From: Frank Gallagher [mailto:franklyone@hotmail.

com]
Sent: Wednesday, May 30, 2007 12:37 AM
To: 'Baker, George'
Subject: Re: Response to....
Hi…..What is your name?

Re: Response to

Why do you not pursue a civil remedy?

This matter is not about money.

Crimes were committed and the money is gone and the criminal walks the streets.
There is nothing for me to retrieve. I am just another victim with no money and no voice

I am closing in on 64 and not up to starting over again. I am not about to put my house on the line to
acquire a lawyer to protect the publics interest as guaranteed by the Charter which is ultimately the
responsibility of the Attorney General.

The fact is I now find I am probably going to have to sell and scale down to a meager life, which should
be better than the past 2 years, to finish off my life which is a reality that occurs over and over again
unnoticed because nobody cares about the individual who hasn’t money to buy anyone’s concern.

I am requesting this matter be looked into for the benefit of the people of Canada who will find
themselves in the same absurd state due to people like Don who are allowed to do what they do, by
the people who are financed in particular to deter and eradicate such immorality from society in support
of the Spirit of the Constitution and the protection of each and every individual in society.

This matter must be brought to the public’s attention so it can be dealt with and the modus operandi
and attitude of the establishment personnel be adjusted to deal with the individuals guaranteed rights
realistically in a manner so as the establishment can prove due diligence to that endeavor with intent to
prevent crimes before they occur.

It’s about the guaranteed protection of the individual and other matters of the Constitution.

Even when Don was evicted and ordered to vacate my premises on August 18 2004 he called to ask if
he could stay a few more days and laughed his head on when I said definitely not and if he wasn’t out
on the 19th I would head to the Sherriff’s Office and have him removed as per the Order.

While still laughing he told me I didn’t have a clue how the law worked and hung up.

The next day I went to the Sherriff’s office as the Tribunal Order stated to have Don removed as the
paper said the Sherriff was directed to remove him.

I now see why Don was laughing because the Sherriff’s office demanded $330 from me before they
would obey the Order.

That gave me a bit of a laugh because the other crook, Don Wilson had already beat me to all my
money.

Don disobeyed the Order and I am forced to come up with the money before I can get him out of my
house where he is trespassing by Tribunal Order.

It just goes on and on, and the evidence proves irrefutably the establishment is not of the Spirit of the
Constitution and I reiterate he is still on the street doing what he does and spreading the word that it’s
okay, the law doesn’t give a damn about the individual.
Only the one’s who can assemble the masses.
I have an abundance of correspondence to prove irrefutably all that I state to be true.

It is quite difficult to perceive the government is there for the benefit of a moral society when they
condone such crimes in the public buildings financed to administer justice in the land.

The criminal act and the offence under section 206(1) was committed before the judiciary and the
evidence was used to find for me but the fact is he was just let free to go to continue in his immoral
ways and while doing so spread the word that it’s okay to commit such crimes as far as the
establishment is concerned.

The personnel of the establishment named in Lawyer Files #s 1-3 are guilty of an offense under s.206
(2) Tenant Protection Act, 1997 and if you have read the evidence in the letter to the Toronto Sun
dated October 8 2006 you will know it is irrefutable to the fact that Don Wilson did commit the Offense
under s.206 (1) of the Act.

Under section 200 the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, Hon John Gerretsen is responsible to
monitor compliance with the Act and he has refused to as documented in Lawyer Files 1-3

The HUGE question is why have they declined to commence or cause to commence proceedings in
this matter?
Why did the ORHT remove information from the recording?
Why was the second day of the hearing not recorded?
Why did Rick Hennessey, ORHT respond as he did?
Why did Dave Grech……..

I have attached a copy of a letter to Randy Craig of the OPP Anti-Rackets dated November 17 2006
which should shed a little more light.

In that endeavor I am also sending attachments: To Michael Bryant dated October 16 2006 and
October 17 2006.

I am sparing you the BLACK BOOK file referenced in these documents which is 271 pages in all but it
is available upon request.

Any other thoughts or questions that may come to mind are already answered in other documents
which I will be pleased to forward you.

I am quite pleased with your attentiveness to my concerns.

Thank you

Frank Gallagher

PS

I will search my files for others which should be of particular interest at this time.

From: Baker, George [mailto:BAKERG@SEN.PARL.GC.CA]

Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2007 4:24 PM
To: Frank Gallagher
Subject: RE: Layer Files 10-12

Mr. Gallagher: We have now received the files you referenced. I will be giving them to the Senator to
study. However, there is one question that I have for you which I feel certain he will ask. The question
is this: Why do you not pursue a civil remedy? In other words why would you not sue the man for
damages amounting to what you have proof he owes to you, and further damages relating to your
suffering because of him, and further for your costs of hiring a lawyer? Did you consult a lawyer – civil
– on this matter? If a civil lawyer feels that you have a good case they sometimes agree to take the
case for no money from you but would receive with your agreement a percentage of the total final
judgment of the court against the man. This is the normal procedure followed in cases such as this
when the police refuse to lay charges themselves. People who are in similar circumstances to yours
sometimes have to visit several lawyers before they find one who will accept their case. There are
many cases like yours reported (Quicklaw) where civil actions have started after the police refused to
lay criminal charges, there are also many civil action cases such as yours reported where a civil action
was started by the victim against a person even though the police had laid criminal charges against
that same person, and there are many cases reported where a civil action was started by the victim
against a person even though the police had charged the person criminally and the person had been
declared innocent of the criminal charges. Look at OJ Simpson – he was found innocent by the
criminal court (a jury trial) for murdering his wife and another person, but, in a civil action he was found
guilty for damages amounting to many millions of dollars that caused court ordered attachments on
everything Simpson owns and everything he will own in the future. The reason for that is very
important. The requirement of proof in a criminal action which you were requesting of the attorney
general and the police is proof “beyond a reasonable doubt”. But, the level of proof required in a civil
action for this other man to be found guilty is “on a balance of probabilities”. In other words, the
attorney general’s office or the police in your case may feel that they could not get a conviction against
this man “beyond a reasonable doubt” but that he could be guilty of an offence against you “on a
balance of probabilities” requiring him to pay to you a huge sum of money. If you won the court would
order attachments on everything this person owns or will own in the future or any moneys he is owed
by someone else. Perhaps you could answer these questions for us so that I can inform the Senator
after he has read your files? Thank you.

From: Frank Gallagher [mailto:franklyone@hotmail.com]

Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2007 12:21 PM
To: Baker, George
Subject: Layer Files 10-12

Please see Lawyer Files 10-12 attached

From: Frank Gallagher [mailto:franklyone@hotmail.com]

Sent: Wednesday, May 30, 2007 7:56 AM
To: 'Baker, George'
Subject: Re: Civil Lawyer RE: Obstruction of Justice: LFs 1-3

Hi again?

Yes I have consulted a lawyer as per below but never entertained the idea of
a civil suit for reasons stated in the previous e-mail.

As for the "proof beyond a reasonable doubt" the evidence far surpasses
reasonable doubt and it is all recorded.

The letter to a once thought to be, prospective lawyer below explains more.

Even though the evidence I provided to the Tribunal proves irrefutably Don
Wilson committed fraud right in the public building financed by the people
before the judicator Nancy Fahlgren I have also provided the pertinent
personnel with a copy of Lawyer File # 12 where you read on pages 12-18 that
he had provide me a prospectus indicating Rod Bradbury who owns a company
called EcoSafe in Vancouver was the Vice-President of BioSafe and Don showed
me his web site which was quite impressive which influenced me when I
invested and I passed this information on to my friends who invested.

If you have read these pages you will know that this was also a criminally
fraudulent act.

Of course this wasn't brought up at the Tribunal hearing and is irrelevant

as to the crimes he committed there which the establishment must be held
responsible to deal with matters that happen in their courts financed by the
people to administer justice.

It sure provides good evidence of his character and proves he was a shady
character from the first day I met him.

Regardless, if you have read Lawyer File # 2 pages 4 and 5 Dave Grech’s
response dated September 6 2005 explaining why he would not be investigating
you will know he is incoherent to the evident and absolutely ridiculous in
matters about Don's lie in respect of a verbal agreement and other matters
would be just my word against his.

The evidence already proved he was a liar and a fraud so I hardly think it
would be a toss up between his word and mine.

If you have read Lawyer File #2 page 2 you will note that the only evidence
Don Wilson provided to the Tribunal ”His Dispute” which he signed with his
correct signature, I believe!! is self incriminating, without the evidence I
provided which conclusively proves he is guilty as I have stated.

As for Fred Kerr and G. Rorke fraud detectives of York Regional Police
telling me my case was similar to many they have taken before a judge for a
warrant and one judge may grant and another deny which leaves them
frustrated but the question I have is "if it frustrates them so much as they
would have me believe why wouldn't they take the cases to the judge that
would grant a warrant and why did they not bother at all to take mine to a
judge"?

I reiterate if you have now perused the letter to the Toronto Sun dated
October 8 2006 you will know this evidence is irrefutable beyond any stretch
of the imagination of what would be considered proof beyond a reasonable
doubt.

The word "threshold" has come up by all 3 police departments which I would
be interested to find out what that means in legal talk.

My mother witnessed Randy Craig OPP state a couple of times that he and his
office only deals with bigger matters where more money is involved such as
an elderly couple had their whole life savings taken and I mentioned that
perhaps the amount that was taken from me is rather minute in comparison but
it was my whole life savings and more which I still owe mom.

I suppose we poorer people can take solace in the fact we were lucky to have
lived a less fortunate life style and quite lucky due to our constant
struggle to try to put something away so that we can retire at 62 and hope
the hell we die before our petty savings run out, else we would have had a
lot more stolen.

I suppose we are lucky for we are already adapted to living a miserable life
and they may never adapt in their remaining years before they die. I suspect
every effort will be made to get them back on track as Randy stated.

Seems to me that the wealthy have all the wherewithal to avoid such
occurrences happening to them while we people struggling must cut corners
and do not have access to the influential people to save them from drowning
in despair living like us for their remaining years.

There are many ways to look at it but the bottom line is, it is all about
money but that is contrary to the Spirit of the Constitution in particular
s.15(1).

It is we people, the individuals who can not afford to waste our money on
lawyers, without influential friends who need the help and we were of the
opinion that the government was our influential friend but it is rather
disappointing when one by one as we are made victims realize we stand alone.

We home owners are stuck ingn the middle where we pay taxes to support
everyone and everything such as housing and the works for those who refuse
to work who are entitled to free representation in all matters and we
support the schools and the kids whether we have kids or not and we single
people who need a home as well as families have to support it on their own
while it is a well known fact that two can live near as cheaply as one and
two people working to support a home can do it much easier than one and
because they decide to have kids get a bigger break on taxes obviously
putting the extra burden on the single person.

Sure, we single people have the same option to get married but hardly likely
approaching 65 which doesn’t offer kids too much time with their parents
only to leave them for the government to look after.

Always so many things to look at when it comes to being fair and obviously
fair decisions can not be made by people who do not care about individuals
at all with their only concerns as to making decisions which will find them
reelected so as to help out the wealthy and perhaps get a little help back
from their friends.

No, I am not bitter, just making a few points in the endeavor to help myself
help all the individuals who have no one to help them who work everyday
striving to get ahead so they won’t end up in an old age home supported by
the government, who is ultimately the taxpayer.

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.

If "threshold" deals with matters relative to the quality of evidence needed

to convict then I suggest it is unlikely that anyone would ever get
convicted giving new meaning to absurdity wherein it would be impossible to
ever achieve a moral society giving the immoral more respect than the moral
which by the way just happens to be what my writings are all about where
immorality flourishes to the burden of the taxpayer and victims to the
benefit of those in the field of law.

I believe you should now have a fair idea of where I am coming from and it
is all about being fair.

Oh, yes one other thought.

The Ombudsman, the ORHT, the Ontario Civilian Commission on Police Services
are purportedly established to be independent of the Government so as to
give the people somewhere to complain about the Government but my evidence
demonstrates two very important facts.

1)They are either incompetent to do the job to that endeavor or they are far
from independent.

2)If they felt it necessary to create such independent offices so as to

appear to be places for the public to get justice not influenced by the
Government:

Why does the Attorney General openly publish the "Roles of the Attorney
General" on his web site where he influences everyone in the legal system
and can't help but be influenced by everyone and then openly states
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?

For those who would argue he should be capable of separating and keeping
each role in perspective and competently protect the individuals, and
society as a whole by the use of “the rule of law” I suggest they look again
at what it says about the rule of law with particular thought to the fact
that it is well known by professionals of law only and the majority of
individuals would not be cognizant to this fact.

This brings more thoughts to the table.

A) My evidence shows and proves he can not separate the roles and in fact
the evidence proves by the various purported to be independent offices
citing provincial laws which allows them to close the case with the criminal
walking free and the victim still seeking justice which is not consistent
with the Charter s.15(1)

B) This is an about face of the concept in 2) above.

He is much like the Queen on the chess board. Every other player has
specific and limited moves where the Queen can go any way and as far it
likes.

I say “Check”

What do you say Mate

Frank Gallagher
-----Original Message-----
From: Bruce McChesney [mailto:dbrucelaw@hotmail.com]
Sent: Sunday, May 27, 2007 11:09 PM
To: franklyone@hotmail.com
Subject: RE: Obstruction of Justice: LFs 1-3

Mr. Gallager,
It seems that you have an enormous problem which will take literally
hundreds of hours of legal time. I am a sole practitioner with a busy
practice and I am unable to undertake a case of this magnitude. I suggest
that you approach one of the large firms which would have the staff to
manage your case properly. I wish you a good result.
McChesney

>From: "Frank Gallagher" <franklyone@hotmail.com>

>To: "'Bruce McChesney'" <dbrucelaw@hotmail.com>
>Subject: RE: Obstruction of Justice: LFs 1-3
>Date: Wed, 16 May 2007 01:40:01 -0400
>
>May 15, 2007
>
>
>
>Bruce
>
>Obviously, I didn't present the situation very well, for the Lawyer Files
>#s
>1, 2 and 3 are......and are not what this is all about.
>
>It is about many criminal acts, first fraud over $100,000 by my former
>tenant and then it evolves into government corruption and conspiracy in
>matters of the Constitution Act, 1982, which reveals a conspiracy which I
>have documented irrefutably to the Attorney General, Michael Bryant.
>
>This could very well be one of the most interesting and published case in
>the history of the Democracy of Canada as it affects the Charter rights of
>every individual in Canada.
>
>
>The story begins on June 30 2005 at an ORHT hearing where I had filed to
>evict my former tenant Don Wilson for failing to vacate my basement
>apartment as per a May 6 2005 agreement to do so on May 31 2005.
>
>He is the president and CEO of a company called “BioSafe Natural
>Technologies Inc.” which I had initially invested in back in January 2003.
>
>I decided to invest quite substantially in the company so I suggested Don
>move into my basement free for 6 months so he could apply himself full time
>to research and development, which he did on February 1 2004.
>
>On February 11 2004 I invested a total of $65,000 and over the next 1 ½
>years caused many friends to invest and I had also loaned him $10,000 via 3
>promissory notes.
>
>It is a bit of a long story but the bottom line is when the six free months
>rent were up he agreed to pay me $800 a month from there on and after one
>disappointment after another I decided to evict Don and he signed the April
>13 2005 agreement to do so on May 31 2005 and on May 6 2005 he signed
>another agreement which amended the April 13 2005.
>
>He also signed to confirm that he owed me approximately $10,000 in back
>rent.
>
>The agreement also dealt with other matters regarding the BioSafe shares I
>owned as well as my friends and those of the people who invested prior to
>me coming on board.
>
>At the June 30 2005 ORHT hearing Don committed the crime of Fraud well over
>$100,000 with regards to the April 13 2005 and May 6 2005 agreements where
>he denied having ever seen them or signed them.
>
>The fact is he had used a different signature for these two agreements than
>he has on all the other documents he had signed for me so obviously he had
>signed these agreements for criminally fraudulent purpose which I may have
>never known for years down the road when I tried to cash in on my
>investment.
>
>The other matter which I have detailed in the Lawyer Files #s 1-3 are with
>regard to the dispute he filed with ORHT dated June 10 2005 which was
>completely fabricated which stated through some verbal agreement he had
>with me in matters of shares I had agreed that he was paid up rent until
>February 2009.
>
>The fact is this was a completely different story than what the agreements
>showed that he had signed with a phony signature.
>
>My mother had witnessed the May 6th 2005 but she wasn’t there to attest to
>it but the fellow that witnessed the April 13 2005 was and he did attest to
>the fact that Don Wilson did sign that one.
>
>I went on to provide all the pertinent evidence to prove every statement in
>Don Wilson’s dispute which he had signed and filed with the ORHT was false
>and misleading information which is an offense under s.206(1)of the Tenant
>Protection Act, 1997.
>
>When the judicator Nancy Fahlgren caught on as to what was happening I
>said,“There otta be a law” and she said “There is” and went on for a minute
or
>two stating how she has the authority to forward it onto the Investigations
>and Enforcement Unit of the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing but I
>never did get assurance that she would do so.
>
>At the end of the hearing that day I asked what that object was beside her
>and said “Is that a ……” when Nancy interrupted saying “Yes, it’s a
>recorder” and I asked about getting a copy and she said yes after the
hearing of
>course.
>
>The second day of the hearing July 28 2005 Nancy announced there would not
>be a recorder that day which I didn’t give to much thought about at the
>time.
>
>On August 10 2005 I received the Tribunal order TNL-67103 by mail dated
>August 8 2005 which found for me and Don was ordered to vacate my premises
>before or by August 18 2005 and pay me the $10,000 he owes me.
>
>***************************************************************************
*
>Now comes the criminal part which I need a criminal lawyer to address
>which involves various personnel of various levels of government who I have
>written and corresponded with since August 2005 in an endeavor to have Don
>Wilson appropriately charged for the crimes he committed.
>
>The first 3 Lawyer Files were sent to the pertinent government personnel
>regarding these crimes which were my final effort to have them act
>responsibly in these matters and commence appropriate proceedings with
>regards to matters under the Tenant Protection Act, 1997 and other matters
>relative to the inconsistency of the Act with the Constitution Act, 1982.
>
>I should note that I have been corresponding with personnel of various
>levels of government who mostly have declined to respond and those who did
>were completely incoherent to the facts and the issues I addressed so much
>so that gave me cause to realize there was something bigger going on than
>the relatively simple matter of the crimes that Don committed.
>
>***************************************************************************
*
>It is however, imperative that you are coherent to the fact that the above
>crimes were committed and that the evidence contained within the Toronto
>Sun document dated October 8 2006 is irrefutable to that endeavor which you
>will know upon perusing it.
>
>Once this is firmly in your mind you will see what I mean about the
>responses I got from Rick Hennessey, Regional Manager of the ORHT, Dave
>Grech, coordinator of the Investigations and Enforcement unit of the
>Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing and eventually from the Minister
>himself, Hon. John Gerretsen.
>
>***************************************************************************
*
>Upon being coherent to the fact that these people are responding
>irrationally, and when you add in to the stew the fact that the recording
>of the first day of the hearing was tampered with in as much as the part
which
>I said “There otta be a law” and Nancy’s approximately 1 ½ minute response
>were missing from the recording as was the part where she confirmed it was
>a recorder at the end of the day was missing, you get somewhat suspicious.
>
>When you consider the second and final day of the hearing July 28 2005 was
>not recorded it gets most convincing that something is up and when you see
>the responses of the Ombudsman and the York Regional Police, the RCMP and
>the Ontario Civilian Commission On Police Services you will be bewildered.
>
>When you see the “Role of the Attorney General” which I downloaded from his
>web site everything will be clear as can be that the Attorney General is
>behind it all due to the fact he wears one too many hats in that he is
>responsible to ensure the provincial laws and the administration of justice
>is consistent with the Constitution and he is the “guardian of the-rule of
>law” which protects the individuals rights and society as a whole” which
>the evidence I have accumulated proves that he has been more than negligent
in
>these matters.
>
>On May 10 2007 I watched Peter Komos, MPP on the Legislature channel allege
>certain improprieties of the Attorney General which support that which I
>allege.
>
>To expand on this I have attached a few documents.
>
>One I sent to most of the Senators individually and the documents I sent
>are attached and
>
>Two the document I sent to Peter Kormos after hearing his allegations about
>the Attorney General.
>
>If you should be interested, let me know I will send you the Toronto Sun
>documented to prove irrefutably the initial crimes by Don Wilson were
>committed which is the foundation of the principal criminal matters
>involving the government personnel which I want you to pursue.
>
>I will also send you the 15 Lawyer Files and what ever else you may desire
>to make your decision as to whether or not to go forth with this endeavor.
>
>Respectfully
>
>Frank Gallagher
>
>PS
>
>I have decided to forward you the letter to the Toronto Sun dated October 8
>2006 and the 15 Lawyer Files perchance they may help you in your decision.
>
>Please take all the time you need to make this, what must be a most
>difficult decision considering the enormity of the ramifications attached
>to the challenge.
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Bruce McChesney [mailto:dbrucelaw@hotmail.com]
>Sent: Wednesday, May 09, 2007 12:48 PM
>To: franklyone@hotmail.com
>Subject: RE: Obstruction of Justice: LFs 1-3
>
>
>
>Mr. Gallagher,
>
>I have recieved your email. Unfortunately my practice is restricted to
>Criminal Law. I have never delt with Landlord and Tennant issues and would
>not be competent to represent you in connection with your problem. I
>suggest that you consult the Upper Canada Law Society Lawyer Referral
Service which
>lists lawyers and their areas of practice.
>
>I wish you the best of luck with this matter.
>
>McChesney
>
>
> From: "Frank Gallagher" <franklyone@hotmail.com>
>
> >To: <dbrucelaw@hotmail.com>
>
> >Subject: Obstruction of Justice: LFs 1-3
>
> >Date: Tue, 8 May 2007 01:31:05 -0400
>
> >
>
> >May 8, 2007
>
> >> >D. Bruce McChesney
>
> >302-30 Prospect Street
>
> >Newmarket, On
>
> >L3Y 3S9
>
> >dbrucelaw@hotmail.com
>
>Please peruse the attachments and when you are confident the facts are as
>I state, which you should and must be after reading the letter to the
>Toronto Sun dated October 8 2006, which contains the pertinent evidence
submitted at
>the Tribunal hearing June 30 2005, would appreciate you scheduling an
appointment so we can >move swiftly on to other subsequent matters relevant
to the issues I have addressed at this
>point which evolved in my endeavor to resolve these issues.
>
>Upon receiving your e-mail that you have set aside some time for me, I am
>available any time at your immediate convenience; I will forward copies
>of Lawyer Files # s 4-14 and 13A for you to give a quick look at so you
will
>be up to speed when we meet.
>
>Perhaps a little more time than the normal allotted would be prudent to
>set aside.
>
>Thank you,
>
>Frank Gallagher
>
>PS
>
>Letter to Toronto Sun dated October 8 2006 will follow in 2 Parts under
>separate covers.
>
><< ProspectiveLawyerMay82007.doc >>
>
><< LawyerFile_1.doc >>
>
><< LawyerFile_2.doc >>
>
><< LawyerFile_3.doc >>
>
>
>_________________________________________________________________
>
>><< Senators.doc >>

><< TruthabouttheLies-B.doc >>

><< ArmandLaBargeApril112007.doc >>

><< Enforcement.doc >>

><< PeterKormos.doc >>