Men’s natures are alike

The Befuddlement Continues

Canadian It’s their habits that take them far apart

The law brings them together

December 25
2007

Moral Majority

Constitution Act, 1982

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms
Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law

Guarantee of Rights and Freedoms

1. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such
reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.
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.
7. Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in
accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.
15. (1) Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of
the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour,
religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.
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.

The Constitution (document) recognizes the supremacy of God being the spirit of the moral majority
The Constitution (establishment) is of the “Mightier than thou and the Law” spirit

The Guardians of the Canadian’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms is a civilian alliance organizing in the
spirit of the law and God to eradicate the “Mightier than thou and the Law” spirit of the establishment

The Guardian’s initiative is to inform to reform the deformed establishment to conform to the law

1
 The human body is inherently persistently demanding
The human mind pretty much understanding

The majority know of God and Jesus, Merry Christmas by the way, they know what’s naughty or nice,
whether they have been bad or good, good at being bad or bad at being good and those people in the legal
profession have got it down pat.

They have a number for this and a number for that, catalogued with prices that make then fat.

The Attorney General presumably above average, would know well of the individual’s guaranteed
Charter rights.
I have good reason to believe the Prime Minister has a good idea about this kind of stuff too.

It’s actually kind of simple and 2500 years ago Confucius put it this way.

“Do not do to others what you would not have done to yourself.”
“Recompense injury with justice, and recompense kindness with kindness”

Coincidentally being Christmas and all with Jesus knowing best of the aspirations attributed to God, who
happens to be recognized as supreme by the supreme law of Canada which includes the Canadian Charter
of Rights and Freedoms which has provisions guaranteeing every individual equality of protection and
benefit without discrimination in all matters before and under the law which is consistent with the
aspirations attributed to God which couldn’t be explained easier than the way Jesus put it.

Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

Credence must be to that which is least likely mistaken by humankind and what possibly could be least
mistaken as to that one statement to cover the book of what is meant by the Charter.

If that doesn’t quite do it you can revert back to Confucius who was known for his
wisdom, but in this case even the dumbest can’t mistake the meaning.

“Do not do to others what you would not have done to yourself.”
“Recompense injury with justice, and recompense kindness with kindness”

The document Law Society of Upper Canada Part 1 Part 2 published on my web site
http://groups.google.com/group/guardians-of-the-canadians-charter-of-rights-and-freedoms is quite
convincing and in fact indicative of the manner in which justice is dealt with by the legal professionals
adverse to the law, 180 degrees opposite, unequivocally, undeniably inconsistent with the individual’s
guaranteed Charter rights where sanity prevails it would have taken 2 days at most to determine a lawyer
Gregory Mulligan terminated my contract illegally citing a contract with a completion date which I did
not meet where there is no completion date on the contract and in fact the contract stated I would be
finished my obligations when the owner was satisfied and told me I was finished.

2
The 2 part Law Society of Upper Canada document proves beyond any perception of doubt justice is not
their intent and how could it possibly be from purported to be legal professionals who admit either stated
or implied they do not give a damn about the individual’s guaranteed Charter rights.

They even state evidence has nothing to do with their decisions.

Of course it doesn’t because they are a Society of crooks looking out for each other.

I wonder who finances their office and staff.

They informed me according to their lawyers rules of conduct Gregory Mulligan did nothing wrong.

The following was extracted from the Law Society of Upper Canada Lawyers Rules of Conduct.

(103) Interpretation
(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.

It seems to me that it is law these people deal with regarding their conduct so they must be possessed of
the evil spirit having condoned Greg’s actions.

Of course as you all know this is not just an isolated incident as all the evidence shows on the web sites.

It does show the members of the Law Society of Upper Canada do not give a damn about the individual’s
guaranteed Charter rights

The Canadian Bar Association doesn’t give a damn either because I e-mailed every Canadian Office
providing them all the evidence and my web sites asking them to review the evidence to see if the actions
of the Government lawyers were acceptable by them and I also requested they deal with Gregory
Mulligan but I take no response as a yes, they condone their actions.

“There were no dates in this history, but scrawled this way and that across every page
were the words BENEVOLENCE, RIGHTEOUSNESS, and MORALITY… finally I
began to make out what was written between the lines; the whole volume was filled with
a single phrase: EAT PEOPLE”

There can be no mistaking what Confucius meant just as there can be no mistake as to the consistency
of Stockwell Day’s e-mail to me November 2 2007 modeled to “EAT PEOPLE” so to speak with an
explanation why the RCMP pension fund scandal put before the Standing Committee of Public Accounts
was given to a Task Force to deal with, out of the public eye when a Public Inquiry was obviously
required when the scandal was linked to the DOJ.

The Task Force has provided it’s report to the RCMP but I doubt there is anything in it about the DOJ.
I wonder if the subject was even brought up. My evidence was sent to the Task Force making reference
to the RCMP- DOJ connection plus the obvious connection to the government conspiracy my documents
evidences.
The evidence is overwhelming that the legal profession and government do not give a damn about the
individual’s guaranteed Charter rights proving irrefutably the government is corrupt and in on a
conspiracy against the moral majority.

3
 Reality is clear to grasp when you are sane and innocent.

Thieves work under the cover of darkness whether it be night or day indicating they knew well of which
they do.
They will persistently proclaim their innocence.

The Roles and Responsibilities of the Attorney General attest to his Office’s leadership role in the
conspiracy against the people whereas the Attorney General is guardian of the rule of law- not the people
which is incomprehensible under the Charter whereas he also had a constitutional responsibility?

The Roles and Responsibilities of the Attorney General

Prior to the 1982 enactment of the Constitution Act, 1982 perhaps was valid indicative of the
unscrupulous ways of the powers that be of the day where the Office of the chief law officer of the
Executive Council was “judicial like” and the “guardian of the public interest”

“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.”

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.

Prior to the 1982 enactment the Attorney General’s Office had somewhat of a balancing act

Moral “judicial like” Unscrupulous

“guardian of the public interest” traditional

are legally and constitutionally valid. guardian of that most elusive concept
- the rule of law.
well established legal principle, but hard
to easily define

Obviously the Attorney General traditionally guarded – the rule of law- a well established legal principle
which was an elusive concept but hard to easily define. The rule of law that protects individuals, and
society as a whole,

How well could individuals and society as a whole be protected under such a law?

Finally, with the 1982 enactment of the Constitution and the inclusion of the Canadian Charter of Rights
and Freedoms the law guaranteed the individual’s protection clearly defining the rights removing the
ambiguities and the elusiveness.

4
 Traditionally
Pirates pirated and lawyers pirated

Pirates could have hung up their swords and the Attorney General could have stopped guarding the
elusive concept, -the rule of law-a well established legal principle, but hard to easily define but he
chose not to.

He chose to remain immoral in continuity providing the lawyers and government with easy pickings
robbing the unsuspecting moral and innocent.

They did so simply because they had the advantage and chose to do so thusly defining their immoral
unscrupulous character.

Common Sense

Progress is hopelessly restrained when tradition is maintained

If it wasn’t for the ability to break tradition we could possibly be cavemen still or riding around on horses
playing a realistic game of cowboys and Indians.

When you look back in history you can’t help but think how ignorant we humans were yet today wars go
on and perhaps it is because some people’s were not so adept to moral change, retarded in time so to
speak.

It is human nature not to want to give up what you already have but when people become more
knowledgeable and understanding realizing what they have was gained in barbarian fashion their
conscience should take over especially if they claim to be morally astute.

Many are reluctant and would rather be bi-moral averring their morality but displaying their immorality
in debate claiming it’s the principle of the thing which is a circular event difficult to dismount.

Reality is the truth impervious to perception yet precisely due to perception

The Constitution Act, 1982: Document

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms

The document signified the progress of moral thought enacting it into law with reluctance and perhaps
wanting of better verbiage than –the rule of law- but that was the traditional words commonly used and
perhaps used out of habit but ultimately with the inclusion of the individual’s Charter rights, guaranteed
no less it became incumbent upon the administers and enforcers of the law to discard their traditional
ways and restructure the legal system in continuity consistent with and conducive to the support of the
guarantee to each and ever individual as provided in the Charter.

The moral majority see the immoral minority for precisely what they are as pirates are precisely what
they are, but pirates and lawyers remain the same and their success is due the inability of the law
enforcement to contain them. Pirating has always been illegal and immorally wrong but due the vastness
of the open seas provides them with a great advantage over the police.

5
Lawyers and the legal system is a different story but ultimately the consequences are unequivocally
pirating because they can get away with it but for different reasons.

They are organized and hold positions of authority but hold the same reluctance as pirates to give up their
lucrative mainstay of unscrupulous values forcing themselves on the innocent moral just because
they can.

There is quite a befuddlement here to the police as well imagined where they don’t make the laws as they
say, they just enforce them, or so they believe but unfortunately to enforce the law you must know the
law and there they fail miserably but naturally or traditionally or habitually so, as you will.

They presume the legal professionals are of integrity and given they consult with the Office of the top
man, the Attorney General or his agents, Crown Attorneys they have good reason to believe they are
getting top notch advice especially since the Attorney General is so influential with the legal system.

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. "

Quite understandable as you can see and the people would surely understand because after all they are
not experienced in law having other fields of endeavor.

But the police, that’s a different story. This is what they do for a living and the upper echelon should
have a reasonable grasp of the law. Right?

If we refer back to pages 1 and 2 where Common Sense is presumed we see that the concept of law is
actually quite simple so where’s the problem?

Well to begin with as the police could tell you they are taught in the early stages of their career that the
law has nothing to do with common sense.

6
That of course is absurd because how could the general public possibly be expected to
comply if the law wasn’t reasonable and easily understood by the masses.

Of course one could offer that the laws are purposely ambiguously written as cash cows for the
government and lawyers and I dare say they are with the whole legal system being designed by the legal
profession with due regard to their benefit being a special interest group and in fact in conflict of interest
of the moral majority and the law itself which we know to true as detailed on pages 1 and 2 but of course
that requires common sense, absent in the police curriculum as they start out in their careers naïve to the
working world as we all are and we simply believe and trust in those people showing us the way.
So if common sense has got nothing to do with the law then common sense has got nothing to do with the
law.

It doesn’t come easy for them for they are sane but as they put the years in it acquiesces and by the time
they get comfortable and feeling competent as to what they are doing having a great deal of experience as
to what the courts have accepted, the “threshold” a term used by the police defining an arbitrary invisible
separator as to what is required for a successful prosecution.

In the response from Bruce Herridge, Deputy Chief of the York Regional Police dated January 10 2006
(see pages 13 and 14 Lawyer File # 7) he states the police are often frustrated when they take cases akin
to mine before the courts which should raise a flag but having adopted the no common sense ideology
they use it as a learning experience as they eventually become the utmost authority on the subject as per
Inspector Karen Knoakes # 440 of the YRP response dated October 13 2006 which can be found in
Lawyer File # 10 pages 7 and 8.

Obviously the government set out the education curriculum for the police which would be presumed
reasonable if they were not corrupt and in on a conspiracy against the people but you can see how the
conspiracy has thrived under their watch.

Perhaps the astute catch a glimpse at some of these red flags but what are they going to do? They are not
about to mess with there pensions are they?

Not too long ago I was introduced to a YRP officer off duty who I told a little about what was going on
with the government corruption and asked if he would look at the evidence on my web site but he
wouldn’t have any of that because he was concerned about his pension.

You will also note the Bruce Herridge YRP response that he identified the problem to be with the
legislature and at the end of his comments he promised he would certainly keep my concerns in mind and
when asked for his comments he would reiterate my concerns.

I immediately responded to his letter if his officers have often been frustrated by the courts when they
present such evidence as mine which don’t meet the “threshold” which they have learned from
experience over time has he not brought up these concerns before when he was asked for comments and
if not why not? Obvious questions of an alert curious mine which one might presume of an investigative
authority but alas that is not to be found in the government personnel who hang firm with what they have
come to believe they know to be true.

The Ontario Ombudsman Janet Ortved is a prime example of ignorance at its best of what I presumed to
be an investigative authority. See Lawyer File # 4 pages 8- 18. She just asks the ORHT whom I
originally complained about if they were guilty without looking at the evidence consistent with the way
the Law Society of Upper Canada makes decisions.

7
What the hell have facts got to do with anything they imply? This is referenced on page 3

On page 14 I request G.Carlino to explain, why out of the blue after not responding to me over two
months phones to say they are continuing to review the evidence. That was December 7 2006 not long
after I filed a complaint about the YRP with the Civilian Commission on Police Services Nov.15 2007

G. Carlino responded February 2 2007 steadfast to course. see document

(2)            Government Correspondence compiled Sept 1 2007.doc pages 24- 26 on web site
http://groups.google.com/group/peoples-law-society

Truly the Ombudsman has no idea about what would be considered professional investigative practice.
They like other government departments and agencies just parrot or echo what other government offices
have stated without looking at or being coherent to the evidence I presented.

Obviously intent on backing each other and I highly suspect the Ontario Attorney General was
orchestrating the responses. After all he is the chief law officer of the Executive Council and they all
were provided with the 15 Lawyer Files of which Lawyer File # 7 was addressed to him.

Again I can go on and on and everyone will be in concurrence with the Ontario Attorney General who is
responsible for said provincial matters who has refused to deal with the issues relative to the Constitution
and the individual’s guaranteed Charter rights and the Ministry of Justice and Attorney General of
Canada responds January 22 2007 stating the Constitution of Canada divides jurisdiction between
Federal and provincial governments and each level has autonomy to act within its sphere of jurisdiction.
The Parliament of Canada is responsible for enacting Federal law, while administering those laws is a
provincial responsibility. (See following page… Pg 9)

I have written the Ministry of Justice and Attorney General of Canada on several occasions since and in
particular document (1) To:      Randy Craig Det Sergeant OPP Anti-Rackets Preamble Federal
correspondence Recap October 9 2007.doc  on the aforesaid web site
http://groups.google.com/group/peoples-law-society contains correspondence sent to the Minister and a
preponderance of Ontario Government personnel referenced within the said document irrefutably proving
the Province of Ontario have refused to accept their responsibly to back the individual’s guaranteed
Charter rights which ultimately means it is up to the Federal Government to see they comply with said
responsibility and barring that it is the responsibility of the grantor of the guarantee of the provisions of
the Charter which is the Federal Government of whom I have also informed a prodigious number of
Federal personnel also referenced in the said document which includes the Minister of Justice and
Attorney General of Canada Robert Nicholson.

Various government offices persistently state they can not get involved with personal matters or give
personal advice as the Ministry of Justice suggests on the following page where he is the governments
chief legal advisor.

This is not a personal matter I reiterate upon reiteration.

It is about the refusal of the Ontario Government in particular the Attorney General to accept his
constitutional responsibility which assuredly means to back the individual’s guarantee provided by the
Charter and ultimately the Constitution is a Federal law which divided up the jurisdiction, signed, sealed
and delivered the guarantee to the people. I can most assuredly state I have no authority to compel the
Province of Ontario to abide by the Constitution but I do have the ability to adequately inform and
provide the irrefutable evidence to the Federal Government for them to deal with their responsibility.
Been there done that as previously stated and the ball is in the Federal government court. Act now.
8
9
The evidence irrefutably proves that which I have persistently and consistently alleged that the
legal system has been irresponsibly and illegitimately designed by lawyers for lawyers benefit
whereas the Federal Government refuses to back the individual’s guarantee of the Charter and has
the audacity to pass the buck to the individual to back his or her own guarantee providing
financial support to the lawyers providing a lucrative business to the legal profession all who are
monitored by the Law Society of Upper Canada or associates who have admitted or implied their
members do not give a damn about the individual’s guaranteed Charter rights.

They went on to demonstrate that fact and further stated or implied they do not give a damn about
evidence or the law as every government department or agency clearly demonstrated.

The RCMP Commissioner is now due to provide evidence of his part in the conspiracy and the
Armed Forces have been provided a second chance to dispel the fact the evidence shows that they
do not give a damn about the individual’s of Canada, the Canadian people.

The Canadian people finance the Armed Forces and they have allowed the government
conspirators to take on initiatives beneficial to the government and legal profession to the
humongous detriment of the moral majority who fund them.

This is immediately and consistently apparent throughout all the documentation presented which
goes unnoticed by all the government personnel and agencies which are designed into the system
competent to the benefit of the immoral minority

How obvious does it have to be for you to recognize and be cognizant to and coherent to “how it
actually is” and how it is supposed to be in accordance with the law relative to the guarantee to
every individual equally.

The statistics them self show that the rich keep getting richer and the poor getting poorer.

Everybody needs a job but once you get it you must do it for the purpose intended and in the case
of government, legal professions, enforcement and the Armed Forces is for the benefit of the
moral majority to the detriment of the immoral minority.

You guys have put the moral majority under friendly fire so to speak and not bloody well
appreciated.

I hope it is just ignorance and not deliberate and if so do an about face and turn your efforts on the
enemy.

I reiterate once again that the document Law Society of Upper Canada Part 1 Part 2 is typical
or a template of how the entire legal system is operated.

If the Minister of Justice and Attorney General was the responsible person required to be
competent and irreproachable as required to structure a system consistent and conducive to the
individual’s guaranteed Charter rights he would have jumped on the issues more than a year ago
and the Prime Minister’s enactment of the Accountability Act, 2006 in response to the evidence I
presented him before he was elected for obvious reason to have the people believe he is dealing
with the issues when actually is not and doing it only to ease the pressure and after putting the Act
in place I presented the evidence again to him and the various new agencies and committees
which did absolutely nothing proving the superfluity of the exercise.

10
In earlier writings I suggested the report from the RCMP Commissioner was due around now but has been
proven to be a fallacy being no surprise for as stated previously they are caught up in the conspiracy due
their ignorance and understanding of the law and their trust in the conspirators whose success is dependent
on having the key players on side.

They are trained in a manner consistent with the conspiracy inconducive to the individual’s guaranteed
Charter rights and if they were competent to the Charter rights they would understand immediately that a
person committing fraud right in front of a judicator in a building financed by the people to administer and
enforce justice can not be allowed to let such a criminal act to occur unpunished.

On December 21 2007 a Bob Macadam of the RCMP phoned me around 2 PM and we talked 15 minutes
or more.

He wanted some more information and I asked had he not viewed the evidence on my web sites as
instructed on the complaint.

H said no and I asked how long he had been on the case when he answered about 3 weeks but not all the
time because he had other cases.

I asked if he was aware that I was expecting the report from the RCMP Commissioner when he said no.

I told him according to the letter I received from the Commission For Public Complaints Against The
RCMP dated November 8 2007 under the RCMP Act the Commissioner was required to acknowledge
receipt of the complaint within 45 days and then give me a report every 30 days.

I did get an acknowledgement from the Professional Standards Unit of the RCMP dated November 16
2007 and I tentatively presumed this is normal procedure even though the letter clearly stated the
Commissioner had 45 days to acknowledge receipt. See page 12.

So presuming the November 16 2007 date plus 30 days, I would expect the first report on December 16 +
or – 5 days in the mail making it about the 21s,t the day Bob phoned me.

Bob asked if I could meet at his office next Friday to get some more information.

He explained to me that he wasn’t doing the government conspiracy investigation but was just
investigating the complaint.

I said you want me to come down there in a week just to discuss the complaint.

What’s to discuss I said, I filed a complaint that the RCMP refused to investigate government conspiracy
and all you need do is talk to Sgt. Steinebach and he’ll tell you it’s true and case solved.

Damn government help are something else but I have been with government for 24 years and am quite
aware. 3 weeks on the job already although not all the time he said which just required Sgt. Steinebach to
confirm that he did indeed refuse to investigate the government conspiracy as has Sgt Michael Thomson
who I have been providing evidence to.

I told Bob what to do is go on my web sites and look at the evidence to see if it justifies an investigation
which it most irrefutably does and then investigate the government conspiracy.

The investigation is actually already done with the evidence already provided them.

11
So he agreed to do that but may call me. Anyway so much for that 30 day thing so lets have a look at what
day I should expect acknowledgement of receipt of the complaint from the RCMP Commissioner being 45
days from November 16 2007 which means it should be here about December 31 2007 and allow 5 days
meaning it should be here on January 5/08 ? Correction, not November 8th 2007 as –mailed.

Who knows when it will come

because after all, they are all of
the “Mightier than thou and the
law” philosophy Right?
Frank Gallagher

Over their heads

See page 14

12
13
 Received
Dec.23 2007

As predicted

Limited authority and competence to

deal with the issues

Consistent with incompetence is the

unnecessary burden placed on the
public

14