to proceed with this process.

(b) As will manifest itself, the Applicant has subjected himself to a panel of three psychiatrists for the determination of his current and past mental state. Their conclusion was based upon the reality of the written contents of this process, as reported to them by knowledgeable persons in the legal profession, and a review of his past psychiatric reports. These imminently qualified doctors have put an end to the Applicant being branded mentally ill by his enemies, the conspirators.

(c) The Applicant does not now or ever did suffer from a mental defect, as will manifest itself in this section and throughout this process. Rather, both his family and extended family have been subjected to contempt and hate that still continues. Repeatedly the Applicant has been denied his Constitutional Rights throughout the judicial process. He is a victim of politically motivated terrorism perpetrated against him by police and compounded by a corrupt judicial system. The Applicant admits in his dispute with the authorities that he would not become a coward and quit this process by stating to police words to the effect, “The only way he could be stopped was for police to kill him.” The police took the Applicant’s statement literally! Accordingly, he was met by cowardly police and arbitrarily arrested by members of the Emergency Task Force, who get their courage from carrying guns, and they falsely believe that there are better persons backing them!

(d) The following quote was adduced from a media article that goes to explain the Applicant’s beliefs in his dealings with police. Guilty or not guilty: this is the mentality that any member of the public can expect from police if you are dubbed “to be known to police.” “Joseph Conrad, who literally wrote the book on the 135

darkness of men’s hearts, who once said that the terrorists and the policemen both come from the same basket.”

(e) Mr. Greg Dimitriou LL.B. was a lawyer retained in one of my court proceedings by the other side. Dimitriou, days before my arbitrary arrest and detention No. 2 where police were alleging that the Applicant suffered from a mental defect, argued before presiding Madam Justice Molloy of the Ontario Superior Court that, “The Applicant was the most intelligent person he had ever met, with Molloy concurring. The Applicant later again appeared before Molloy on a different matter. Upon the Applicant introducing himself to the court, when asked Molloy remembered him from his previous appearance before her and confirmed the statement about his intelligence,” when the Applicant asked her to recollect.

(f) For the most part, the Applicant realleges that his arbitrary arrests and detentions involved unqualified individuals when they publicly stated that the Applicant suffered from a mental defect. These unlawful conspirators did so in their own self-defence to guard against their continuing self-incrimination and other interests. Accordingly; these parties, not limited to, knowingly and willingly, took part in the prosecution of an innocent person, the Applicant.

(g) Prior to the Applicant’s arbitrary arrest and detention No. 6, and further alleged, bogus criminal offences purported to have been committed by the Applicant, and before Detective Constable Bart Evans of the Toronto Police obtained a fabricated, bogus, fenny warrant, which the Applicant is alleging was an attempt to murder the Applicant, Evans told the Applicant, “He was going to come over to the Applicant’s home with some of the boys for the purposes of assaulting the Applicant and that the Applicant would be going to jail for a long time, as this was agreed upon by the Crown Attorney’s Office.”

136

(h) Unknown court duty counsel, who was not representing the Applicant, “stood up in court and concurred with the Crown that the Applicant was to be locked up with the criminally insane.” The Applicant asked the court to be heard. The Presiding Judge Hogg was reminded by the Applicant that “His Honour Hogg was prejudiced against all persons charged with a crime.” The media had reported Hogg had announced in court words to the effect “that the backlogs in court cases would necessitate the immediate withdrawal of charges against these individuals, and Hogg further stated that there would be a lot of crooks released,” contrary to their Constitutional Rights of being innocent until proven guilty. The Applicant requested to appear before another judge instead, unconstitutionally, Hogg referred the Applicant to a psychiatrist directly under his control and in his employ. Notwithstanding Hogg’s judicial powers, realleging, Dr. V. Srinivasan’s relationship with him was one of master and servant, with Hogg being the master.

(i) An Ontario statute, the Mental Health Act, in part, is purported to be the governance in these situations, only if an individual suffers from a mental defect. Responsible others knew through “police profiling that the Applicant does not have a mean bone in his body Dr. Srinivasan confirmed that the Applicant has never been violent “ There exists documentary proof by other eminent doctors that the Applicant does not suffer any mental defects.

(j) The Applicant verily believes that Srinivasan comes from a cast society! She, unconstitutionally, subjected the Applicant to her beliefs that all are not equal! She further compounded her unlawful ways when she allowed only a 60-second doctor-patient consultation with the Applicant. She immediately thereafter had the Applicant restrained and unlawfully proceeded, with the use of force, to inject the Applicant with a powerful mind-altering drug. That was detrimental to the Applicant’s health! She unlawfully and repeatedly continued over months to assault the Applicant with these injections. Regardless of other patients’ particular 137

symptoms, her admission to the Applicant was, “All of my patients receive the same treatment.” Her prescribed standard of care was woefully inadequate and does not meet the standard that other professional doctors are offering their patients.

(k) Prior to the Mental Health Act being unconstitutionally changed, the same physician could not complete the Admission and the later Assessment Forms on a patient. Realleging! The Applicant does not suffer from a mental health defect. Dr. Srinivasan unlawfully, knowingly, willingly, and contrary to prudent practice as the physician, erroneously completed a false diagnosis of the Applicant. Further, was responsible for the admission and the later assessment, realleging after a 60- second doctor-patient consultation. Srinivasan has a duty to the patient to ensure that her diagnosis is correct. “Dr. Ben Arron, the prison doctor, disagreed with Srinivasan’s diagnosis and removed the Applicant from Srinivasan’s prescribed medication.” The Applicant questioned Srinivasan about Arron’s rediagnosis. Her response was contrary to the doctor’s Hippocratic Oath as she verbally assaulted him with unprofessional and unkind words about his character. The Applicant “alleges Srinivasan became enraged after Arron questioned her diagnosis.” Arron embroiled himself into this dispute when he failed to release the Applicant and guarantee his safety by not removing the Applicant from the prison’s general population, knowing that the Applicant had been unlawfully drugged by Srinivasan and could display abnormal behaviour patterns.

(l) Canadian Mental Heath Association, hereafter known as CMHA, and Srinivasan only shared office space in the Court House. Why did Srinivasan allow the CMHA purported health staff to produce hearsay, unqualified, false medical records on the Applicant? Srinivasan and certain CMHA employees’ conduct is contrary to the

Criminal Code. There does not exist any provision in law for CMHA to be present in any capacity in the field of mental health in their dealings with the Applicant. 138

(m) All justices, duty counsels, police officers, doctors, and the Applicant’s own legal counsel did, knowingly and willingly, conspire to prosecute an innocent person, the Applicant, when they did not ensure that the Applicant’s rights were being

protected. Their continuing misconduct rises to the level of sedition!

(n) The Applicant tried not to show up for his appointments, but CMHA would call his mother’s home. The Applicant agreed with family to continue his scheduled appointments. The next-door neighbour, Dr. Johnston, psychiatrist, was contacted by the Applicant to elicit her help. In turn, she provided the Applicant with the names of other psychiatrists. When contacted, they all claimed to be not taking on any more patients. The Applicant’s lawyer was requested to use the psychiatrist who he had contact with. He blatantly refused. Upon learning of the death of Srinivasan’s mother, the Applicant took advantage of Srinivasan’s vulnerability, and on April 22, 2002, Srinivasan agreed to release the Applicant to his wife’s psychiatrist, Dr. Watt. Before the Applicant was to attend his first appointment with Watt, police, with no conditions of continued psychiatric help, withdrew the charges.

(o) Realleging! The Toronto Police has manifested itself to be a terrorist organization. They have arbitrarily arrested and tortured the Applicant six (6) times. My Ex 98, Vol 22, Pgs 6519 – 6537 is a must-be-read exhibit. In part, there exists documentary evidence where police are dime store psychiatrists questioning the Applicant’s mental health. On September 24, 1998, in the Applicant’s letter to police, he states, “You are wrong about my mental state. You provide me with the name of your personal psychiatrist and I will agree to see him for a review, as you do not believe the courts.” The previous quote is an obvious reference to the Applicant’s court-ordered psychiatric review of November 5, 1996 from Dr. Hans J. Arndt. The Applicant knows why police believe him to be suffering from a mental defect. The people in southern Ontario live in a police state. Accordingly, 139

these police will not be held accountable for their actions! Police believe anyone questioning their procedures is crazy! The Applicant has been tortured, threatened, given unlawful driving infractions, arbitrarily arrested and detained. Others have received unprovoked beatings. These schoolyard bullies have to be stopped! As has manifested itself, the Applicant has made it his business to fight corruption wherever and whenever it crosses his path.

An Attempt to Murder the Applicant

(a) The Canadian Bill of Rights 1. (a) (b) 2. (a) (b) (c) (i) (ii) (e) (f) are among some of the guaranteed rights the Applicant has been denied! The Applicant’s right to life has been threatened! The Applicant’s right to liberty and the enjoyment of prosperity are subject to the good will of terrorist police! Laws have been intentionally construed to arbitrarily imprison the Applicant! The Applicant has been tortured by police! Courts, civil and criminal, have imposed cruel and unusual punishment and treatment of the Applicant! The Applicant’s legal counsel, contrary to acceptable standards of practice, have refused to use all of their legal skills in his defence! The Applicant has been ????? by criminal court to give testimony while

acting in person! All have treated The Applicant as guilty before and after his court ?????????????! and

(b) AGF reported to the Applicant that CMHC has been refusing to make payments on some of their previous ???????? on default mortgages! Before they would renew the Applicant’s mortgages, under AGF authority, the Applicant was to

obtain under the National Housing Act Chap N-11 5 (2) Advance undertaking (2). and

(c) The Mortgage Brokers Act O. Reg. 275/92 5. 4. 1 (5) is a provincial statute that dictates to all mortgage lenders what they may ask from a borrower as proof of income! The Applicant met with two CMHC Loans Officers and provided all of the financial 140

documentation that the statute dictated, and CMHC requested that the Applicant provide through his accountants proof of income for the year to date! After a careful review at our second meeting, CMHC told the Applicant in words to the effect that he was approved! and

(d) Once an approval is given under the Canada Mortgage and Housing Act – 40 – 41

Elizabeth C 32 (7) Corporation’s decision final! Contrary to the Statute of Frauds Chapter S.19

R.S.O. 1980, C.481 s. 9. s. 10, CMHC told the Applicant to prove he was approved! Notwithstanding the previous statement, the two persons who approved the Applicant have never denied that fact in writing or otherwise to the Applicant!

Rather CMHC unlawfully evoked the Oath of Fidelity and Secrecy (Section 13) Chap C-7 and told them not to talk to anyone! and

(e) The Applicant was successful in getting in writing further guarantees under the

Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation Act Chap C-7 15. Presidents authority that his properties would not be arbitrarily sold. The President authorized two employees to investigate and report these findings to him. and

(f) CMHC is responsible for the implications of Chapter (4th Supp.) National Housing Act

Corporations may lend 15.1 (1) “Corporation as lender of last resort”! CMHC/AGF and

certain employees did, knowingly and willingly, contrary to the Consumer Reporting

Act R.S.O. 1990, c. C. 33, s 22, fabricate a false financial statement about the Applicant’s inabilities to pay his obligated indebtedness, and they did circulate this false financial information to other potential lenders! Specifically CMHC and

Equifax and certain employees, contrary to the Criminal Code 298. (1) – A “Defamatory

libel” 300. Punishment of libel to be false, jointly did cause the Applicant to lose his homes and businesses! Repeatedly they have refused to correct this injustice they have perpetrated against the Applicant! and

141

(g) The Applicant alleges that CMHC/AGF and certain individuals, contrary to the

Criminal Code 362. (1) False pretence or false statement (a) (c), knowingly and willingly, refused to correct the false information that they had fabricated and circulated to other potential lenders that the Applicant may approach for financing! Manifestations! AGF/Meneian told the Applicant that he was going to sell his properties while they had value in them! Later, Meneian would repeat his treat, and the Applicant would lose other properties! and

(h) One such bogus unlawful attempt was by Norlite Financial. Contrary to the

Mortgage Brokers Act 4.2 O. Reg. 275/92, s.4. and 4.3 O. Reg. 275/92. s., the Applicant requested in writing from Norlite to forward the particulars about the purported mortgage to the Applicant VIA fax! No mortgage commitment was ever received by the Applicant! and

(i) Certain CMHC/AGF employees, contrary to the Criminal Code 122. Breach of trust by nd public officer, did knowingly and willingly allow the Applicant’s 2 mortgagor to unlawfully start POS proceedings against the Applicant’s property, contrary to

Chapter 25 (4th Supp.) Foreclosures 13. Assignment of mortgages (5) (c) (d). There does not exist any waiver in writing by CMHC that would permit Ivanhoe Investments to start foreclosure proceedings against the Applicant’s property!

53. Media Articles et al

142

54. My Legal Brief et al

55. The LSUC/Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation et al

56. Media Articles et al

57. Enbridge et al

(a) Enbridge Gas is responsible for numerous unlawful installations of their gas meters in mutual driveways, in part, in the City of Toronto. The Applicant has brought this practice to the attention of senior Enbridge management, and the only response from their General Counsel was laughter and a question, “What do you intend to do about it?” Later, Counsel told the Applicant that there might be a small lawsuit. Probably, Enbridge believe that their privilege to provide a service is now a right, and they are willing to challenge the Constitution on their rights to supersede the domain of home ownership. Enbridge misled the Applicant when their sub-contractors relocated only one meter when he was told that both meters would be relocated from the driveway to the front of the properties. Through the process of relocating the meter, the Applicant hearsays the sub-contractor responsible was being investigated by the police for bribery charges of an Enbridge employee to obtain the citywide contract for new gas mains and 143

services as may be required. The flamboyant and cavalier way in which they have treated the Applicant, compounded by bullying tactics by their sub-contractors and questionable shoddy work, is leading the Applicant to suggest that a full and complete investigation may result in the Board of Directors, President, and senior staff being implemented in the natural gas explosion and fire on April 24, 2003, which destroyed a two-storey, commercial/residential building at 3887 Bloor Street West, Toronto. This incident claimed the lives of seven people, injured additional individuals, and created extensive property damage to surrounding properties. Through the Applicant’s dealings with Enbridge and its agents, a request that a flex connector on the service side of the meter be installed. Maybe this flex connector could have prevented these deaths. The Technical Standards Safety Authority (TSSA)’s, purported to be the public’s safety standard regulator and enforcer, hands are not clean. This non-profit organization has failed in its duty to protect the safety of the public. Media reports that TSSA have started a court proceeding under an Ontario Statute before police have come forward with the results of their investigation under

federal law, the Criminal Code of Canada. Why? Constitutionally you cannot be retried for the same offence. The Applicant suspects networking by the solicitors that is not in the public interest.

58. Royal Bank of Canada (RBC) et al

(a) The Applicant would describe the RBC Royal Bank of Canada and others, whose primary concerns are their bottom line profits, as being right- winged. RBC’s dealings with the Applicant will prove to be unlawful. Unconstitutionally, they have denied me the right of trade when they refused me a bank account on the basis that I am poor. As will manifest itself, the Applicant questioned their application for opening a bank 144

account. Through that process, the Applicant discovered their unlawful procedures. After consultation with their Legal Department, their Security Department was instructed to contact the Toronto Police. As a professional courtesy to RBC Security, police made an unlawful investigation using threatening language, and police have refused to act in accordance with what is in the public interest.

59. CMHC et al

60. Petro-Canada et al

61. Rogers Cable et al

62. Justice Denied et al

63. The Honourable Michael Bryant, Attorney General et al

145

64. Speech from the Throne, February 2, 2004 et al

65. Media Articles et al

66. Criminal Injuries Compensation Board et al

67. Police Services Board et al

(1) Manifestations! Through the efforts of master criminals, the Applicant has lost 16 Park Glen Drive, 812 – 451 The West Mall, and 15 Cassidy Place. The Applicant and his family are forced to live with family, and later the Applicant would rent 16 Dartmouth Crescent, where he would be unlawfully evicted. After the eviction, the Applicant would purchase with a family member a condominium unit at 1022 – 451 The West Mall. Police would make a condition before they would not perjury themselves that he would sell that property. Presently, the Applicant resides in a rented unit 207 – 306 The West Mall. Now, police are keeping their distance, at the insistence of whom?

(1) Realleging, manifestations! Master criminals’ “(police’s) admission to the Applicant in his arbitrary arrest No. 5 was that they agreed with the Applicant using their words that he was ‘screwed over.’ Further they told the Applicant that they had previous experience with others and took the 146

appropriate action, only to have the presiding judge order them not to bring forward this type of dispute to the courts.” The police should have appealed

the court’s decision under Charter 24. (1) “Incompetent” as the court’s decision

was contrary to Charter 15. (1) and started a public awareness campaign of emerging super human beings being recognized by the courts.

(1) Realleging, all of the Applicant’s arrests and detentions are contrary to Charter

9. and, particularly, this first arrest and detention, which was influenced by politicians, allows the Applicant to state that he is a political prisoner. (Now innocent or guilty, he is known to police and subjected to their asinine analysis.) The prosecution of innocent persons is not limited to this Applicant. As will manifest itself, the Applicant is a victim of police vigilantes (master

criminals), who unconstitutionally and contrary to Charter 15. (1) will arbitrarily arrest and detain only persons they believe they can bully. The Applicant complained to the Police Standards Department for a review of police misconduct with no intelligent response. The Applicant tried to invoke

his Constitutional Rights under Charter 24. (1), only to encounter prosecutorial misconduct and an incompetent court.

(2) Realleging, all of the Applicant’s arbitrary arrests and detentions were

contrary to Charter 9. Specifically, Nos. 1 and 2 of 6, as has and will further

manifest itself, both MP’s, Dingwall and Collenette, contrary to CC s. 319.

(2) Wilful promotion of hatred, because the Applicant is poor, directed and/or

influenced police to charge the Applicant under the CC, making all contrary

to CC s. 59. (1) Seditious words (1) (2) (3) (4) (a) (b). Accordingly, by their actions and inactions against the Applicant all, knowingly and willingly, turned

him into a non-entity et al! Charter 3. et al guarantees the Applicant that he is the government!

147

(3) Realleging, the Applicant’s attempts to stop the torts against him under

Charter 20. (1) through letter writing and phone calls produced no positive results! The Applicant is a political prisoner! Our judicial system is an

arrogant giant! Police are mandated under Charter 15. (1) to act when anyone has been turned into a non-entity! Through police corruption, they would,

knowingly and willingly, contrary to Charter 9., arrest and detain the

Applicant on six separate occasions! Contrary to Charter 12., Charter 15. (1)

and Charter 24. (1), the politically-appointed, prejudicial judges are

incompetent as they discriminate against anyone acting in person, you are rarely allowed to be heard orally, never awarded court costs, and they use court costs as a punitive determent for you to not show up in court without a lawyer!

(4) Realleging, notwithstanding the above, citizens are paramount in society!

Charter 15. (1) makes the Prime Minister and all under him, who receive

remuneration from taxpayers, “public servants”! Accordingly, their actions and inactions are limited to their good faith dealings on behalf of the public

(harbour no malice). At all times, their tenure is limited to the Interpretation

Act, 23. (1), and if their misconduct rises to the level of the definition of just

cause this would be grounds for just dismissal. Particularly, the arrogant judicial custodians et al who will manifest themselves throughout this process and particularly in this section, your actions and inactions are

contrary to Charter 9., Charter 11. (d) (h), Charter 12., Charter 15. (1), and Charter 24.

(1), not limited to, as the Applicant has been turned into a nonentity!

(5) Realleging, as has and will further manifest itself throughout the Applicant’s plight to combat tyranny that started in 1993 and is continuing, for the most part, is corruption in the judicial system, police who form the frontlines of justice, lawyers, crown attorneys, and the most trusted of all, 148

the judges. All of these different aspects that make up the composition/public servants as custodians of our constitution, because of no real accountability, they have to be described as an arrogant giant.

(6) Realleging, Notwithstanding, the Applicant did appear before certain

justices whose actions and inactions were contrary to the Canadian Bill of

Rights 1. (a), 2. (b) (e). The Applicant, as has and will manifest itself, while

acting in person et al, was repeatedly denied due process et al to be properly notified of a judicial proceeding against him, to be heard orally, and,

particularly, the overly-rigid Rules of Civil Procedure are contrary to Charter 52.

(1), accordingly making the presiding justices contrary to Charter 24. (1), incompetent, with any Orders emanating from that process, bogus.

(7) Realleging, police subjected the Applicant to tyranny! Police powers are

absolute! CC s. 493. Definitions “officer in charge” grants police (individual) enormous Constitutional powers to deny anyone’s liberty on the individual officer’s interpretation of the situation after assessing all of the elements described in the definition of what constitutes “reasonable and probable cause” (the use of deadly force). Police only become involved in situations when all else has failed! Police are to ensure that the enforcement of all laws is in accordance with all persons’ Constitutional Rights, specifically

with Charter 15. (1) et al being their governance. (Arrest certain judges.)

(8) Realleging, notwithstanding the previous paragraph, it would appear from the Applicant’s perspective, police do not possess the intellect and/or training to deal with the issues that have been raised throughout this process! Courts have ruled Toronto police as racist; certain cowardly police have used too much force against the Applicant (permanent hand damage); police will defend one of their own at all expense (no officer has taken up 149

the plight of the Applicant); police when they have committed criminal offences, their Constitutional Rights are paramount; certain police are drunks and unlawful drug users! Accordingly, for the most part, police do not practise or believe that their tenure is limited to their good faith dealings on behalf of the public.

(9) Realleging, police have conjured up and verily believe in their minds that the Applicant is a boogie man. The Applicant verily believes that for the most part these officers get their courage from being allowed to carry a gun and falsely believing that other police officers are better men/women than they are.

68. Media Print Articles et al

69. Stockholm Syndrome et al

70. Media Print Articles et al

71. Toronto Police Offence Notice et al

150

72. In the Matter of Justice Denied

73. My Order of Protection

74. Usage Statistics for www.george-sheppard.com

75. Unlawful Denial of Legal Aid

(1) Manifestations! Notwithstanding other’s interpretation and understanding of the Applicant’s current legal plight, I wish to reiterate that although the Applicant’s draft documents shown on the internet www.george-sheppard.com, may appear to be framed to reflect a lawsuit against numerous defendants, the Applicant can assure you he has only one defendant as shown. The Applicant was requesting legal assistance through (LAO) to help him to perfect what he is alleging could be numerous Charter discriminatory practices against him personally. The Applicant verily believes that this process could be a historic precedent-setting court procedure that would benefit the poor and the disadvantaged. Notwithstanding, realleging, the previous, (LAO)’s unconstitutional treatment of this Applicant and other poor people, he is sure, (LAO)’s day-

to-day operation discriminates against the poor, contrary to Charter 15. (1) 151

and in the Applicant’s case contrary to Part I – Bill of Rights 2. Construction of Law.

(2) Realleging: The mandate of (LAO) is, in part, Part I Interpretation purpose (1) The purpose of this act is to promote access to justice throughout Ontario for low-income individuals by means of (a) providing consistently high-quality legal aid services in a cost- effective and efficient manner to low-income individuals throughout Ontario; Although (LAO) legislation is permitted under the Constitution, it is also true that those individuals who have met the prescribed means test that allows them

to qualify for Legal Aid services, Charter 15. (1) does not permit (LAO) to discriminate against the individuals to whom they are mandated to provide

services. Borrowing 56. The corporation shall have such powers as may be prescribed.

1998 c. 26, s. 56. (LAO) verily believes corruption because of budgetary restraints, some may not receive Legal Aid and through as will manifest itself, this Applicant and probably others have unconstitutionally been denied Legal Aid.

(3) By law, (LAO) have breached their duty to this Applicant and probably

others when they have failed to ensure a Quality assurance program 92. (1) The corporation shall establish a quality assurance program to ensure that it is providing high- quality legal aid service in a cost-effective and efficient manner.

(4) Realleging: The Applicant made his application for a Legal Aid

Certificate pursuant to the following: Methods of providing legal aid services 14. (1) (i), Assistance to individuals representing themselves, including the provision of summary advice, assistance in preparing documents, information packages or self-help kits;. The Applicant had insured that all individuals whom he had encountered in his dealings with (LAO) were aware of the fact of his draft legal documents they may view on his website www.george-sheppard.com. In a telephone conversation with the Area Director and others appointed by 152

the President to look into his lawful request, there will manifest itself a promise of a Legal Aid Certificate. The President contradicted her staff when she told the Applicant that he would not qualify for a Legal Aid Certificate because his request exceeded their budgetary restraints. The Applicant is alleging, discriminatory policies and procedures by (LAO).

(5) Certain staff and management in the employ of (LAO) have, knowingly and willingly, provoked and frustrated the Applicant. The Applicant has made it his business to inform all persons whom he had been dealing with at (LAO) and now the readers of this document about his website as proof positive that he is a victim of crime and should be afforded the respect mandated by

the Victims of Crime legislation. All at (LAO) have treated the Applicant in a flippant, flamboyant, and cavalier way, contrary to the following. In part,

the Victims’ Bill of Rights, 1995 S. O. 1995, CHAPTER 6 Preamble The people of Ontario believe that victims of crime, who have suffered harm and whose rights and security have been violated by crime, should be treated with compassion and fairness. The people of Ontario further believe that the justice system should operate in a manner that does not increase the suffering of the victims of crime and that does not discourage victims of crime in participating in the justice process. Further, the CC, in part,

describes What is provocation: A wrongful act or insult that is of such a nature as to be sufficient to deprive an ordinary person of the power of self-control.

(6) The Applicant realleges that all Boards of Directors and specifically (LAO) Board Members are wholly and totally responsible for the lawful insurance that a corporation is acting morally and lawfully when they are charged with the governance of any corporation. Manifestations:(LAO) Board of Directors are guilty of indictable offences.

(7) The Applicant does not have a criminal record! Realleging!He is most definitely a victim of crime! Accordingly, he has been adamant in his 153

dealings with (LAO) for all concerned that he would be treated in his dealings with them as a victim of crime, specifically as set out in the various statutes. He has personally made it his business since 1993 to hold accountable the persons most responsible for the arbitrary denial of his Constitutional Rights.

(8) Notwithstanding (LAO) because of their, realleging, self-imposed budgetary restraints, the prudent overseers have taken on the role of Gods! Thus, resulting in their day-to-day practices being unconstitutional and being a corrupt practice where applicants are not being treated with the basic respect we afford our pets. For sure, these applicants are being denied

their guaranteed Charter Rights as follows. 11. Proceedings in a criminal matter and penal matters---Any person charged with an offence has the right (d) to be presumed innocent until proven guilty according to law in a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal.

(9) (LAO) states what are the requirements for applicants’ Eligibility for legal aid

services 16. (1) (a) (b) (c) (d) (e). The Applicant has received from the Area

Director a Notice of Refusal for an Application for Legal Aid. The Applicant, through his Revenue Canada Income Tax Returns, has proved that he has received no taxable income since 1993. He has learned that the Respondents are keeping out of the public domain the following and are, knowingly, willingly, and unconstitutionally, denying the Applicant and other Ontarians their Constitutional Rights to receive a copy of and/or advise all where they may be able to view Ontario Statutes dealing with the “Financial Eligibility Criteria for Certificates: Policies and Procedures Manual,” “Duty Counsel: Financial Eligibility Test,” and “CFC Policy Guidelines on Financial Eligibility.”

(10) The Applicant verily believes that (LAO) legislation titled Applicant Assessed

17. (1) (2) (3) (4) may have been misinterpreted. Although the Applicant has 154

been married for 37 years as of October 12, 2005, manifestations that his wife and children are suffering from Stockholm Syndrome. They have taken the side of the abusers, and they do not support this process. The Applicant verily believes that he should not be considered under any legislation that would state that he is married. In the alternative, the Area Director breached her trust to him when she failed to consider the following legislation and advise him as to the amount of money he would be expected

to pay Corporation may require applicant to contribute towards costs 40. (1) (2) (3).

(11) Realleging: (LAO), notwithstanding the direct monies they receive from government, which I believe is approximately $300 million, the section of

the Act titled Borrowing 56. The corporation shall have such powers as may be

prescribed. 1998 c. 26, s. 56. For the proper reasons, (LAO) may borrow certain amounts of money to maintain the integrity and the spirit of the legislation.

(13) Duties of board 60. (1) (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f) (g) (h) (i) (2) (3) Realleging: The Applicant has learned that the Respondents are keeping out of the public domain the following and are, knowingly, willingly, and unconstitutionally, denying the Applicant and other Ontarians their Constitutional Rights to receive a copy of and/or advice as to where they may be able to view, in

part, these Ontario Regulations 107/99 1. (2) (3) (4) dealing with the “Financial Eligibility Criteria for Certificates: Policies and Procedures Manual O. Reg. 27/00, s. 1.,” “Duty Counsel: Financial Eligibility Test O. Reg. 27/00, s. 1.,” and “CFC Policy

Guidelines on Financial Eligibility O. Reg. 107/99, s. 1 (4).” Further, the framers of this statute that governs (LAO) concluded for their reasoning that the Board

of Directors’ consistency shall be a Majority non-lawyers 5. (1) (6). Reliable

information shows that all responsible, contrary to CC 126 (1) Disobeying a

statute, when they, knowingly and willingly, permitted the Board of Directors to have more lawyers than non-lawyers. Still further, it is 155

mandated that the Board to act responsibly (2) The board of directors shall act in a financially responsible and accountable manner in exercising its powers and performing its duties. and Standard of care (3) Members of the board of directors shall act in good faith with a view to the best interest of the corporation. And shall exercise the care, diligence and skill of a reasonably prudent person. 1988, c. 26, s. 60. Accordingly, they have subjected this Applicant and all others to tyranny and causing anarchy for the public.

76. Unlawful Activities by Canadian Tire and Their Associates 1

GEORGE A. SHEPPARD and HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN ET AL Court File Applicant Respondent ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

Proceeding commenced at Toronto 393 University Avenue, 10th Floor Toronto, Ontario M5G 1T3

______

PREAMBLE

RECORD

VOLUME “A”

______

George A. Sheppard 386 Davisville Avenue Toronto, Ontario M4S 1H5 Website: www.george-sheppard.com Fax: 416-483-9785 e-mail: [email protected] (Acting in Person)