Know The Law Truth Is The Power

Know the Law Truth is the Power





 



 <IMG
style="WIDTH: 273px; HEIGHT: 294px" height=294 alt="" hspace=0
src="http://98.131.136.42/images/no.jpg"
width=273> &n
bsp; &n
bsp; &n
bsp; 
size=3> by Reverse Psychosis
Osmosis 
 We will
eradicate Government Organized Crine, corruption, inhumanities, poverty, and
starvation 
Governments are corrupt beyond
belief
Believe it and poof ...they are
gone
The unscrupulous federal government
wrote the law precisely sane of moral thought and reason 
for us to trust and believe to ransack
the people of the Lower Tier while they feel secure
Their Modus Operandi is that of Organized
Crime as reality attests
 
Know "The Spirit of
the Law" then Believe in it and we will do the rest
uRus Charter Democracy Force
<IMG style="WIDTH: 307px; HEIGHT: 410px" height=410 alt="" hspace=0
src="http://98.131.136.42/images/urus.jpg" width=307>
 
 






 
Guaranteed Charter Rights
 Know "The

Spirit of the Law" in ten minutes and recognize the Devil's Disciples for the rest of your
life
 
Excerpts from the Constitution Act, 1982: Document 
52. (1) The Constitution of Canada is
the supreme law of Canada, and any law that is
inconsistent with the provisions of the Constitution is, to the extent of the
inconsistency, of no force or effect.
 Part 1, Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms

"Whereas Canada is founded on
principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the
rule of Law" 
The following was extracted from the Law Society of Upper Canada - Lawyers
Rules of Conduct 
103) Interpetation 
(f) rules of professional conduct cannot address every
situation, and a lawyer should observe the rules in the
spirit as well as in the letter. 
 
Principles:
main beliefs, values, philosophy, ideology, morality, ethics, doctrine, principle
Supremacy: pre-eminence, ascendancy,
primacy, superiority, domination, incomparability, dominance 
Charter: contract, licence, deed,
agreement, bond, hire, rent,
employ












 
color=#cc0000>Democracy: social equality, equality,
egalitarianism














 
color=#000000>Egalitarianism: parity, fairness, equal opportunity,
impartiality &n
bsp; &n
bsp; &n
bsp; &n
bsp; &n
bsp; &n
bsp; &n
bsp; &n
bsp; &n
bsp; &n
bsp; &n
bsp; &n
bsp; &n
bsp; &n
bsp; &n
bsp; 
Spirit:
strength, courage, character, guts, will, strength of mind, Force,
fortitude &nbsp
;












Justice:
fairness, impartiality, righteousness, even- handedness, fair dealing, honesty,
integrity &nbsp
;









 
Consistency: constancy, steadiness, reliability,
uniformity, evenness, stability, regularity 
 
The Rule of Law (From the
Wikipedia) &n
bsp; &n
bsp; &n
bsp; &n
bsp; &n
bsp; &n
bsp; &n
bsp; &n
bsp; &n
bsp; &n
bsp; &n
bsp; <A
href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_of_law">
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_of_law</A> &n
bsp; &n
bsp; 
The Rule of law in its most basic form is no one is above the
law. 
Perhaps the most important application of the rule
of law is the principle that governmental authority is
legitimately exercised 
only in accordance with, publicly disclosed laws, adopted and
enforced in accordance with established procedural steps that are referred to as due process.

The rule of
law is hostile to dictatorship and to anarchy. 
According to modern Anglo-American thinking, hallmarks
of adherence to the rule of law commonly include a clear
separation of powers, 
legal
certainty, the principle of legitimate expectation and equality of all before the
law. 
The concept is not without controversy, and it has been said
that "the phrase the rule of law has become meaningless
thanks to ideological abuse and general over- use" 
"The Letter of the Law" in the
first statement of Part 1, Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms clearly cedes to the supremacy of
God and Jesus of world renown summarized the aspirations attributed to God as "The Golden Rule" obviously "The Spirit
of the Law".
 Where there is conflict between "The Spirit of the Law" and "The Letter of
the Law" "The Spirit of the Law" has
superiority clearly stated in "The Letter of the Law", where sane moral thought and reason is
either stated or implied giving credence to that which is least apt to be mistaken by humankind whereas
to be human is to err, there can be no mistaking the meaning and intention of The Golden Rule as
words put to paper by people can be unintentionally ambiguous, adverse to "The Spirit of the Law"
inconsistent with the Constitution, either erroneously or deliberately placed for nefarious intent or
deliberately interpreted inconsistent with the Constitution, but of no force or effect 
52. (1) The Constitution of Canada is the
supreme law of Canada, and any law that is
inconsistent with the provisions of the Constitution is, to the extent of the
inconsistency, of no force or effect.

15. (1) Every individual is equal before and under the
law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law
without discrimination and, in particular, without
discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical
disability. 
Consistency 
Consistency in "The Spirit of the Law"=
The Golden Rule is obviously mandatory to meet the terms of the Charter, in
particular s. 15.(1) and s.52.(1) 
To meet the terms of the "Letter of the Law" consistency is mandatory
where "The Letter of the Law" clearly recognizes the supremacy of God . "The
Spirit of the Law" has priority over "The Letter of the Law" and where there is perceived
to be conflict "The Spirit of the Law" must prevail throughout
to maintain legal certainty of justice and equal protection and benefits of the
law the legal system personnel , namely the members of the Law Societies,
government and private sector must be competent, responsible and irreproachable in continuity
with fortitude and conviction to the support of every individual's guaranteed Charter rights of equal
protection and benefits. Clearly The Golden Rule is "The Spirit
of the Law" consistent with democracy, justice, principles, and the rule
of law and a sane person of moral legitimate thought and reason could not possibly
find the Golden Rule any fairer or simpler to comprehend where credence must be to that, which is
least apt to be mistaken by humankind where all persons in matters of law are presumed human and
sane who should have no misunderstanding as to what is receptive and nonreceptive to each other.

Guarantee of Rights and Freedoms

1. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees
the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable
limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free
and democratic society. 
2. Everyone has the
following fundamental freedoms: (a) freedom of conscience and religion; (b) freedom of thought,
belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication; (c)
freedom of peaceful assembly; and (d) freedom of association. 
right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof
except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.

15. (1) Every individual
is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law
without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination
based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.

24. (1) Anyone whose
rights or freedoms, as guaranteed by this Charter, have been infringed or denied may
apply to a court of competent jurisdiction to obtain such remedy as the court
considers appropriate and just in the circumstances. 
31. Nothing in this
Charter extends the legislative powers of any body or authority. 
32. (1) This Charter
applies (a) to the Parliament and government of Canada in respect
of all matters within the authority of Parliament including all matters relating to the
Yukon Territory and Northwest Territories; and (b) to the legislature and government of
each province in respect of all matters within the authority of the legislature of each province.

52. (1) The Constitution of Canada is the
supreme law of Canada, and any law that is inconsistent with the
provisions of the Constitution is, to the extent of the inconsistency,
of no force or effect. 
It is irrelevant whether or not God exists or whether or not one believes he exists
as obviously it does not matter what one believes as long as they are
CONSISTENTLY in, of and with "The Spirit of the
Law" 
A person's safety and wellbeing is the most valuable possession every individual
has and must be treated with the respect they are entitled to as equals guaranteed by law. It is every
individual's responsibiity to abide by the law that ultimately protects every individual and it is the
responsibility of the federal and provincial governments who signed the Constitution to consistently
demonstrate due dilligence to every individual's guaranteed Charter rights ensuring every individual
abides by the law. Sanity must CONSISTENTLY
prevail in "The Spirit of the Law" 
Confucius 551 BC - 479 BC born to poverty rose to dine with kings experiencing
all walks of life gave us the Golden Rule "Do not impose on others what you would not
wish for yourself" and "Recompense injury with justice and recompense
kindness with kindness" Jesus confirmed the Golden Rule in paraphrase "Do
unto others as you would have them do unto you" 
The purpose of Law and Order is to define the law and enforce it. In the case of
the Constitution priority one is to every individual's guaranteed Charter rights of equal
protection and benefits 
It cannot be over emphasize that competent responsible irreproachable people of
sane moral thought and reason in continuity with fortitude and conviction to every individual's
guaranteed Charter rights is mandatory of the administers and enforcers of the laws to be consistent
with the Constitution. 
Police Services Act R.S.O. 1990, CHAPTER P.15 PoliceServicesAct.doc
Declaration of principles 
1. Police services shall be provided throughout Ontario in accordance with the
following principles: 
1. The need to ensure the safety and security of all persons and property in
Ontario. 
2. The importance of safeguarding the fundamental rights guaranteed by the
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Human Rights Code. 
3. The need for co-operation between the providers of police services and the
communities they serve. 
4. The importance of respect for victims of crime and understanding of their needs.

The law is particularly clear CONSISTENT with sane moral thought and reason
and due punishment applies to every individual who strays from the law and in positions of trust where
tremondous amounts of money are involved with extraordinary temptation and opportunity extreme
measures must be taken to eradicate the temptation and opportunity by extreme punishment particularly
attentive to deterence, the only viable means of present knowledge to apply due diligence to the
protection of every individual as guaranteed.. 
In order to maintain equality of protection and benefits consistent with the
Constitution justice must be the personification of "The Spirit of the Law" free to victims on the
presentation of reasonable evidence they have been victamized as defined in the provisions of
the Charter in s.24 (1) are guarnateed the right to apply to a court of
competent jurisdiction to be recompensed by the perpetrator.in due course unobstructed. It is extortion
to charge victims for their guaranteed Charter rights that only exasperates the already humongous
burden on the taxpayers who are made to finance the entire legal system to deal with the amorally
inclined. It is the amoral who should be made to finance the operating costs of the system with
the taxpayer having already been deprived to pay for the infrastructure and to get the system up and
running, and must be done in efficient and effective manner for the sole purpose to determine ones
innocence or guilt, and when proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt made to recompense his or her
victim to the status he or she was in prior to the act that brought the perpetrator before the courts. The
convicted must also recompense the taxpayer for all court costs. The taxpayer is deprived every court
case and every time a perpetrator is allowed to go free when a victim is deprived of his or her right to
bring the perpetrator to justice.and I reiterate they who deprive them of the right do so illegally without
the authority of the Constitution and without the financial backing of the taxpayer. 
When a victim is obstructed in any way from the justice entitled to him or
her under the Constitutuion his or her guaranteed Charter rights have been severely compromised and
in fact denied and may apply to the courts for recompense consistent with sane moral thought and
reason, consistent with s.24(1) of the Charter. Not only are the victims rights severely compromised,
but every individual''s rights are also with their safety and wellbeing at stake as the amoral inclined are
allowed to pursue their immoral inclinations unencumbered flourishng like weeds as
do the legal profession, administers and enforcers, one and the same as they nourish and water
the weeds protecting them from the justice of the people as mothers whose children are never
guilty, nor are they of protecting their kids rearing them to be criminals. 
Weed Syndrome

The government members of the Law Societies...legal profession, DOJ-federal and
the office of the Attorney General -provincial, politicians, their affluent and influential friends have
manufactured the "Weed Syndrome" completely 180 degrees adverse to the Constitution, without a
trace the Constitution exists in their modus operandi which reality attests,as the rich continue to get
richer and the poor continue to get poorer as Stats Canada attests. 
The reason is obvious ...the government members of the legal profession and
politicians are Government Organized Crime personified creating the problems of society to address
them for luxurious profit.enticed by their affluent and influential friends of the corporate world who
have their hands into everything, manipulating the stock markets, orchestrating the entire legal system
against the people protecting them from the people, creating Ombudsman's, Commissions, Task
Forces, Human Rights Tribunals, ....the Law Society of Upper Canada is a particularly good example
as to the obvious intention of these unscrupulous people of nefarious bent. as they have the nerve to
blatantly admit, either stated or implied that their members are not required to give a damn about every
individual's guaranteed Charter rights and they go on to clearly admit that evidence is irrelevant to
them when it is against their members and demonstrated that in the manner they dealt with my
complaint against one of their members. See (Law
Society)
CanLaw an international lawyer referral service states on the first page of
their web site <A href="http://www.canlaw.ca/">www.canlaw.ca</A> that the Law Society can not be
trusted as they protect their members from the consumer, not the consumer from theis
members
The evidence published on the Charter Democracy Force web sites irrefutably
proves the entire system is designed to protect the members of the Law Society, politicians and their
affluent and influential friends.
The system is designed to ransack society in every which way, the insurance
companies the legal professionals ravage that the consumer pays the tab, the long drawn out court cases
due the fact the laws are a tangled web of deceit not consistent with the Constitution conducive to every
individual's Charter rights infested with ambiguity, loopeholes and inconsistencies with the
Constitution that they do not give a damn about. 
The members of the legal profession have infested the corporate world, all
adhering to the illegitimate laws which they all hold as legitimate, where the more affluent and
influentially backed wins the case rather than justice and society. They help themselves to taxes as to
whatever they feel the people can afford, and still survive to a healthy existence to do the work that
makes the people of the Uppe Tier healthy and wise, while the people of the Lower Tier hardly have a
chance to catch their breathe. They allow the banks and credit card companies to gouge the people,
just another way to make the people of the Upper Tier rich, and the Lower Tier poorer and
poorer. 







Trickle up effect
For the economy to grow the people need money to spend. Though
never tried before if the government and friends stopped stealing the people's money they would give it
to them by spending as it more than trickles up to them.
The "Weed
Syndrome" continues to grow and difficult to bring any one of them to justice
because they all live in glass houses and one stone could richochet shattering them all to the ground.

All the people with the authority to deal with the issues, including the media,
charities, Democracy Watch and others a kin, Church, United Nations, Transparency
International,...you name them....a few of them documented by the Charter Democracy Force
and published on their web site <A
href="http://www.charterdemocracyforce.org/">www.charterdemocracyforce.org</A>
 are all involved one way or another. The Church thrives by befuddling the peoples
minds with myths and fiction setting them up for the Fiction of the Attorney General as defined by
University of British Columbia University history professor in his book making reference to
the compelling book by Edmund Morgan "Inventing the people: The
Popular rise of Sovereignty in England and America" that asserts the success of any form of
government is dependent on deceiving the people and in a democracy it is necssary fot the people to
believe they have a voice or...the representatives are the people. 
Corruption is not just inherent to the system...it is the
system partcularly designed to ransack society, creating poverty, starvation, inhumanities,
hopelessness and despair with wars inevitable of apposing political parties who incite their people to
civil unrest and wars as they are all in a frenzy over the money that is readily available to them from
the people who unfortunately fnance and trust they act on their behalf. The ramifications of
the "Weed Syndrome" upon the world is
unfathonable, worse than one can amagine of the unscrupulous running wild having done
over and over again, and much worse with the worst yet to come. 
Amidst the prodigious amount of irrefutable evidence published on this
site and the Charter Democracy Force web sites is also a prodigious amount of commentary in
simple layman's terms with the intent to wake the people from their spell so they can see reality and the
nefarious bent for what they really are, smiles and hand shakes that you had best remember to
check your rings and watches are still there after the encounter. 
Up until June 30 2005 I was as naive about the deliberately, entirely corrupt
government organized conspiracy as the next guy and if wasn't for the fact of so many coincidences
being precisely compatible to my lifes experience I would not have the irrefutable proof to provide to
the people and the relatively simple matter to eradicate the "Weed
Syndrome" before the world is smothered with the weeds with nowhere
for flowers and food crops to grow 
<IMG style="WIDTH: 273px; HEIGHT: 294px" height=294 alt=""
hspace=0 src="http://98.131.136.42/images/no.jpg" width=273>


 <IMG style="WIDTH: 753px; HEIGHT: 55px" height=81 alt="" hspace=0
src="http://98.131.136.42/images/little.jpg" width=639>
Please have a thorough
understanding of "The Spirit of the Law" before attempting to read
on 
I believe that it would be fair to
say that it would be insane not to be sane if we could 
 
 
The Fiction of the Attorney
General
The Brainwashing of the People

First their minds then their bodies work for them
 

 University of British Columbia history professor Jonathan
Swainger writes of Edmund Morgan's compelling book 




"Inventing the People:The Rise of Popular Sovereigny in England
and America" 
Opens with an assertion that the success of any form of government requires the
acceptance of a number of fictions
In democracies,for example, it is necessary for the population to "believe that the
people have a voice...or that the representatives of the people are the people"





 The cure: Do not Believe


 <IMG style="WIDTH: 380px; HEIGHT: 376px"
height=298 alt="" hspace=0 src="http://98.131.136.42/images/Jonathan.jpg"
width=318> &n
bsp; <IMG style="WIDTH: 374px; HEIGHT: 384px" height=384 alt="" hspace=0
src="http://98.131.136.42/images/js.jpg" width=374>
Inventing the people: is just a
metaphor for brain washing
Far from the popular belief of
the governments and friends the people need to be successful for the economy to
thrive
Ambition is easier enticed when their
is something in it for all the people
Parity comes to mind and democracy
and Charter rights and the rule of law and the Golden Rule
 
Did Parliament write the
R&R of the Attorney General?
 
 
2nd page Head Weed Farmers
Case of the two bald faced

liars
<IMG style="WIDTH: 186px; HEIGHT: 163px" height=78 alt="" hspace=0
src="http://98.131.136.42/images/lawyerL.jpg"
width=79> &nb
sp;
 <IMG style="WIDTH: 159px; HEIGHT: 162px"
height=78 alt="" hspace=0 src="http://98.131.136.42/images/lawyerR1.jpg" width=79>
DOJ- Minister of
Justice and &nb
sp;
 Office of the Ontario
Attorney General of
Canada

 Attorney General

 "Roles and Responsibilities of the Attorney
General" &nb
sp; &nb
sp; &nb
sp; &nb
sp; &nb
sp; &nb
sp; &nb
sp; &nb
sp; <A
href="http://www.attorneygeneral.jus.gov.on.ca/english/about/ag/agrole.asp">http://www.attorneygene
ral.jus.gov.on.ca/english/about/ag/agrole.asp</A>
 Downloaded from the Ontario web site
still published today makes no mention of the Charter 
Note: There is no reference to the
Charter in the "Roles and Responsibilities of the Attorney General" published on the
Ontario web site so it is presumed the document was authored and authorized by Parliament prior
to the 1982 enactment of the Constitution with the inclusion of every individual's guaranteed
Charter rights of equal protection and benefits.
 
52. (1) The
Constitution of Canada is the supreme law of <?
xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" /><st1:place
w:st="on"><st1:country-region w:st="on">Canada</st1:country-
region></st1:place>, and any law that is inconsistent with the
provisions of the Constitution is, to the extent of the inconsistency,
of no force or effect.<?xml:namespace
prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office"
/><o:p></o:p>
I have provided a copy of the "Roles and Responsibilities of the Attorney General"
lower down the page where the following excerpts were extracted..
Inconsistencies with the
Constitution
The Attorney General is the chief law officer of
the Executive Council. The responsibilities stemming from this role are unlike those of any other
Cabinet member. The role has been referred to as "judicial-like" and as the
"guardian of the public interest".

"guardian of the public
interest"
Inherently the Attorney General is responsible to priority # 1, the safety and well being of
the people of Ontario consistent with the Constitution conducive to every individual's
guaranteed Charter rights of equal protection and benefits, where it is prerequisite he be
competent responsible irreproachable with fortitude and conviction
to demonstrate due diligence in the government's modus operandi to the endeavour.
A letter from the DOJ- Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada dated January 22 2007
in response to my request for the federal government to compel the province of Ontario to administer
and enforce their laws consistent with the Constitution clearly states Parliament enacts federal
law (the Constitution) and it is the responsibility of the provinces to administer it. The letter goes on to
state that the provinces have autonomy and the federal government has no authority to
intervene. 
This of course is utter nonsense because the federal government (Parliament) made the guarantee
to the Canadian people and therefore responsible to see that every individual's guaranteed Charter
rights are diligently supported consistent with the Charter guarantee, the Constitution, common law and
common sense.
"judicial-
like"
The following was extracted from the
Rule of Law (Wikipedia) See
above)











 According to modern Anglo-American thinking, hallmarks of adherence to
the rule of law commonly include a clear separation of powers,

A key component of the Attorney General's
responsibilities to ensure the administration of justice in the province is the administration of the
courts and as a result the responsibility for maintaining liaison with the judiciary.

Given the fundamental importance of the
independence of the judiciary, the responsibility for courts administration is often a very sensitive and
delicate issue. Great care and respect for the principles of judicial independence must be exercised in
this area. 
The Attorney General advises government Ministers and agencies
influencing all government personnel in the legal system including the judiciary whereas
often cases, such as mine do not even make it to court, as York Regional
Police Deputy Chief Bruce Herridge explained to me in his letter dated......in regards to
the evidence I provided them of my former tenant committing fraud under the criminal code and filed
false and misleading information with the ORHT on June 30 2005 at a Tribunal hearing before a
judicator in a public building financed by the people to administer and enforce the laws consistent with
the Constitution conducive to every individual's guaranteed Charter rights of equal protection and
benefits.
Deputy Chief Herridge stated the evidence I provided the YRP did not meet the "Threshold" of
what is necessary to commence or cause to commence proceedings before the provincial court, whereas
the evidence is irrefutable that my former tenant committed the crimes, wll documented and
puplished under the (ORHT Evidence) button 
The Deputy Chief went on to state that the issus were clearly a
legislature matter and when asked for commentary on the legal system he would certainly reiterate my
concerns. 
I wrote hin asking since he stated the police were often frustrated when they attempted to bring
similar cases before the courts has he not brought up the issues before and what was the
response? 
I also requested that he define the meaning of the word "Threshold" in relation to my case as to
why they could not proceed before the courts.
I had no response so I requested a few more more times also asking every prominent government
member on the AAAAALIST e-mail list who I have provided all the evidence and the Charter
Democracy Force web site addresses where the evidence and the AAAAALIST are also
published.
The List has seriously expanded and availabe on this site under the (GLIST)
button
It is important to note that they have all been provided precisely the same evidence as it is
published for all to see.
Invariably all the government correspondence provides excuses as to why they cannot support
every individual's guaranteed Charter rights irrefutably proving they do not have a diligent modus
operandi in place to do so as mandatory of the government in support of the Charter guarantee.
The "Threshold" has proven to be an imaginary line seperating the Lower and Upper Tiers being a
serious inconsistency with the Constitution against every individual's guaranteed Charter
rights, done without the authority of the Constitution, being an obvious obstruction of justice.
They of the government personnel who obstruct justice, having no legal authority to do so do it on
their own and the taxpayer will not finance their defense.
Clearly the Attorney General influences the entire legal system including the police which I
address a little later, where obviously there is not a clear
separation of powers called for in the legitimate form of the Rule of Law
(Wikipedia).
There is more written on this further down the page under Law Society. 
 
The Attorney General has unique responsibilities to the Crown, the
courts, the Legislature and the executive branch of government. While there are different emphases and
nuances attached to these there is a general theme throughout all the various aspects of the Attorney
General's responsibilities that the office has a constitutional and
traditional responsibility beyond that of a political
minister.
This infers that the Attorney General advises the various departments with different emphasis and
nuances where priority # 1 is to every individual's guaranteed Charter rights where CONSISTENCY is
mandatory whereas the Charter applies to evey individual including government
personnel. 
<SPAN lang=EN-US style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: #333366; FONT-FAMILY: Verdana;
mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-bidi-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-ansi-
language: EN-US; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA">31.
Nothing in this Charter extends the legislative powers of any body or
authority
32. (1) This Charter applies (a) to the Parliament and
government of Canada in respect of all matters within the authority of
Parliament including all matters relating to the Yukon Territory and Northwest
Territories; and (b) to the legislature and government of each province in respect of
all matters within the authority of the legislature of each province. 
The Rule of law in its most basic form is
no one is above the
law
The Attorney General has a Constitutional
responsibility and to hell with the unscrupulous
tradition
52. (1) The
Constitution of Canada is the supreme law of <st1:place
w:st="on"><st1:country-region w:st="on">Canada</st1:country-
region></st1:place>, and any law that is inconsistent with the
provisions of the Constitution is, to the extent of the inconsistency,
of no force or
effect.<o:p></o:p>
This clearly means any attitude or self
proclaimed right to be irresponsible or subject to
due punishment as any other individual is utter crap, that which you would expect of any criminal who
invariably say they are innocent when the facts prove otherwise.
We are talking about the necessitity for every individual to be responsible for their own actions
assuring they are in compliance with "The Spirit of the Law" thereby supporting every individual's
guaranteed Charter rights and therefore entitled to the full protection of the Charter consistent with the
presumption of innocence.
Those persons financed to administer and enforce the laws of Ontario must do so consistent with
the Constitution which of course means the laws must be enacted legitimate consistent with the
Constitution, being the Attorney Generals responsibility. 
When there is reasonable evidence provided to a law enforcement authority suggesting otherwise
their guarantee is limited as defined in s.1. and s.7. of the Charter with special rights set aside for
them in s.8. - s.14.
<SPAN lang=EN-US style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: #333366; FONT-FAMILY: Verdana;
mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-bidi-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-ansi-
language: EN-US; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA">1. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in
it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably
justified in a free and democratic society.<SPAN
lang=EN-US style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: #333366; FONT-FAMILY: Verdana; mso-fareast-
font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-bidi-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-ansi-language: EN-
US; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA">
right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof
except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.


<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 border=0>
<TBODY>
<TR>
<TD width=560>

<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 border=0>
<TBODY>
<TR>
<TD width=560>
8. Everyone has the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure. 
9. Everyone has the right not to be arbitrarily detained or imprisoned. 
10. Everyone has the right on arrest or detention (a) to be informed promptly of the reasons
therefor; (b) to retain and instruct counsel without delay and to be informed of that right; and (c) to
have the validity of the detention determined by way of habeas corpus and to be released if the
detention is not lawful. 
11. Any person charged with an offence has the right (a) to be informed without unreasonable
delay of the specific offence; (b) to be tried within a reasonable time; (c) not to be compelled to be a
witness in proceedings against that person in respect of the offence; (d) to be presumed innocent until
proven guilty according to law in a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal; (e)
not to be denied reasonable bail without just cause; (f) except in the case of an offence under military
law tried before a military tribunal, to the benefit of trial by jury where the maximum punishment for
the offence is imprisonment for five years or a more severe punishment; (g) not to be found guilty on
account of any act or omission unless, at the time of the act or omission, it constituted an offence under
Canadian or international law or was criminal according to the general principles of law recognized by
the community of nations; (h) if finally acquitted of the offence, not to be tried for it again and, if
finally found guilty and punished for the offence, not to be tried or punished for it again; and (i) if
found guilty of the offence and if the punishment for the offence has been varied between the time of
commission and the time of sentencing, to the benefit of the lesser punishment. 
12. Everyone has the right not to be subjected to any cruel and unusual treatment or punishment.

13. A witness who testifies in any proceedings has the right not to have any incriminating evidence
so given used to incriminate that witness in any other proceedings, except in a prosecution for perjury
or for the giving of contradictory evidence. 
14. A party or witness in any proceedings who does not understand or speak the language in which
the proceedings are conducted or who is deaf has the right to the assistance of an interpreter.
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></STR
ONG>
 
As chief law officer, the Attorney General has a
special responsibility to be the guardian of that most elusive concept
- the rule of law. The rule of law
is a well established legal principle, but hard to easily
define. It is the rule of law that protects individuals, and society
as a whole, from arbitrary measures and safeguards personal liberties.

The Attorney General has a special role to play in
advising Cabinet to ensure the rule of law is maintained and that Cabinet actions are legally and
constitutionally valid. 
Obviously the mandatory consistency,
prerequisite to protect every tndividual's guaranted Charter rights is seriouslt compromised by their
interpretation of the rule of law that most elusive concept,
but hard to easily define.
Is this to suggest that the federal and provincial government
personnel involved in the legal system are incompetent and find the well established legal
principle too difficult for them thereby seriously compromising every individual's guaranteed
Charter rights?
There is no possessory title or precedence attached to it being a long
estatablished legal principle because it is gone with the wind with the 1982 enactment of the
Constitution along with tradition and precedence.
52. (1) The Constitution of Canada is the supreme law of <st1:place
w:st="on"><st1:country-region w:st="on">Canada</st1:country-region></st1:place>, and any
law that is inconsistent with the provisions of the Constitution is, to the extent of the
inconsistency, of no force or
effect.<o:p></o:p>
The "Roles and Responsibilities of the Attorney
General" presumably authored and authorized by Parliament prior to the 1982 enactment of the
Constitution merely gives us insight as to their nefarious bent and significant reason to scrutize
their every move.
The Wikipedia that provided the legitimate interpretation of - the rule of
law - describes them prior to 1982 as ideological abusers administering meaningless law and either
stated or implied for ulterior motive of personal finacial gain and benefit.
The concept is not without controversy, and it has been said that
"the phrase the rule of law has become meaningless thanks to ideological
abuse and general over- use" 
The elusive concept could not possibly protect the individual and society as a whole consistent
with democracy. 
Democracy: social equality, equality,
egalitarianism












Egalitarianism: parity, fairness, equal opportunity,
impartiality 
Such an elusive concept hard to easily define is absurd that
professionals of law could not sort it out to maintain consistency with democracy and quite
obvious they are the only persons who benefit, and of course wealthy clients with the
court system not affordable to the majority and in fact the Law Society introduced the Legal
Aid Act in 1967 well aware that the majority of the people could not access the
system unable to afford their excessive costs where wealth and power was their purpose
not justice. 
The same problem exists today documented in the July 26 2008
Toronto Saturday Star as the members of the Law Societies are seeking more tax money to feed the
Legal Aid kitty and give themselves raises. (More on this under Law
Society) 
Perhaps the most important application of the
rule of law is the principle that governmental authority is
legitimately exercised
An industry of humongous wealth to be exploited in every which they can with nobody
to stop them organized in crime fashion under the innocence of the Law Society.
The word "Intent" plays a significant role in law, for example a person who tries to
charge a person a $500 for painting a garage when the owner entered into an agreement
with the painter to paint the house proof of the intent is required.
We can see by the evidence the unscrupulous nature of the
government who authored and authorized the "Roles and Responsibilities of the Attorney
General" presumably prior to the 1982 enactment indifferent to the people's democratic rights and
having demonstrated to be no different today with the same "Roles and Responsibilities of
the Attorney General" published on the Ontario web site with no reference to our Charter
rights we can presume the Constitution was drafted and enacted with unscrupulous intent,
however who would be foolish enough to debate and provide evidence the Constitution was
never intended for the authorities to actually back tevery individual's guaranteed Charter rights hen the
Constitution is demonstrably clear it is the intention signed, sealed and delivered. 
Would they argue against "The Spirit of the Law" where "The Letter of the
Law " is absolutely clear that it recognizes the supremacy of God where it is irrelevant whether He
exists or not and whether or not one believes He exists or not.
Jesus of world renown summarized the aspirations attributed to God as the Golden Rule
commonly known as well as a bear that farts in the wood makes a noise whether or not there is anyone
in the vicinity to hear it.
I cannot guarantee it every time but they do not seem to have any concerns of
etiquette. 
We must presume the Constitution was derived of sane moral thought and reason
precisely as they would have us believe and precisely why they do their unscupulous
deeds under the cover of darkness even in the broad daylight being precisely why they have not
dealt with the issues published on the Charter Democracy Force web sites brought forward and
referenced on this site Urus,uRus...as preferred. 
They of course, the conspirators would prefer neither and there is a
good chance they will once again compromise my guaranteed rights making my web sites vanish
as they are wont to do that Dave R Amos can attest. Go to <A
href="http://groups.google.com/group/david-r-amos">http://groups.google.com/group/david-r-amos</A> an affiliate site of
the Charter Democracy Force. 
I suggest all persons who find their way to this site that are not cooperating with
the conspiracy copy some of the pertinent evidence before it vanishes. 
I also highly suggest that you inform everyone you know as quickly as possible
where the only viable way that they can be eradicated is by the people knowing the truth and letting
nature take its course.
I call becoming coherent to the truth "Reverse Psychosis Omosis" that will acquiesce in
due course.
















 
The Attorney General does not, however,
direct or cause charges to be laid. While the Attorney General and the Attorney General's agents may
provide legal advice to the police, the ultimate decision whether or not to lay charges is for the police.
Once the charge is laid the decision as to whether the prosecution should proceed, and in what manner,
is for the Attorney General and the Crown Attorney. 
A perfect example of their charlatan ways highly educated and trained in
deception, prevarication, manipulation and orchestration of the laws and the people in wonderous
befuddlement as the government under the advice of the Attorney General structure the
<STRIKE>legal</STRIKE> illegitimate system consistent with their conspiracy against the
people enacting this Law, that Act that provides all the various departments, agencies and the police
their mandates, the authority they operate under, which are all limited and of course seemingly without
authority to eradicate the government conspiracy, which in fact is absurd as it is the Constitution:
Document that is the authority and from the moment of its enactment every individual is
responsible and accountable to the provisions of the Charter as aforementioned and tne nefarious
bent, charlatans of deceit, prevarication, manipulation and orchestration are hardly likely to design a
system to take themselves out, but since the Attorney General is the Chief Legal Officer of the
Executive Counsil it provides him humongous advantage to pull the wool over evryones eyes as he
certainly does as all others have before him.
The police obviously do not know the law, as they are trained and
gain their experience handed down from one generation to another following habit and
routine attentive to the "Letter of the Law" the Ontario government sets out oblivious to the
Constitution, explaining why they are often frustrated as YRP Deputy Chief Bruce Herridge stated in
his letter.
YRP Inspector Michael Fleming met with me after I was disatisfied with
the verbal report that came from Sgt Fred Kerr and George Rorke of the YRP Fraud Unit who
had admitted that he had no doubt that my former tenant was a con artist as the evidence shows but
according to the regulations that they must abide by he is innocent.
I said that does not make sense and he said they are taught early in
their careers that the Law has nothing to do with common sense which should have been their first clue
but as he says the police do not make the laws, they just enforce them.
That is a very serious situation with the police running around with guns
following the command of the Ontario government conspirators who do not give a damn about the
Constitution and every individual's guaranteed Charter rights. 
 Police Services
Act &nb
sp; &nb
sp; 
 R.S.O. 1990, CHAPTER
P.15
<A
href="http://groups.google.com/group/golden-rule-for-society---gold-for-law-
society-/web/PoliceServicesAct.doc">PoliceServicesAct.doc</A>




 
Declaration of principles
 
<A href="javascript:void(0);"
name=1.></A><A href="javascript:void(0);" name=BK0></A><A
href="http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/DBLaws/Statutes/French/90p15_f.htm#1.">1.</A> Police
services shall be provided throughout Ontario in accordance with the following
principles:
 1.
The need to ensure the safety and security of all persons and property in Ontario.
US> 2.
The importance of safeguarding the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Canadian Charter of Rights
and Freedoms and the Human Rights Code.
US> 3.
The need for co-operation between the providers of police services and the communities they
serve.
US> 4.
The importance of respect for victims of crime and understanding of their
needs.
What is the mentality of the police after
they have been taught to ignore common sense for a pay cheque, a decent interesting career, great
benefits rounded off with a superb pension?
That they understand, and they understand number 4. above to mean be respectful
and understanding of my needs and then explain they would like to help but the way they interpret the
law the criminal element has special rights to be free and do as they like.
It is readily apparent that the police cannot abandon common sense with
any hope of maintaining a moral legitimate society consistent with the Constitution conducive to every
individual's guaranteed Charter rights derived of sane moral thought and reason.
So anyway, the police may consult with the Attorney General or his agents, Crown
Attorneys who the evidence irrefutably proves are conspirators at the top of the government
organized crime who the police inform me that by following the law as
conveyed to them by the conspirators the man they have no doubt is a con artist goes free and
the victim goes home with out an opportunity for recompense without even going to court, where
assuredly it would make no difference as they are all influenced by the Attorney General and the
precise reason the Wikipedia legitimate version of the Rule of Law states
 
According to modern Anglo-American thinking, hallmarks of
adherence to the rule of law commonly include a clear separation of powers,

If the police go ahead and make the charges against the Attorney General's advice he has the last
say and decides whether or not to prosecute, being predictable what his decision would be.
The sytem goes round in circles all headed nowhere and you can stay on as long as you can afford
the ride, the excitement, frustration and agravation.
The Attorney General wears many hats but obviously the one as "guardian of the public interest"
does not fit, was lost long ago, or I suspect was never issued one.
He had a special responsibilty to be the guardian...........
As chief law officer, the Attorney General has a special
responsibility to be the guardian of that most elusive concept
- the rule of law. The rule of law
is a well established legal principle, but hard to easily
define. It is the rule of law that protects individuals, and society
as a whole, from arbitrary measures and safeguards personal liberties. 
That hat should be well worn out and should have been tossed with the 1982 enactment of the
Constitution that is unambiguously clear to any cop who is law abiding, sane and of moral
thought and reason.
Of couse they are not as Inspector Michael Fleming stated they are taught to abandon common
sense for great financial benefit and pension.
Is it fair that they do not teach us people to abandon common sense and that we must pick it up on
the streets, clearly a disadvantage?
Abandoning common sense to perfection is truly a challenge to a level of incompetency consistent
with all others in the illegitimate system to a harmonious bliss of exemplry stupidity worthy of
luxurious benefit seemingly common sense to the people who are demonstrably broke and
receptive as osmosis has set in
Surely the skills required of the nefarious bent would fetch an excellent income if they were
to put them to legitimate purpose, but then if they were of legitimate purpose they wouldn't need the
skills they have explaining why they opted for nefarious intent.
An important part of the Crown's - and thus the
Attorney General's - responsibility in conducting criminal prosecution to represent the public
interest - which includes not only the community as a whole and the victim, but also the accused. The
Crown has a distinct responsibility to the court to present all the credible evidence available.

The responsibility is to present the case fairly - not necessarily to
convict. This is a fundamental precept of criminal law, even if it is not a particularly well-understood
concept among the general public. One of the Attorney General's responsibilities in fostering public
respect for the rule of law, is to assist the public in understanding the nature and limits of the
prosecutorial function. 
Present the case fairly consistent with the Constitution conducive to every individual's guaranteed
Charter rights of equal protection and benefit that demand a competent system and competent
responsible irreproachable people in continuity with fortitude and conviction to determine the truth,to
eradicate amoral inclination with due punishment attentive to deterrence would spread like wild fire
and put the <STRIKE>legal</STRIKE> illigetimate profession out of business 
The public of sane moral thought and reason would have no problem respecting the rule of law or
the Constitution, that are derived of sane moral thought and reason.
It is the government organized crime that cannot and will not be accepted.
Ultimately the Attorney General is accountable to the people of the province,
through the Legislature, for decisions relating to criminal prosecutions. Such accountability
can only occur, of course, once the prosecution is completed or when a final decision has been
made not to prosecute. The sub judicae rule bars any comment on a matter before the courts that is
likely to influence the matter. The sub judicae rule strictly prohibits the Attorney General from
commenting on prosecutions that are before the courts. Given the stature of the Attorney General's
position, any public comment coming from the office would be seen as an attempt to influence the
case. 
The Attorney General is apparently not accountable to the people individually unless the idividual can
summon the people to his or her side ,quite difficult when the media aids and abets him and the
government.
I provided the evidence to my MPP Julia Munro, many others of the legislature and Premier
Dalton McGuinty who appoints the Attorney General but ultimately no response and no
accountability.
Such accountability can only occur, of course, once the prosecution
is completed or when a final decision has been made not to prosecute.
The final decision not to prosecute was made long ago by former Minister of Municipal Affairs
and Housing John Gerretsen who is advised by the Attorney General according to his
"Roles and Responsibilities" but as I state the Legislature has refused to deal with the issues the same
as every government department and agency advised by the man who wears too many hats with distaste
for the public interest one that the entire system is structured to protect the members of the Law
Societies, their affluent and influential friends, not to protect the individual as the Charter states and
demands consistent with the Constitution.
Although the Attorney General can become involved in
decision-making in relation to individual criminal cases, such a practice would leave the Minister
vulnerable to accusations of political interference. Accordingly, it is traditional to leave the day-to-day
decision-making in the hands of the Attorney General's agents, the Crown Attorneys, except in cases of
exceptional importance where the public would expect the Attorney General to be briefed.

I have provided the evidence to the office of the Crown Attorney in Toronto and Newmarket
and although meeting with representatives at the Newmarket Courthouse they refused to look at the
evidence.
The Attorney General has broad responsibilities associated with
Government legislation. These responsibilities have been described as twofold. One is to oversee that
all legislative enactments are in accordance with principles of natural justice and civil rights
(see also s. 5(b) above). This is obviously an important and broad area of responsibility. The
second aspect of this responsibility is to advise on the constitutionality and legality of
legislation. 
The Attorney General's legislative responsibilities are played out in a
variety roles. The Office of Legislative Counsel reports to the Attorney General. Legislative Counsel
plays a key role in ensuring the legal integrity of Government legislation. Although the
Legislative Counsel's reporting relationship to the Attorney General does allow the Attorney General to
provide guidance and set standards, individual pieces of legislation are drafted on instructions from
client ministries and are not within the sole control of Legislative Counsel or the Attorney General. It
should also be noted that Legislative Counsel also has a direct responsibility to the Legislature as the
Office also drafts all private member's bills. 
All legislative enactments mandating the verious government departments are deliberately
of limited authority going this way and that to make them fat but leaving the individual
unprotected from the rats, hardly ensuring legal integrity, and enactments are in accordance with
principles of natural justice and civil rights. 
"Recompense injury with justice and recompense kindness with kindness"
Confucius knew what natural justice was 2500 years ago and it holds water today when sanity
prevails to moral thought and reason
In addition to the specific responsibilities to conduct civil litigation on
behalf of the Government and its agencies (s. 5(h)), the Attorney General has broader litigation
responsibilities flowing from the historical powers of the Attorney General referred to in s. 5(d) of the
Act. These powers are based on the Crown's parens patriae (parental) authority. The Attorney General's
authority, therefore, is not only to conduct litigation in cases directly affecting the government or its
agencies but also to litigate cases where there is a clear matter of public interest or public rights at
stake. 
This has been characterized as a constitutional responsibility to ensure
that the public interest is well and independently represented. It may involve interventions in
private litigation or Charter challenges to legislation, even if the arguments conclude that
the legislation does contravene constitutionally protected rights.


Can there be
any doubt that there is a clear matter of public
interest or public rights at stake. and can there be any doubt that it
is the Attorney General who is responsible for the issues of concern that need to be dealt with due his
irresponsible attitude consistent with the government organized crime, obviously why he refuses to
litigate himself behind bars. 
Can there be any doubt that according to his "Roles and Responsibilities" he is required to litigate
and by refusing to do so is self-evident that he is not the competent, responsible irreproachable person
with fortitude and conviction demanded of the Constitution to protect every individual equally as per
the Charter guarantee.
The rule of law is hostile to dictatorship and to anarchy.

Perhaps the most important application of the rule
of law is the principle that governmental authority is legitimately
exercised 
only in accordance with, publicly
disclosed laws, adopted and enforced in accordance with established procedural steps
that are referred to as due process. 
The Constitution is the publicly disclosed law that all laws must be consistent
with.
There has been no established proceedural steps that are referred to as due process
only that which they have adopted consistent with organized crime

 
According to modern Anglo-American thinking, hallmarks
of adherence to the rule of law commonly include a clear separation of
powers, 
legal certainty, the
principle of legitimate expectation and equality of all before the law.

Legal certainty, the principle of legitimate expectation and equality of all before
the law is non existent as reality attests.
The evidence published on the Charter Democracy Force sites irrefutably proves this individual
never experienced anything consistent of the present administrention and enforcement of both federal
and province of Ontario government with reasonable evidence to suggest any of the provinces
are any different
It is incomprehensble that any person would not yet be convinced of the
government organized crime, who refuse to support every individual's guaranteed Charter rights
by structuring a legal system consistent with the Constitution. 



It is most probable that if you are not convinced you are part of the organized crime or cooperate
with it for financial gain which automatically implicates you.
We will now assess the 2 part Law Society of Upper Canada document and if you are not
overwhelmingly convinced you are a lawyer, politician or one of their affluent or
influential friend.
Perhaps I am expecting you to be as convinced as I am without you having read all the
evidence so I will direct you to the evidence of the original crimes that were committed at the
ORHT on June 30 2005 that the legal illegitimate system refused to deal with as soon as you have read
the Law Society evidence. 
After reading the (ORHT Evidence) please come back to read this page again to
coherence. 
 
Is Parliament Responsible? 3rd page

<H1>Roles and Responsibilities of the Attorney General </H1>
The Attorney General has a unique role to play as a Minister. 
One part of the Attorney General's role is that of a Cabinet Minister. In this
capacity the Minister is responsible for representing the interests and perspectives of the Ministry at
Cabinet, while simultaneously representing the interests and perspectives of Cabinet and consequently
the Government to the Ministry and the Ministry's communities of interest. 
The Attorney General is the chief law officer of the Executive Council. The
responsibilities stemming from this role are unlike those of any other Cabinet member. The role has
been referred to as "judicial-like" and as the "guardian of the
public interest". 
Much has been written on the subject of ministerial responsibilities and the unique
role of the Attorney General. 
There are various components of the Attorney General's role. The Attorney
General has unique responsibilities to the Crown, the courts, the Legislature and the executive branch
of government. While there are different emphases and nuances attached to these there is a general
theme throughout all the various aspects of the Attorney General's responsibilities that the office has a
constitutional and traditional responsibility beyond that of a political minister. 
The statutory responsibilities of the office are found in section 5 of the
Ministry of the Attorney General Act. Section 5 states: The Attorney
General, (a) is the Law Officer of the Executive Council; (b) shall see that the
administration of public affairs is in accordance with the law; (c) shall superintend all matters
connected with the administration of justice in Ontario; (d) shall perform the duties and have the
powers that belong to the Attorney General and Solicitor General of England by law and usage, so far
as those powers and duties are applicable to Ontario, and also shall perform the duties and powers that,
until the Constitution Act, 1867 came into effect, belonged to the offices of the Attorney
General and Solicitor General in the provinces of Canada and Upper Canada and which, under the
provisions of that Act, are within the scope of the powers of the Legislature; (e) shall advise the
Government upon all matters of law connected with legislative enactments and upon all matters of law
referred to him or her by the Government; (f) shall advise the Government upon all matters of a
legislative nature and superintend all Government measures of a legislative nature; (g) shall
advise the heads of ministries and agencies of Government upon all matters of law connected with such
ministries and agency; (h) shall conduct and regulate all litigation for and against the Crown or
any ministry or agency of government in respect of any subject within the authority or jurisdiction of
the Legislature; (i) shall superintend all matters connected with judicial offices; (j) shall
perform such other functions as are assigned to him or her by the Legislature or by the Lieutenant
Governor in Council. " 
What follows is an overview of the various components of the Attorney General's
roles and responsibilities, primarily as outlined in the Act. 
<H2>Chief Law Officer of the Executive Council (s. 5(a))</H2>
The role of chief law officer might be referred to as the Attorney General's overall
responsibility as the independent legal advisor to the Cabinet - and some have even suggested that the
role possibly extends to the Legislature as well. The importance of the independence of the role is
fundamental to the position and well established in common law, statutes and tradition. 
As chief law officer, the Attorney General has a special
responsibility to be the guardian of that most elusive concept - the rule of law. The rule of
law is a well established legal principle, but hard to easily define. It is the rule of law that protects
individuals, and society as a whole, from arbitrary measures and safeguards personal liberties.

The Attorney General has a special role to play in advising Cabinet to ensure the
rule of law is maintained and that Cabinet actions are legally and constitutionally valid.

In providing such advice it is important to keep in mind the distinction between
the Attorney General's policy advice and preference and the legal advice being presented to Cabinet.
The Attorney General's legal advice or constitutional advice should not be lightly disregarded. The
Attorney General's policy advice has the same weight as that of other ministers. 
<H2>Criminal prosecutions (s.5(d))</H2>
One of the most publicly scrutinized aspects of the Attorney General's role is the
responsibility for criminal prosecutions encompassed in section 5 (d) and s. 92 of the Constitution Act,
1867. Section 92 gives the provinces authority to legislate in matters related to the administration of
criminal justice and thereby gives the provincial Attorney General authority to prosecute offences
under the Criminal Code. 
The Attorney General does not, however, direct or cause charges to be laid. While
the Attorney General and the Attorney General's agents may provide legal advice to the police, the
ultimate decision whether or not to lay charges is for the police. Once the charge is laid the decision as
to whether the prosecution should proceed, and in what manner, is for the Attorney General and the
Crown Attorney. 
It is now an accepted and important constitutional principle that the Attorney
General must carry out the Minister's criminal prosecution responsibilities independent of Cabinet and
of any partisan political pressures. The Attorney General's responsibility for individual criminal
prosecutions must be undertaken - and seen to be undertaken - on strictly objective and legal criteria,
free of any political considerations. Whether to initiate or stay a criminal proceeding is not an issue of
government policy. This responsibility has been characterized as a matter of the Attorney General
acting as the Queen's Attorney - not as a Minister of the government of the day. 
This is not to suggest that decisions regarding criminal prosecutions are made in a
complete vacuum. A wide range of policy considerations may be weighed in executing this
responsibility, and the Attorney General may choose to consult the Cabinet on some of these
considerations. However any decisions relating to the conduct of individual prosecutions must be the
Attorney General's alone and independent of the traditional Cabinet decision making process. In
practice, in the vast majority of cases, these decisions are made by the Attorney General's agents, the
Crown Attorneys. 
An important part of the Crown's - and thus the Attorney General's - responsibility
in conducting criminal prosecutions is associated with the responsibility to represent the public interest
- which includes not only the community as a whole and the victim, but also the accused. The Crown
has a distinct responsibility to the court to present all the credible evidence available. 
The responsibility is to present the case fairly - not necessarily to convict. This is a
fundamental precept of criminal law, even if it is not a particularly well-understood concept among the
general public. One of the Attorney General's responsibilities in fostering public respect for the rule of
law, is to assist the public in understanding the nature and limits of the prosecutorial function.

Ultimately the Attorney General is accountable to the people of the province,
through the Legislature, for decisions relating to criminal prosecutions. Such accountability
can only occur, of course, once the prosecution is completed or when a final decision has been made
not to prosecute. The sub judicae rule bars any comment on a matter before the courts that is likely to
influence the matter. The sub judicae rule strictly prohibits the Attorney General from commenting on
prosecutions that are before the courts. Given the stature of the Attorney General's position, any public
comment coming from the office would be seen as an attempt to influence the case. 
Although the Attorney general can become involved in decision-making in
relation to individual criminal cases, such a practice would leave the Minister vulnerable to accusations
of political interference. Accordingly, it is traditional to leave the day-to-day decision-making in the
hands of the Attorney General's agents, the Crown Attorneys, except in cases of exceptional
importance where the public would expect the Attorney General to be briefed. 
<H2>Legislative Responsibilities (s. 5(e) and (f))</H2>
The Attorney General has broad responsibilities associated with Government
legislation. These responsibilities have been described as twofold. One is to oversee that all legislative
enactments are in accordance with principles of natural justice and civil rights (see also s. 5(b) above).
This is obviously an important and broad area of responsibility. The second aspect of this responsibility
is to advise on the constitutionality and legality of legislation. 
The Attorney General's legislative responsibilities are played out in a variety roles.
The Office of Legislative Counsel reports to the Attorney General. Legislative Counsel plays a key role
in ensuring the legal integrity of Government legislation. Although the Legislative Counsel's reporting
relationship to the Attorney General does allow the Attorney General to provide guidance and set
standards, individual pieces of legislation are drafted on instructions from client ministries and are not
within the sole control of Legislative Counsel or the Attorney General. It should also be noted that
Legislative Counsel also has a direct responsibility to the Legislature as the Office also drafts all
private member's bills. 
The Attorney General has a further role to play as part of whatever Cabinet
Committee is formed to review legislation and regulations. Here the Minister has an opportunity to
comment on the technical issues related to legislation and regulations prior to Cabinet consideration.

The Attorney General's role on legislative matters is as an adviser to the Cabinet.
Although unlikely, Cabinet could, in theory, receive the Attorney General's legal opinion on legislation
and choose to disregard it. The Attorney General's role is not independent of Cabinet decision making
as in the area of criminal prosecutions. As was noted earlier, the Attorney General must make careful
distinctions about the legal opinions and policy or political preferences being offered about legislation.

<H2>Civil Litigation (s.5(h) and (d))</H2>
In addition to the specific responsibilities to conduct civil litigation on behalf of
the Government and its agencies (s. 5(h)), the Attorney General has broader litigation responsibilities
flowing from the historical powers of the Attorney General referred to in s. 5(d) of the Act. These
powers are based on the Crown's parens patriae (parental) authority. The Attorney General's authority,
therefore, is not only to conduct litigation in cases directly affecting the government or its agencies but
also to litigate cases where there is a clear matter of public interest or public rights at stake.

This has been characterized as a constitutional responsibility to ensure that the
public interest is well and independently represented. It may involve interventions in private litigation
or Charter challenges to legislation, even if the arguments conclude that the legislation does contravene
constitutionally protected rights. 
<H2>Responsibility for Court Administration (s. 5(c)) </H2>
A key component of the Attorney General's responsibilities to ensure the
administration of justice in the province is the administration of the courts and as a result the
responsibility for maintaining liaison with the judiciary. 
Given the fundamental importance of the independence of the ju
Law Society of Upper Canad 4th page
 &n
bsp; &n
bsp; &n
bsp; &n
bsp; &n
bsp; &n
bsp; &n
bsp; 
 &n
bsp; &n
bsp; &n
bsp; &n
bsp; &n
bsp; &n
bsp; &n
bsp; &n
bsp; &n
bsp; <IMG style="WIDTH: 251px; HEIGHT: 286px" height=236 alt=""
hspace=0 src="http://98.131.136.42/images/mad.jpg" width=179>





 
GLIST Recipients of evidence
November 29 2008<?xml:namespace

prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p></o:p>
These are e-mail addresses of
prominent government personnel, police, commissions, media, church, charities...whatever
who have been provided the evidence published and referenced on this site
uRus<o:p></o:p>
 <o:p></o:p>
 
unionpri3@xplornet.com;ltgov@gov.on.ca; justice.comments@gnb.ca; valerie.kilfoil@gnb.ca;

info@gg.ca;reviews@cpc-cpp.gc.ca;cdn-firearms-
chat@scorpion.bogend.ca;legal@nfa.ca;jschnoor@jus.gov.mb.ca; mpatz@bcli.org; dbourque@flsc.ca;
edmonton@cba-alberta.org;communications@ps.gc.ca; cordyj@sen.parl.gc.ca; cowanj@sen.parl.gc.ca;
christine.elliott@pc.ola.org; city@thestar.ca; ipp@canadianipp.org; info@police.york.on.ca;
archbishop@archtoronto.org;Rights-droits@sen.gc.ca ;anti-corruption@unodc.org;
citydesk@tor.sunpub.com; comail@lsuc.ca; cgrech@yrng.com; copelandj@scc-csc.gc.ca;
letters@globeandmail.com;
cdavis@relevantknowledge.com; Christopherson.D@parl.gc.ca; charrf@sen.parl.gc.ca;

coolsa@sen.parl.gc.ca; cookj@sen.parl.gc.ca; cochre@sen.parl.gc.ca; chapum@sen.parl.gc.ca;
carsts@sen.parl.gc.ca; carnep@sen.parl.gc.ca; campbel@sen.parl.gc.ca; callbc@sen.parl.gc.ca;
Day.S@parl.gc.ca; dwatch@web.net; dgrandmaitre@gg.ca;
dramsay.mpp.kirklandlake@liberal.ola.org; dduncan.mpp.co@liberal.ola.org;
dcaplan.mpp@liberal.ola.org; dcansfield.mpp@liberal.ola.org; dawsod@sen.parl.gc.ca;
dayja@sen.parl.gc.ca; debanp@sen.parl.gc.ca; dininc@sen.parl.gc.ca; dyckli@sen.parl.gc.ca; dinovoc-
qp@ndp.on.ca; dhowlett@makepovertyhistory.ca; dacitic.petersen_1967@hotmail.com;
dallar@sen.parl.gc.ca; damphh@sen.parl.gc.ca; elisabeth.nadeau@ps.gc.ca; Emerson.D@parl.gc.ca;
egglea@sen.parl.gc.ca;
editor@tor.sunpub.com; ernie.hardeman@pc.ola.org; elizabeth.witmer@pc.ola.org;

dacitic.petersen_1967@hotmail.com; dallar@sen.parl.gc.ca; damphh@sen.parl.gc.ca;
editor@tor.sunpub.com; editor@rd.ca;; francois-giroux@cas-satj.gc.ca; Flaherty.J@parl.gc.ca;
Finley.D@parl.gc.ca; fairbj@sen.parl.gc.ca; fitzpr@sen.parl.gc.ca; fortim@sen.parl.gc.ca;
frasej@sen.parl.gc.ca; fureyg@sen.parl.gc.ca; Fitzpatrick.B@parl.gc.ca;gsmith@chrt-tcdp.gc.ca;
Guergis.H@parl.gc.ca; gsorbara.mpp.co@liberal.ola.org; gsmitherman.mpp.co@liberal.ola.org;
gphillips.mpp.co@liberal.ola.org; gautht@sen.parl.gc.ca;
gilla@sen.parl.gc.ca; goldsy@sen.parl.gc.ca; grafsj@sen.parl.gc.ca; gustal@sen.parl.gc.ca;

Hill.J@parl.gc.ca; Hearn.L@parl.gc.ca; htakhar.mpp.co@liberal.ola.org; harbm@sen.parl.gc.ca;
hervic@sen.parl.gc.ca; hublee@sen.parl.gc.ca; horton@adlib.ca; Harper.S@parl.gc.ca; info@chfc.ca;
info@olderwomensnetwork.org; info@ocsj.ca; info@cjc-ccm.gc.ca; info@ohrc.on.ca;
info@libertarian.ca; justice@socialjustice.org; josee.dubois@psst-tdfp.gc.ca;
Brad.Chisholm@gov.ab.ca;robert.macadam@rcmp-grc.gc.ca;
jbradley.mpp@liberal.ola.org; julia.munroco@pc.ola.org; jcrivest@sen.parl.gc.ca;

jaffem@sen.parl.gc.ca; johnsj@sen.parl.gc.ca; joyals@sen.parl.gc.ca; jbrownell.mpp@liberal.ola.org;
Jennings.M@parl.gc.ca; Kenney.J@parl.gc.ca; kkular.mpp@liberal.ola.org;
kflynn.mpp@liberal.ola.org; kennyco@sen.parl.gc.ca; kinsen@sen.parl.gc.ca; kfl@sen.parl.gc.ca;
lbroten.mpp@liberal.ola.org; ljeffrey.mpp@liberal.ola.org; ldombrowsky.mpp@liberal.ola.org;
Lunn.G@parl.gc.ca;lavigr@sen.parl.gc.ca; lebrem@sen.parl.gc.ca; losier@sen.parl.gc.ca;
lachah@sen.parl.gc.ca; licia.corbella@calgarysun.com; Lussier.M@parl.gc.ca;
Lake.M@parl.gc.ca;Laforest.J@parl.gc.ca;mmacpherson@pco-bcp.gc.ca;MacKay.P@parl.gc.ca;
mcolle.mpp@liberal.ola.org; mmeilleur.mpp.co@liberal.ola.org; mkwinter.mpp@liberal.ola.org;

machambers.mpp.co@liberal.ola.org; mbountrogianni.mpp@liberal.ola.org; mahovf@sen.parl.gc.ca;
massip@sen.parl.gc.ca;mccoye@sen.parl.gc.ca;meighen@sen.parl.gc.ca; mercet@sen.parl.gc.ca;
merchp@sen.parl.gc.ca; milnel@sen.parl.gc.ca; mitchg@sen.parl.gc.ca; moorew@sen.parl.gc.ca;
munsoj@sen.parl.gc.ca;mcgeed@sen.parl.gc.ca; mbryant.mpp@liberal.ola.org;
mininfo@mah.gov.on.ca; McGuinty.D@parl.gc.ca;nimhinfo@nih.gov; nejmcust@mms.org;
prevention@ps.gc.ca; communications@ps.gc.ca; mcknight.pycnodont@hotmail.com;
Murphy.S@parl.gc.ca; mphelps@otla.com; Nicholson.R@parl.gc.ca; nolinp@sen.parl.gc.ca;
ocap@tao.ca; Oda.B@parl.gc.ca; OConnor.G@parl.gc.ca; olived@sen.parl.gc.ca; onbox@ps.gc.ca;
pm@pm.gc.ca; plourded@nafta-sec-alena.org; potterl@scc-csc.gc.ca; Paradis.C@parl.gc.ca;
Prentice.J@parl.gc.ca; pfonseca.mpp.co@liberal.ola.org; pepinl@sen.parl.gc.ca;

phaleg@sen.parl.gc.ca; poulim@sen.parl.gc.ca; poyv@sen.parl.gc.ca; prudhm@sen.parl.gc.ca;
pdowne@sen.parl.gc.ca;
pkormos-qp@ndp.on.ca; prevention@ps.gc.ca; prognosticatingw371@mobilemessage.com;

pwang@adni.net; media@scc-csc.gc.ca; reception@scc-csc.gc.ca; crc@yrp.ca;
info@police.york.on.ca;
premier@gov.nl.ca;justice@mail.gov.nl.ca
info@flsc.ca; jherman@flsc.ca; fwilson@flsc.ca; kwillfed@aol.com;

webadmin@greenparty.ca;pierre.leduc@rcmp-grc.gc.ca;
attorneygeneral@jus.gov.on.ca;garth@garth.ca; Leblanc.D@parl.gc.ca;webmaster@rcmp-grc.gc.ca;
roy.steinebach@rcmp-grc.gc.ca; Primetimecrime@gmail.com; webadmin@greenparty.ca;
info@cba.org; mail@cba-alberta.org; edmonton@cba-alberta.org; cba@bccba.org;
admin@cbanb.com; cba-nl@nl.rogers.com; cbanwt@lawsociety.nt.ca; cbans@ns.sympatico.ca;
info@oba.org; cba-pei@isn.net; cba.sk@sasktel.net; cbayukon@internorth.com; ciec-ccie@parl.gc.ca;
ndpaoatlantic@ns.aliantzinc.ca; information@forces.gc.ca; ndpao-pacific@shaw.ca;
ndpaocal@nucleus.com; NDPAO@bellnet.ca; ndpao.mtl@videotron.ca; webmaster@forces.gc.ca;
AdamsoV@erc-cee.gc.ca; adavidov@torontohabitat.on.ca; aleadbea@infocom.gc.ca;
Ambrose.R@parl.gc.ca; ahorwath-qp@ndp.on.ca; ayala_disadvantage@hotmail.com;
admin@otla.com; atkinn@sen.parl.gc.ca; anguswd@sen.parl.gc.ca; Bernier.M@parl.gc.ca;
Baird.J@parl.gc.ca; bbalkissoon.mpp@liberal.ola.org; bduguid.mpp@liberal.ola.org;
Blackburn.J@parl.gc.ca; baconl@sen.parl.gc.ca; bironmi@sen.parl.gc.ca; bakerg@sen.parl.gc.ca;
bob.runciman@pc.ola.org; bill.murdoch@pc.ola.org; bergeron_hater_1976@hotmail.com; buoyantly.
BelleG@parl.gc.ca; complaints@cpc-cpp.gc.ca; Clement.T@parl.gc.ca; Cannon.L@parl.gc.ca;
cdicocco.mpp.co@liberal.ola.org; bentley.mpp@liberal.ola.org;
PoiliP@parl.gc.ca; robin.roberts@cpc-cpp.gc.ca; Ritz.G@parl.gc.ca;

rbartolucci.mpp.co@liberal.ola.org; randy.craig@jus.gov.on.ca; rompkw@sen.parl.gc.ca;
ringup@sen.parl.gc.ca; russem@sen.parl.gc.ca; rokosg@sen.parl.gc.ca; rattel@sen.parl.gc.ca;
sandra.conlin@rcmp-grc.gc.ca; Skelton.C@parl.gc.ca; spupatello.mpp@liberal.ola.org;
speters.mpp@liberal.ola.org; Strahl.C@parl.gc.ca; Solberg.M@parl.gc.ca;
smithd@sen.parl.gc.ca; smithc@sen.parl.gc.ca; sibnic@sen.parl.gc.ca; spivam@sen.parl.gc.ca;

stgerg@sen.parl.gc.ca; stollp@sen.parl.gc.ca; stratt@sen.parl.gc.ca; szwebmaster@yahoo.com;
support@besthotfilms.com; Symantec@reply.digitalriver.com; swainger@unbc.ca;
Sweet.D@parl.gc.ca; terryoc2001@yahoo.ca; tpulcine@privcom.gc.ca; Toews.V@parl.gc.ca;
Thompson.G@parl.gc.ca; tardic@sen.parl.gc.ca; tkachd@sen.parl.gc.ca;
victimsfirst@ombudsman.gc.ca; Verner.J@parl.gc.ca; vdhillon.mpp@liberal.ola.org;
vanlop1@parl.gc.ca; vanlop0@parl.gc.ca; webadmin@justice.gc.ca; warthurs.mpp@liberal.ola.org;
wattc@sen.parl.gc.ca; whistleblower@ctv.ca; web@ps.gc.ca; willis@forces.gc.ca;
Williams.J@parl.gc.ca; Wrzesnewskyj.B@parl.gc.ca; zimmer@sen.parl.gc.ca; sandra.conlin@rcmp-
grc.gc.ca;
licia.corbella@calgarysun.com; info@vivelecanada.ca; nphlstatistician@hotmail.com;

press@transparency.org;ti-can@transparency.ca; sprayriver@yahoo.ca;
newsroom@globeandmail.com; news@citynews.ca; newsdesk@metronews.ca;
admin@georginaadvocate.com; admin@stouffvillesun.com;
keithbainmla@ns.sympatico.ca; bakermg@gov.ns.ca; barnetbe@gov.ns.ca; mlashelburne@eastlink.ca;

bolivargetson@eastlink.ca; educmin@gov.ns.ca; min_dfa@gov.ns.ca; justmin@gov.ns.ca;
mlaclarke@ns.sympatico.ca; colwelkw@gov.ns.ca; vconrad@ns.aliantzinc.ca; healmin@gov.ns.ca;
ddexter@ns.sympatico.ca; dooksbf@gov.ns.ca; patdunnmla@ns.aliantzinc.ca;
hepstein@ns.aliantzinc.ca; billestabrooks@navnet.net; elf@ns.sympatico.ca; gaudetw@gov.ns.ca;
glavinla@gov.ns.ca;
Lawmen@googlegroups.com;
bob@aaron.ca; ranand@weirfoulds.com; lbanack@kmlaw.ca; cbredt@blgcanada.com;

jcampion@fasken.com; jcampion@fasken.com; dickson@dicksonlawyers.com; goa@lao.on.ca;
adgold@on.aibn.com; glgqc@interlog.com; glenn.hainey@gowlings.com; theintzm@mccarthy.ca;
dmillar@weirfoulds.com; janet.minor@ontario.ca; julian.porter@JulianPorterQC.com;
linda.rothstein@paliareroland.com; ruby@ruby-edwardh.com; msandler@criminal-lawyers.ca;
paul.schabas@blakes.com; btough@toughcounsel.com;
aitken.melanie@cb-bc.gc.ca; Constance.Backhouse@uOttawa.ca; jbraithwaite@weaversimmons.com;

Jim.caskey@siskinds.com; tconway@mccarthy.ca; mcrowe@ott.fasken.com; jhalajian@rogers.com;
suehare@amtelecom.net; hartmanc@millermaki.com; pjhlaw@allstream.net; dlewis@greatlaw.ca;
mcgrath@nt.net; jpotter@start.ca; pustinan@carrel.com; hjross@rossfirm.com;
alan.silverstein@rogers.com; bsimpson@tierneystauffer.com; jslewis@uottawa.ca; gswaye@swaye.ca;
gordiegosse@ns.aliantzinc.ca; gouchele@gov.ns.ca; hurlburr@gov.ns.ca; kentbj@gov.ns.ca;
man@gov.ns.ca; mmacdonald@navnet.net; premier@gov.ns.ca; john.macdonell@ns.sympatico.ca;
econmin@gov.ns.ca; clarriemla@ns.aliantzinc.ca; macleoaw@gov.ns.ca;
joanmasseymla@ns.aliantzinc.ca; stephenmcneil@ns.aliantzinc.ca; marilynmoremla@ns.aliantzinc.ca;
min_dnr@gov.ns.ca; percy.paris@ns.aliantzinc.ca; charlieparkermla@ns.aliantzinc.ca;
cportermla@ns.aliantzinc.ca; preyra@eastlink.ca; mhraymondmla@eastlink.ca; samsonmp@gov.ns.ca;
tirmin@gov.ns.ca; graham@grahamsteele.ca; streatjl@gov.ns.ca; mlataylor@eastlink.ca;
theriahe@gov.ns.ca; junior@tartannet.ca; whalendc@gov.ns.ca; davidawilsonmla@eastlink.ca;
wilsond@gov.ns.ca; tzinck@ns.aliantzinc.ca;
Shawn.Graham@gnb.ca; John.Foran@gnb.ca; Victor.Boudreau2@gnb.ca; Denis.Landry2@gnb.ca;

donald.arseneault@gnb.ca; Jack.Keir2@gnb.ca; ronald.ouellette@gnb.ca; Rick.Doucet@gnb.ca;
MichaelB.Murphy@gnb.ca; Hedard.Albert2@gnb.ca; mary.schryer@gnb.ca;
wally.stiles@gnb.ca; ed.doherty@gnb.ca; kelly.lamrock@gnb.ca; roland.hache@gnb.ca;

carmel.robichaud@gnb.ca; greg.byrne@gnb.ca; Stuart.jamieson@gnb.ca; eugene.mcginley@gnb.ca;
sprucegrovesturgeon.stalbert@assembly.ab.ca; fortmcmurray.woodbuffalo@assembly.ab.ca;
highwood@assembly.ab.ca; calgary.glenmore@assembly.ab.ca;
laclabiche.stpaul@assembly.ab.ca; calgary.west@assembly.ab.ca;
vermilion.lloydminster@assembly.ab.ca; medicine.hat@assembly.ab.ca; stony.plain@assembly.ab.ca;
fortsaskatchewan.vegreville@assembly.ab.ca; dunvegan.centralpeace@assembly.ab.ca;
dunvegan.centralpeace@assembly.ab.ca;
webmaster@legassembly.sk.ca; info@legassembly.sk.ca; communications.justice@justice.gouv.qc.ca;
george.abbott.mla@leg.bc.ca; robin.austin.mla@leg.bc.ca; harry.bains.mla@leg.bc.ca;

pat.bell.mla@leg.bc.ca; bill.barisoff.mla@leg.bc.ca; bill.bennett.mla@leg.bc.ca;
iain.black.mla@leg.bc.ca; harry.bloy.mla@leg.bc.ca;
shirley.bond.mla@leg.bc.ca; jagrup.brar.mla@leg.bc.ca; gordon.campbell.mla@leg.bc.ca;

premier@gov.bc.ca;
ron.cantelon.mla@leg.bc.ca; ida.chong.mla@leg.bc.ca; raj.chouhan.mla@leg.bc.ca;

tom.christensen.mla@leg.bc.ca; david.chudnovsky.mla@leg.bc.ca; murray.coell.mla@leg.bc.ca;
rich.coleman.mla@leg.bc.ca; katrine.conroy.mla@leg.bc.ca; gary.coons.mla@leg.bc.ca;
david.cubberley.mla@leg.bc.ca;
mike.dejong.mla@leg.bc.ca; adrian.dix.mla@leg.bc.ca; corky.evans.mla@leg.bc.ca;

kevin.falcon.mla@leg.bc.ca;
mike.farnworth.mla@leg.bc.ca; rob.fleming.mla@leg.bc.ca; scott.fraser.mla@leg.bc.ca;

guy.gentner.mla@leg.bc.ca; stan.hagen.mla@leg.bc.ca; sue.hammell.mla@leg.bc.ca;
colin.hansen.mla@leg.bc.ca; randy.hawes.mla@leg.bc.ca; sindi.hawkins.mla@leg.bc.ca;
dave.hayer.mla@leg.bc.ca; gordon.hogg.mla@leg.bc.ca;
john.horgan.mla@leg.bc.ca; al.horning.mla@leg.bc.ca; olga.ilich.mla@leg.bc.ca;

carole.james.mla@leg.bc.ca; dan.jarvis.mla@leg.bc.ca; maurine.karagianis.mla@leg.bc.ca;
leonard.krog.mla@leg.bc.ca; kevin.krueger.mla@leg.bc.ca; jenny.kwan.mla@leg.bc.ca;
harry.lali.mla@leg.bc.ca; richard.lee.mla@leg.bc.ca; blair.lekstrom.mla@leg.bc.ca;
john.les.mla@leg.bc.ca; norm.macdonald.mla@leg.bc.ca; dennis.mackay.mla@leg.bc.ca;
lorne.mayencourt.mla@leg.bc.ca; joan.mcintyre.mla@leg.bc.ca; richard.neufeld.mla@leg.bc.ca;
john.nuraney.mla@leg.bc.ca; wally.oppal.mla@leg.bc.ca; barry.penner.mla@leg.bc.ca;
mary.polak.mla@leg.bc.ca; chuck.puchmayr.mla@leg.bc.ca; bruce.ralston.mla@leg.bc.ca;
linda.reid.mla@leg.bc.ca; claude.richmond.mla@leg.bc.ca; gregor.robertson.mla@leg.bc.ca;
val.roddick.mla@leg.bc.ca; douglas.routley.mla@leg.bc.ca; john.rustad.mla@leg.bc.ca;
michael.sather.mla@leg.bc.ca; nicholas.simons.mla@leg.bc.ca; bob.simpson.mla@leg.bc.ca;
shane.simpson.mla@leg.bc.ca; ralph.sultan.mla@leg.bc.ca; carole.taylor.mla@leg.bc.ca;
diane.thorne.mla@leg.bc.ca; rick.thorpe.mla@leg.bc.ca; claire.trevena.mla@leg.bc.ca;
john.vandongen.mla@leg.bc.ca; katherine.whittred.mla@leg.bc.ca;
charlie.wyse.mla@leg.bc.ca; john.yap.mla@leg.bc.ca; lwilliamson@ombudsman.on.ca;

ptomasi@ombudsman.on.ca; info@ombudsman.on.ca
adamsw@sen.parl.gc.ca ; andrer@sen.parl.gc.ca ; anguswd@sen.parl.gc.ca ; atkinn@sen.parl.gc.ca ;

baconl@sen.parl.gc.ca ; bakerg@sen.parl.gc.ca ; gautht@sen.parl.gc.ca ; bironmi@sen.parl.gc.ca ;
damphh@sen.parl.gc.ca ; callbc@sen.parl.gc.ca ; campbel@sen.parl.gc.ca ; carnep@sen.parl.gc.ca ;
carsts@sen.parl.gc.ca ; champa@sen.parl.gc.ca ; chapum@sen.parl.gc.ca ; cochre@sen.parl.gc.ca ;
rattel@sen.parl.gc.ca ; cookj@sen.parl.gc.ca ; coolsa@sen.parl.gc.ca ; cordyj@sen.parl.gc.ca ;
cowanj@sen.parl.gc.ca ; dallar@sen.parl.gc.ca ; dawsod@sen.parl.gc.ca ; dayja@sen.parl.gc.ca ;
debanp@sen.parl.gc.ca ; dininc@sen.parl.gc.ca ; pdowne@sen.parl.gc.ca ; dyckli@sen.parl.gc.ca ;
egglea@sen.parl.gc.ca ; rokosg@sen.parl.gc.ca ; fairbj@sen.parl.gc.ca; fitzpr@sen.parl.gc.ca ;
fortim@sen.parl.gc.ca ; frasej@sen.parl.gc.ca ; fureyg@sen.parl.gc.ca ; gilla@sen.parl.gc.ca ;
goldsy@sen.parl.gc.ca ; grafsj@sen.parl.gc.ca ; gustal@sen.parl.gc.ca ; harbm@sen.parl.gc.ca ;
haysd@sen.parl.gc.ca ; hervic@sen.parl.gc.ca ; hublee@sen.parl.gc.ca ; jaffem@sen.parl.gc.ca ;
johnsj@sen.parl.gc.ca ; joyals@sen.parl.gc.ca ; kennyco@sen.parl.gc.ca ; kinsen@sen.parl.gc.ca ;
charrf@sen.parl.gc.ca ; lavigr@sen.parl.gc.ca; lebrem@sen.parl.gc.ca ; losier@sen.parl.gc.ca ;
smithc@sen.parl.gc.ca ; mahovf@sen.parl.gc.ca ; massip@sen.parl.gc.ca ; mccoye@sen.parl.gc.ca ;
meighen@sen.parl.gc.ca ; mercet@sen.parl.gc.ca ; merchp@sen.parl.gc.ca ; milnel@sen.parl.gc.ca ;
mitchg@sen.parl.gc.ca ; moorew@sen.parl.gc.ca ; munsoj@sen.parl.gc.ca ; mcgeed@sen.parl.gc.ca ;
nolinp@sen.parl.gc.ca ; olived@sen.parl.gc.ca ; pepinl@sen.parl.gc.ca ; russem@sen.parl.gc.ca ;
phaleg@sen.parl.gc.ca ; lachah@sen.parl.gc.ca ; poulim@sen.parl.gc.ca ; poyv@sen.parl.gc.ca;
prudhm@sen.parl.gc.ca ; ringup@sen.parl.gc.ca; jcrivest@sen.parl.gc.ca ; rompkw@sen.parl.gc.ca .;
kfl@sen.parl.gc.ca ; sibnic@sen.parl.gc.ca ; smithd@sen.parl.gc.ca ; spivam@sen.parl.gc.ca ;
stgerg@sen.parl.gc.ca ; stolp@sen.parl.gc.ca ;stratt@sen.parl.gc.ca; tardic@sen.parl.gc.ca ;
tkachd@sen.parl.gc.ca ; wattc@sen.parl.gc.ca ; zimmer@sen.parl.gc.ca
randy.walsh@rcmp-grc.gc.ca; CPCregistrar@rcmp-grc.gc.ca; cpc-ccp@rcmp-grc.gc.ca; library@rcmp-

grc.gc.ca; karyn.morrison@rcmp-grc.gc.ca; cs-journals@wiley.com; cs-membership@wiley.com; cs-
agency@wiley.com; jbsubs@wiley.com; Service@wiley-vch.de; oppa@oppa.ca;
gatoraid@sympatic.ca; rbarrow@toronto.ca; tfsmus@toronto.ca; ems@toronto.ca;
webmaster@torontoems.ca; globalnews.bc@globaltv.com; viewercontact.bc@globaltv.com;
globalnews.calg@globaltv.com;viewercontact.calg@globaltv.com; globalnews.reg@globaltv.com;
viewercontact.reg@globaltv.com; globalnews.wpg@globaltv.com; viewercontact.wpg@globaltv.com;
globalnews.que@globaltv.com;globalnews.mar@globaltv.com; globalnews.tor@globaltv.com;
globalnews.sask@globaltv.com; globalnews.leth@globaltv.com; globalnews.ed@globaltv.com;
support@cpkn.ca; deb@cannabislink.ca; info@ipccanada.com; mike.boyd@police.edmonton.ab.ca;
:brefis@medicinehat.ca; support@cpkn.ca; ooc@police.london.ca;
cid@police.london.ca;csd@police.london.ca; ssd@police.london.ca; ud@police.london.ca;
webadmin@justice.gc.ca; ggruson@policecouncil.ca; mshortall@policecouncil.ca;
pdewhirst@policecouncil.ca; pdewhirst@policecouncil.ca;
policiareforma@gmail.com; mullinsc@thejohnsonian.com;takahashia@thejohnsonian.com;
smithn@thejohnsonian.com; barkleyt@thejohnsonian.com; scarryj@thejohnsonian.com;
whelana@thejohnsonian.com; scaless@thejohnsonian.com;greenec@thejohnsonian.com;
gwaltneyj@thejohnsonian.com; bukerc@thejohnsonian.com; ellisonq@thejohnsonian.com;
burrisn@thejohnsonian.com; johnss@thejohnsonian.com; drumwrightr@thejohnsonian.com;
info@tbs-sct.gc.ca; services-publications@tbs-sct.gc.ca; media@scc-csc.gc.ca; Registry-greffe@scc-
csc.gc.ca; library@scc-csc.gc.ca; tour@scc-csc.gc.ca; information@scc-csc.gc.ca; reception@scc-
csc.gc.ca; publications@swc-cfc.gc.ca; information@swc-cfc.gc.ca; communications@swc-cfc.gc.ca;
wpppf@swc-cfc.gc.ca; webcoord@swc-cfc.gc.ca; info@scc.ca; enviroinfo@ec.gc.ca; info@dfo-
mpo.gc.ca; information@pc.gc.ca; SARAregistry@ec.gc.ca; communications@chairs.gc.ca;
information@chairs.gc.ca; webgrant@sshrc.ca; %20cgs@sshrc.ca; fellowships@sshrc.ca;
strategic@sshrc.ca; adamsw@sen.parl.gc.ca; andrer@sen.parl.gc.ca; ASSD@pwgsc.gc.ca;
david.pyett@pwgsc.gc.ca; line.dugas@pwgsc.gc.ca; Daniel.Marion@pwgsc.gc.ca; ncr.cgsb-
ongc@pwgsc.gc.ca; chantal.marin-comeau@pwgsc.gc.ca;
marian.l.gaucher@pwgsc.gc.ca;robert.j.charest@pwgsc.gc.ca; ron.l.tessier@pwgsc.gc.ca;
donald.fulton@pwgsc.gc.ca; paul.chenard@pwgsc.gc.ca; martin.desnoyers@pwgsc.gc.ca;
tribunal@psdpt-tpfd.gc.ca; cadet-info@forces.gc.ca;
olson.sl@forces.gc.ca;prairiehelpdesk@cadets.net; Charlton.DJB@forces.gc.ca;
lammers.lg@forces.gc.ca; aro-hanson.tl@forces.gc.ca; aro-hanson.tl@forces.gc.ca;
brown.rj@forces.gc.ca; perry.jad@forces.gc.ca; mahoney.st@forces.gc.ca; riswold.jp@forces.gc.ca;
alberto.PM@forces.gc.ca; lindley-scott.ca@forces.gc.ca; alberto.PM@forces.gc.ca; fenlon-
MacDonald.CG@forces.gc.ca; goudreau.jmr@forces.gc.ca; mckay.db@forces.gc.ca;
sheen.ks@forces.gc.ca; roley.sr@forces.gc.ca; Schau.ca@forces.gc.ca; dale.pr@forces.gc.ca;
lust.m@forces.gc.ca; curry.kg@forces.gc.ca; gosse.gf@forces.gc.ca; garton.pb@forces.gc.ca;
evans.ga2@forces.gc.ca; nadeau.mj@forces.gc.ca; chenery.ar@forces.gc.ca;
mailto:Edmiston.rw@cadets.net; oquinn.t@forces.gc.ca; cheeseman.gm@cadets.net;
debert.dl@cadets.net; pomedli.vm@forces.gc.ca; smith.kk@forces.gc.ca; Lowry.r@forces.gc.ca;
fremont.dm@forces.gc.ca; notschaele.rl@forces.gc.ca; flach.je@forces.gc.ca;
macintosh.dl@forces.gc.ca; szczerski.tj@forces.gc.ca; griffiths.ms2@forces.gc.ca;
olson.sl@forces.gc.ca; mckay.se@forces.gc.ca; templeman.smj@forces.gc.ca; lefloch.a@forces.gc.ca;
godin.jr@forces.gc.ca; stpierre.jd@forces.gc.ca; elson.rk@forces.gc.ca; chovin.rs@forces.gc.ca;
cook.ba@forces.gc.ca; gillrie.dk@forces.gc.ca; gielas.ma@forces.gc.ca; renaud.b2@forces.gc.ca;
head.nr@forces.gc.ca; bennett.ce@forces.gc.ca; lacaille.mjjc@forces.gc.ca;
templeman.jd@forces.gc.ca; macpherson.ma@forces.gc.ca; woollven.whj@forces.gc.ca;
mckinlay.em@forces.gc.ca; cann.aw@forces.gc.ca;Hurley.TG@forces.gc.ca;
Waatainen.EW@forces.gc.ca; Horvath.D@forces.gc.ca; Knight.S@forces.gc.ca;
Quinlan.HJP@forces.gc.ca; Stetina.MH@forces.gc.ca; Fenlon-Macdonald.CB@forces.gc.ca;
Hadaller.KF@forces.gc.ca; Henry.RK2@forces.gc.ca; Galway.FJ@forces.gc.ca;
Mills.DG@forces.gc.ca; Smith.SW5@forces.gc.ca; mckown.rn@forces.gc.ca;
riswold.jp@forces.gc.ca; gass.lr@forces.gc.ca; bogovics.tf@forces.gc.ca; Fisher.RA2@forces.gc.ca;
gibson.r@forces.gc.ca; steffen.lm@forces.gc.ca; perry.js2@forces.gc.ca; rcsupac.sea@cadets.net;
rcsupac.army@cadets.net; rcsupac.air@cadets.net; johnston.c@cadets.net; pash.gw@cadets.net;
rcpaocentral@cadets.net; rcpaoconnaught@cadets.net; rcpaotrenton@cadets.net;
rcpaoblackdown@cadets.net; rcpaokingston@cadets.net’; %2Brcismessages@forces.gc.ca; cfc-
cafc@cfc-cafc.gc.ca; HRRecruit_admin@cbc.ca; auditoire@radio-canada.ca; liaison@radio-canada.ca;
ombudsman@cbc.ca; ombudsman@radio-canada.ca; mediarelationscontacts@ic.gc.ca;
mellon.derek@ic.gc.ca; roy.jean-pierre@ic.gc.ca; bray.nancy@ic.gc.ca; williamson.brian@ic.gc.ca;
iannetta.julie@ic.gc.ca; asselin.francois-nicolas@ic.gc.ca; gibeault.marianne@ic.gc.ca;
Minister.Industry@ic.gc.ca; Minister_Ministre@hc-sc.gc.ca; mailto:SofS.Industry@ic.gc.ca;
dicerni.richard@ic.gc.ca; boothe.paul@ic.gc.ca; everson.peter@ic.gc.ca; carman.mary@ic.gc.ca;
beaudoin.alain@ic.gc.ca; veena.rawat@crc.ca; scott.sheridan@cb-bc.gc.ca; shaw.richard@ic.gc.ca;
merklinger.bill@ic.gc.ca; paquette.louise@ic.gc.ca; davies.mitch@ic.gc.ca; moloney.david@ic.gc.ca;
legault.pierre@ic.gc.ca; johnston.alan@ic.gc.ca; jenkin.michael@ic.gc.ca; callon.james@ic.gc.ca;
heseltine.nick@ic.gc.ca; king.matthew@ic.gc.ca; thivierge.marie-josee@ic.gc.ca;
lindsey.kevin@ic.gc.ca; parker.ron@ic.gc.ca; hearn.patricia@ic.gc.ca; marcoux.francois@ic.gc.ca;
goodwin.barry@ic.gc.ca; migadel.david@ic.gc.ca; drake.bruce@ic.gc.ca;
spurling.brian@ic.gc.ca;jean-rene.halde@bdc.ca; steve.maclean@space.gc.ca; mckenzie.michele@ctc-
cct.ca; sandra_simpson@ct-tc.gc.ca; vancisew@smtp.gc.ca; pierre.coulombe@nrc-cnrc.gc.ca;
suzanne.fortier@nserc.ca, exec@nserc.ca; chad.gaffield@sshrc.ca; hkrentz@scc.ca; pclark@scc.ca;
fellegi@statcan.ca; eliot.phillipson@innovation.ca; mgodbout@hodran.com;
jean-claude.gavrel@nce.gc.ca; OutreachNCR@forces.gc.ca; ndpaoatlantic@ns.aliantzinc.ca;ndpao-

pacific@shaw.ca; ndpaocal@nucleus.com; NDPAO@bellnet.ca; ndpao.mtl@videotron.ca;
info@gg.ca; Marjory.LeBreton@pco-bcp.gc.ca; prevention@ps.gc.ca; ccsa.admin@sympatico.ca;
symes@symesandstreet.com;
cawmb@caw.ca; windsor2@caw.ca; cawtbay@caw.ca;cawns2@caw.ca; stcaths@caw.ca;

confcentre@caw.ca; cawott@caw.ca; cawott@caw.ca; cawbc1@caw.ca; tca1@tca.qc.ca;
cawlond@caw.ca; cawcamb@caw.ca; JonquiereOffice@caw.ca; cawns1@caw.ca; bissonc@tca.qc;
chatham@caw.ca; caw@caw.ca; kneumann@usw.ca; dcoles@cep.ca; gmenard@scep.ca;
jfprimeau@cep.ca; pmurdoch@cep.ca; mouimet@scep.ca; rgagne@scep.ca; ecronk@cep.ca;
jrdoucet@nbnet.nb.ca; kginter@cep.ca; jedwards@cep.ca; dmacneil@cepwesternregion.ca;
wendysol@mts.net; dboucher@cep.ca; cep@sasktel.net; info@cep.ca; penny.fawcett@cep2289.ca;
cep.972@ns.sympatico.ca; mary.croke@nf.sympatico.ca; nopauley@pei.sympatico.ca; lgrenier@scep-
sl-qc.com; jacques042@sympatico.ca; jean-claude.rocheleau@tupcscep121.qc.ca;
julieferland74@videotron.ca; steve.wanless@onceplocal27.com; bjourdin@shaw.ca;
rob.gardner@sanofipasteur.com; optoman@rogers.com; sue-linda@rogers.com;
donna.fauchoux@sasktel.net; jjvelvet@shaw.ca; tdsschneider@sasktel.net; tdsschneider@sasktel.net;
redindiangrrl@yahoo.ca; terrim@nowtoronto.com; unionpri3@xplornet.com;
zipporahd0790@gmail.com; lhusambarnegatlight@gmail.com; olauradrums@gmail.com;

letters@canadafreepress.com; writemalkin@gmail.com; letters@washpost.com; americanmedia@rja-
ads.com;
ifj-okuda@nifty.com; ifj-tokyo@triton.ocn.ne.jp, gabriel.baglo@ifjafrique.org; ifjafrique@sentoo.sn;

anna.noonan@ifj-asia.org; sukumar.md@gmail.com; deborah.muir@ifj-asia.org; sam.grunhard@ifj-
asia.org; jaqui.park@ifj-asia.org;:ifj@ifj-asia.org; sntp@reacciun.ve; efj@ifj.org; ifj@ifj.org;
cjfe@cjfe.org; jpayne@cjfe.org;gillian@mediaprofile.com; info@worldsecurityinstitute.org;
uarb.polcom@gov.ns.ca; justweb@gov.ns.ca; gardinnl@gov.ns.ca; mayor@city.charlottetown.pe.ca;

Kdevine@city.charlottetown.pe.ca; dredmond@city.charlottetown.pe.ca;
rlantz@city.charlottetown.pe.ca; mitchell.tweel@pei.sympatico.ca;
smacfadyen@city.charlottetown.pe.ca;
rcollins@city.charlottetown.pe.ca;dmacdonald@city.charlottetown.pe.ca;
cvillard@city.charlottetown.pe.ca; pmccloskey@city.charlottetown.pe.ca;
mhilton@city.charlottetown.pe.ca; tbernard@city.charlottetown.pe.ca;
psmith@city.charlottetown.pe.ca;
gclow@city.charlottetown.pe.ca; commissioner@officiallanguages.nb.ca;media@ocabc.org;
inquiries@ocabc.org;
Feedback@worldbank.org; Fbelhaj@worldbank.org; cmuller@worldbank.org; Hbridi@worldbank.org;

osiemens@ifc.org;0Rnewfarmer@worldbank.org;Msherman@worldbank.org;
clampart@worldbank.org; Yduvivier@worldbank.org; Achuecamora@worldbank.org;
Palba@worldbank.org; Avaroudakis@worldbank.org; Nroberts@worldbank.org;
Gjedrzejczak@worldbank.org; Xzhu1@worldbank.org; Sbloemenkamp@worldbank.org;
Jbaahdwomoh@worldbank.org; Dtuchschneider@worldbank.org; Jbriscoe@worldbank.org;
Ffichtl@worldbank.org; Asow@worldbank.org; Nagrawal@worldbank.org; mrepnik@worldbank.org;
Jpantelic@worldbank.org; Gbergen@worldbank.org;DDollar@worldbank.org;
mlopez@worldbank.org; Jhappi@worldbank.org; Mibrahima@worlbank.org;
Bharborne@worldbank.org; Ahorvai@worldbank.org; Cmalmbergcalvo@worldbank.org;
Embi@worldbank.org; Jlovelace@worldbank.org; Kohashi@worldbank.org;
Ofremond@worldbank.org; Bjoof@worldbank.org; Vsouthworth@worldbank.org;
Mkarlsson@worldbank.org; Nsirur@worldbank.org; cpereira@worldbank.org;
plopez@worldbank.org; Mgbetibouo@worldbank.org; afozzard@worldbank.org;
Iguerrero@worldbank.org; Jvonamsberg@worldbank.org; sstolp@worldbank.org;
Zbadr@worldbank.org; whenry@worldbank.org; adixon@worldbank.org; Sshatalov@worldbank.org;
Cbruce@worldbank.org; Rnayak@worldbank.org; Rrobinson@worldbank.org;
Pillangovan@worldbank.org; Dba@worldbank.org; Cannorfrempong@worldbank.org;
Lgiovine@worldbank.org; Rblake@worldbank.org; Tgilbo@worldbank.org;
Adiawara@worldbank.org; Frantrua@worldbank.org; Avantrotsenburg@worldbank.org;
Mmarlett@worldbank.org; Asayed@worldbank.org; Fclottes@worldbank.org;
Mbaxter@worldbank.org; sgoldmark@worldbank.org; SUNDAY@CBC.CA;Jowen@worldbank.org;
Odiagana@worldbank.org; Hghanem@worldbank.org; Ycrookes@worldbank.org;
Bateng@worldbank.org; Prodriguez1@worldbank.org; Jnewman@worldbank.org;
Odebruynkops@worldbank.org; Krohland@worldbank.org; Kgeorgieva@worldbank.org;
Vkwakwa@worldbank.org; Pstephens1@worldbank.org; ibrockova@woldbank.org;
Rreinikka@worldbank.org; Nishii@worldbank.org; Afaiz@worldbank.org; Sagarwal@worldbank.org;
cdenizer@worldbank.org; Jmcintire@worldbank.org; Iporter@worldbank.org;
afranco@worldbank.org;Jbaahdwomoh@worldbank.org; ndiop@worldbank.org;
Uzachau@worldbank.org; Mbricknell@worldbank.org; Gyabrudy@worldbank.org;
Pbermingham@worldbank.org; Dyuravlivker@worldbank.org; Lbrefort@worldbank.org;
Achhibber@worldbank.org; Acraig@worldbank.org; Fhadadzervose@worldbank.org;
Mrouis@worldbank.org; Onyanin@worldbank.org; Nlenneiye@worldbank.org
rena@transparency.az; leginet@albaniaonline.net; aaccalgerie@yahoo.fr; julieta@poderciudadano.org;
office@ti-austria.at; info@transparency.am; amalia@transparency.am; sona@transparency.am;
tioz@transparency.org.au;
bahts@batelco.com.bh; edtib@ti-bangladesh.org; transparency.be@gmail.com; bdivjak@ti-bih.org;
bdivjak@transparency.org; info@ti-bih.org; mbox@transparency-bg.org; abuco@ymail.com;
ticameroon@yahoo.fr; ti-can@transparency.ca; chiletransparente@chiletransparente.cl;
dharasic@chiletransparente.cl; ctello@chiletransparente.cl; lianzheng@tsinghua.edu.cn;
comunicaciones@transparenciacolombia.org.co; transparencia@transparenciacolombia.org.co;
ti-croatia@transparency.hr; avela@transparency.hr; ondracka@transparency.cz;
sekretariatet@transparency.dk,
n.paulino@pciudadana.com; i.santana@pciudadana.c; mrodriguez@funde.org; tirat.ti@ethionet.et;
mcc@telecom.net.et; seo@transparencyfiji.org; antti.pihlajamaki@pp.inet.fi;antti.pihlajamaki@om.fi;
santeri.eriksson@transparency.fi; santeri.eriksson@utu.fi; transparence@online.fr;
tamuna@transparency.ge; office@transparency.de; tighana@4u.com.gh;
asyngros@hol.gr; tihellas@otenet.gr; acciongt@intelnet.net.gt; mtaran2@yahoo.fr;
admlfhh@yahoo.com; coordination@transparency.hu;
anupama@tiindia.in;anupama@transparencyindia.org; rwibowo@ti.or.id; ceo@ti-israel.org;
zlotnikov@transparencykazakhstan.org; natali_m@transparencykazakhstan.org; nnm_04@mail.ru;
transparency@tikenya.org;
ti@ti.or.kr; gs@ti.or.kr;peacebbs@hanmail.net; kdi.kosova@gmail.com;
salah.alshammari@transparency-kuwait.org;
fwc-ti@elcat.kg; TI@delna.lv; info@transparency-lebanon.org; liberiat@liberiatransparency.org;
sergejus@transparency.lt;
info@transparency.ee; tirat.ti@ethionet.et; amarearegawi@hotmail.com;mcc@telecom.net.et;
seo@transparencyfiji.org; antti.pihlajamaki@pp.inet.fi;
antti.pihlajamaki@om.fi; santeri.eriksson@transparency.fi;santeri.eriksson@utu.fi;
transparence@online.fr; info@transparency.ge; tamuna@transparency.ge; office@transparency.de;
tighana@4u.com.gh; asyngros@hol.gr; tihellas@otenet.gr; acciongt@intelnet.net.gt;
acciongt@intelnet.net.gt; mtaran2@yahoo.fr;
The Original Evidence
On June 30 2005 my former tenant Don Wilson, president and
director of BioSafe, a company I had invested in committed the act of fraud under the criminal code
regarding my shares in the company and other money he owed over $100,000 and filed
false and misleading information with the Ontario Rental Housing Tribunal to dispute the $8,000
he owed me in rent arrears, an offense under s.206 (2) of the Tenant Protection Act,
1997 
size=4>



 <A href="http://groups.google.com/group/charter-democracy-
force/web/MadGladmostlySadWHY.doc"> Mad Glad mostly Sad WHY?</A>


 Read first- the
original government crimes- refuse to file charges 
 
After exploring many avenues, York Regional Police,
OPP, RCMP, MPP, Ontario Attorney General, Premier, Legislature, MP...many others with no
help forthcoming I wrote the Toronto Sun presuming they would be interested in the story and help
me to get the justice guaranteed every individual equally of protection and benefits before and
under the law as provided in the Charter informing the people of the incompetent legal system
where the responses I received were just too incompetent to be believable of a legitimate legal
system.
It is imperative in ordeer to understand the
entire government corruption and conspiracy of organized crime documented and referenced on this
web site to thouroughly study the original evidence to competent coherency that I sent to
the Toronto Sun on October 8 2006 available at the following links
align=center>





 
align=center> <A
href="http://groups.google.com/group/charter-democracy-force/web/SunEditorOctober8%28Part
%201%29.doc">Sun Editor October 8 2006 (Part 1).doc</A> 
<A href="http://groups.google.com/group/charter-democracy-
force/web/SunEditorOctober8%28Part2%29.doc">Sun Editor October 8
2006 (Part 2).doc</A>
align=center>
 The original crimes committed at the ORHT by Don
Wilson president of Bio Safe 
Once you understand my former
tenant filed false and misleading information with the ORHT offense s.206 (2) Tenant Protection
Act, 1997 $43,000 and committed the criminal act of fraud over $100,000 as alleged at an
Ontario Rental Housing Tribunal before the judicator in a building financed by the people as part
of the legal system of Ontario for the purpose of administering justice in accordance with the
Constitution Act 1982 conducive to the individual's guarantee Charter rights you will know it is
incomprehensible that the ORHT would not commence or cause to commence proceedimgs against my
former tenant.
align=center>



 <A
href="http://groups.google.com/group/charter-democracy-force/web/LawyerFile1.doc">Lawyer File 1.doc</A>
The ORHT removed part of the recording
of the first day of the hearing June 30 2005 and the judicator announced at the beginning of the second
day of the hearing July 28 2005 that the hearing would not be recorded. The ORHT
refused to commence or cause to commence proceedings.
I have no doubt the Attorney General was consulted
prior to the July 28 2005 2nd day of the hearing explianing why part of the recording was removed
and why the second day of the hearing was not recorded
align=center>
 
The Attorney General is the adviser to Hon. John
Gerretsen Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing who was responsible to monitor compliance with
the Tenant Protection Act, 1997 who assigned the responsibility to the Investigations and
Enforcement Unit, Dave Grech, coordinator.
align=center>



 <A
color=#0000ff>Lawyer File 2.doc</A>
align=center>

 <A href="http://groups.google.com/group/charter-democracy-
force/web/DaveGrechcompiledcorrespondenceSeptember12007..doc">Dave
Grech compiled correspondence September 1 2007..doc</A>
Dave
Grech coordinator Investigations and Enforcement Unit of the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing refuses to file charges and it took me a month to finally get him to write explaining why. His response of September 6 2005 was incoherent to the evidence and
completely absurd . He refused to respond to faxes I sent to inform him of his
errors so I drove downtown to his office from Keswick and when he was unavailable to meet
with me I left another complete set of evidence with Roel Pascual of his office
including a copy of the recording of the Tribunal hearing of the first day June 30 2005. For some
reason they did not record the second day of the hearing July 28 2005.
Anyway Dave Grech never did respond staying firm with his ridiculous decision
incoherent to the evidence.
 
The evidence shows the
government personnel inducted into the investigative arena of the legal sector are seriously
impaired when evidence is intoduced to their environment where they know everything for
fact without the slightest idea of what a fact is.
 
Lord help us.... That was
foolish for everyone knows the Lord helps those who help themselves and I am of the opinion that just
as much would get done without his help.It's the thought that counts, Right?
 
Heaven knows the Government members of the Law
Societies have taken that advice and help themselves to the peoples money as they ransack
society, every which way possible, taking advantage of their positions of authority entrusted to them by
the people along with their money.
There is not one government department,
agency or law enforcement authority the people can complain to with positive results as they have
taken over the entire system to luxuriously benefit themselves structuring the system to
protect them from the victims that become aware of the conspiracy, including the media as you
will read in the evidence published and referenced on this site <A href="http://www.urus.ca/">www.uRus.ca</A> 
 

 &nbsp
; <A
color=#0000ff>Lawyer File 3.doc</A>
The Minister of Municipal
Affairs and Housing, Honourabl John Gerretsen was responsible to monitor compliance with the
Tenant Protection Act, 1997 back in June 2005 and responds September 26 2006 to my complaint
against the ORHT and Dave Grech coordinator Invstigations and Enforcement Unit of his Ministry that
he trusts Dave Grech despite the evidence and as for the ORHT they are independent of the
Government at arms length and he nor other government personnel can interfere with their
decisions.
The entire government system is designed and
controlled by the Government Organized Crime and they obviously do what ever the hell they want and
they simply do not want to intervene on behalf of this individual of the moral majority because after all
the system was designed on their behalf purposely intended to be detrimental to the moral
majority.
Obviously the ORHT operated under the auspices of
the Tenant Protection Act, 1997 and it would be impossible for the Mimister to monitor compliance
with the Act if he couldn't intervene.
The
crapola goes on and on as you already
know if you have been attentive with open mind and are an individual of the moral majority not in the
employ of the government whose minds have been significantly messed with influenced by the
conspirators biased by lavished government benefits and pensions financed by the moral majority who
can not afford the same for them selves.

Lawyer File 4.doc</A>
align=center>



 <A
href="http://groups.google.com/group/charter-democracy-force/web/Ombudsman.doc">Ombudsman.doc</A>
The Ombudsman is a venture into superfluity beyond
all comprehension which you will read from the very first response from Janet Ortved who can not
possibly be as dumb as she would have me believe as I originally wrote her Re: Ontario
Rental Housing Tribunal and went on to describe the issues I had with them and when
they refused to address the issues I described the innitiatives I took to have them comply with the
law.Janet writes stating the limitations of authority of the Ombudsman not at all what their web site
would have us believe and then she goes on to state however they do have authority to deal with the
ORHT but my complaint doesn't appear to be about them. Man, I knew this was going to be another
venture into futility but anyway I wrote her a Dick and Jane hoping she would Spot the
unconsciousness of her response and wake up and at first I thought maybe so,
but then demonstrated her incompetence to investigate which of course she already had, not being
coherent in the original complaint. It appears she can read and write devoid of thought which is
somewhat of a challenge in itself but no cudos for that.
Her idea of investigating is to phone and ask the
ORHT who I complained about if they were guilty of the complaint and of couse they said no and since
I had also received a similar response from Dave Grech of the Investigations and
Enforcement Unit as I indicated in my e-mail and the matter is closed.
The same mode of operandi as the Law Society of
Upper Canada demonstrated where evidence doesn't seem to have any purposeful
meaning to them.
I shouldn't say doesn't seem to for it is readily apparent
throughout the government correspondence as they digress somewhere to happier times irrelevant to
the serious issues presented them.
Anyone who has had unfortune perchanced
upon them necessitating contact with government personnel, lawyers and such know well the benefits
of dropping acid or some other halucinary means of communication and thank God the trip only
lasts a few hours where theirs is a permanent state necessary to communicate with each other
who are observed to do quite well. 
Recent telephone conversation with a RCMP Staff
Sergeant investing my complaint of 2 members of the RCMP refusing to investigate government
corruption and conspiracy evidence on my web sites who had phoned to see if I could drive down to his
office to discuss the complaint revealed that same, "what the hell has the evidence got to do with the
complaint attitutude".
It was revealed through the conversation that he was
not investigating the government conspiracy but the complaint itself so I immediatelly withdrew my
offer to meet him.He said he had been on the case for about 3 weeks, not all the time though because he
has lots of other cases to work on as well. I asked if he had looked at my web site where the complaint
informed the evidence was, but no he hadn't. I asked what's to investigate about the complaint, I
state the 2 members refused to investigate and if he questions them they are going to agree, case solved.
I told him you will have to go on my web site and look at the evidence to determine if it is a valid
complaint.
I informed him that he must determine if the complaint
is trivial, frivolous or vexatious and the only way to determine that is to study the evidence. I read the
trivial, frivilous and vexatious off the pamphlet the Commission for Public Complaints against the
RCMP provided me . So anyway I believe he sees the usefulness of the evidence relative to the
complaint but I fear if he could not determine that on his own there will be many elementary
deductions he will miss resulting in favour of the 2 members of the RCMP. When in doubt the
government forces are always right and indubitably are incompetently trained for how
else could the government conspiracy persist. It would be prudent to mention that the 2 RCMP
members are acting under orders from above and assuredly did not make the decision on their
own.
There will be a whole lot more on this to follow but I
would like to present the facts in orderly fashion.
align=center> 
align=center>


 <A
color=#0000ff>Lawyer File 7.doc</A>
align=center>


Attorney General Michael Bryant
align=center>

 Roles and Responsibilities of the Attorney General (Pages 9-12)
 
As chief law
officer, the Attorney General has a special
responsibility to be the guardian of that most
elusive concept - the rule of law. The rule of law is a well established legal principle, but hard to easily define. It is the rule of law that protects individuals, and society as a
whole, from arbitrary measures and safeguards
personal liberties. 
Obviously the "Roles and Responsibilities of the Attorney
General" are inconsitent with the Constitution incompetent to protect every individual as
guaranteed.
This has been thoroughly covered on (The Law)
page. 
 
Original evident that was presented at the ORHT hearing was sent to
the Sun Editor October 8 2006 in a two part document available at the following links. 
Please study to competent coherency. 
<A href="http://charter-democracy-
force.googlegroups.com/web/SunEditorOctober8%28Part%201%29.doc">http://charter-democracy-force.googlegroups.com/web/SunEditorOctober8%28Part
%201%29.doc</A> 
<A href="http://charter-democracy-
force.googlegroups.com/web/SunEditorOctober8%28Part2%29.doc">http://charter-democracy-
force.googlegroups.com/web/SunEditorOctober8%28Part2%29.doc</A>

Know The Law Truth Is The Power

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Know The Law Truth Is The Power

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Know the Law Truth is the Power

<P><FONT size=3>&nbsp;</FONT><FONT face="Comic Sans MS" size=4><STRONG>Know "The

<P><STRONG><FONT size=4><STRONG><FONT size=4>Case of the two bald faced

Law Society of Upper Canad 4th page

<P><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Times">November 29 2008<?xml:namespace

unionpri3@xplornet.com;ltgov@gov.on.ca; justice.comments@gnb.ca; valerie.kilfoil@gnb.ca;

cdavis@relevantknowledge.com; Christopherson.D@parl.gc.ca; charrf@sen.parl.gc.ca;

editor@tor.sunpub.com; ernie.hardeman@pc.ola.org; elizabeth.witmer@pc.ola.org;

gilla@sen.parl.gc.ca; goldsy@sen.parl.gc.ca; grafsj@sen.parl.gc.ca; gustal@sen.parl.gc.ca;

jbradley.mpp@liberal.ola.org; julia.munroco@pc.ola.org; jcrivest@sen.parl.gc.ca;

mcolle.mpp@liberal.ola.org; mmeilleur.mpp.co@liberal.ola.org; mkwinter.mpp@liberal.ola.org;

Prentice.J@parl.gc.ca; pfonseca.mpp.co@liberal.ola.org; pepinl@sen.parl.gc.ca;

pkormos-qp@ndp.on.ca; prevention@ps.gc.ca; prognosticatingw371@mobilemessage.com;

info@flsc.ca; jherman@flsc.ca; fwilson@flsc.ca; kwillfed@aol.com;

PoiliP@parl.gc.ca; robin.roberts@cpc-cpp.gc.ca; Ritz.G@parl.gc.ca;

smithd@sen.parl.gc.ca; smithc@sen.parl.gc.ca; sibnic@sen.parl.gc.ca; spivam@sen.parl.gc.ca;

licia.corbella@calgarysun.com; info@vivelecanada.ca; nphlstatistician@hotmail.com;

keithbainmla@ns.sympatico.ca; bakermg@gov.ns.ca; barnetbe@gov.ns.ca; mlashelburne@eastlink.ca;

bob@aaron.ca; ranand@weirfoulds.com; lbanack@kmlaw.ca; cbredt@blgcanada.com;

aitken.melanie@cb-bc.gc.ca; Constance.Backhouse@uOttawa.ca; jbraithwaite@weaversimmons.com;

Shawn.Graham@gnb.ca; John.Foran@gnb.ca; Victor.Boudreau2@gnb.ca; Denis.Landry2@gnb.ca;

wally.stiles@gnb.ca; ed.doherty@gnb.ca; kelly.lamrock@gnb.ca; roland.hache@gnb.ca;

webmaster@legassembly.sk.ca; info@legassembly.sk.ca; communications.justice@justice.gouv.qc.ca;

george.abbott.mla@leg.bc.ca; robin.austin.mla@leg.bc.ca; harry.bains.mla@leg.bc.ca;

shirley.bond.mla@leg.bc.ca; jagrup.brar.mla@leg.bc.ca; gordon.campbell.mla@leg.bc.ca;

ron.cantelon.mla@leg.bc.ca; ida.chong.mla@leg.bc.ca; raj.chouhan.mla@leg.bc.ca;

mike.dejong.mla@leg.bc.ca; adrian.dix.mla@leg.bc.ca; corky.evans.mla@leg.bc.ca;

mike.farnworth.mla@leg.bc.ca; rob.fleming.mla@leg.bc.ca; scott.fraser.mla@leg.bc.ca;

john.horgan.mla@leg.bc.ca; al.horning.mla@leg.bc.ca; olga.ilich.mla@leg.bc.ca;

charlie.wyse.mla@leg.bc.ca; john.yap.mla@leg.bc.ca; lwilliamson@ombudsman.on.ca;

adamsw@sen.parl.gc.ca ; andrer@sen.parl.gc.ca ; anguswd@sen.parl.gc.ca ; atkinn@sen.parl.gc.ca ;

randy.walsh@rcmp-grc.gc.ca; CPCregistrar@rcmp-grc.gc.ca; cpc-ccp@rcmp-grc.gc.ca; library@rcmp-

jean-claude.gavrel@nce.gc.ca; OutreachNCR@forces.gc.ca; ndpaoatlantic@ns.aliantzinc.ca;ndpao-

cawmb@caw.ca; windsor2@caw.ca; cawtbay@caw.ca;cawns2@caw.ca; stcaths@caw.ca;

zipporahd0790@gmail.com; lhusambarnegatlight@gmail.com; olauradrums@gmail.com;

ifj-okuda@nifty.com; ifj-tokyo@triton.ocn.ne.jp, gabriel.baglo@ifjafrique.org; ifjafrique@sentoo.sn;

uarb.polcom@gov.ns.ca; justweb@gov.ns.ca; gardinnl@gov.ns.ca; mayor@city.charlottetown.pe.ca;

Feedback@worldbank.org; Fbelhaj@worldbank.org; cmuller@worldbank.org; Hbridi@worldbank.org;

You might also like

<P><FONT size=3> </FONT><FONT face="Comic Sans MS" size=4><STRONG>Know "The