Integrity is so much proclaimed by our leaders that I can attest that the government personnel are full of it

Given that the Ombudsman has the wherewithal to make things right it befuddles me as to why things are
so wrong.

Starve Nourish
immorality Constitution Act, 1982 morality

In the spirit as well as in the letter

Often things are not what they appear to be. The government often appears to be intelligent

July 3 2007

Dear Andre Marin

Over passed months I have corresponded with your office with the endeavor to communicate the significance
of the evidence which I have provided.

There is obviously something seriously wrong with the government for them to go to the trouble of
tampering with the evidence and writing ridiculous responses to decline from dealing with the issues I
addressed to them.

The evidence shows the establishment is not of the Spirit of the Constitution leaving our Charter rights
unprotected which leaves them negligent in their duties.

The establishment is corrupt and in fact has put a system in place for their benefit financed by us all.

The whole legal system in Ontario is influenced by the Attorney General who 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.

I have brought my concerns to the Attorney General who has persistently ignored them proving he has
neglected his responsibilities to the individual and further investigation has revealed that the system is
designed purposely to neglect the individuals Charter rights for invisible tyrannical purpose.

The power of the establishment is dependent on the ignorance of the people.

Present the Truth as my evidence attests to and the Ombudsman will have the power of the people, God and
the Constitution.

The whole system is built on deception and will amend once my evidence is brought forth to the public
where a proliferation of truths will surface.

It boils down to whose side the Ombudsman is on? Their’s as it appears or ours as they would have us
believe?
 Heads or Tales

In the Spirit as well as in the letter

If the Truth be known bull shit wouldn’t have a chance

Everything has obvious meaning related to obvious purpose by persons of obvious purpose which may or
may not be obvious to the purpose intended but obviously serves good purpose evident to the facts for
obvious benefit to the eventual achievement of legitimate purpose.

In matters of the Constitution, the supreme law which governs the people of Canada, we must interpret it
with integrity for sane moral purpose for the benefit of each and every individual whereas Canada is
founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law.

Although the evidence indicates the authors of the Constitution had ulterior motive when defining the
Spirit of the Constitution which was based on verbiage conducive to a peaceful moral society quite
acceptable to the people, their intention was only to have them believe that was the Spirit in which they
would administer and enforce it while they had their way with the people.

Reality is saturated with the facts that prove this to be true. All one need do is face reality and deal with it
in a manner conducive to the Spirit of the Constitution, the Spirit of God and the people.

The Ombudsman

The existence of the Ombudsman structured for the purpose of providing the people a place to file
complaints against the government attests to the fact the government can’t be trusted

Why does the government protest so much about whistleblowers if they are of the Spirit of the
Constitution?

Why do they get away with such absurdities that the private sector does not?

Obviously the Ombudsman suffers to the same problems as whistleblowers, however with huge
differences.

The Ombudsman has the wherewithal to blow the whistle which is their mandate but they don’t seem to
give a hoot.

The Spirits of the people are at stake. How do you value these Spirits?

When common sense prevails so will the world.

Justice is impossible in a fixed regime dead set against it and although the people don’t quite understand
what’s happening they will know justice when they see it.

The system has always been fixed by ill spirited bullies who have done so because they can.

With the inclusion of the Charter the system can be fixed with proper Spirit because we can.

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.

It’s time to throw the book at the evil Spirit’s

The powers that be use their people to wreak havoc on the world for their pleasure and then have the
adacity to invoice their people for their endeavors.

Recap

On June 30 2005 at a ORHT hearing to evict my former tenant Don Wilson owner, president, director,
treasurer and c.e.o. of Bio Safe Natural Technologies Inc., committed the criminal act of Fraud over
$100,000 regarding my purchase of shares in his company and he also filed false and misleading
information which is an offense under s. 206(2) of the Tenant Protection Act, 1997.

This is more particularly described in Lawyer File # 1 where personnel not only declined to commence
proceedings against Don Wilson but tampered with the evidence.

The second day of the hearing was not recorded.

They are guilty of the offense s.206 (1) of the Tenant Protection Act, 1997 and of obstructing justice in
the matter of the criminal acts of Fraud and of course tampering with evidence.

Lawyer File # 2 details the issues dealing with the Investigations and Enforcement Unit of the Ministry
of Municipal Affairs and Housing.
Dave Grech is guilty of the offense s.206 (1) of the Tenant Protection Act, 1997 and of obstructing
justice in the matter of the criminal acts of Fraud.

Lawyer File #3 details the neglect of duty of the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing Hon. John
Gerretsen regarding non compliance under the Tenant Protection Act, 1997 and Constitution Act, 1982.

Their behaviors are definitely not in the Spirit of the Constitution as they must be to back the guarantee
of the Charter in particular
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.

The written words attest to the facts but can’t be relied on to guarantee them.
Unfortunately at the moment there is no one in the establishment who grasps the concept of the Spirit.

The problem is real and the Ombudsman is mandated with the wherewithal to deal with this.
The question is “Is the Ombudsman Real”

Looking for excuses not to deal with these issues rather than finding a way to get the job done that needs
to be done does not exude a vote of confidence from the people who have you as their last resort.

The Ombudsman must keep focused as must we all

The people finance a system for the equal benefit of all and the Ombudsman is part of this system
purportedly independent of the provincial government as they must be to perform their mandate to
deal with matters where the establishment goes astray against the people.

The Ombudsman may be limited in authority and I suspect limited in knowledge of law but I hope
not in matters of Common Sense which I would think is prerequisite as is integrity.

I request that you view the web site of the Attorney General to see the “Role of the Attorney General”
or look at my Lawyer File # 7 where I have downloaded a copy.

You will see that the Attorney General wears too many hats and in fact influences all the lawyers
employed by the establishment, the judges etc. and can’t help but be influenced by the members of
Cabinet, the Premier and the Ministers and vice versa.

Since zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
I have evidence to prove the Attorney General is negligent as guardian of the people’s rights it
would be prudent to mention that the whole system would be guilty of conflict of interest as they are
all tied to the Attorney General.

Given the particular circumstances regarding the issues I have addressed there is cause to believe the
Attorney General has been involved from the onset as the Minister Hon. John Gerretsen was quite
likely involved with Dave Grech’s decision not to commence or cause to commence proceedings
against Don Wilson.

In particular I should note it took near a month to finally get Dave Grech to provide in writing why he
would not investigate Don Wilson as is his mandate.
It was only due my persistence that he finally wrote the ridiculous letter that he did and when you
consider that the Minister is in the same building as Dave Grech and the Minister is ultimately
responsible for compliance with the Tenant Protection Act, 1997 it is not too far of a stretch to
surmise that the Minister was consulted before Dave responded to me.

Considering the issues I raised it would not be too far of a stretch to surmise that the Minister
consulted with the Attorney General on this considering this is a role of the Attorney General as
defined on his web site.

It would be prudent to look at the Role of the Attorney General regarding the police.
He or the Crown Attorneys may advise the police but ultimately it is up to the police to make the
charges and then further on it states even if the police do make the charges it is still up to the
Attorney General to decide if proceedings will be commenced.

Not much chance of getting a conviction against the Attorney General under these circumstances.

When you consider that any lawyer the Ombudsman or any other person employed in the public
service may consult is influenced by the Attorney General they won’t act on behalf of the people.
As is the normal suggestion that I consult with a lawyer on these issues it plays into their hands even
though it supports that which I allege.

I am guaranteed certain rights of protection under the Charter which can only be assured if the
establishment had a modus operandi in place conducive to the Spirit of the Constitution which requires
consistent enforcement to that endeavor.

The evidence proves beyond any doubt the establishment does not have such a modus operandi in place
thereby voiding the guarantee.

Surely it is not my responsibility nor any other individual’s to back the guarantee and more importantly
the individual does not have the wherewithal to do so.

How futile would it be for me to hire a lawyer to fight the whole damn personnel of the establishment for
the assertion of the people’s rights whose money would be used against their rights and mine and how
wealthy would I have to be to take on such a challenge.

The fact is the establishment is supposed to be acting for the people and the Ombudsman is supposed to
be there for the people to keep the establishment in the Spirit of the Constitution.

This is of course all part of the ingenious plan which I have traced to the Ontario Attorney General’s
Office.

It is more than coincidence that the former Ontario Attorney General Roy McMurchy was highly
involved with the patriation of the Constitution Act, 1982 and the Charter and is now the Chief Justice of
Ontario under the Attorney General and since both these positions are appointed as are the judges and so
on there can be no doubt they would not be appointed if they were of the true Spirit of the Constitution.

The evidence is clear what the Ombudsman must do in performance of his mandate independent of
government interference on behalf of the people.

Authority at this point in time is irrelevant for the authorities are well outside the authority of their
mandates.

The Ombudsman has authority relative to the ORHT as Janet Ortved stated in her initial response but the
circumstances require you to take the initiative in all the issues I have addressed on behalf of the people.

You may not have the authorized power to deal with the issues but with a little initiative you will have
the power of the Spirit of the Constitution, God and the people who you are mandated to act on behalf.

A fair hearing can not be had within the legal system of Ontario considering the conflict of interest
matter of the personnel of the establishment which calls for a judgment by a jury of the people.

It is your duty to deal with the ORHT issue in a sane competent manner in the Spirit of the Constitution
and your moral duty to deal with the rest of the issues.

Bring the issues addressed in Lawyer File # 1 to the publics attention with due regard to their tampering
with the evidence and the rest will soon come to the people who will sit in judgment as they voice their
opinions demonstrating where the true authority is.
You have the authority of the Spirit of the Constitution, the Spirit of God and the people and most
important the opportunity to act for the people as is your mandate in an endeavor to put an end to this
insanity the establishment has persistently perpetrated against the people to the great detriment of society.

Bring these issues to the people and they will bring them to the establishment.

The time is now.

Things are radically wrong and you can make things radically right by bringing the truth to the people.

The Lawyer Files # 1-3 which are in the possession of Gerry Carlino contain the evidence to commence
or cause to commence proceedings against the personnel defined within them.

It is imperative you read the letter to the Toronto Sun dated October 8 2006 which contains the
irrefutable evidence that the crimes were committed.

Once you have the facts clear in mind you will wonder as do I as to the absurdity of the responses from
those people detailed in the Lawyer Files #s 1-3.

There are many questions that need to be answered in public beginning with Lawyer File # 1

Use your authority to the ultimate on this file and the people will demonstrate theirs as lawyer Files 2-14
and 13A come to light.

The people need you and will always need you if you get the job done in the Spirit of the Constitution
and the Spirit of God.

Obviously you must retain focus on the obvious

The same words which would hurt you behind closed doors will serve you when vented in public.

It has been more than two years since I set out to find justice and I am now rather anxious.

Please respond in timely fashion.

Respectfully
Frank Gallagher
franklyone@hotmail.com

PS

Andre Marin

You have the opportunity to take the largest stride on earth for all humankind. Why not?

Please correspond by e-mail

July 4, 2007 Frank Gallagher
34 Riverglen Drive
Ombudsman Keswick, On
Andre Marin L4P 2P8
franklyone@hotmail.com
In the Spirit as well as the letter

The Spirit of the Constitution as per the letter

Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law

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.

Integrity is a must we trust

The guarantee of the Charter clearly defines the Spirit of the Constitution (Document)

Common Sense

Due diligence in support of the guarantee must be forever present and consistent to the Spirit

The Constitution (Establishment) must be consistently of the Spirit of the Constitution to back the guarantee

When every individual is of the Spirit of the Constitution which is the Spirit of the aspirations of God the
people will live a prosperous life in eternal peace.

The establishment financed by the people through the collection of taxes for that purpose must consistently
demonstrate due diligence to this endeavor which must be strictly enforced to preserve the sanctity of the
guarantee.

Who amongst us would argue against the Spirit of the Constitution which clearly contains the ingredients for
a fair, peaceful productive society?

Every individual in Canada must be presumed to be of the Spirit of the Constitution and entitled to all the
benefits guaranteed to each individual under the Charter

It must be understood that our individual rights are a part of each individual as a turkey leg is part of the
whole turkey. There is simply nothing to argue and anyone who would dare is obviously not of the Spirit of
the Constitution and every effort must be made to bring them of the Spirit.

Each individual’s guaranteed Charter rights are dependant on the Spirit of the Constitution being consistently
enforced in the Spirit and due punishment must be swiftly and consistently applied to that endeavor

Doubt in the Spirit of the Constitution is of obvious detriment to the Spirit and where doubt is presented it
must be addressed so as to remove any and all ambiguity.

Only when we march consistently towards a clearly defined goal may we hope to achieve it.
All obstacles must be flagged and every effort must be directed to their removal.

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.

Over the passed two years I have presented a prodigious amount of evidence to many government personnel
which irrefutably proves the personnel defined in my Lawyer Files #s 1-3 are not of the Spirit of the
Constitution and by their response or no response irrefutably proves they also are not of the Spirit

The fact that I have not been able to locate a government department in support of the Spirit proves
irrefutably that the establishment has not applied due diligence to the structuring of a system capable of
backing the individual’s guaranteed Charter rights.

Since the human resources of the government departments financed to administer and enforce the Spirit of
the Constitution are human as stated they are vulnerable to temptation as are we all but given their role is to
deter society from temptation they must be irreproachable to that endeavor.

They have not demonstrated that there exists a disciplinary remediation to deal with their human resources
which would stray from the Spirit of the Constitution if there was not such remedial measure in place to
diligently prevent such occurrences.

The evidence I have distributed throughout the establishment clearly demonstrates the inadequacies and
inefficiencies of the establishment and I have flagged the personnel who are not of the Spirit of the
Constitution as they must be to be competent and consistent to the Spirit of the Constitution.

The Ombudsman

The establishment may argue they have put the Ombudsman in place to prove their diligence to this endeavor
but by the failure of your office to deal with the issues detailed in my 15 Lawyer Files proves either your
incompetence or that you are not of the Spirit of the Constitution.

So what we have here is the various personnel of the establishment not being in the Spirit of the Constitution
which includes you as the evidence indicates and the establishment has or has not put a failsafe measure in
place to prove diligence has been applied to ensure the Spirit of the Constitution is upheld.

The establishment could very well argue they did their part by putting the Ombudsman in place to assure the
Spirit of the Constitution is maintained but by admissions made by those who responded to me from the
office of the Ombudsman it seems they have no authority to address the issues.

The evidence clearly shows the Spirit of the Constitution is not being addressed in the Spirit and it is in the
Spirit which I have brought the evidence to you to be addressed.

It is clear to me that if you truly are of the Spirit of the Constitution you must be able to demonstrate the fact.

Given the issues presented to you it is not for you to convince me that you are irresponsible to the endeavor
for reality attests to the fact from every direction.

In the Spirit of the Constitution it is incumbent upon you to convince me you are responsible to the endeavor
and that you have fulfilled your mandate. On doing so you will convince me that the establishment has not.
 The Ombudsman is either of or not of the Spirit

More important than convincing me of your Spirit is the Spirit in which you convince yourself

It is with consistency to integrity and common sense that I rebuke the Spirit of the Establishment

Reality holds the truth that needs to be bared, grasped and then acted upon in the Spirit of the Constitution

The Truth

1. People are creatures of habit which the Spirit of the Constitution must be habitual to each and every one

2. The personnel of the legal sector have been mandated the authority to make the habit real and they must
be irreproachable to that endeavor.

3. People take many roads but they must be all traveled in the Spirit of the Constitution

4. People must be presumed to be of the Spirit of the Constitution and entitled to all the benefits until
evidence is presented to the contrary to the authorities having jurisdiction who must be irreproachable in
and of the Spirit.

5. Consistency to deterrence for the purpose of the eventual eradication of immoral Spirits which are
illegitimate in a society governed by the Constitution Act, 1982 must be prevalent.

6. When evidence is presented that alleges one is not of the Spirit of the Constitution it is their right and
responsibility to allow the administers and enforcers to prove their innocence in the Spirit of the law
and to that endeavor a refusal to allow the enforcement to do so is further cause to suspect them of not
being of the Spirit.

7. The guaranteed Charter rights of each and every individual can not possibly be guaranteed unless
every one cooperates in the Spirit to do everything reasonable conducive to the Spirit.

8. The people financed in the Spirit of the Constitution are presumed to be competent and responsible to the
endeavor with the wherewithal to act in the Spirit. They are insiders familiar with the procedures in place
to address the situations and know full well of their ability to efficiently and effectively do so.
They are the professionals and it is absolutely absurd to suggest that it is the victim’s responsibility to
back the Charter guarantee for they may or may not depending on circumstance and one’s individual
guaranteed Charter rights must be consistently backed.

9. Actions directed towards the issues of concern in the Spirit of the Constitution must be commenced or
caused to be commenced in support of the Spirit.

10. There are many people and departments financed for the purpose of ensuring the individual’s guaranteed
Charter rights are guaranteed and it is the responsibility of the human resources who administer and
enforce the laws to ensure they accomplish the goals intended.
 52. (1) The Constitution of Canada i
the provisions of the Constitution is,
Obviously it is prerequisite of the establishment personnel to be of the Spirit of the Constitution so as to
administer and enforce the laws consistent with the Spirit and the letter of the Constitution.

This has not been demonstrated.

What has been demonstrated is precisely what the Spirit of the Constitution intended to eradicate at huge
detriment to the people of society.

Ombudsman

You have the evidence and the wherewithal to bring it before the people of society.

It is not in the Spirit of the Constitution to state that the bad guys won’t let you.

Where there is a will, there is a way and in the Spirit of the Constitution you must have the will.

Tomorrow’s reality is dependent on your grasp of todays.

Frank Gallagher
July 7 2007

TRUTH

It is true that you can get to the east by walking west but why would you unless that is your purpose?

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

It is hardly likely that immoral inclination will be eradicated if every effort is made to support it to the
detriment of the moral society.

The legal sector would have us believe they seek the truth while they do everything to squelch it.

On arrest people are advised by the police and lawyers to clam up.
What’s up with that?

Obviously there is significant evidence to warrant an arrest in the first place and the objective is to get to
the truth. Right?

Why would the police and lawyers advise the alleged not to speak on arrest when a statement at the time
would least likely be adulterated and indicate the frame of mind one was in at the time.

This practice is a clear and deliberate obstruction of justice detrimental to the victim and the people of a
moral society.

The perpetrator is given time to develop a story with the aid of a lawyer which serves only to drastically
extend the time and costs for justice while debilitating the chance of achieving justice.

Only the legal sector personnel and the immoral benefit from these circumstances as the work load
increases and the people are burdened with the costs.

The legal sector proclaim to be protecting the Constitutional rights of the individual but in this scenario the
individual rights of the whole of society are not only not being protected but they are being infringed upon
as they are forced to pay the humungous costs.
The people are being ripped off to finance the lifestyles of the lawyers and their partners in crime.

The same goes with the police needing a warrant to investigate.

Obviously when a person has been victimized somebody must have perpetrated the crime. When there is
evidence which suggests one’s involvement one should be pleased to be provided the opportunity to prove
their innocents. A person of the Spirit of the Constitution which protects everyone’s rights including their
own should gladly allow a search of their property to prove their innocence and that they are of the Spirit
of the Constitution as must we all to be within the Spirit of the law.

The Spirit of the Constitution is quite simple and obvious as is the Spirit of the immoral who would have
us believe in their idiotic ideologies.

Reality bares the truth to those capable of reasoning and bares the truth of those who are inept to the task.
Life would be so simple but for the ignorance and immorality that runs amuck

Loyalty to a belief is the answer to a charlatan’s prayers

So few people’s prayers are being answered which makes it rather simple to identify the charlatans.

The Constitution Act, 1982 is the supreme law of Canada which defines the Spirit which must exist within
us if we are to exist in harmony with the law and society

The Spirit of the Constitution is that of the aspirations of God, plain and simple conducive to a moral
society.

One need not be a religious fanatic to be of the Spirit of God. One need only believe in the aspirations
which are attributed to be that of God which we know to be true to a peaceful moral society whether or not
God exists or ever did.

The Spirit of God will certainly exist when the people are of the Spirit of the Constitution which recognizes
the supremacy of God

People’s actions are manifestations of the invisible Spirit which resides within them

The Spirit of the Constitution is the protectorate of each and every individual and it is the responsibility of
the people mandated under the authority of the Act to be of the Spirit of the law and uphold it in the Spirit.

The evidence I have provided irrefutably proves the personnel of the Constitution are not of the Spirit
thereby leaving the individuals guaranteed rights non existent.

I am not so ignorant to believe I am educating you with my writings for reality is everywhere waiting to be
dealt with in a sane manner consistent with the Constitution.

Due to the nature of business associated with your office I can reasonably presume you have heard it all
time and time again.

I can also presume the majority of the issues go unaddressed because as Janet Ortved stated in her initial
response months ago the Ombudsman is severely limited in authority and by her response and subsequent
responses it is obvious the Ombudsman is severely limited in ability to address the issues.

So ridiculously limited that I must presume the Ombudsman can’t be as ignorant as the responses indicate
and therefore must be in collusion with the establishment and not so independent from the government as
they would have us believe.

Perhaps the problem is with who you consult in such matters.

All lawyers financed through the Ontario government are under the direction of the Attorney General and
if your legal consultant is indeed under the influence of the Attorney General then it is obvious the
Ombudsman is not the independent body at arms length of the government as we are led to believe.

There are so many obvious things to consider.

Why was the Accountability Act introduced?

 The establishment has always been slow to react.

The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms was included with the 1982 enactment of the Constitution.
The Charter demanded a change in the Spirit of the establishment personnel to back the guarantee.

Twenty five years after the enactment they have not altered their Spirit and have enacted the
Accountability Act in an effort to cover up their failure to act responsible in the Spirit of the Constitution.

Clearly this can be traced to the Attorney General who is ultimately accountable to the people as stated
on his web site “Role of the Attorney General” (See pages 4-6)

Roy McMurchy was the Ontario Attorney General who was a major player in the patriation of the
Constitution and the Charter enacted in 1982 and is now the Chief Justice of Ontario.

Everyone in the legal system is influenced by the present Attorney General Michael Bryant which includes
the Chief Justice Roy McMurchy, Crown Attorneys, and all government lawyers.

The Attorney General can advise the police but ultimately the police must make the charges but even if
they do it remains the Attorney General’s decision whether or not to commence proceedings.

The fact is the entire legal system has been operating illegally under the guidance of the Attorney
General’s office who failed to put a modus operandi in place in the Spirit of the Constitution Act, 1982
with due regard for the individual’s Charter rights.

The “Role of the Attorney General” as per his web site clearly holds him accountable to the people and he
is responsible for the protection of the people’s Constitutional rights.

I have written him on many occasions requesting he deal with my concerns as briefly detailed in my
Lawyer Files #s 1-14, 13A but his office has declined to act.

I have also addressed the matter to Newmarket Crown Attorney Robert McCreary whose office responded
June 28 2007 stating the police force having jurisdiction must lay the charges. (See page 11)

I have addressed the matter to the York Regional Police who declined to file charges (See pages 7 & 8)

I have also addressed the matter to the OPP Commissioner (See page 9)

I provided the information one more time to Minister John Gerretsen (See page 10)

These are just a few of the correspondence I have had with regards to my attempt to find justice in the
Spirit of the Constitution which clearly shows I did not find it at these departments.

I have just viewed the Ombudsman web site and I am pleased and encouraged with what I saw and yet my
previous correspondence with other staff of the Ombudsman does not reflect the aspirations of the
Ombudsman I have just read.

I am now pondering the reality that the Ombudsman is truly of the Spirit of the Constitution and the people
as are the police who have all been duped and caught up in the system as have we all as intended by the
Attorney General and his cohorts. With this thought in mind I will begin a new letter dated July 8 2007.
Chief Law Officer of the Executive Council (s. 5(a))
The role of chief law officer might be referred to as the Attorney General's overall
responsibility as the independent legal advisor to the Cabinet - and some have even
suggested that the role possibly extends to the Legislature as well. The importance of the
independence of the role is fundamental to the position and well established in common
law, statutes and tradition.
As chief law officer, the Attorney General has a special responsibility to be the guardian
of that most elusive concept - the rule of law. The rule of law is a well established legal
principle, but hard to easily define. It is the rule of law that protects individuals, and
society as a whole, from arbitrary measures and safeguards personal liberties.

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

In providing such advice it is important to keep in mind the distinction between the
Attorney General's policy advice and preference and the legal advice being presented to
Cabinet. The Attorney General's legal advice or constitutional advice should not be
lightly disregarded. The Attorney General's policy advice has the same weight as that of
other ministers.

Criminal prosecutions (s.5(d))

One of the most publicly scrutinized aspects of the Attorney General's role is the
responsibility for criminal prosecutions encompassed in section 5 (d) and s. 92 of the
Constitution Act, 1867. Section 92 gives the provinces authority to legislate in matters
related to the administration of criminal justice and thereby gives the provincial Attorney
General authority to prosecute offences under the Criminal Code.

The Attorney General does not, however, direct or cause charges to be laid. While the
Attorney General and the Attorney General's agents may provide legal advice to the
police, the ultimate decision whether or not to lay charges is for the police. Once the
charge is laid the decision as to whether the prosecution should proceed, and in what
manner, is for the Attorney General and the Crown Attorney.

It is now an accepted and important constitutional principle that the Attorney General
must carry out the Minister's criminal prosecution responsibilities independent of Cabinet
and of any partisan political pressures. The Attorney General's responsibility for
individual criminal prosecutions must be undertaken - and seen to be undertaken - on
strictly objective and legal criteria, free of any political considerations. Whether to
initiate or stay a criminal proceeding is not an issue of government policy. This
responsibility has been characterized as a matter of the Attorney General acting as the
Queen's Attorney - not as a Minister of the government of the day.

This is not to suggest that decisions regarding criminal prosecutions are made in a
complete vacuum. A wide range of policy considerations may be weighed in executing
this responsibility, and the Attorney General may choose to consult the Cabinet on some
of these considerations. However any decisions relating to the conduct of individual
prosecutions must be the Attorney General's alone and independent of the traditional
Cabinet decision making process. In practice, in the vast majority of cases, these
decisions are made by the Attorney General's agents, the Crown Attorneys.

An important part of the Crown's - and thus the Attorney General's - responsibility in
conducting criminal prosecutions is associated with the responsibility to represent the
public interest - which includes not only the community as a whole and the victim, but
also the accused. The Crown has a distinct responsibility to the court to present all the
credible evidence available.

The responsibility is to present the case fairly - not necessarily to convict. This is a
fundamental precept of criminal law, even if it is not a particularly well-understood
concept among the general public. One of the Attorney General's responsibilities in
fostering public respect for the rule of law, is to assist the public in understanding the
nature and limits of the prosecutorial function.

Ultimately the Attorney General is accountable to the people of the province, through the
Legislature, for decisions relating to criminal prosecutions. Such accountability can only
occur, of course, once the prosecution is completed or when a final decision has been
made not to prosecute. The sub judicae rule bars any comment on a matter before the
courts that is likely to influence the matter. The sub judicae rule strictly prohibits the
Attorney General from commenting on prosecutions that are before the courts. Given the
stature of the Attorney General's position, any public comment coming from the office
would be seen as an attempt to influence the case.

Although the Attorney general can become involved in decision-making in relation to

individual criminal cases, such a practice would leave the Minister vulnerable to
accusations of political interference. Accordingly, it is traditional to leave the day-to-day
decision-making in the hands of the Attorney General's agents, the Crown Attorneys,
except in cases of exceptional importance where the public would expect the Attorney
General to be briefed.

Legislative Responsibilities (s. 5(e) and (f))

The Attorney General has broad responsibilities associated with Government legislation.
These responsibilities have been described as twofold. One is to oversee that all
legislative enactments are in accordance with principles of natural justice and civil rights
(see also s. 5(b) above). This is obviously an important and broad area of responsibility.
The second aspect of this responsibility is to advise on the constitutionality and legality
of legislation.

The Attorney General's legislative responsibilities are played out in a variety roles. The
Office of Legislative Counsel reports to the Attorney General. Legislative Counsel plays
a key role in ensuring the legal integrity of Government legislation. Although the
Legislative Counsel's reporting relationship to the Attorney General does allow the
Attorney General to provide guidance and set standards, individual pieces of legislation
are drafted on instructions from client ministries and are not within the sole control of
Legislative Counsel or the Attorney General. It should also be noted that Legislative
Counsel also has a direct responsibility to the Legislature as the Office also drafts all
private member's bills.

The Attorney General has a further role to play as part of whatever Cabinet Committee is
formed to review legislation and regulations. Here the Minister has an opportunity to
comment on the technical issues related to legislation and regulations prior to Cabinet
consideration.

The Attorney General's role on legislative matters is as an adviser to the Cabinet.

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

Civil Litigation (s.5(h) and (d))

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

This has been characterized as a constitutional responsibility to ensure that the public
interest is well and independently represented. It may involve interventions in private
litigation or Charter challenges to legislation, even if the arguments conclude that the
legislation does contravene constitutionally protected rights.

Responsibility for Court Administration (s. 5(c))

A key component of the Attorney General's responsibilities to ensure the administration

of justice in the province is the administration of the courts and as a result the
responsibility for maintaining liaison with the judiciary.

Given the fundamental importance of the independence of the judiciary, the responsibility
for courts administration is often a very sensitive and delicate issue. Great care and
respect for the principles of judicial independence must be exercised in this area.

As chief law officer, the Attorney General has a special responsibility to be the guardian
of that most elusive concept - the rule of law. The rule of law is a well established legal
principle, but hard to easily define. It is the rule of law that protects individuals, and
society as a whole, from arbitrary measures and safeguards personal liberties.
March 29, 2007

On several occasions I have requested Bruce Herridge inform me as to what efforts he has made to this
promise with no response.
For fair and sane reason lawyers write the laws and for the same reason they should be fair and sane

They are human and for that reason must be scrutinized consistently to the highest degree

Law and order must be for sane and moral purpose absent of profit for money is the root of all evil

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.

Money in matters of law guarantees inequality in a preponderance of ways

Let me count the ways

1. A fine of $ 5000 may be pocket change to one and 5 years savings to another having no value as a
deterrence to one allowing one to stretch the parameters and another to be taken advantage of.

2. Creates a two tiered system where the laws are enacted for the affluent being too costly for the average
person to access therefore paying taxes for nothing and no hope of justice..

3. Obviously a government influenced by the affluent is likely to enact laws in their favour such as
setting low minimum wages which is adverse to a fair and prosperous society.

3. When operated for profit the legal beagles would be reluctant to eradicate immorality from society.
They wouldn’t want to suffer the plight of the fishermen with no fish.

4. To be successful in respect of financial gain there must be plans to permit immorality to flourish.

5. This of course magnifies the odds against the individual’s guarantee of protection.

6. Taxes must be increased to pay for more police, courts, human resources and more penitentiaries and
so on like that.

7. Increased costs in consumer goods due the insurance costs for increased pilferage which is passed on
to the consumer.

8. Increased costs in consumer goods due to increased taxes to administer and enforce law.

9. More people suffer in despair and depression flourishes putting strain on the health system where costs
must increase.

10. Strain on our welfare system and on and on like that.

11. Increases the need for charities and other organizations where the majority of money is wasted to the
organizations.

Immorality is the scourge of society causing tumultuous waste in production, time and astronomical
financial loss and is a huge drain on the Spirits of the people who are already heavily burdened

Immorality is not a necessity of society and must be annihilated in consistent and determined fashion..
 July 8 2007

Ombudsman Individual
Integrity in the Spirit as well as the letter Frank Gallagher

About the Ombudsman’s Office

Ontario's Ombudsman is an Officer of the Provincial Legislature who is independent of the government
and political parties. The Ombudsman’s job is to ensure the accountability of government through
effective oversight of the administration of government services in the province. The Ombudsman
reports to the Provincial Legislature and is appointed for a five-year renewable term. The Ombudsman’s
powers and authorities are contained in legislation called the Ombudsman Act.

Over the passed months I have corresponded with

staff of the Ombudsman with the endeavor to have
the government held accountable in matters that
evolved during a hearing of the Ontario Rental
Housing Tribunal at 375 D’Arcy Street Newmarket.

I had originally addressed your office with my

concerns on May 31 2006 because many government
offices had declined to commence or cause to
commence proceedings against my former tenant
Don Wilson who had committed the criminal act of
fraud and filed false and misleading information
which is an offense under s. 206 (2) of the Tenant
Protection Act, 1997.

The crimes were committed by Don Wilson in a building financed by the government and ultimately the
people for the purpose of administering justice to the people for the people.
The ORHT was operating under the Tenant Protection Act, 1997 and the Constitution Act, 1982 at the time
when the crimes were committed June 30 2005.
When Nancy Fahlgren (Judicator of the Tribunal) declined to file charges against Don Wilson as detailed in
my Lawyer File # 1 I requested the Investigations and Enforcement Unit file the appropriate charges detailed
in Lawyer File # 2 but after about a month of several writings and telephone conservations Dave Grech
finally responded that he would not be commencing proceedings for very ridiculous reason which is clear to
see he was not coherent to the facts.
I made several attempts to make him aware of his error and in fact drove to his office to provide him with a
complete set of the evidence and a copy of the recording of the Tribunal hearing which I left with Roal an
associate because Dave Grech was not available to meet with me.
Dave never did respond to me further on this matter and remained steadfast with his decision to do nothing.

At this point I was befuddled as to why neither the ORHT or the Investigations and Enforcement Unit had
refused to act in performance of their duty and when I received a copy of the Tribunal recording I noticed
certain parts of the hearing were missing from the disk. The tribunal did not record the 2nd day July 28 2005
With their refusal to deal with Don Wilson I took my concerns to the York Regional Police (See Lawyer File
# 9) and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (See Lawyer File # 14) but they declined to investigate
I brought my concerns to the attention of my MPP Julia Munro (See Lawyer File # 5), the Premier Dalton
McGuinty (See Lawyer File # 6), the Ombudsman (See Lawyer File # 4), the Attorney General Michael
Bryant (See Lawyer File # 7) and the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing John Gerretsen (See
Lawyer File # 3) to get them to act responsibly in the Spirit of the Constitution and on November 14 2006 I
drove to Orillia to bring my concerns to Randy Craig of the OPP Anti-Rackets (See Lawyer File # 8) and
when he declined to act I took my concerns to the Ontario Civilian Commission on Police Services on
November 15 2006 (See Lawyer File # 10) but they declined to act.

Over the passed two years I have written any body I could think of who should be concerned with my
concerns which include the Governor General, the federal Attorney General, the Prime minister and the
leader of the other parties and a few Senators. I even wrote the army and the churches.

Recently I wrote about 100 of the Senators and a Toronto Crown Attorney ( See Lawyer File# 13A) and the
Newmarket Crown Attorney (See Lawyer File # 13) but no response.

I can state with reasonable certainty that there is no one within the Government Services that respects the
individual’s guaranteed Charter Rights.

That is to state there is nobody within the establishment personnel with the Spirit of the Constitution.

With nobody to administer and enforce the law in the Spirit of the Constitution it is reasonable to state the
individual has no Charter guarantees.

During my trek to find justice I happened upon the proof that the establishment has conspired against the
people for ulterior purpose which I documented up to the Attorney General’s office.

Recently, as you know I have been sending you documents in an effort to bring you up to speed but today I
thought I would have a look at the Ombudsman web site where I copied some excerpts to page (1 highlighted
in yellow.)

It seems that the Ombudsman is precisely who I should be addressing the issues to but alas I have being
doing so for what seems like forever with no coherent response to date.

Perhaps I have per chanced upon a reasonable explanation for this absurd state of democracy we are in.

For quite some time now I have been of the opinion that the Attorney General’s office is involved in a
conspiracy with other government personnel who at times appeared to be the whole damn system.

I have addressed the issue in other writings where I state the majority of the personnel are probably just
guilty of being ignorant of the law and just certain king pins who should be knowledgeable in such matters
and must certainly be are in on the conspiracy.

I am now confident that the Ombudsman and the police have been duped by an ingenious plot conspired by
influential people which I have traced to the Attorney General of Ontario as being a major player.

The Attorney General has extraordinary influential power over everyone in the legal system and has in fact
put a modus operandi in place which is incapable of backing the individual’s guaranteed Charter rights.

Obviously you can not expect to put him out of business by taking him to court where he has the whole
system including the judges in his pocket.
The powers that be are reluctant to cede any more powers than they need such is the reason for the delays in
whistleblower legislation.

I dare say once again you can’t fight City Hall individually but together we are City Hall.

The evidence I have is irrefutable of the conspiracy in which the Attorney General is a major player.

I am not clear as to the authority you do have as stated on page 1 (In yellow) considering the original
response I got from Janet Ortved dated June 9 2006 ( See page 4)

There she clearly states the Ombudsman has no authority over judges or the police.

I do not suspect you have any more authority today than you did when she wrote me.

You never will have as long as the Attorney General conspiracy remains a secret.

You complain about not having powers in the hospital services arena.

The major problems of society will remain indefinitely or until you reveal the Attorney General conspiracy.

When you think about it, why was the Ombudsman created?
To make it appear that the people have some control over the government of course.

Why do they allow the Attorney General to wear so many hats when he is the guardian of the public’s
interests and the individual’s Constitutional rights?

Clearly a conflict of interest.

How much control do you really have?

It seems like a complicated mess to get things done by way of following purported to be legal avenues but in
this case, given the circumstances you do have the authority to deal with the ORHT as Janet stated.

Use it for all it’s worth and address the issues in Lawyer File # 1 which deals specifically with the ORHT.
Do it in a manner so as to reach the public.

As you investigate the issues I addressed there I believe you will find the Minister of Municipal Affairs is
involved there and the Attorney General.

I suspect that the regional manager of the ORHT would have consulted someone in regards to the issues and
who do you suppose had the power to order some of the recording of the hearing to be removed.

Who did Nancy Fahlgren, judicator consult with before the 2nd day of the hearing July 28 2005?

Why was the 2nd day of the hearing July 28 2005 not recorded?
Why did it take so long to make me a copy of the recording and it had nothing to do with delivery because
they called me when it was ready and I picked it up

Begin with Lawyer File # 1 and work your way to the top in the public eye and you will have the power of
the people and the people will forever have the power they are entitled to, through your office.
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.

I have requested the ORHT, the Investigations and Enforcement Unit and the Minister of Municipal Affairs
to commence or cause to commence proceedings against Don Wilson to be prosecuted under the criminal
code for the fraud he committed and when they declined to do so having made their final decision I
forwarded the information to the Attorney General to file the appropriate charges.

He has not demonstrated any accountability to me in any way shape or form.

What’s up with that?

So many questions and I suggest you seek the answers when you get to him.
It’s all just a formality because the answers are obvious.

You begin with Lawyer File # 1 and work your way to the top in the public eye and you will have the power
of the people long before you get to the top or should I say you will be at the top long before you know it.

The fact is you have the power now to get the truth to the people and at the moment you do so in the Spirit of
the Constitution you will have more power than you could have possibly ever imagined or planned for.

It’s a whole lot easier to deal with problems when you understand them.
The people will grasp it the moment you make it public.

You may take center stage over Al Gore or at least share it.The American people will be interested as to how
their democracy may be infected with a like virus. The people are ready. How about you?

I am available to provide all the evidence you could possibly need in pursuant of the individual’s guaranteed
rights and a sane peaceful society.

I highly recommend we meet at your earliest convenience.

Tentatively Respectfully

Frank Gallagher

PS read this along with my July 7 2007 letter to you.

I have sent you the 15 Lawyer Files and a copy of the 73 page letter to the Toronto Sun dated October 8 2006
It is imperative that you peruse the Sun letter until you are convinced that I provided every possible piece of
evidence to prove irrefutably that Don Wilson committed the offenses I allege.

When you read Dave Grech’s response dated September 6 2005 in Lawyer File # 2 you will know he is
incoherent to the facts and responded incompetently which has caused me to apply myself 24/7 for over 2
years now to seek the justice which is my right as a Canadian individual who is guaranteed Charter rights.

I highly suspect Dave consulted the Minister and the Minister consulted the Attorney General.
They have a tendency to exaggerate away too much, dontcha know?