RCMP Compiled December 20 2008

1
2
From: REVIEWS [mailto:reviews@cpc-cpp.gc.ca]
Sent: September 23, 2008 3:33 PM
To: franklyone@hotmail.com
Subject: RE: Check
This is to acknowledge receipt of your Request for a Review. You will be receiving a letter
shortly confirming your request.
Thank you.
Commission for Public Complaints Against the RCMP
Reviews & Investigations Unit
FAX #: 613-952-8045
TELEPHONE #: 1-800-267-6637
E-MAIL ADDRESS: reviews@cpc-cpp.gc.ca
From: Frank Gallagher [mailto:frank.gallagher@sympatico.ca]

To: REVIEWS
Subject: Check
September 23 2008 Frank Gallagher

34 Riverglen Drive
Commission for Public Complaints Against the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Keswick, On.
L4P 2P8
Canada Post: Bag Service 1722
905-476-8959
Ottawa, Ontario frank@cdf.name
K1P 0B3
Fax-613-952-8045 Manager
www.cpc.cpp.gc.ca Charter Democracy Force
www.cdf.name
Re: File No. PC-2007-2316
Re: Request Review of my Complaint

RCMP refuse to investigate
Government corruption and conspiracy
Dear Commission Representative
I have received the RCMP Final Letter of Disposition dated September 3 2008 signed by Superintendent Robert
Davis, District Commander, Greater Toronto Area and he informs if I wish to exercise my right to a review of
this investigation of my complaint I may do so by contacting the Commission for Public Complaints Against the
RCMP at Canada Post: Bag Service 1722, Fax-613-952-8045, and
www.cpc.cpp.gc.ca
3
I do wish to exercise my right to a review of this investigation of my complaint. I have had some difficulties
communicating with Andree Leduc, Enquiries and Complaints Analyst at the 7337 137 Street, Suite 102, Surrey,
British Columbia V3W 1A4 office so I am submitting this Request for Review of my Complaint by both Fax-
613-952-8045 and your on line form at www.cpc.cpp.gc.ca.
Andree Leduc will get the whole document by e-mail along with the rest on the AAAAALIST
All pertinent evidence regarding this Request for Review of my Complaint is published or referenced on the
“RCMP Final Letter of Disposition” http://groups.google.com/group/rcmp-final-letter-of-disposition affiliate
web site of the Charter Democracy Force
All evidence published on this site is pertinent including correspondence with Andree Leduc of your Surrey,
British Columbia Office.
The RCMP Final Letter of Disposition dated September 3 2008 implicates Inspector Robert Davis to be in on the
Government Organized Crime of corruption and conspiracy and the details are explained in document “Request
Review of Complaint September 23 2008” published on the aforementioned web site of which this is the first
page.
The links to the evidence originally published on the sites referenced in my original complaint to your office November 8
2007 were corrupted so I opened a new site CDF Documents and transferred pertinent evidence there informing Staff
Sergeant R.B.MacAdam and everyone else published on the AAAAALIST
of the original Charter Democracy Force web site http://groups.google.com/group/charter-democracy-force The CDF
Documents web site can be accessed from this site. .
It would be prudent to mention that I have been providing the irrefutable evidence of Government Organized Crime of
corruption and conspiracy to Sergeant Michael Thomson of the Milton RCMP office since January 18 2006 when he
responded to the evidence I originally left with Inspector Peter Goulet of the Newmarket detachment dated November 15
2005.
On January 3 2006 Inspector P. Goulet wrote to inform the evidence was originally reviewed by members of the Federal
Enforcement Section and it was learned I was concerned about possible offences under the Canada Business Act.
The Act falls under the investigative mandate of the RCMP Commercial Crime Section also located in Newmarket and was
being forwarded on to them for review.
I had indeed originally requested the RCMP address the relative issues regarding my former tenant Don Wilson president
and director of Bio Safe under the Canada Business Corporations Act, Part XIX Paragraph 229 (1) having already
attempted to get the York Regional Police to deal with Don Wilson under the Criminal Code and Tenant Protection Act,
1997 but they declined to do so.
By the time I went to the RCMP with the November 15 2005 cover letter and evidence I had already tried several
government departments to address the issues that occurred June 30 2005 at the ORHT but to no avail, so that is the reason
I presented the issues in different manner under the Canada Business Act to try my luck that way.
This is all documented on the Golden Rule for Society …Gold for Law Society web site
http://groups.google.com/group/golden-rule-for-society---gold-for-law-society-
under the heading Royal Canadian Mounted Police Compiled A – C documents now available on the “RCMP
Final Letter of Disposition” web site along with other pertinent evidence.
You must remember I was just a victim experienced in another field of endeavor with no experience in how the police
carried on business at the time and simply provided the evidence that crimes had been committed by my former tenant and
president of a company that I had invested in and thought they would be dealt with by professional people in these matters
not realizing I had to dot (t) s and cross (i) s and follow procedures I was not aware of or experienced in.
I was under the opinion at the time that the people financed all government personnel involved in the administration and
enforcement of the law to be proficient competent responsible and irreproachable with fortitude and conviction to the
safety and wellbeing of every individual as guaranteed by the Charter of equal protection and benefits consistent with the
Constitution and the Police Services Act.
4
My opinion has never wavered.
Police Services Act

R.S.O. 1990, CHAPTER P.15
PoliceServicesAct.doc
Declaration of principles
1. Police services shall be provided throughout Ontario in accordance with the following principles:
1. The need to ensure the safety and security of all persons and property in Ontario.
2. The importance of safeguarding the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Canadian Charter of
Rights and Freedoms and the Human Rights Code.
3. The need for co-operation between the providers of police services and the communities they
serve.
4. The importance of respect for victims of crime and understanding of their needs.
It is all about common sense and the law, not aware at the time the absence of it throughout the personnel of the
system but with further thought and reason determined it was too consistent to be incompetence and eventually
proved it was deliberate organized crime of corruption and conspiracy by members of the Law Societies
beginning in the very first line of the Charter, all documented on the web sites.
The Sergeant Michael Thomson e-mail dated January 18 2006 specifically states that I proposed an investigation
be undertaken utilizing the auspices of the Canada Business Act and as such investigated the evidence
This information is all published on my web sites that RCMP Staff Sergeant Bob MacAdam investigated and
states in his interim report dated May 20 2008 that he felt he should be thorough and thoughtful when forming
conclusions based on the relevant evidence.
Since Superintendent Robert Davis, District Commander, Greater Toronto Area does not comprehend the need
to be competent responsible and irreproachable with fortitude and conviction for the safety and wellbeing of
every individual as guaranteed by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms nor is he competent to
command a police force consistent with the Police Services Act I will just address the issues he stated in his
September 3 2008 Final Letter of Disposition, which is self-evident
In such serious matters of government organized crime of corruption and conspiracy well documented and filed
with you on November 8 2007 and studied by Staff Sergeant Bob MacAdam in a manner he felt was thorough
and thoughtful when forming conclusions based on the relevant evidence as he states in his interim report
dated May 20 2008, and finally completed on July 11 2008 as stated in the letter from the Professional Standards
Unit signed by Sergeant Karen Delorey, after 8 months of studying the prodigious amount of irrefutable
evidence of government organized crime of corruption and conspiracy published on my web sites that had been
provided to Inspector Brian Verheul, Milton detachment via e-mail addressed to Sergeant Michael Thomson
since January 18 2006 it is incomprehensible that the final 2 page report dated September 3 2008 by
Superintendent Robert Davis only contained a little more than one page of relative text, especially since he states
Staff Sergeant R.B. MacAdam was a veteran investigator.
It states in the Commission for Public Complaints Against the RCMP pamphlet Andree Leduc mailed me when
confirming my complaint that if the CPC carries out a further investigation an investigator will gather all the
information relevant to the complaint and will conduct interviews with me, the RCMP members(s) involved, and
any witnesses.
5
The pertinent evidence is published on my Charter Democracy Force web sites aforementioned and the report by
Staff Sergeant R.B. MacAdam is now pertinent evidence having spent 8 months studying the evidence thorough
and thoughtful and of course he is a pertinent witness to attest that the report the RCMP present at the review is
in fact the report that he prepared for the investigation of the complaint.
Superintendent Robert Davis is also a pertinent witness to attest that the final report he sent me after 1 ¾ months
reviewing Staff Sergeant R.B. MacAdam’s report is indeed the report he prepared.
I ask that you immediately request a copy of Staff Sergeant R.B. MacAdam’s report to ensure no time is
allowed for a fixed new replacement report.
A copy of Superintendent Robert Davis’s report is enclosed.
It is within your competence to determine if they are consistent with each other.
Address of contents of Superintendent Robert Davis dated September 3 2008
False statements are underlined

Paragraphs
1) Complaint date November 7 2007 in error (False-November 8 2007)

2) The investigator also reviewed numerous documents found on my web sites in order to understand the
circumstances surrounding my complaint
That is what he stated in his May 20 2008 interim report
3) He has reviewed Staff Sergeant MacAdam’s report and wishes to share with me the results.
4) He emphasizes that despite the hundreds of pages of documentation involved in my complaint, the
RCMP’s sole mandate was to determine whether or not the members acted appropriately.
He is suggesting there is a difference as to how the evidence is examined. The evidence provided to
Sergeant Michael Thomson up to October 18 2007 when I met with Roy Steinebach is irrefutable to the
Government Organized Crime of corruption and conspiracy even though he refused to take the evidence I
brought to him that date he said he had access to the evidence that I had been sending to Sergeant
Michael Thomson’s e-mail address and I could continue to send evidence via the same method, which I
did and is all relevant up to the date I filed the complaint with the commission November 8 2007. I
presume he was instructed how to handle me before we met on October 7 2007,
Correction: October 18 2007 not October 7 2007
perhaps a note on the file. As far as Inspector Brian Verheul is concerned Superintendent Robert Davis
states Inspector Verheul instructed Sergeant Thomson and to how to deal with the evidence and is
therefore responsible for Sergeant Thomson’s actions. Inspector Brian Verheul had plenty of time to
confirm whether or not the evidence was relative to the Government Organized Crime of corruption and
conspiracy. It is yet to be determined if Inspector Verheul acted on his own or… consulted with his
superiors.)
It is superfluous to just stick with the complaint I filed November 8 2007 against Sergeant Roy Steinebach
and Inspector Brian Verheul. They have some splainin to do as does Superintendent Robert Davis that
will inevitably lead to their superiors.
I complained of Government corruption and conspiracy and they refused to investigate, and when Staff
Sergeant R.B.MacAdam investigated the evidence thorough and thoughtful when forming conclusions
based on the relevant evidence, in order to determine which was relevant he had to be thorough and
thoughtful as he stated he was.
6
That remains to be seen but Superintendent Robert Davis’s report is self- evident he is not.
I reiterate all police have a responsibility to be consistent with the Police Services Act and the Constitution
conducive to every individual’s guaranteed Charter rights of equal protection and benefits and it is each
person’s superior that is responsible to see that they are competent responsible and irreproachable with
fortitude and conviction to every individual as guaranteed with particular attention to victims, attentive to
any flaws in the system that should be addressed to prevent such reoccurrences to some other individual.
Police Services Act

2. The importance of safeguarding the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Canadian Charter of
Rights and Freedoms and the Human Rights Code.
3. The need for co-operation between the providers of police services and the communities they
serve.
Obviously Inspector Robert Davis has insulted my intelligence and demonstrated his
incompetence for success as either the bad or good guy.
You will see in many of my writings I presumed the RCMP Commissioner William Elliot had been
consulted and it was he who actually is behind the refusal to investigate along with Minister of Public
Safety and so on right up to the DOJ and higher.
5) Staff Sergeant MacAdam’s investigation revealed when I attended the Toronto North Detachment on
October 18 2007 and met with Sergeant Steinbach, it was not to make a new complaint but rather to
provide more documents with respect to the same complaint I had previously made to the Commercial
Crime Section (CCS). I was advised in 2006 that CCS would not be investigating this complaint and I
was provided with the rationale for that decision being informed the Department of Justice had been
consulted prior to responding to me.
As previously stated only the first file I provided to Inspector Peter Goulet dated November 15
2005 made reference to the Canada Business Act issues that Sergeant Michael Thomson
addressed in his report on January 18 2006.
From then on it was all about Government Organized Crime of corruption and
conspiracy and the refusal of the YRP, OPP, RCMP and many government
departments and agencies to deal with the issues which led to the Ontario
Attorney General who advises them all and he is the “guardian of the public
interest” which he refuses to guard.
5a) Sergeant Steinbach declined to take more documents and explained the CCS Intake process to
me.
I printed out the evidence to take down to him because the RCMP web site stated they do not
take evidence by e-mail.
He refused to take the evidence stating he already had it because the evidence I had been
7
sending via Sergeant Michael Thomson’s e-mail address was being kept on file and he
already had a copy of the recording of the ORHT hearing that I provided with the November
15 2005 evidence I gave to Inspector Peter Goulet.
5b) He did however tell me that he felt that my complaint was too vague and over reaching
and that it did not meet the CCS Investigational mandate.
He refused to look at the evidence I brought with me and the evidence on the web sites is
not vague at all.
He did not state the evidence was vague and over reaching and the evidence irrefutably
proves his opinion as to the relevancy of Government Organized Crime of corruption and
conspiracy is valueless and I suspect that he is not all that familiar with the file and was
just acting on instructions.
5c). He also told me that there was already a file open regarding my allegations and went on to
explain that it did not necessarily mean that the RCMP was going to investigate the complaint.
(Sergeant Steinbach told me for certain the RCMP was not going to investigate the complaint)
6) Inspector Verheul did not deal with me directly, but he did provide direction to Sergeant
Thomson, my principle contact person, that if material being submitted continues to relate to the
issues already reviewed then nothing further should be done than to place a copy of the
correspondence on the file.
As previously mentioned Inspector Verheul is responsible for Sergeant Thomson’s actions and when I
brought the matter to his attention prior to filing the complaint he should have looked into it and he has had
plenty of time since as he has been provided all the evidence the same as the rest of the people whose e-mail
addresses are in the AAAAAALIST document published on the original Charter Democracy Force web site
7) In the course of his investigation Staff Sergeant MacAdam also determined that my initial
complaint involving my investment in Mr. Wilson’s company and the Ontario Rental Housing and
Tenant’s Act dispute was reviewed and that I was advised in writing that the matter was most
appropriately handled through the civil provisions provided for in the noted statute and that no
criminal investigation would be undertaken
I presume reference is being made to Sergeant Michael Thomson’s January 18 2006 e-mail again.
He has to fill in the report somehow. Heaven knows I am not referring to reiterations being particularly
reiterative myself. I am noting the struggle to put something to paper that looks legitimately convincing.
8) When I was not satisfied with that response I wrote back the same day and Sergeant Thomson
wrote his second letter dated February 7th 2006, further explaining that if I suspect criminal
activity, the police service with primary jurisdiction would be responsible for investigating the
allegations and it seems the Ontario Provincial Police had also reviewed my complaint and had
referred me to the York Regional Police as the police services of jurisdiction. It was established
as well that I had met with the YRP previously and was told that the matter was civil and that
they would not be conducting an investigation.
I do not seem to have a copy of that letter in my computer files, perhaps in my 3’ stack of hard copy but it is
irrelative.
The police sent me in circles as to who had the authority whereas the YRP was the original police force of
jurisdiction but they have persistently refused to look into the Government Organized Crime of corruption
and conspiracy, the same as the OPP and the RCMP whereas they all have been provided the same evidence.
9) After careful consideration of the details surrounding my complaint, he finds no evidence that
indicates that Sergeant Steinebach or Inspector Verheul acted improperly and furthermore he
supports Inspector Verheul’s directives, given the nature of the file and the documentation being
provided.
8
There you have it, after careful consideration he finds no evidence that indicates that Sergeant Steinebach or
Inspector Verheul acted improperly and further more he supports Inspector Verheul’s directives.
Was it he Superintendent Robert Davis, District Commander Greater Toronto Area that gave the order not to
investigate? Was it an obvious decision for him? Did he need to bother consulting with his superiors?
That is yet to be determined!!
10) If I wish to exercise my right to a review of this investigation of my complaint I may do so by

contacting the CPU at the Ottawa office
Of course I wish to exercise my right!!!

That is what this all about. Right?
I see Inspector Brian Verheul is retired now ( bottom of his 2nd page).
Before Staff Sergeant R.B.MacAdam finished the investigation he was provided a new job( See his May
20 2008 interim report) with NCO i/c after his name as Occupational Health and Safety Services “O”
Division/ Return to Work/Medical Discharge Facilitator of Occupational Health and Safety Services “O”
Division
As predictable as the likelihood of people becoming victims with government members of the Law
Societies holding every position of authority in the legal system who are not required to give a damn about
every individuals guaranteed Charter rights of equal protection and benefits nor is the Law Society of
Upper Canada required to examine evidence provided in support of complaints against their members.
See the 2 part Law Society of Upper Canada document published on the original Charter Democracy
Force web site.
CanLaw National Lawyer Referral Service confirmed this on their web site www.canlaw.com
and I copied other evidence from their site, which they were not too happy about which you will see
published on the Charter Democracy Force web site.
All evidence referred herein is published on the Charter Democracy Force web sites and was e-mailed to
everyone on the aforementioned AAAAAALIST and they were provided with the web site addresses they
would be published on.
**********************************************************************************
It is predictable you of the Commission for Public Complaints Against the RCMP will be orchestrated by the
superiors of the Government Organized Crime of corruption and conspiracy as it is apparent they already caused
Andree Leduc to not cooperate with me.
You will find that information on the “RCMP Final Letter of Disposition” web site or referenced where you will
find all the evidence stated herein, and quite probably more.
The evidence is irrefutable of the Government Organized Crime of corruption and conspiracy and with the
RCMP Final Letter of Disposition dated September 3 2008 they are securely implicated in the conspiracy.
Now it is your turn to provide us the irrefutable evidence of the Commission for Public Complaints Against the
RCMP for the public to see which you really have no choice but to cooperate with the conspiracy or cooperate
consistent with the Constitution conducive to every individual’s guaranteed Charter rights.
Of course this document will be e-mailed to everyone on the AAAAALIST and many others.
9
I will expect acknowledgement of receipt of the first page of this document informing you where the rest of it is
published and the other pertinent evidence.
Should you have any problems with the links to the documents or web sites please do not hesitate to contact me
at frank@cdf.name
The same if you need any help understanding the evidence or should you require more evidence, anything at all
please do not hesitate to contact me.
Frank Gallagher
Manager
Charter Democracy Force
PS
You have more than enough to demand a Public Inquiry if you can find someone you can demand.
Perhaps you can find a way to get the information to the media.
You will read throughout the correspondence every government department and agency suggesting I get a
lawyer and deal with my personal issues, as they like to say, in civil court.
The July 26 2008 Saturday Star headlined the serious situation that the Middle Class cannot afford to access the
civil courts costing $60,000 for 3 days and the media who are on the AAAALIST have also been provided the
evidence of precisely what I informed them more than three years ago which they attempt to orchestrate
themselves out of this one.
Invariably everything they do is corrupt and they have no choice but to continue in their ways when they are
confronted but the jig is up.
There is always the option of finally doing things legal consistent with the Constitution conducive to every
individual’s guaranteed Charter rights.
That would require restructuring and come right out and fess the truth something they are not familiar with so it
could be somewhat clumsy.
From: Frank Gallagher [mailto:franklyone@hotmail.com]

To: 'REVIEWS'
Subject: RE: Check: Correction
September 25 2008
Please make note of corrected date on page 4 of the Request Review of Complaint September 25 2008 document
published on the RCMP Final Letter of Disposition web site http://groups.google.com/group/charter-democracy-
force
Excerpt from page 4 follows
False statements are underlined
Paragraphs
1) Complaint date November 7 2007 in error (False-November 8 2007)

10
2) The investigator also reviewed numerous documents found on my web sites in order to understand the
circumstances surrounding my complaint
That is what he stated in his May 20 2008 interim report
3) He has reviewed Staff Sergeant MacAdam’s report and wishes to share with me the results.
4) He emphasizes that despite the hundreds of pages of documentation involved in my complaint, the
RCMP’s sole mandate was to determine whether or not the members acted appropriately.
He is suggesting there is a difference as to how the evidence is examined. The evidence provided to
Sergeant Michael Thomson up to October 18 2007 when I met with Roy Steinebach is irrefutable to the
Government Organized Crime of corruption and conspiracy even though he refused to take the evidence I
brought to him that date he said he had access to the evidence that I had been sending to Sergeant
Michael Thomson’s e-mail address and I could continue to send evidence via the same method, which I
did and is all relevant up to the date I filed the complaint with the commission November 8 2007. I
presume he was instructed how to handle me before we met on October 7 2007, (Correction:
October 18 2007 not October 7 2007) perhaps a note on the file. As far as Inspector Brian
Verheul is concerned Superintendent Robert Davis states Inspector Verheul instructed Sergeant Thomson
and to how to deal with the evidence and is therefore responsible for Sergeant Thomson’s actions.
Inspector Brian Verheul had plenty of time to confirm whether or not the evidence was relative to the
Government Organized Crime of corruption and conspiracy. It is yet to be determined if Inspector
Verheul acted on his own or… consulted with his superiors.)
Please acknowledge
Frank Gallagher
October 7 2008
www.cdf.name 11
Reviews
Commission for Public Complaints
Against RCMP
reviews@cpc-cpp.gc.ca
Re: File Nos. PC-2007-2316 & PC-2007-2317

Government Organized Crime
Corruption and Conspiracy
Dear Reviews
Your letter by Canada Post dated September 24 2008 states you have requested the RCMP to forward you the
pertinent evidence pursuant to my request where urgency is of the essence to ensure there is no time for the
RCMP and other conspirators to manipulate the evidence.
I am most concerned that you should now have secured a copy of RCMP Staff Sergeant R.B. MacAdam’s report
who was assigned by the office of the RCMP Commissioner to investigate my complaint.
The Staff Sergeant spent 8 months studying the evidence and it is germane to the complaint as to his competence
to review the evidence consistent with the Constitution in support of every individual’s guaranteed Charter
rights.
As the evidence on the Charter Democracy Force web sites irrefutably proves the entire government modus
operandi is consistent with that of the Law Society of Upper Canada, which has been documented and published
as the 2 part Law Society of Upper Canada document.
In this document they clearly state or imply their members are not required to give a damn about the
individual’s guaranteed Charter rights nor is evidence relevant to their decisions when it is against their
members.
The “Roles and Responsibilities of the Attorney General” published on the Ontario web site clearly states he is
responsible as the “guardian of the public interest” and the “guardian of the rule of law” to protect every
individual and society as a whole and yet he has been provided the 2 part Law Society of Upper Canada
document along with a preponderance of other evidence which he has refused to deal with consistent with the
Constitution conducive to the support of every individual’s guaranteed Charter rights.
He is the advisor of all Cabinet Ministers, government departments and agencies who have all refused to deal
with these most serious issues and I expect no different from your Reviews office consistent with the conspiracy.
You have more than just the responsibility to study the evidence published on the web sites to coherency to
determine if the RCMP have acted appropriately conducive to the protection of every individual as guaranteed
by the Charter as it imperative that you demonstrate due diligence to the support of every individual’s
guaranteed Charter rights particularly since the evidence highly suggests you will not be cooperative with me as
it is impossible to do so and remain consistent with the conspiracy.
Once again the evidence published on the Charter Democracy Force web site irrefutably proves the conspiracy
and all government personnel who have responded to the evidence have had precisely the same evidence to
review and their responses or no responses is self – evident they are not competent responsible and
irreproachable with fortitude and conviction to the Constitution conducive to every individual’s guaranteed
Charter rights, however they have all been consistent with the conspiracy conducive to its success.
12
The evidence clearly shows due diligence to the conspiracy clearly orchestrated from the office of the Minister
of Justice and Attorney General of Canada and the office of the Ontario Attorney General regarding the issues I
have presented relative to incidents that occurred in Ontario.
The RCMP Superintendent’s Final Letter of Disposition dated September 3 2008, less than 2 pages of context is
incomprehensible clearly demonstrating that he is not competent responsible and irreproachable with fortitude
and conviction consistent with the Constitution conducive to every individual’s guaranteed Charter rights
however it irrefutably proves he is consistent with the conspiracy.
On the other hand the evidence published on the Charter Democracy Force web site attests that I have been
competent responsible irreproachable with fortitude and conviction consistent with the Constitution conducive to
every individual’s guaranteed Charter rights where we comprehend the significance of evidence and the
necessity of its acquisition to support allegations and have applied every effort to obtaining pertinent evidence to
ensure the truth, the whole truth is being provided for all to see and act appropriately.
To maintain our consistency to the Constitution conducive to every individual’s guaranteed Charter rights and
our attentiveness to competent responsible and irreproachable approach with fortitude and conviction we request
confirmation you are now in receipt of the pertinent evidence requested from the RCMP with relative
information confirming the date that you received it.
Consistent with democracy and equality guaranteed by the Charter I request a copy of the evidence acquired
from the RCMP relative to my complaint where I am particularly interested in the contents of RCMP Staff
Sergeant R.B. MacAdam’s report after 8 months of studying the pertinent evidence.
Reality is the truth impervious to perception yet precisely due to perception
It is imperative that we know whether or not his perception of what he was to accomplish is consistent with the
Constitution conducive to every individual’s guaranteed Charter rights or not.
If you do not comprehend this then your perception is not adept to these most serious issues.
I remind you that laws, policies, procedures and normal routines set out by the conspirators are of no force or
effect as to their inconsistencies with the Constitution
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.
I request you consider wisely before you make a decision not to cooperate with me consistent with the
Constitution conducive to every individual’s guaranteed Charter rights.
I request immediate acknowledgement of receipt of this document

“RequestReviewsProvideEvidenceOctober72008” published on the RCMP Final Letter of Disposition” web site
under heading “Reviews Correspondence”
I also request immediate confirmation as to whether or not you are in now in possession of the evidence
requested from the RCMP and whether or not you intend to immediately forward the requested evidence to me.
Thank you
13
Frank Gallagher
Manager
PS
It is imperative you and everyone understands the present financial crisis cannot be dealt with appropriately by
the conspirators that caused it who will invariably be attentive to the preservation of their own asses and their
own financial well being, as always humongously detrimental to the safety and wellbeing of the individual and
society as a whole.
They must be exposed and appropriate action taken to ensure competent responsible people with fortitude and
conviction to the Constitution and our Charter rights are provided the authority to lead us out of the financial
crisis hugely detrimental to world peace and the well being of the world populace.
14
Public Inquiry warranted and demanded
Only the conspirators will object and thereby thrust themselves upon
their own swords
This was well worth the wait, but unfortunately society has paid far too
much for the pleasure and cannot afford to wait any longer.
September 26 2008 Expediency is of the essence
www.cdf.name PUBLIC INQUIRY NOW!!!!

The unscrupulous Government members of the Law Societies and their unscrupulous counterpart’s world wide are responsible for
present reality as certain as always as history attests where:
Their insatiable quest for wealth and power in cooperation with the affluent and influential and multinational corporate conglomerates
have manipulated the markets indifferent to the safety and wellbeing of the people of the Lower Tiers and now when their
manipulations are back firing on them, they who have been ransacking us to poverty reveal they have always had the money to deal
with poverty and prove their indifference to poverty by now pulling out the money to save their asses. They are only coherent to
poverty when it nears them and justice will be learned the hard way.
Can we trust the people who have been irrefutably proven to be unscrupulous back stabbing cancers upon society to act responsibility
all of a sudden for Society or will they use their BENEVOLENCE, RIGHTEOUSNESS and MORALITY ploy to keep their
unscrupulous Law Societies luxuriously secure and us in poverty to the bitter end?
Quite a responsibility for the Chair of their Commission. Such a serious issue belongs to the democratic moral majority
15
The taxpayer pays a humongous amount of money to finance a legal system structured to ransack them and
protects them selves and the government from them while they are doing it.
There oughta be a law!!!!
I know there is.
I mean there oughta be law enforcement, if the goods guys are going to be protected.
I have requested “Reviews” to provide me with a copy of the true investigation undertaken by Staff Sergeant
R.B. MacAdam who ended up with a promotion and Inspector Brian Verheul a retirement
“Reviews” refuse to respond.
They may be in on it too.
What do you think?
Before I present my correspondence with the RCMP that began back on January 3 2006 that should take less
than an hour to determine what it took the RCMP 10 months to come up with their absurd Final Letter of
Disposition .I would like to present evidence of the reluctant disposition Andree Leduc of the Commission
for Public Complaints Against the RCMP demonstrated in his letter of December 20 2007.
16
Sent: September 18, 2008 8:21 AM
To: 'complaints@cpc-cpp-gc.ca'
Subject: FW: Request Review of Complaint
September 18, 2008

Andree Leduc
I have not yet received acknowledgement of receipt of the e-mail I sent September 11 2008.
Please respond as to what actions you have taken regarding these most serious issues.
Thank you
Frank Gallagher
Manager

To: 'complaints@cpc-cpp-gc.ca'
Subject: Request Review of Complaint
September 11 2008
Commission for Public Complaints Against The Royal Canadian Mounted Police
7337 137 Street, Suite 102
Surrey, British Columbia V3W 1A4
Fax 604-501-4095
complaints@cpc-cpp-gc.ca
Attention Andree Leduc

Enquiries and Complaints Analyst
Frank Gallagher
Re: File No. PC-2007-2316 Manager
Re: File No. PC-2007-2317 Charter Democracy Force
Re: Request Review of Complaint
Dear Andree Leduc
I hope you will be more cooperative than when you last wrote in December 2007 and refused to respond to my several
attempts to have you confirm that you will and make some effort to be competent when this inevitable day arrived to
request a review of my complaint against the RCMP as I am not satisfied with their deliberate incompetence consistent
with the government organized crime of corruption and conspiracy.
Given the evidence and particular circumstances it would ne naïve of me to believe anything other than you are under the
thumb of the major players of the conspiracy but never the less I must go through the motions following the modus
operandi of the government documenting every step of the way for both present and future use.
.You will notice how FFF, Forthright Forthcoming and Forthwith I endeavor to be expecting the same in return and of
course when not, it is painfully obvious and though I would prefer appropriate action from you I have learned to settle for
more evidence as if I didn’t have enough already.
From the tone of my writing it is hoped you will comprehend that what concerns me does concern you one way or another
and all I can do is hope that you understand that I am a victim requesting justice as detailed on the Charter Democracy
17
Force web site www.cdf.name and 10 affiliate sites although in reference to the evidence originally attached to the
complaints you will find it on the original Charter Democracy Force site http://groups.google.com/group/charter-
democracy-force
There is sufficient evidence there that demands the RCMP look into in the 15 Lawyer Files and the Mad, Glad mostly
Sad….Why document that asks many questions Why that need to be formally answered even though they answer
themselves.
I have made note of some very significant serious problems within the upper command of the RCMP in the following
pages, which includes a copy of their Final Letter of Disposition dated September 3 2008.
I believe considering your admittance of incompetence that this is a case of rare circumstance and at the
discretion of the Chair of the CPC request the CPC become involved and conduct its own investigation in the
public interest or conduct a public interest hearing or both.
Please acknowledge receipt and your intent to cooperate
Thank you
Frank Gallagher
September 11 2008
Well no cooperation there still sticking to his decision of December 8 2007 where it would be prudent to bring
you up to date in my response of December 27 2007.
December 27 2007
18
Fax 604-501-4095

Frank Gallagher
Manager, CST RET.
Re: File No. PC-2007-2317 GCCRF
Dear Andree Leduc
In response to your letter of December 20 2007 (copy attached) I thank you for admitting your
incompetence and lack of authority to deal with the issues of Government corruption and conspiracy
which are of a pressing concern to me and in my opinion should be a pressing concern to you but
obviously you are oblivious to that reality, understandable however because I have a firm grasp of it.
You have stressed once again, that the purpose of the Commission is to provide the public with an
opportunity to make complaints concerning the conduct of the members of the RCMP in the
performance of their duties.
I understand you have neither the expertise nor the legal authority to permit you to become involved
in issues beyond the scope of this mandate.
It is important to note that I am alert to the narrow minds of government personnel and your limited
respect for the individuals of the moral majority not in the employ of the government services and
your persistence to insult our intelligence.
Let me put emphasis on the fact that I thank you as a citizen of Canada being an individual of the
public, for the opportunity to make a complaint concerning the conduct of the members of the RCMP
in the performance of their duties and in fact, as you are aware I have taken advantage of your
generosity, however I must also emphasize I am a taxpayer and I suggest you keep that in mind
should you care to continue in your endeavors.
Your admittance, and though appreciative of your integrity, is discerning that you are incompetent but
admittance is the first step to the cure.
Integrity is an exceptionally wonderful trait rare in the employ of the government and we can not
afford to lose you.
If it would give you any satisfaction I am incompetent too having no experience in dealing with a
government conspiracy when I began back on June 30 2005 even though I was aware of persistent
government corruption and conspiracy as we all are I never had substantial evidence of it, but with
confidence in my integrity and ability to think things out I set out to prove it and now confident that I
have a voluminous, and I thank you for that word because I have been stuck with “ a preponderance”
and “ a prodigious” which I thanked Karen Noakes #440 of the York Regional Police” for, to describe
the amount of irrefutable evidence I have supplied to a voluminous number of government personnel
who have refused to deal with the issues published on my web site implicating them in the
19
conspiracy.
At this moment I will accept the fact you are incompetent which you have admitted and demonstrated
and will offer you some suggestions with the endeavor to keep you out of trouble and more useful to
the Canadian people.
I have filed a complaint against two members of the RCMP for failing to investigate government
conspiracy as you are aware and have acknowledged in your letter of November 8 2007 (copy
attached)
There is little needed to investigate the complaint for all that is required to do is ask the officers
involved and they will confirm it.
On my complaint I identified my mother as witnessing the refusal by Sergeant Roy Steinebach on

October 18 2007 so I doubt there will be any denying of that which I complained about. Too simple
so far right?
What the issue will be is whether or not the RCMP had the right to refuse to investigate the evidence
which they may if it is considered trivial, frivolous, or vexatious.
I believe the complaint itself is evident that it is not trivial, Right?
Is it frivolous or vexatious?
You don’t know right?
That is why I have been forwarding the evidence to you in advance so as to provide you the
opportunity to familiarize yourself with it and to get your mind thinking in appropriate manner due
the serious nature of the issues..
Your admittance of your incompetence and inexperience to that endeavor is discerning I reiterate but
never the less you will be called upon to make that very important decision.
At some point a public hearing will be in order and it would be prudent for the Chair to assign a
competent panel to the task and to that endeavor I heartedly suggest you study the evidence published
on my web site.
With due regard to your present ineptness I advise that attentiveness to the issues in the document
Law Society of Upper Canada Part 1 Part 2 will suffice to determine whether or not the members of
the RCMP who I have complained about are negligent in performance of their duties.
I have presumed you people are not members of the legal profession and that is precisely what is
required of a jury in this instance not being biased, well perhaps that is not entirely correct, however
all that is required is a sane mind of integrity although one or the other is in question due your letter
to me but it will all become clear as we proceed.
You will find that Law Society document at the top of the page on my web site
http://groups.google.com/group/guardians-of-the-canadians-charter-of-rights-and-freedoms
20
I remind you there will be no authority provided by the government conspirators to any person, or
government department or agency to take them out and likewise there will be no cooperation from
anyone under the influence of the conspiracy and in fact when they become aware of this document
will attempt to interfere with you in performance of your duty and I suspect they will be very
convincing as they continue to obstruct justice. Perhaps you have already consulted with them.
I dare say they will be successful in their initiative but at that time if you were to take the news to the
media you will be assured a prominent spot in the hearts of the moral majority and you will play a
major role in the restructuring of the system consistent with and conducive to the support of the
Charter guarantee.
Adversely the consequences are unpredictable though will certainly be detrimental to some
significant degree of your concern.
Take a few moments if needed to reason that out and then keep it firmly and prominent in mind.
Given the serious nature of the issues and our inexperience at dealing with such issues it is of the
utmost importance to get the evidence into experienced hands and most importantly responsible
hands which is an improbability due the fact the entire legal system is corrupt and involved in the
conspiracy, which at the moment I am giving you the benefit of the doubt due to the lack of
irrefutable evidence.
To that endeavor I expect full cooperation immediately consistent with your mandate, which must be
consistent with the Constitution.
I must advise that all correspondence with you will be published on my web site and failure to
respond to me in a timely manner will alter your status implicating you in the conspiracy.
The ultimate goal is obviously a Public Inquiry and I do expect full cooperation to that initiative
where it is the only viable option relative to the circumstances.
The Law Society document requires no professional experience to assess as to whether or not it
makes sense for members of the Law Society of Upper Canada to administer and enforce the law
consistent with and conducive to the supreme law of Canada, the Constitution Act, 1982 which
includes the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms which guarantees every individual equality in
protection and benefit in all matters before and under the law.
I suggest you make particular note of that.
Throughout my documents published on the web I have copied excerpts from the Charter but for your
convenience I provide you this.
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.
I should mention that I am 65 years old and do not intend to spend the rest of my life tending to a
simple matter of bringing down the government conspiracy and I expect you to respect my concerns.
I must say I was quite surprised, impressed and appreciative as to how quickly you processed my
original complaint to the RCMP.
Back to the matter on hand, the Law Society document, after reading you will be coherent to the fact
it is an improbability that members of the Law Society of Upper Canada who are required to
21
administer justice in accordance with the Constitution can do so when they are not required to give a
damn about the individuals guaranteed Charter rights which seriously compromises the guarantee,
wouldn’t you think?
Once you are cognizant to the facts study Lawyer Files # 1-3 found near the bottom of web site
http://groups.google.com/group/peoples-law-society which should convince you of the government
conspiracy and the need for a Public Inquiry.
So with expedience in mind with foresight, benefit of evidence they will continue in their reluctance
to investigate and being in receipt of their inane verbiage I will forward you a request for a review
and you may at that time ask the RCMP to conduct a further investigation of my complaint attentive
to the issues regarding the Law Society of Upper Canada Part 1 Part 2 document and Lawyer Files #
1-3 regarding obstruction of justice in a criminal fraud committed in front of a judicator in a public
building financed to administer justice consistent with the guaranteed Charter rights.
Their response to that will be most interesting and I presume there are provisions in the RCMP Act
for a timely response.
At this time, presuming they will not investigate the government conspiracy in its entirety, a public
hearing will be in order leading to a Public Inquiry which is imminent whether or not you cooperate.
Your cooperation is inevitable sooner or later and I needn’t expand on the benefits of sooner.
Should you need any assistance you will find me most cooperative to reasonable request.
I thank you in advance and hope I have made my intentions and that which is required of you
absolutely clear.
Due to your present status of incompetence I will not burden you with further documents presently
over your heads.
We will eventually get around to them one way or another.
Frank Gallagher
PS
I am an individual of Canada and I expect equal service and benefit of your office and demand you do
not delete any further e-mails I send you which will be and are your responsibility under your
mandate.
I also advise that by deleting evidence I provide you by e-mail, which is my right is tampering and
destroying evidence pertinent to a criminal prosecution along with obstruction of justice.
I remind you I have done nothing but act responsibly and it is you who are wanting, necessitating me
to attend to the matter.
To that endeavor I will expect an immediate acknowledgement of receipt as a reply

e-mail with contents of my request attached.
Should that fail I will apprise you of the evidence by other means available to me.
On receipt I will expect acknowledgement by e-mail with your assurance you will cooperate in a
manner consistent with and conducive to every individual’s guaranteed Charter rights and in
particular mine in efficient and effective manner with due regard to the rights of the tax payers.
22
These are most serious matters regarding the safety and well being of every individual in Canada and
must be dealt with due regard..
My web site and the public await your response which is of pressing concern to me and you if you are
coherent and susceptible to reason.
We will see.
It is absolutely ridiculous to use Canada Post which serves only to delay.
I am publishing everything on the web so there is no concern about privacy and confidentiality and it
would be an initiative showing your ability to think things out logically rather than stick to inane
policy due the circumstance where policy will not allow you to take affirmative action against
government corruption, conspiracy and Organized Crime as you will know when you study the
evidence.
I reiterate that you must study it to determine if it is trivia, frivolous or vexatious which it is
obviously not for the evidence is signed by government personnel and staff of the Law Society of
Upper Canada.
It’s all real, and yes you are involved with exposing it or attempting to cover it up because it most
definitely will get to a PUBLIC INQUIRY and so will you one way or another.
The consequences are your choice.
23
How would one
know when it was
received by the
Commissioner? I’ll
presume
November 16 2007
as per page 8
24
November 16 2007
How would one know a Friday so 3 days to
when it was actually deliver not counting
received? Saturday and
Did it sit on someone’s Sunday.
desk for a while or is it
acknowledged as it
comes in?
Obviously not the Commissioner nor is

the letter head the Commissioner’s.
I will tentatively presume this to be

standard procedure making the report
due 30 days from November 16 2007
being December 16 2007 allowing 5
days mail delivery December 21 2007
25
Received by mail
Dec.23 2007
December 31 2007 Resent by e-mail
Andree Leduc
Complaints Against RCMP
Please see attachment “Commission RCMP

Complaints Dec. 27 2007” and immediate response
required
January 2 2008 Out with the old….In with the new.
Andree
Having not received acknowledgement of receipt of e-mail I am now forced to send by fax at
undue cost to me due your failure to cooperate in a manner conducive to the well being of
individual’s guaranteed Charter rights which are not being supported by government personnel,
severely compromising their safety and in direct defiance of the law and indifference to the
people who finance your services
Immediate response required …….Get up to speed……..Formal complaint coming soon

Frank Gallagher
26
Golden Rule
Confucius 551 BC – 479 BC

“Do not impose on others what you would not wish for yourself”
“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”
Jesus 27
“Do unto others as you would have them do unto you”
Jonathan Swainger
University of British Columbia history professor
Edmund Morgan’s compelling book “Inventing the People: The Rise of Popular Sovereignty in England and America”
opens with an assertion that the success of any form of government requires the acceptance of a number of fictions. In
democracies for example, it is necessary for the population to “believe” that the people have a voice or…that the
representatives of the people are the people”
Frank 1942 AD – 200_
Manager, Charter Democracy Force
When truth of a CONSISTENCY to a thing is the ultimate quest, the thing is self-evident even though supported by only
one statement is self sufficient, impervious to any number of CONSISTENCIES of truths that do not maintain a
CONSISTENCY with the thing .
When all is said and done and such inconsistency remains adverse to the CONSISTENCY of the thing deception and
prevarication is self-evident.
When persons develop prevarication to perfection they invariably deceive themselves making them inane to any
purpose vulnerable to sane purpose of humongous advantage to the Charter Democracy Force maintaining
CONSISTENCY to a thing fair and relevant to all of the moral society of the Constitution of the democracy of
Canada where eradication of amoral inclination is its purpose.
28
The painful obviousness of that which is predictable becomes pathetically more nauseating when proven true.
One charged with a crime can not be judged by the amoral and most definitely not by oneself.
29
30
Priority
Police Services Act

2. The importance of safeguarding the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Canadian Charter of Rights
and Freedoms and the Human Rights Code.
3. The need for co-operation between the providers of police services and the communities they serve.
In which way does a preponderance of paper proliferated with words protect every individual as guaranteed by
the Charter?
Of what purpose are such words and those found in the Constitution if staff is without principles?
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.
Incompetence is a relatively simple matter to deal with when competence is the quest by all concerned
Deliberate incompetence is a simpler matter to deal with when incompetence is the quest by all concerned
When there is an obvious CONSISTENCY of incompetence it could very well be the person who perceives the
CONSISTENCY of incompetence to be obvious is personally consistently incompetent.
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.
Considering every individual’s safety and well being is at stake consistent CONSISTENCY of those people
assigned the responsibility to protect every individual equally as guaranteed is mandatory either stated or
implied.
Similarly and most assuredly government personnel financed to administer and enforce the provisions of the
Constitution must be competent responsible and irreproachable in continuity with fortitude and conviction
meaning they must be aware of their legitimate purpose and the serious ramifications upon society should the
CONSISTENCY not be consistently monitored and maintained.
The consequences of neglect are of the most serious nature to the public interest and most assuredly the Attorney
General of Ontario is the “guardian of the public interest” as the “Roles and Responsibilities of the Attorney
General” published on the Ontario web site attests.
CONSISTENCY is also prerequisite in the safety and wellbeing of personnel involved in the government
organized crime of corruption and conspiracy.
31
The evidence published on the Charter Democracy Force was collected by me Frank Gallagher who became
lucidly alert on June 30 2005 at an Ontario Rental Housing Tribunal hearing to the fact I had been victimized by
my former tenant DON Wilson president of a company I had invested in.
Over a period of three years I presented the irrefutable evidence of the crimes to a preponderance of prominent
government personnel, media and others whose e-mail addresses in the AAAAALIST document are published
on the original Charter Democracy Force web site
http://groups.google.com/group/charter-democracy-force
The CONSISTENCY of their do not give a damn attitude about the Constitution and the individual’s equal
guaranteed Charter rights indicative of the spirit that emanates from the Law Society of Upper Canada
demonstrated in the 2 part Law Society of Upper Canada document is overwhelming and pathetically
incomprehensible in terms of incompetence and ignorance to legitimate purpose.
So overwhelming that stretches far beyond the realm that such incompetence could be achieved naturally and
already certain there was much more to this than meets the eye turned my efforts to divulge the root of the
problem that led me right back to that which was immediately apparent at the beginning that the office of the
Attorney General of Ontario was behind it all, being advisor to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing
John Gerretsen who was responsible to monitor compliance with the Tenant Protection Act, 1997 but
demonstrated an irresponsible indifference to his responsibility.
This is all detailed in the 15 Lawyer Files, which we are all quite familiar with by now. Right?
Well to save me time and everyone else concerned the evidence published on the Charter Democracy Force
irrefutably proves the incompetence of the entire legal system to protect every individual equally as guaranteed
by the Charter but at the same time demonstrates an uncanny CONSISTENCY to protect every individual
involved in the conspiracy from the people adverse to the moral legitimate purpose that they have the people
“believe”
So CONSISTENT and so obvious that any sane person of moral thought and reason can discern the truth that
what we have here in Canada is government organized crime personified.
The RCMP who studied the evidence since I filed with the Commission for Public Complaints against the
RCMP November 8 2007 not November 7 2007 as suggested in their “Final Letter of Disposition had to wade
through the evidence which was apparently either over their heads or was simply of no concern to them as they
did their Law Society rendition of pathetic injustice oblivious to “The Spirit of the Law” and the vital role
evidence plays.
Well, the RCMP had an opportunity to show their stuff and blew it miserably incompetent to the conspiracy and
most assuredly no semblance at all to what is expected of a competent responsible irreproachable entity of
fortitude and conviction in continuity to support a moral society conducive to every individual’s guaranteed
equal Charter rights.
Such lame excuses to avoid addressing the major issues and even in what amounts to a one full page of response
maintains an inconsistency with actual fact, but then competence to any purpose is not expected of them from
their superiors so what you see is what you get and the public has no choice but to forget it and move on to retain
their sanity.
Perhaps all the inconsistencies are deliberately entered to draw ones attention to them and would be of no avail
to argue, petty in nature distracting from the obvious serious issues they obviously never intend to address.
32
Perhaps they are intended to infuriate me so I will respond insanely providing them opportunity to divert the
issues to a mental instability.
Well, that does not work absolutely inane to competent responsible irreproachable sane moral purpose.
The truth cannot change but perceptions are vulnerable and fickle things.
They will allow you to believe you are cunning intelligent above many, provide you confidence and arrogance…
and stuff like that.
Simple fact is it will betray you.
Do not believe?
Have a serious look at the Final Letter of Disposition from the point of view of an individual of the moral
majority who once believed their Charter rights secure and were treated fairly as if in a democracy.
The government organized crime has clearly been proven to be initiated at the top but its success is dependent on
the ignorance and cooperation of the ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE.
As the economy gets worse nature will take its course as history attests and be assured we of the Charter
Democracy Force will humongously increase our efforts to the resolve necessary to prevention of the predictable
unnecessary chaos.
One has to wonder if terrorists is just a word attached to groups who are well aware that sane peaceful initiatives
to fair sane moral purpose of sane moral thought and reason is impossible with greedy imbeciles devoid of
conscience inept to sane moral thought and reason.
It seems to me the manipulative abilities of international corporate conglomerates and the humongous advantage
the affluent and influential have illegitimately over the people of the Lower Tiers the World Trade Center was a
likely target when the people are driven insane by the insanity of it all left unchecked.
Anyway, the people have a right to know what is published on the Charter Democracy Force web site and with
phase one now complete with the irrefutable evidence the upper echelon of the RCMP are involved we can now
direct our efforts full time to spreading the truth and we thank you for that for making it so vividly clear.
This document “ReceivedSeptember102008” will be published in its appropriate place on the “RCMP Final
Letter of Disposition” web site http://groups.google.com/group/rcmp-final-letter-of-disposition
I need not mention how severely disappointed we are at but nothing we had not expected and certainly nothing
we were not prepared for.
We will give the Commission for Public Complaints against the RCMP one more opportunity to demonstrate
their incompetence to serve the people consistent with the Constitution and of course make a formal request to
the RCMP Commissioner to investigate the government organized crime as evidenced on the Charter
Democracy Force web site www.cdf.name which Robert Davis, Superintendent, District Commander,
Greater Toronto Area was kind enough to admit as did Staff Sergeant R.B. MacAdam that you have
possession of the evidence or access of all the evidence on the web sites but have chosen to ignore it with
33
blinders on and chose to emphasize your sole mandate was to determine whether or not the members acted
appropriately
This is how my first conversation with Staff Sergeant R.B. MacAdam began when he phoned me to see if I
would come down to the Newmarket office to discuss the complaint and now 10 months later the incompetence
remains.
It was about 3 weeks after he began looking into it on a part time basis he informed and at first I agreed to go
down, but when I asked if he had looked at the evidence on the web site he said no, he was just investigatng the
complaint against the RCMP members.
He had not yet talked to the 2 RCMP members and not looked at the evidence and he wants me to come down.
I questioned how could he possibly determine if they acted appropriately with out looking at the evidence and of
course the Law Society of Upper Canada is of the belief their member acted appropriately without looking at the
evidence and we see a significant CONSISTENCY throughout that evidence appears to be irrelevant when
members of the Law Societies are involved as the Attorney General who plays a major role advising all
government departments and agencies.
I told him he would first have to determine if the evidence was valid to the complaint or considered trivial,
frivolous or vexatious which I cited from the Complaints Commission brochure.
You state Staff Sergeant R.B. MacAdam is a veteran investigator which hardly supports your intended purpose
when logically in the peoples minds evidence plays a major role in investigations and if your veteran
investigators are not aware the public are in serious trouble.
OOPS: They are in serious trouble aren’t they?
All that has been noted is the pathetic incompetence of the person assigned to the investigation and for that he
gets a promotion and I can expand that to see how you made it to District Commander.
There can be no doubt you are aware of the conspiracy because you would have to be an imbecile not to
understand what is going on if you are familiar with the evidence.
Of course that has crossed my mind in earlier writings that for the government organized crime to be successful
persons in you positions have to be selected from the incompetent or cooperative to the conspiracy permitting its
persistent existence.
You have made reference to issues being discussed with the DOJ, which is absurd as the evidence clearly shows
the DOJ and the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada are major players in the conspiracy.
I know it appears that I am addressing these issues to you in an effort to make you people understand the error of
your ways but we know you are well aware, however it is imperative the public clearly understands and it is to
that endeavor I am most attentive.
I presume your efforts are addressed similarly and I have to inform you the intended recipients of this
information are hardly as dumb as they would have to be to comprehend any reason for you not to act on their
behalf consistent with the Constitution.
Meanwhile I am requesting every recipient to jump in and act appropriately on behalf of the people in legitimate
support of the sanctity of the Canadian Constitution.
34
The inane dribble you offered as a competent responsible irreproachable response may well be what you believe
but as always evidence begets the truth and you people simply must familiarize yourselves with the concept.
You state Sergeant Steinbach told me that my complaint was too vague which is utter nonsense but I know after
10 months study of the evidence that is so overwhelming with nothing left to debate and out of hundreds of
pages of evidence you had to at least fill one page with something and why not utter crap that comes so readily.
Given the most serious nature of the issues it is incomprehensible to suggest every (i) should be dotted and (t) s
crossed where if you were the competent responsible irreproachable people with fortitude and conviction to
every individual’s guaranteed Charter rights you would have laid out the red carpet and thanked me for all the
investigative work I did to help you better serve the public interest and Attorney General Chris Bentley
“guardian of the public interest” should have been pleased if not for the fact he is the major player along with the
DOJ.
You mentioned I was provided with the rationale back in 2006, January as I recall and that was an entirely
different matter when after the York Regional Police demonstrated their incompetence to deal with the issues as
well as many other government personnel I thought I would try in addition to address the matter under the
Corporations Act….whatever they call it further demonstrating Don Wilson’s character but Sergeant Thomson
pulled one of your tricks emphasizing that he was addressing the issues that I had presented back in November
2005 I believe it was, maybe early December under the auspices of the Corporations Act …whatever but since
then I have provided the RCMP a preponderance of irrefutable evidence of government organized crime if you
care to stay to pertinent point, and it was delivered by e-mail via the Michael Thomson e-mail address and
Sergeant Roy Steinbach acknowledged they had the evidence on file including a disk recording of the Tribunal
hearing.
That is why he refused to accept the evidence I brought down because he stated they already had it.
Everything I am stating now is just reiterating the prodigious amount of reiterations published on the web sites
and all you have demonstrated is your incoherence to the evidence and your irresponsible attitude towards the
necessity of a responsible investigation on behalf of the people.
I have no further interest in addressing the crapola contained with your Final Letter of Disposition
when the evidence published on the web sites bares the truth and your report bares the truth of the incompetent
and irresponsible ineptness of the RCMP to protect the people as guaranteed by the Charter when you make
every effort to avoid the truth that lies within the evidence you stumbled over looking for something to put in
your one page letter of content.
Well the evidence stands for itself, not debatable and yet fools rush in to give it a try.
Gee, that segues me to the Commission for Public Complaints against the RCMP who were kind enough to
explain their incompetence and determined not to get any wiser, no matter how hard I tried.
I informed them this day would come and if they had of started getting prepared back in December 2007 they
would be competently prepared so now we get to see the results.
Why would they want the public to know they are incompetent?
Don’t answer, we know don’t we?
They really are cooperative with the conspiracy but they were hired specifically for their incompetence.
35
Anyway I leave you all to ponder your decisions while we test the Complaints Commission.
Frank Gallagher
Manager
PS
I did make mention I am not satisfied with your incompetent irresponsible trivial, frivolous vexatious Final
Letter of Disposition didn’t I?
I suppose the obvious does not require the formality.
If I seem a little frustrated and perhaps a bit irate perhaps if we looked at the evidence we could determine the
cause and help me out.
OOPS, silly me, I keep forgetting you are not required to give a damn but when the opportunity arises make a
kind gesture.
One more time I state unless the evidence that had been provided to the RCMP up until October 18 2007 has
been thoroughly examined as to its validity of the charges of government organized crime of corruption and
conspiracy the RCMP have demonstrated their incompetence to protect the public interest.
Obviously the District Commander provides a good example of the incompetence that must ran rampant
throughout the force.
We cannot have that can we?
36
37
38
39
40
41
December 22 2008
I wonder why RCMP Professional Standards sited

section 45.4 of the RCMP Act to close the investigation
after 10 months and never mentioned they did not have
to bother going through the motions because Andree
Leduc was not up to par.
I suspect the conspirators were just testing the water on
that route and I believe my response to Andree
December 27 2007 put a damper on that.
42
December 27 2007
http://groups.google.com/group/peoples-law-society
Fax 604-501-4095

Frank Gallagher
Manager, CST RET.
Re: File No. PC-2007-2317 GCCRF
Dear Andree Leduc
In response to your letter of December 20 2007 (copy attached) I thank you for admitting your
incompetence and lack of authority to deal with the issues of Government corruption and conspiracy
which are of a pressing concern to me and in my opinion should be a pressing concern to you but
obviously you are oblivious to that reality, understandable however because I have a firm grasp of it.
You have stressed once again, that the purpose of the Commission is to provide the public with an
opportunity to make complaints concerning the conduct of the members of the RCMP in the
performance of their duties.
I understand you have neither the expertise nor the legal authority to permit you to become involved
in issues beyond the scope of this mandate.
It is important to note that I am alert to the narrow minds of government personnel and your limited
respect for the individuals of the moral majority not in the employ of the government services and
your persistence to insult our intelligence.
Let me put emphasis on the fact that I thank you as a citizen of Canada being an individual of the
public, for the opportunity to make a complaint concerning the conduct of the members of the RCMP
in the performance of their duties and in fact, as you are aware I have taken advantage of your
generosity, however I must also emphasize I am a taxpayer and I suggest you keep that in mind
should you care to continue in your endeavors.
Your admittance, and though appreciative of your integrity, is discerning that you are incompetent but
admittance is the first step to the cure.
Integrity is an exceptionally wonderful trait rare in the employ of the government and we can not
afford to lose you.
If it would give you any satisfaction I am incompetent too having no experience in dealing with a
government conspiracy when I began back on June 30 2005 even though I was aware of persistent
government corruption and conspiracy as we all are I never had substantial evidence of it, but with
confidence in my integrity and ability to think things out I set out to prove it and now confident that I
have a voluminous, and I thank you for that word because I have been stuck with “ a preponderance”
and “ a prodigious” which I thanked Karen Noakes #440 of the York Regional Police” for, to describe
43
the amount of irrefutable evidence I have supplied to a voluminous number of government personnel
who have refused to deal with the issues published on my web site implicating them in the
conspiracy.
At this moment I will accept the fact you are incompetent which you have admitted and demonstrated
and will offer you some suggestions with the endeavor to keep you out of trouble and more useful to
the Canadian people.
I have filed a complaint against two members of the RCMP for failing to investigate government
conspiracy as you are aware and have acknowledged in your letter of November 8 2007 (copy
attached)
There is little needed to investigate the complaint for all that is required to do is ask the officers
involved and they will confirm it.
On my complaint I identified my mother as witnessing the refusal by Sergeant Roy Steinebach on

October 18 2007 so I doubt there will be any denying of that which I complained about. Too simple
so far right?
What the issue will be is whether or not the RCMP had the right to refuse to investigate the evidence
which they may if it is considered trivial, frivolous, or vexatious.
I believe the complaint itself is evident that it is not trivial, Right?
Is it frivolous or vexatious?
You don’t know right?
That is why I have been forwarding the evidence to you in advance so as to provide you the
opportunity to familiarize yourself with it and to get your mind thinking in appropriate manner due
the serious nature of the issues..
Your admittance of your incompetence and inexperience to that endeavor is discerning I reiterate but
never the less you will be called upon to make that very important decision.
At some point a public hearing will be in order and it would be prudent for the Chair to assign a
competent panel to the task and to that endeavor I heartedly suggest you study the evidence published
on my web site.
With due regard to your present ineptness I advise that attentiveness to the issues in the document
Law Society of Upper Canada Part 1 Part 2 will suffice to determine whether or not the members of
the RCMP who I have complained about are negligent in performance of their duties.
I have presumed you people are not members of the legal profession and that is precisely what is
required of a jury in this instance not being biased, well perhaps that is not entirely correct, however
all that is required is a sane mind of integrity although one or the other is in question due your letter
to me but it will all become clear as we proceed.
You will find that Law Society document at the top of the page on my web site
http://groups.google.com/group/guardians-of-the-canadians-charter-of-rights-and-freedoms
*(Now only accessible via the http://groups.google.com/group/charter-democracy-force web site)
44
I remind you there will be no authority provided by the government conspirators to any person, or
government department or agency to take them out and likewise there will be no cooperation from
anyone under the influence of the conspiracy and in fact when they become aware of this document
will attempt to interfere with you in performance of your duty and I suspect they will be very
convincing as they continue to obstruct justice. Perhaps you have already consulted with them.
I dare say they will be successful in their initiative but at that time if you were to take the news to the
media you will be assured a prominent spot in the hearts of the moral majority and you will play a
major role in the restructuring of the system consistent with and conducive to the support of the
Charter guarantee.
Adversely the consequences are unpredictable though will certainly be detrimental to some
significant degree of your concern.
Take a few moments if needed to reason that out and then keep it firmly and prominent in mind.
Given the serious nature of the issues and our inexperience at dealing with such issues it is of the
utmost importance to get the evidence into experienced hands and most importantly responsible
hands which is an improbability due the fact the entire legal system is corrupt and involved in the
conspiracy, which at the moment I am giving you the benefit of the doubt due to the lack of
irrefutable evidence.
To that endeavor I expect full cooperation immediately consistent with your mandate, which must be
consistent with the Constitution.
I must advise that all correspondence with you will be published on my web site and failure to
respond to me in a timely manner will alter your status implicating you in the conspiracy.
The ultimate goal is obviously a Public Inquiry and I do expect full cooperation to that initiative
where it is the only viable option relative to the circumstances.
The Law Society document requires no professional experience to assess as to whether or not it
makes sense for members of the Law Society of Upper Canada to administer and enforce the law
consistent with and conducive to the supreme law of Canada, the Constitution Act, 1982 which
includes the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms which guarantees every individual equality in
protection and benefit in all matters before and under the law.
I suggest you make particular note of that.
Throughout my documents published on the web I have copied excerpts from the Charter but for your
convenience I provide you this.
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.
I should mention that I am 65 years old and do not intend to spend the rest of my life tending to a
simple matter of bringing down the government conspiracy and I expect you to respect my concerns.
I must say I was quite surprised, impressed and appreciative as to how quickly you processed my
original complaint to the RCMP.
Back to the matter on hand, the Law Society document, after reading you will be coherent to the fact
it is an improbability that members of the Law Society of Upper Canada who are required to
45
administer justice in accordance with the Constitution can do so when they are not required to give a
damn about the individuals guaranteed Charter rights which seriously compromises the guarantee,
wouldn’t you think?
Once you are cognizant to the facts study Lawyer Files # 1-3 found near the bottom of web site
http://groups.google.com/group/peoples-law-society which should convince you of the government
conspiracy and the need for a Public Inquiry.
*(Now only accessible via the http://groups.google.com/group/charter-democracy-force web site)
So with expedience in mind with foresight, benefit of evidence they will continue in their reluctance
to investigate and being in receipt of their inane verbiage I will forward you a request for a review
and you may at that time ask the RCMP to conduct a further investigation of my complaint attentive
to the issues regarding the Law Society of Upper Canada Part 1 Part 2 document and Lawyer Files #
1-3 regarding obstruction of justice in a criminal fraud committed in front of a judicator in a public
building financed to administer justice consistent with the guaranteed Charter rights.
Their response to that will be most interesting and I presume there are provisions in the RCMP Act
for a timely response.
At this time, presuming they will not investigate the government conspiracy in its entirety, a public
hearing will be in order leading to a Public Inquiry which is imminent whether or not you cooperate.
Your cooperation is inevitable sooner or later and I needn’t expand on the benefits of sooner.
Should you need any assistance you will find me most cooperative to reasonable request.
I thank you in advance and hope I have made my intentions and that which is required of you
absolutely clear.
Due to your present status of incompetence I will not burden you with further documents presently
over your heads.
We will eventually get around to them one way or another.
Frank Gallagher
PS
I am an individual of Canada and I expect equal service and benefit of your office and demand you do
not delete any further e-mails I send you which will be and are your responsibility under your
mandate.
I also advise that by deleting evidence I provide you by e-mail, which is my right is tampering and
destroying evidence pertinent to a criminal prosecution along with obstruction of justice.
I remind you I have done nothing but act responsibly and it is you who are wanting, necessitating me
to attend to the matter.
To that endeavor I will expect an immediate acknowledgement of receipt as a reply e-mail with
contents of my request attached.
Should that fail I will apprise you of the evidence by other means available to me.
On receipt I will expect acknowledgement by e-mail with your assurance you will cooperate in a
manner consistent with and conducive to every individual’s guaranteed Charter rights and in
particular mine in efficient and effective manner with due regard to the rights of the tax payers.
46
These are most serious matters regarding the safety and well being of every individual in Canada and
must be dealt with due regard..
My web site and the public await your response which is of pressing concern to me and you if you are
coherent and susceptible to reason.
We will see.
It is absolutely ridiculous to use Canada Post which serves only to delay.
I am publishing everything on the web so there is no concern about privacy and confidentiality and it
would be an initiative showing your ability to think things out logically rather than stick to inane
policy due the circumstance where policy will not allow you to take affirmative action against
government corruption, conspiracy and Organized Crime as you will know when you study the
evidence.
I reiterate that you must study it to determine if it is trivia, frivolous or vexatious which it is
obviously not for the evidence is signed by government personnel and staff of the Law Society of
Upper Canada.
It’s all real, and yes you are involved with exposing it or attempting to cover it up because it most
definitely will get to a PUBLIC INQUIRY and so will you one way or another.
The consequences are your choice.
47
How would one
know when it was
received by the
Commissioner? I’ll
presume
November 16 2007
as per page 8
48
November 16 207
a Friday so 3 days to
deliver not counting
Saturday and
How would one know Sunday.
when it was actually
received?
Did it sit on someone’s
desk for a while or is it
acknowledged as it
comes in?
Obviously not the Commissioner nor is

the letter head the Commissioner’s.
I will tentatively presume this to be

standard procedure making the report
due 30 days from November 16 2007
being December 16 2007 allowing 5
days mail delivery December 21 2007
49
Received by mail
Dec.23 2007
December 31 2007 Resent by e-mail
Andree Leduc
Complaints Against RCMP
Please see attachment “Commission RCMP

Complaints Dec. 27 2007” and immediate response
required
January 2 2008 Out with the old….In with the new.
Andree
Having not received acknowledgement of receipt of e-mail I am now forced to send by fax at
undue cost to me due your failure to cooperate in a manner conducive to the well being of
individual’s guaranteed Charter rights which are not being supported by government personnel,
severely compromising their safety and in direct defiance of the law and indifference to the
people who finance your services
Immediate response required …….Get up to speed……..Formal complaint coming soon

Frank Gallagher
50
51
From : Michael Thomson <Michael.Thomson@rcmp-grc.gc.ca>
Sent : January 18, 2006 12:51:19 PM
To : <franklyone@hotmail.com>
CC : "Mona Eichmann" <Mona.Eichmann@rcmp-grc.gc.ca>
Subject : BioSafe Natural Products Inc./ Bio-Safe Natural TechnologiesInc.
Dear Mr. Gallagher:
I have reviewed the documents, forwarded to our office here, that were submitted to our Newmarket
Detachment. You have proposed an investigation be undertaken utilizing the auspices of the Canada
Business Corporations Act,Chapter C-44 (CBCA) and as such, this matter has been taken by our office
for review.
A review of the matter has been completed and the Department of Justice (DOJ) has been consulted in
terms of prosecution under the jurisdiction of this Act.
Unfortunately, Part XIX, and Section 229(1) CBCA and thereafter of the Act is quite specific in the
terms of the investigation and enforcement of same. This is entirely a civil procedure that requires
the Court to issue an Investigation Order and thereafter appoint an Inspector. The Inspector has
specific authorization allowing entry and examination of the corporation's books and records. These
duties are outlined in Section 130(1) CBCA. Part XIX.1 outlines the apportioning of the award of
damages, and Part XX outlines remedies, offences and punishment.
Mr. Donald WILSON's assertions that a subpoena and/or a search warrant are required in order to
allow the shareholders to review the companies' books and records are erroneous, as outlined in
Section 21 (1-10) CBCA.
It is the judgment of DOJ and this office that this matter lies solely within the confines of civil
litigational procedures, and as such, DOJ will not consider prosecuting this matter and no
investigation will be undertaken by this office. An attempt has been made to verbally convey this
message via telephone, however the number provided appears to be the number of a fax machine. The
information provided will be kept on file for intelligence/ information purposes only. If you have
any further questions, these may be directed to the Writer at
the numbers listed below.
Yours truly,
M.J. Thomson, Sgt.

NCO i/c Central Intake & Admin. Support.
Greater Toronto Area - Commercial Crime Section,
Milton, Ontario
(905) 876-9656
(905) 876-9757 (Fax)
michael.thomson@rcmp-grc.gc.ca
52
53
54
To: The Chief of Police
Royal Canadian Mounted Police
From: Frank Gallagher (Share holder) BioSafe Natural Products Inc./Bio-Safe

Natural Technologies Inc (Exhibit A1 & Exhibit A2))
34 Riverglen Drive
Keswick,On
L4P 2P8 This document along with accompanying
905-476-8959 evidence denoted in ( ) was hand delivered to
franklyone@hotmail.com P. Goulet, Insp. RCMP. January 3 2006
November 15 2005
RE: BioSafe Natural Products Inc. Corporation # 6159206 BN #871599601RC0001

dated November 13 2003 Registered Office Address (A1) Still active
Donald Wilson
12 Tower Court
Bradford,ON.
L3Z 2V2 Canada
and
Bio-Safe Natural Technologies Inc. corporation # 6186581 BN864226600RC0001

dated January 27 2004 Registered Office Address (A2) Still active
Donald Wilson
16715-12 Yonge ST #260
Newmarket
Ontario L3X 1X4
Canada
Dear ……
I, a major share holder of the above named corporations am applying for an investigation of Don Wilson
president and director of the same under the Canada Business Corporations Act ,Part XIX Paragraph 229
(1)
The charges include:

2(a) Don Wilson president, director ,etc has intended to defraud his share holders
(b) Don Wilson, power of the director has been exercised in a manner that is
oppressive or unfairly prejudicial to or that unfairly disregards the interests of a
security holder.
(d) Don Wilson, president, director ,etc. acted fraudulently or dishonestly.
It is a long story that I have to tell and I have an abundance of evidence to support my allegations in 2(a)(b) and
(d) above but in the interest of brevity I offer two agreements signed by Don Wilson and myself Frank Gallagher
.
1) The May 6 2005 witnessed by my mother Edythe Gallagher (Exhibit Z1) (4 pages)
55
2) The April 13 2005 witnessed by Dave Kirby. (Exhibit Z)
Note that pages 2 and 4 were revised and signed on April 27 2005 and witnessed by
my mother Edythe Gallagher. (6 pages) original pages 2 and 4 are included.
These two agreements are similar in content with changes made to percentages of commission etc. and records
updated.
It is prudent to use the April 13 2005 agreement as case in point because I introduced it as evidence at an Ontario
Housing Rental Tribunal hearing on June 30 2005.
Don Wilson denied ever seeing the May 6 2005 agreement and the April 13 2005 agreement at the hearing.
I introduced Dave Kirby to the judicator as the person who signed the April 13 2005 as witness.
Dave Kirby stated that he did witness Don Wilson signing all 4 pages of the agreement.
This is all a matter of record and I have a copy of the record on CD provided by the Tribunal.
I had entered these documents to support my application to evict the said Don Wilson for failure to pay me rent
for approximately a year and to support my claim that he had agreed to leave my premises by the end of May
2005.
It is important to note that Don Wilson signed these documents with a different signature than he has
used on previous documents
His denial of ever seeing these documents is powerful supporting evidence of my allegations.
I should also mention that at the hearing Don Wilson reiterated the words on his dispute (Z2) which he had filed
with the Tribunal to argue my application for his eviction and he also stated that he had the documents to prove
his statements.
I was amazed at the ease he spewed out his fabrication which surely would have been enviously nose worthy to
Pinochio.
Of course Don Wilson had no documents to prove his lies and of course I had and did present the evidence to
dispute his dispute.
The Order under Section 69 Tenant Protection Act, 1997 (Z3) File # TNL-67103 found for me ordering Don
Wilson to leave my premises and to pay me back rent.
Although this hearing was to determine matters relative to rental accommodation it would be reasonable to say
that the May 6 2005 and the April 13 2005 agreements which Don Wilson (Bio-Safe) had denied ever seeing
played a decisive role in the findings of the Order when I was able to prove that he did indeed sign them and the
contents within, relative to the rental hearing were verified by supporting documentation.
The CD of the hearing is recorded evidence of Don Wilson’s dishonesty which far surpasses rental matters and
supports my allegations under the Ontario Business Corporations Act.
The contents of these documents (May 6 2005 and April 13 2005) also reflect the issues of concern that became
apparent over time since I first invested with BioSafe Natural Products Inc. on the 7th of January 2004.
56
My final agreement with BioSafe Natural Products Inc. on February 11 2004 issues me a total of 30,000,000
shares which includes the original shares acquired by me on the 7th of January 2004
It is also important to note that Don Wilson had registered a new company above as BioSafe Natural
Technologies Inc. on January 27 2004 just a couple of weeks before I went all in but my shares were still of
the Products corporation.
I also represent many friends who I have introduced to Don Wilson who have invested since then. Their
documents have the BioSafe Natural Technologies Inc. name on their agreements and I am listed as a share
holder on their documents. Others listed before me have an unstable number of shares as they show differently
on each agreement.
It is also important to note that none of the certificates provided to us are on the proper form, nor are they signed
except for one which is signed but has no certificate number.
You will also note that none of the agreements reflect the registered name of the corporation which is Bio-Safe
Natural Technologies Inc.
Note the dash in Bio-Safe
I wonder if it is more than coincidence that this name is only used on his tax return account # 9317185
Donald Wilson
16715-12 Yonge St, 260 (Ab)
and his
TD Canada Trust account # 3102-5208016 Bio-Safe. I am not sure of the 8 (Ca)

His TD access card # 1305-432-422-098 shows BIO-SAFE NATURAL TECHNOLOG
DONALD WILSON
Don Wilson has also informed my mother and I on several occasions that we will be sorry for evicting him and
that I will never see anything from this business.
He has also told me that it will take me 10 years in court to unscramble the documentation which could very well
go beyond my demise. That would be a hell of a way to spend my remaining years.
I have plenty of evidence (documents) which lend credence to this but the documentation clearly shows his
dishonesty and more.
I have a document signed on 21st day of March 21 2005 by Donald Neil Wilson, President
BioSafe Natural Technologies Inc.
headed Proprietary Technology Declaration (Za) which states that all the intellectual property, know how,
process technology etc. are the sole property of Donald Neil Wilson.
I do not believe that he has the best interest of share holders at heart.
It is also important to note that there is no way that I can get information from Don Wilson (Bio-Safe)
I had provided him 6 months free rent in my basement from February 1 2004 to July 31 2004 to allow him more
time for research.
57
He was to pay me $800 per month since but I finally had him evicted on August 18 2005 owing me more than
$10,000 for rent.
He also owes me another $10,000 + or – for promissory notes, phone bills etc .
He refuses to pay.
He refuses to provide me and my friends with proper documents for our shares.
He has never held a share holders meeting since I first invested on the 7th of January 2004.
I have requested that he do so on several occasions and I have asked to see the company books.
He told me to get a subpoena.
I have asked for a copy of the certificate of incorporation and a list of the share holders, their addresses and the
number of shares that they own but he refuses to deliver.
Before he was evicted from my place I wrote him several times requesting that he complies and I requested that
he hold a meeting to elect a director which is required by law before 18 months has passed since registration.
Note: The registered address of the business is a post office box on Yonge Street as above.
One of my friends attempted to contact him by registered mail at this address which was returned to sender.
after approximately 15 days.(Z4)
I know where he moved to when he was evicted from my place on August 18 2005 but I would not be welcome
there and I resist the urge to write him lest he moves to hinder investigation.
He would not leave a forwarding address and my attempt to follow him failed.
I was fortunate that he moved to a house on a main road and by luck I spotted his vehicle there on a later search,
not all that far from where I lost him.
I make this point to make it known that if not for my detective work his and BioSafe’s where abouts may go
unknown hindering prosecution and recovery of money that he owes me.
I wonder what address may appear on his drivers license. Perhaps post box # 260 unit 12 at 16715 Yonge St.
His last known address is 4021 Stoufville Road and his 1994 white Cadilac has plate # ASKA 151.
I could go on and on, but already I have surpassed brevity.
I hope that the evidence provided herein will be sufficient to warrant a proper investigation of Don Wilson,
president and director of Bio-Safe Technologies Inc.
Yours truly,
Frank Gallagher
To: Chief of Police, OPP Chief of Police, RCMP
58
From: Frank Gallagher
34 Riverglen Drive
Keswick,ON
L4P 2P8 905-476-8959
January 3 2006
Dear Chief
I am a major investor in BIO-SAFE TECHNOLOGIES INC.
I have proven in a lower court of the Province of Ontario that the president and director DON WILSON has filed
false and misleading documents to argue his case with the Ontario Housing Rental Tribunal.
During the hearing I introduced two documents which DON had signed with a false signature. He denied ever
seeing or signing them.
I introduced a witness to one of the documents who attested that Don did sign them.
The contents of these documents represents a monetary value surpassing $150,000

and his actions at the hearing can only be defined as crooked by any rational person.
I have written a few public offices with the hope of finding someone who may be concerned but at this point it
seems that there is nothing illegal about this.
The Tribunal found for me and Don was ordered to pay me $10,000 +/- but leave it up to me to try and collect.
I have attempted to get various departments to investigate him further but to no avail.
There is a con man loose in society which I have provided the evidence beyond any reasonable doubt in a
provincial court that he has taken money from me and about 20 other investors with the obvious intention of
denying our investments.
I have enclosed copies of the correspondence between Armand P. LA BARGE, Chief of Police, York Region
and myself and a CD of the hearing.
I would appreciate that you have a look at it with the hope that you see cause to investigate this man’s operation.
An early response at your convenience would be nice.
I personally do not have the resources to do the job.
There is no doubt that there is a criminal at large. I have identified him and located him for you.
Yours respectfully
Frank Gallagher
59
60
From : Michael Thomson <Michael.Thomson@rcmp-grc.gc.ca>
Sent : January 18, 2006 12:51:19 PM
To : <franklyone@hotmail.com>
CC : "Mona Eichmann" <Mona.Eichmann@rcmp-grc.gc.ca>
Subject : BioSafe Natural Products Inc./ Bio-Safe Natural TechnologiesInc.
Dear Mr. Gallagher:
I have reviewed the documents, forwarded to our office here, that were submitted to our Newmarket
Detachment. You have proposed an investigation be undertaken utilizing the auspices of the Canada
Business Corporations Act,Chapter C-44 (CBCA) and as such, this matter has been taken by our office
for review.
A review of the matter has been completed and the Department of Justice (DOJ) has been consulted in
terms of prosecution under the jurisdiction of this Act.
Unfortunately, Part XIX, and Section 229(1) CBCA and thereafter of the Act is quite specific in the
terms of the investigation and enforcement of same. This is entirely a civil procedure that requires
the Court to issue an Investigation Order and thereafter appoint an Inspector. The Inspector has
specific authorization allowing entry and examination of the corporation's books and records. These
duties are outlined in Section 130(1) CBCA. Part XIX.1 outlines the apportioning of the award of
damages, and Part XX outlines remedies, offences and punishment.
Mr. Donald WILSON's assertions that a subpoena and/or a search warrant are required in order to
allow the shareholders to review the companies' books and records are erroneous, as outlined in
Section 21 (1-10) CBCA.
It is the judgment of DOJ and this office that this matter lies solely within the confines of civil
litigational procedures,and as such, DOJ will not consider prosecuting this matter and no
investigation will be undertaken by this office. An attempt has been made to verbally convey this
message via telephone, however the number provided appears to be the number of a fax machine. The
information provided will be kept on file for intelligence/ information purposes only. If you have
any further questions, these may be directed to the Writer at
the numbers listed below.
Yours truly,
M.J. Thomson, Sgt.

NCO i/c Central Intake & Admin. Support.
Greater Toronto Area - Commercial Crime Section,
Milton, Ontario
(905) 876-9656
(905) 876-9757 (Fax)
michael.thomson@rcmp-grc.gc.ca
Commentary December 19 2008
I continued to send evidence that Don Wilson president/ director BioSafe was a fraud requesting Sgt.
Michael Thomson deal with the crimes Don Wilson answers
To: Michael Thomson

RCMP
61
Michael Thomson [Michael.Thomson@rcmp-grc.gc.ca]
Cc mona.eichmann@rcmp-grc.gc.ca

34 Riverglen Drive
Keswick,ON
L4P 2P8
905-476-8959 tel/fax
905-716-4927 cell
franklyone@hotmail.com
Re Don Wilson (BioSafe)

4021 Stouffville Road (just east of Kennedy Road, south side)
1994 white cadilac de ville plate # ASKA 151
February 6, 2006
Dear Michael
I am delivering the attached document to Don Wilson this morning.
In it you will find more information that should tip the scales in favor of Justice.
It requires you to make a few phone calls, to confirm my statements and then you
should be on your way to the court for the elusive warrant to investigate Don Wilson
for Fraud under the criminal code.
He has harassed my ex girlfriend and my ex wife.
I request that you make all the appropriate charges that the evidence allows for, and I
remind you that I have evidence up to my ears on him if you will take the time to meet
with me.
I do not have enough ink to inform you of everything and I am a two fingered clutz
on the keyboard.
I also request that you pass on this correspondence to the Department of Justice and ask
their office to respond to my writings.
Please inform me as to whom you addressed this matter to and provide me with their
e-mail address
Please keep me up to speed and I request that you do likewise.
Thank you
Frank Gallagher
PS
He was at Larry Honsberger’s place a couple of weeks ago gathering up personal

belongings that he had stored in his garage. He could be on the move or even
worse, moved already.
Have you checked his drivers license data?

.
To: Michael Thomson

RCMP
62
To: Don Wilson
BioSafe
4021 Stouffville Road
Stouffville,On.
L4A 7X5

34 Riverglen Drive
Keswick,On
L4P 2P8
February 6, 2006
Re; Order under Section 69, Tenant Protection Act,1997

File Number TNL-67103
Don
As you are quite aware, August 8 2005 you were ordered to pay me back rent, etc totaling more than $10,000
It is no surprise that I have not received any correspondence from you to make arrangements to pay as you informed me
that I will never see one penny from you.
Just for the record, I offer you this opportunity to do so before I commence legal actions against you.
You have had 6 months since the order, so I will expect your response immediately and nothing less than a reasonable
plan of repayment with your 1st payment received by me by February 10th 2006 will stop these proceedings.
Re: Investigations under the Canada Business Corporations Act, Part XIX Paragraph 229(1)
I have requested the Royal Canadian Mounted Police investigate you.

I insert the following five pages which I delivered to the RCMP on January 3 2006
The following pages totaling 13 will remind you of certain matters that I have requested you to deal with pertaining to my
rights as a shareholder, to go to the registered office of the corporation and receive information such as the names of
shareholders etc, and my right as a shareholder to request a shareholders meeting to elect a new Director within 18
months of my becoming a shareholder.
It has now been 24 months, and you have not held one shareholders meeting.
You have not provided me or any of the shareholders with any reports of the state of the company in that 24 month period.
I hereby request that you respond appropriately to all my concerns within the contents of these 13 pages and as stated
above I expect a confirmation by February 10 2006 of your intention to comply and a date that you will deliver.
These 13 pages will be submitted to the courts when I deem it to be prudent.
By the way. Don
How did the tests go out in Montreal with Bodycote Ref # AEB 20050601 June 6 2005
Ms. Wendy Moroz Fax 514-697-2090 e-mail bourg.m@bodycote.ca
I have tried to e-mail you at dnwilson.biosafe@rogers.com but it failed. Skipped out on them too, eh?
63
64
65
66
67
I hope that the evidence provided herein will be sufficient to warrant a proper
investigation of Don Wilson,president and director of Bio-Safe Technologies Inc.
Yours truly,
Frank Gallagher
5
Well, it seems that I can hope all I want, because the RCMP
replied as follows.
68
69
Larry Honsberger, Bio Safe share holder, has been communicating with Rod Bradbury who has informed Larry
that he is not associated with Bio-Safe in any way, and most certainly has never been the Vice President of
Research and Development ,Bio-Safe, as so represented in the prospectus you provided me before I invested.
I have scanned in a copy(see pg 13) Oh, by the way, you still owe him $4,000 for services.
Rod Bradbury work 250-652-9150 fax 250-652-9190 Larry Honsberger 905-953-1577 cell 905-252-5566
I will be requesting a statement from him on his letter head to attest to this matter.
Larry is also communicating with Mark Edward Mathews by telephone and it seems that he is not and has never
held the position of Marketing Consultant with Bio-Safe as you have represented on the prospectus you
provided me before I invested. We will be asking him for a written statement also.Mark 416-251-5269 (see pg 13)
Do you remember that prospectus, the one with the picture of you in what looks like a lab coat?
Larry says that he and his girlfriend took that picture of you against the wall of his garage. He says it was not a
lab coat but just a reversible street jacket. Imagine that, I sure thought it was a lab jacket, but then I suppose,
you thought it looked a lot like a lab jacket yourself, Eh?(see pg 13)
I had being talking to and corresponding with Mac Shahasavar from Winnipeg who informed me that he gave
you $52,000 back in September 2004.
You are aware of this because he flew down to meet with you back in June 2005 when he informed you that he
would see you in court. Mac cell 204-962-2570 office 204-885-5555 ext.222 OK Direct 202-885-7777
You remember the $52,000 dollars that you received, the money that you said was coming in a couple of weeks
which you were going to pay me the back rent that you owed me, and the promissory notes. Yes, that same
$50,000 that you told my son Scott that you brought into the company after I had said that I was the only one
who has brought investment money in since I had invested and gave you 6 months free rent. The same $50,000,
that you told me that you never received.
You remember Scott, the fellow you were signing agreements with behind my back to void agreements you had
with me, to asssure Scott that my agreement of December 17 2004 was not valid while on the same day you
signed agreements with me to assure me that our agreement of December 17 2004 was valid. I have all the
documents.
Sure you remember, that is the time you went missing for 2 or 3 weeks. That is when Shawn Pecore, of First
Summit Capital,kept calling here to see where you were because you had important duties to perform to get us
on the Nasdaq. You remember how after months of waiting to get on the Nasdaq you pulled the plug on the very
last day, by not sending the authorization to the Nasdaq. Shawn Bus. 416-873-4773 Fax-416-266-4014
By the way, Shawn says that you got him for $5,000
I could go on and on, and I certainly intend to, but first I would like to offer you the opportunity to make things right. You
may be anyone, but for sure, I mean you, Don Wilson
I suppose you are still laughing, after all, you did tell me that I was out of your league and that I will never see any money
from you.
I must agree that you sure know the system.
I am a little more informed today and I thank you for that.
In fact, I now respect your knowledge of the system so much that if you fail to acknowledge that you will comply with all
the matters contained herein by February 10th 2006 I will assume that I am still barking up a wrong tree and that you
have faith that the system was created for you.
I will be dropping off a copy of this in your PO Box # address, (the registered company office address) and your present
address, 4021 Stouffville road. I will take a witness.
I have provided equal opport

Who else?
To those people who I pay their wages, as do all tax payers, I say this.
70
I have identified a criminal on the loose and I have identified some of his crimes.
I have provided you witnesses and I have spent a lot of time.
You have passed the buck to me to do your job.

That is the biggest crime.
Your crime is the root of crime.

It is your indifference to it that causes it to flourish.
If you people will do nothing but push paper around, we innocent will continue to be pushed around by those people who
the Charter of Rights and Freedom was written to rid society of.
The next time you are told to forget common sense, because you are a cop now, you tell them, they are under arrest,
because common sense is required to interpret the laws. They are using their position of trust to turn the law against
society. That is a premeditated conspiracy to remove the people’s rights as guaranteed by the Charter, for monetary
gains, either personal or personal cause.
For God’s sake think.
Then don’t just sit their. Do something for Christ sakes.
Please forgive my ignorance as to the procedures and words you people use, language, inherent to the legal system.
After all, I am just a common citizen, still working to better my communication skills in everyday English.
I am not requesting that you prosecute this man under the Canada Business Corporations Act because, it is quite
clear that it has no force or effect due to its inconsistencies with The Constitution Act,1982, Part 1, Canadian
Charter of Rights and Freedoms
The Corporations Act is irrelevant to this situation, anyway because I am not asking you to deal with him as set out under
the Act.
I am describing certain crimes that this man has committed, using the words from the Act to describe them, which infringe
on my rights as guaranteed by the Charter. I remind you that I am a layman in law, attempting to communicate in street
English. I am unilingual in matters of law. You administers of the law are bilingual. You must be able to interpret my
language and apply it to yours to place my charges where they fit relative to the pertinent laws which are the foundation of
your language.
I am asking you to rid society of a man who lives and breathes and thinks for the sole purpose of stealing money from
others under false pretenses. That is fraud in my understanding of the word. Use your language to quote the law that he
has broken that allows you to act. In my language, he is a pedophile. He has used his experience of the law to molest me,
a kid, in mind and sole .
I have more evidence than you have bothered to look at and you are negligent in your duty as Law Enforcement Officers
who have been paid well and provided great benefits by us tax payers to do so to ensure the Rights and Freedoms of we
the people under the provisions as set out by the Charter.
Just read the part, pertaining to the innocent criminal’s rights.
Investigate the evidence, which includes interviewing those people that I have mentioned, and if that is not enough, I will
provide you with more names and more evidence. A little effort on your part, and you will have a warrant to remove this
blight on society. The administers of law have chosen, to make lemonade from the lemons served upon society instead of
cutting the tree.
Do the job that you are paid to do and we will have a tamer society. At the very least, we will have a saner one.
I am very concerned that police officers driving around with guns on their belts in vehicles marked ”To Serve and To
Protect” have been taught to forget common sense when performing their duties.
May I suggest that you find the kingpin who has the power to embed such ideology into our line of defense against the bad
guys, and deal with him under the criminal code. But, do not forget his rights.
,
Do not forget that he should expect no leniency, as well as others who have been put in positions of trust to see that we all
live in a decent society as intended by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedom.
That is the law that we pay for. That is the Law that we expect. That is the law that we will get.
71
It is a great idea to educate the public about the dangers that may lay waiting in the dark, but do not tell me to not go down
a dark alley because a dangerous person is there. Go get him, if you know he is there. Don’t feel that you have done your
job by warning me.
Do not blame me if someone steals from me in a society that you can not control. Control it for God’s sake and you won’t
have to warn me. Deal with them where ever you find them. If they have deprived me of my rights then they have stolen
much more than my money.
Read Don Wilson his rights and arrest the bastard.
I will look after my rights under the Canada Business Corporations Act if and when I please after you have dealt
with him under the criminal code or whatever you deem to be consistent with my fundamental rights as a law
abiding citizen under the charter and above all, make sure that you do not infringe on that bastards rights who
could care less about my rights, because we do not want to see him back in society infringing at will on
everyone and anyone, who were not made aware that he was out there, because you failed to educate us.
Meanwhile, I will continue to look both ways when I cross a street and, what was it that I should do if I see a car
coming? Never mind, I’ll ask my mother when I get home. I need a common sense answer for this one.
PART I
CANADIAN CHARTER OF RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS
Whereas Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the
rule of law:
Guarantee of Rights and Freedoms
Rights and freedoms 1. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees
in Canada 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.
Life, liberty and 7. Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the
security of person person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in
accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.
Treatment or 12. Everyone has the right not to be subjected to any cruel and
punishment unusual treatment or punishment.
Equality Rights
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.
ENFORCEMENT
72
Enforcement
Enforcement of 24. (1) Anyone whose rights or freedoms, as guaranteed by this
guaranteed rights Charter, have been infringed or denied may apply to a court of
and freedoms
competent jurisdiction to obtain such remedy as the court
considers appropriate and just in the circumstances.
Exclusion of (2) Where, in proceedings under subsection (1), a court
evidence bringing concludes that evidence was obtained in a manner that infringed
administration of
justice into
or denied any rights or freedoms guaranteed by this Charter, the
disrepute evidence shall be excluded if it is established that, having regard
to all the circumstances, the admission of it in the proceedings
PART VII
would bring the administration of justice into disrepute.
GENERAL
Primacy of Constitution 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.
Do not bother to explain to me what 24 (1) means.

It means that it is inconsistent with the rights of
others who have been guaranteed the provisions
under the Charter. You can not wait for me to raise
the money or decide that it is my duty as a decent
person to deal with the matter when you law
enforcement people have already been paid and trained
at the tax payers expense to do so. Once again I
reiterate that I have done plenty and am prepared to do
even more to help society clean up its act. You do your
job and then I will step on the bug while he is down. It
sure beats him stepping all over a decent society, only
to have the law stepping all over me, the victim when I
The exception is there for the depravedam who deprive
down. He hasanyone
takenofmytheir
moneyguaranteed Rights
and other’s and isand
Freedoms.
planning now, how to take another’s while you try to
teach me how to do your job with no pay while I learn.
Make sure that you do not deprive the depraved for they will surely cry foul.
Please pay particular
By soattention to will
doing, they Part 1, Canadian
confess Charter ofdeprivation.
to premeditated Rights and Freedoms.
Life, liberty and 7. Which should warrant
Everyone hasa larger sentence.
the right to life, liberty and security of the
security of person For they
persondoand
understand
the rightRights
not to be deprived thereof except in
Let them know
accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.
That we do
TOO
73
There is the law in black and white. I want my guarantee please.
fg
With regards to my rights to see the company books and acquire the relative information as per the
Canada Business Corporations Act.
Michael J. Thomson of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police informs me that Don Wilson’s statement that
I need a subpoena / warrant to review the books are erroneous.
Does anyone know where I can hire some goons to assist me while I assert my rights and it is difficult these days
to find a gun to protect me when this big depraved fellow continues to thwart my efforts?
If I were to ask you to come with me to protect me while I attempt to carry on my duties as a citizen shareholder
of BioSafe, would you?
Would you act as my witness to his denying me of my rights?

Would you accompany me to prevent a crime?
Would you rather wait until he assaults me?
You have taken my rights to carry a gun to protect me.

Are you not responsible then to protect me ?
How often do you leave my rights and others to chance? Why does my guarantee kick in only after you have
failed to provide my guarantee? How come I can not sue the administers of the law for damages ensued due to
failure to back their guarantee?
Equality Rights
Equality before and 15. (1) Every individual is equal before and under the law and has
under law and equal the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law
protection and benefit
of law
without discrimination and, in particular, without
discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour,
religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.
74
75
Michael Thomson [Michael.Thomson@rcmp-grc.gc.ca]
Cc mona.eichmann@rcmp-grc.gc.ca

34 Riverglen Drive
Keswick,ON
L4P 2P8
905-476-8959 tel/fax
905-716-4927 cell
Re Don Wilson (BioSafe)

4021 Stouffville Road (just east of Kennedy Road, south side)
1994 white cadilac de ville plate # ASKA 151
February 6, 2006
Dear Michael
I am delivering the attached document to Don Wilson this morning.
In it you will find more information that should tip the scales in favor of Justice.
It requires you to make a few phone calls, to confirm my statements and then you
should be on your way to the court for the elusive warrant to investigate Don Wilson
for Fraud under the criminal code.
He has harassed my ex girlfriend and my ex wife.
I request that you make all the appropriate charges that the evidence allows for, and I
remind you that I have evidence up to my ears on him if you will take the time to meet
with me.
I do not have enough ink to inform you of everything and I am a two fingered clutz
on the keyboard.
I also request that you pass on this correspondence to the Department of Justice and ask
their office to respond to my writings.
Please inform me as to whom you addressed this matter to and provide me with their
e-mail address
Please keep me up to speed and I request that you do likewise.
Thank you
Frank Gallagher
PS
He was at Larry Honsberger’s place a couple of weeks ago gathering up personal

belongings that he had stored in his garage. He could be on the move or even
worse, moved already.
Have you checked his drivers license data?

.
76
Copy of letter to Ombudsman dated May 31 2006
They also have copy of BLACK BOOK
They refuse to respond
77
To:Michael.Thomson@rcmp-grc.gc.ca; mona.eichman@rcmp-grc.gc.ca
Cc: citytvhosts@citytv.com; city@thestar.ca; citydesk@tor.sunpub.com; comail@lsuc.on.ca; dmaclean@taxpayer.com;

ed_hird@telus.net; editor@rd.ca; franklyone@hotmail.com; jwilliamson@taxpayer.com; letters@globeandmail.ca; 'media';
sylviagerl@ndp.ca; shennig@taxpayer.com; sue-ann.levy@tor.sunpub.com; tkeirddin@taxpayers.com;
Vanloan.P@parl.gc.ca; Vanlop1@parl.gc.ca; webadmin@justice.gc.ca
September 29, 2006 sent e-mails 7.43 AM to replace page 1 sent 5:35 AM Dates were corrected 2006 to 2005
To: Michael Thomson Fax to: Premier Dalton McGuinty, Tim Arkell, Ombudsman, Julia Munro, MPP,
RCMP Peter Van Loan, MP Bruce Herridge, York Regional Police
brooksn@scc-csc.gc.ca
Dear Michael Thomson
As you are aware I am a Canadian citizen who became victim to a scam.

This scam was identified at a Tribunal hearing of the ORHT on June 30 2005 where I had attached a copy of a May 6 2005
agreement to my application to evict my tenant Don Wilson for refusing to pay rent and for not vacating my premises on
May 31 2005 as per the May 6 2005 agreement which both he and I had signed and my mother had witnessed.
On June 10 2005 Don Wilson had signed and filed a Dispute with the ORHT which was a humungous fabrication which
was an obvious contradiction of that which was contained in the May 6 2005 agreement
which he had signed.
During the course of the hearing Don Wilson denied having ever seen the May 6 2005 agreement and of course denied
having signed it or initialed it. I then produced another agreement dated April 13 2005 which Don Wilson and I had signed
and a friend of mine had witnessed. I showed it to Don and he denied ever seeing it and also denied ever signing it.
I then introduced Dave Kirby to the Judicator as being the witness and he identified Don as the person who signed it.
Both of these agreements confirmed that Don owed me the rent money and both confirmed that he had given me notice to
vacate my premises on May 31 2005 quite contrary to the Dispute he had signed and filed with the Tribunal stating that he
was paid up until February 2009 as per special arrangements made in stock negotiations..
The agreements dealt with other matters regarding Don Wilson’s Incorporated business BioSafe which I am a major share
holder. The value of the document on paper to me and my friends is about $150,000
but it also protected the investors who had come before me increasing the value on paper to around $300,000. Probably
about 20 investors in all.
The reason I had him sign them in the first place is because he had given cause for me to distrust him.
The Tribunal was adjourned to July 28 2005 for the Tribunal’s decision and I should make note that Nancy Fahlgren
(Judicator) announced at the beginning of the hearing that the hearing that it was not being recorded.
I do have a copy of the June 30th as you know as I provided you a copy.
On August 10 2005 I received the Tribunal Order under Section 69, Tenant Protection Act, 1997 File Number TNL-67103
dated August 8 2005 which found for me and Don Wilson was ordered to pay me the arrears and vacate my premises.
I had asked Nancy Fahlgren on June 30th at the hearing if she would be charging Don Wilson with fraud and in fact I had
said “There should be a law” when it was revealed that Don was a fraud, and Nancy said “There is and that she could
forward it onto the Investigations and Enforcement Unit”. I should note that this part of the hearing is not on the recording
of the hearing so it was either erased or Nancy turned off the recorder.
The Tribunal Order never indicated that Don Wilson had been charged for fraud which initiated my search for justice which
I have not found to date.( over a year now)
What I have found is that which I am sure the public have been aware of but just unable to prove.
The administrators of the Constitution Act, 1982 have used their authority mandated by the Act for their own
benefit disregarding the Charter rights of the people.
October 23 2006 December 18 2008
At the moment I have no idea who I was
RE: Charter Rights
responding to on my birthday October 23
2006 78
Obstruction of Justice
WHATEVER
(NOT A CIVIL MATTER)
Thank you very much for your response, but I have been there done that. They refuse to
respond to my concerns.
On or about January 3 2006 I submitted a preliminary folder to my local RCMP detachment

(Newmarket) laying out the details of the case and January the 18 2006 Michael Thomson,
Sgt responded stating that I had proposed an investigation be undertaken using the
auspices of the Canada Business Corporations Act and as such, this matter has been taken
by their office to review.
It is the opinion of the DOJ and the RCMP concur that this is a civil litigation matter.
B…S…
When I first wrote I described the whole story and did make reference to certain offences
the Director of the Company, I had invested in, was guilty of under the Act, however, I,
being an amateur at this type of thing, just an ordinary taxpayer did my best to present
all that I knew about the case trusting those who we pay and have gained experience in
such matters would use their experience to read the information I provided and translate
it to legal definition which you all are familiar with.
I did not know what section, subsection of which Laws or Acts my former tenant was guilty
of when he fabricated his dispute and committed fraud at an Ontario Rental Housing
Tribunal.(I do now and I have informed them but they are oblivious to my concerns.)
Common sense told me that justice is not achievable in an environment of lies.
The ORHT and the Investigations and Enforcement Unit refused to file charges.
I took the matter to the York Regional Police who reviewed my case and informed me this
was a civil matter.
Like the YRP, Michael Thomson, Sgt RCMP has chosen to focus on the part about the
Corporations Act rather than deal with the root of my concerns which surfaced at the
Ontario Rental Housing Tribunal when they declined to charge my former tenant with fraud
and filing a fabricated dispute.
These offices are financed by the people to administer justice to and for the people.
Both of these investigation forces financed by the people for the people have indicated
one of two things maybe both, by their actions.
Their inability to investigate objectively or and negligence to their duty to protect the
people of Canada as per the Constitution Act, 1982 and more particularly Part 1,Canadian
Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
This is their responsibility to the people, but they have chosen to shrug their duty.
When they failed me I went to the YRP and RCMP to ask them to look into the matter and all
they did was investigate to see how they could put the responsibility on to me ignoring
all other evidence.
Not once did they refer to the root of the problem evidencing they are also part of the
problem.
This is absolutely abhorrent and intolerable and proves that we people can not expect
justice or protection from those who hold positions of trust within our legal system.
Since their decline to deal with the matter I have written many departments at all levels
of government which have either failed to respond or declined to deal with the problem.
79
Those who have responded are consistent with the opinions of the YRP and the RCMP.
This does not prove them to be right and me wrong but only evidences that which I have
stated in my writings and all the correspondence up to September 15 2006 has been filed in
the “BLACK BOOK” so that it may be presented for review.
I first began my commentaries which contained my views as an ordinary citizen living in

the democratic country of Canada who was of the opinion that the government was a group of
people chosen by the people to look after and protect us.
As the correspondence poured in it became apparent that my views were either wrong or the
government people were oblivious to the peoples concerns.
I am the type of person who considers all evidence as I learned early in life you can not
get to the truth without doing so.
I picked up this good habit early in my legal surveying career and found it very useful
and in fact a prerequisite for my duty to reestablish property lines in their original
position as required by law.
Of course law is the authority to do so and the mandate is to observe and obey the law.
I often found my self surrounded by people who were ignorant to the law and it is a shame
there exists such a majority of ignorance for it just made my job more difficult but I
have forty years experience in such matters and I know for fact that law and me prevail
over ignorance, most certainly when common sense is used to reason with and I must insist
that common sense is a prerequisite in all matters of law if they are to be understood and
obeyed.
There must be reason for everything we do and in matters of law we must apply our
arguments to the reason for the Constitution Act, 1982 and all laws must be reasoned for
that reason.
Any presentation of law which is inconsistent to the reason for the Constitution is not a
viable presentation and it is stated or implied in
Part 1, Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms
Whereas Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law:
and supported by
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.
COMMON SENSE MUST REIGN
Laws must be read in support of the intent of the Constitution Act, 1982
The reason for the Act is obvious to anyone of sound mind.
People reason in many different ways and when allowed to act on their reasoning to the
detriment of others a peaceful society is unachievable.
This is prominent in our history books and a good example of this is present today as we
attempt to resolve the consequences of such reason which inflicted dire problems upon the
aboriginal people which in turn inflicted dire problems upon us all.
80
I commend the government for being coherent to the fact that the aboriginal people were
wronged and I use this scenario as a very good example of reasoning after the fact rather
than reasoning in a timely fashion so as to prevent the necessity.
It’s an “If I only knew then what I know now” kind of thing.
Of course the people of the government today did not exist when this damage was done so
they can not be blamed nor can the rest of the people of Canada.
Simple fact is none of us are to blame for the initial deprivation but the problem exists
and it must be dealt with as soon as possible.
We are to blame for taking so long to understand and there is no excuse for that.
It is just fact that we are slow to understand, some slower than others.
Victims catch on real quick and government leaders are the slowest who do not get it until
they fall upon their own sword.
They truly never get it but they understand the necessity to please the voters. Kind of a
personal thing then and they bend over backwards for their cause.
Sad but true and until they are made to consistently understand they will consistently be
inconsistent with the Constitution Act, 1982.
I have a prodigious amount of evidence which Karen Noakes of the YRP will attest to but
she is no more capable of interpreting it than she is capable of interpreting the
Constitution Act.
I have provided the York Regional Police department with more than 400 pages (letter size)
of evidence and commentary in an effort to demonstrate my concerns and she wrote two pages
to explain what she understood.
Karen demonstrated ignorance and incompetence in matters of law and investigative

abilities, the latter dependant on the first.
I reason that she has reasoned that she has done a good job and her superior’s would agree
for common sense tells me that she would not deal with such evidence in this manner on her
own.
Her response is not evidence of the law which was the purpose she was to address but it is
evidence of her superior’s incompetence to administer the law for the purpose it was
intended.
I have written that it is quite possible that the law was authored to benefit a certain
group making the Constitution Act the catalyst of a conspiracy and that is most likely the
fact but that intention no matter how true it may be, will never be argued as a defense
and I will settle for a plea of incompetence.
So the irony is they are trapped in their own snare which is proof enough of their
incompetence.
These people must be brought forward and punished in a manner so as to prevent such a
reoccurrence.
That is the obvious intent of the supreme law of Canada.
Whereas Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law:
The way of God is the rule and the enforcers must guarantee compliance
PREVENTION is the KEY.
81
The Key opens the minds to the door to HEAVEN as defined in the Charter
The Lord works in mysterious ways until common sense is applied.
It’s no mystery to me.
BELIEVE beyond BELIEFS

The Constitution Act
Reasoned well
By good reason
For good reason
By minds of reason
For minds of reason
Of all BELIEFS
Law by reason
Reason by law
Punish by mind
Punish for mind
Mind for reason
Reason for mind
Peace of mind
For all minds
Of one mind
Of Reason
Please forward this whole letter including my original of October 22 2006 along with your
response to Commissioner Giuliano Zacacardelli as it was addressed to and intended for
him.
I had phoned the London Office and was told this is the way to contact him.
I have spent 10 months attempting to communicate my concerns to the mind set of those at
the local office and I have no more time or patience to deal at this level.
Too many trees have died needlessly while trying to open doors that are welded shut.
Once again I thank you for your trouble.
Frank
----Original Message-----
From: Webmaster Webmaster [mailto:Webmaster@rcmp-grc.gc.ca]
Sent: Monday, October 23, 2006 9:25 AM
To: franklyone@hotmail.com
Subject: Re: RCMP Web Comment
Frank,
I would recommend that you contact your local RCMP detachment and ask
for their assistance and advice.
Webmaster
National Communication Services
Services nationaux de communications
RCMP-GRC
1200 Varnier Parkway
Ottawa, ON K!A 0R2
>>> RCMP Website <webmaster@rcmp-grc.gc.ca> 10/22/06 11:13 PM >>>

(comments)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
October 22 2006
82
To:Commisioner Giuliano Zacardelli
RCMP
Fax:613-993-0309

Re: Obstruction of Justice

Minister of Municipal Affairs
and Housing
Hon. John Gerretsen etal
Tenant Protection Act,1997
Constitution Act,1982
COVER UP
ORHT-Tampering with evidence
Dear OPP
I(landlord) received an Order under section 69 Tenant Protection

Act,1997 File # TNL-67103 which found for me directing my (tenant) to
pay me rent arrears and vacate my premises as per an agreement he had
signed Dated May 6 2005 which I had attached to my application to
evict.
The disput he had signed and filed was a complete fabrication and
contrary to the May 6/05 Agreement which he and I had both signed.
The tenant denied having ever seen the 4 pages of the May 6 2005 agreement
and denied having ever seen them.
I submitted evidence which proved beyond any doubt that the tenant
filed a false and misleading information which is an offence under the
Tenant Protection Act.
In so doing I also proved that he had committed fraud regarding the May
6 2005 agreement.
When the judicator realized what was happening I said "There oughta be
a law" and she responded "There is" and went on for a minute or two
articulating the matter.
When I tried to contact her after receiving the order to see if charges
would be laid the ORHT declined to file charges but I got a copy of the
hearing recording.
The part where I said "There oughta be a law" and her response were
removed.
There was no recording of the second day of the hearing.
I corresponded with the Investigations and Enforcement Unit of the

Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing and finally Dave Grech wrote
me to say that he would not be filing charges and his reason was
absolutely ridiculous and he ended with it would be my word againt his
which is absolute B..S.. My tenant had no evidence to back his dispute
and I had a prodigious amount to conclude beyond any doubt that he was a
fraud and had filed a false and misleading information under the Act.
Offences
206. (1) Any person who knowingly does any of the following is guilty
of an offence:
6. Harass, hinder, obstruct or interfere with a landlord in the
83
exercise of,
i. securing a right or seeking relief under this Act or in the court,
After corresponding with various levels of government I was not able to

find anyone to deal with this matter but the Premier, Dalton McGuinty
suggested I write the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, Hon.John
Gerretsen who declined to review the matter stating that Dave Grech
coordinator of Investigations and Enforcement is the person whom he
appointed to investate such matters and he trusts him so case closed. As
for the ORHT he states they are at arms length from the government and
implied that he couldn't investigate them.
Duties of Minister
200. The Minister shall,
(a) monitor compliance with this Act
(b) investigate cases of alleged failure to comply with this Act and
(c) where the circumstances warrant, commence or cause to be commenced
proceedings with respect to alleged failures to comply with this Act.
1997, c. 24, s. 200.
I have written the Attorney General, Michael Bryant on several

occasions to investigate and file charges under:
Offences
Tenant Protection Act, 1997 but he has declined to respond.
206. (1) Any person who knowingly does any of the following is guilty
of an offence:
6. Harass, hinder, obstruct or interfere with a landlord in the
exercise of,
i. securing a right or seeking relief under this Act or in the court,
I have this all well documented but everyone declines to file charges.
I have been attempting to get this matter dealt with for over a year
now and nobody has accepted responsibility to investigate.
I reiterate that the evidence is overwhelming that the tenant filed a

false and misleading dispute with the ORHT and the Fraud regarding the
May 6 2005 agreement.
Could you please inform me as to who has jurisdiction to investigate

this matter.
I am determined to get to the bottom of this.

I suspect it has something to do with the fact that the Tenant
Protection Act,1997 is inconsistent with the Constitution Act, 1982
Thank you
Frank Gallagher
84
I have documented this along with commentary in a file which I named the BLACK BOOK which consists of a
cover page, 3 index pages, 266 pages and a back cover page as you know.
I have sent you a copy as well as the York Regional Police, the Ombudsman, my MP and my MPP as well as
the Premier of Ontario to whom I addressed on September 1 2006 on the cover page and forwarded to him,
Dalton McGuinty.
I have closed that file and opened a new folder the BLUE BOOK which contains correspondence with various
authorities regarding my search for justice and I have attached an excerpt from it for your attention.(Beginning
page 4)
What you will read is the reason I am writing you now.
The evidence within the BLACK BOOK proves that the people of Canada are not being protected by the
administrators of the Constitution and this excerpt from the BLUE BOOK confirms my allegations.
On page 9 of this excerpt I ask the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing a few questions, but I do not
expect a prompt response and so I request that you provide me the answers.
I have also Cc this to the media and others to make known my concerns should anything happen to me as I
continue my quest for justice.
.
It is my hope that at least one of the recipients of this e-mail will share my concerns and dare to do something
for the people.
I suggest that it is every person’s duty to back the people’s Charter rights and even more, those people who
have been paid by the Taxpayer to do so.
Given the strength of the evidence, I suggest that failure of any person receiving this evidence to take the
necessary steps to correct this situation will implicate them in this conspiracy.
Michael Thomson, I hereby formally charge you with the responsibility to put in motion the formal and legal
procedures according to the Constitution Act, 1982 to deal with this conspiracy by the authorities who are
empowered by the Constitution Act, 1982 to carry out and enforce the provisions of the said Act and have used
that authority to suit their own purpose disregarding the rights and freedoms guaranteed to the people by the
Charter and in so doing have effectively quashed the guarantee. I go onto say that they use their authority to
collect taxes for the purposes of the Constitution and by so doing are guilty of Fraud, Conspiracy and just about
anything you can name.
I understand that most of you do not make the laws nor set department policy and I do know the difficulties of
proceeding forward as I have experienced the same which has been identified in the BLACK BOOK regarding
the gallagher papers and the Cover UP by the MAYOR’S OFFICE.
I hereby request you to take my concerns forward and inform me ASAP to whom you have addressed the
matter to and their e-mail address and request that person to do likewise and so on until the appropriate action
is taken to remedy the situation. I suggest that it is your duty and everyone else’s who come across a superior
who refuses to act appropriately or orders you to halt and remain silent, such as the gag order that was issued
to the personnel of my former employer the City of Toronto, Property Surveys Management, to go around such
person and charge them with obstruction of justice.
So, let’s get the ball rolling and see who is implicated in this conspiracy and I will not accept any
response that states that you do not have the authority because we all have the Authority of the Constitution
Act, 1982 and you have all the evidence you need to commence procedures.
You have the knowledge, experience gained at the taxpayers expense to act in service of them and the rest of
the population of Canada and I expect you to do so and I suggest that the majority of the people have the same
expectations of you.
85
I also request that you provide me with the e-mail address of the RCMP Commissioner.
Thank you
Frank Gallagher
PS
I am also forwarding this by fax to others who have not provided me with an e-mail address.
I will also be forwarding to others I find on the net whom I feel should be concerned.
I do not expect this to protect me but I hope it will help to expose this to the public.
86
September 27, 2006
To: John Gerretsen

Minister of Municipal Affairs
and Housing
mininfo@mah.gov.on.ca

34 Riverglen Drive
Keswick On.
Dear John
To be straight with you I have never had the opportunity to send a Dear John letter, not that there is anything
wrong with that, so I take this opportunity to do so.
I have just received today your response(pg 8) dated September 26, 2006 to my fax correspondence dated
August 31 2006, a copy of which is filed in the BLACK BOOK pages 12-45.
The BLACK BOOK is the name I have chosen for the compilation of files I have addressed to the Premier of
Ontario, Dalton McGuinty of which the cover page is dated September 1 2006.
Page 15 of the BLACK BOOK indicates that I have also sent you a copy of the correspondence to Dalton
McGuinty which consists of the cover page and pages 1-11
The BLACK BOOK consists of a cover page, 3 index pages, 266 pages and a back cover page and this file has
now been closed.
I have opened a new folder which I refer to as the BLUE BOOK dated September 15 2006 in which I am filing
all correspondence pertinent to the BLACK BOOK.
On September 25 2006 I faxed you along with others but apparently it has not yet reached your desk.
Having said that, back to Dear John
I have also chosen to address you in the familiar form because I feel I know you and if you knew me you will
know that I intend nothing personal in the contents of my writings to date and have been merely expressing my
frustrations with the system.
When you have finished reading the BLACK BOOK I believe that you will find that the modus operandi of the
various authorities administering law are incapable of backing the guarantee of the peoples rights and freedoms
as provided by the Charter and therefore we people are being robbed, not only of our protection but also the
money we pay for it.
Your response has confirmed which I have stated in my writings that the authorities are either incompetent or
brilliantly incompetent in matters of the Constitution Act, 1982. I believe I have zeroed in on the problem from
all approaches but I think at this time it would be prudent to say that the problem exists due to both of the
reasons stated but for different reasons depending on ones station and some are quite understandable and
forgivable before my writings and I also understand that the public servants are in a very precarious dammed if
you do and damned if you don’t position.
87
All the services provided by the public servants are the products of the whole, and it is the product I have been
writing about, it is unfair to judge any individual on the basis of the product of the whole.
It has been quite apparent to me and I do not stand alone when I say the product we are receiving is over priced
and that is obviously due to no competition.
This factor has huge ramifications in matters of costs and the development of products which the public want
and need.
Competition is the only way to know for sure what the people want and the only way to see that they get it at a
reasonable price.
This is concluded on the basis of sound reasoning but by further reasoning we can also determine that it is
unreasonable to apply this reasoning for the very reason of reason.
We taxpayers sure don’t want to pay for three or four different company agencies to do the same thing, for the
sake of competition and most likely some entity would control them all and we would be in worse shape than we
are now.
By the use of reasoning, having the same reason to reason we can reason that a group of people having the
same knowledge would reason to the same conclusion and of course would be the ideal.
By the very use of reasoning we could also reason that is not the case and can not possibly be nor is it a desirable
situation to reason for because who would we learn from and wouldn’t life be boring.
I am getting bored right now and I suspect so are you but I hope you got warmed up so that we can apply some
very good reasoning to the matter at hand.
We will assume from now on that we are all reasonable people and I will assume that you all know that I
consider there to be a problem that needs to be fixed and I am quite aware that there are many who see no
problem at all and there are just as many who see me as a problem and I could go on and on that line of
reasoning as could you all but here is the point.
We all live in Canada and we are all equal in the eyes of the law and we all have equal rights and freedoms
because that is the law. Not only is it the law, we are guaranteed it and the law is very fair and quite explicit.
The law actually is the result of some very wise reasoning and given the circumstance in heavy print above we
would have the ideal.
Of course we don’t have the ideal ingredients such as people of equal knowledge but for the very reason that we
do not have the same reason to reason The Constitution Act, 1982 was enacted to provide us all with a very good
reason to reason the same in matters of law.
There is nothing to argue be cause it is the law.
Unfortunately the Constitution Act is just a piece of paper with words on it until we put the personnel in place to
enforce the law and we put a system in place to finance it.
Both are done and yet we do not have the ideal of the Constitution.
I wonder why?
88
.
If you and you and you are not wondering why then you are part of the problem.
If you do not care then you just aren’t into the spirit of the law and quite possibly are selfish and don’t give a
damn about fair.
That’s okay, Constitution allows you to feel as you like. Believe what you like and whatever but when it comes
to matters of law you had better believe the rights and freedoms of everyone are equal to yours and mess with
them and you will be punished significantly until you believe it.
Punishment must be distributed equally in the same manner as we are entitled to equal justice.
Common sense and sound reasoning must be used to the extent of the very reasoning behind the Act and the
purpose of the Act.
Again there is nothing to argue for we know the law is as sound as can be, its only weakness is in those who are
mandated to administer it.
Like the reasoning applied to the tax system….mmmm perhaps that is a bad example and when we learn to
reason we can revisit that.
Let’s use charities then and the ability to pay, no even better how about child support.
I think that’s a good one.
Separated parents who have left their family know full well of the consequence of a broken marriage and a lot of
reasoning has been done on the subject and I suspect there is a lot more reasoning that needs to be done but the
reasoning goes that its not the fault of the children and they must suffer the least financially.
If we are to err we must err on the side of the innocent children.
Seems fair to me.
So, when a person decides to act in contravention of the Charter they have committed a crime against society and
in matters of the Constitution we are all one big family and it is up to all to look after each other and when some
of us stray we must show them the way.
If two people do exactly the same crime and you punish them with the same fine of let’s say $5,000 then that
would be fair if they both had the same income and the same total worth considering assets and all.
But when the fine is pocket change to one and a year’s savings to another we are neither being fair nor would we
accomplish the purpose of punishment which is to deter immoral inclinations for the support of the guarantee.
This is a very serious matter that must be considered but even more is the matter of the victim.
It is every one of our responsibilities to see that we do not become victims and we must remember that the
victim could just as easily be you or I.
The victim must be compensated so as if the crime never occurred.
Generally there is no reason to leave the compensation up to this judge or that for it could all be computerized.
Everything we do we apply due diligence for our own safety. Like watching where we are walking, looking both
ways when crossing the road and keeping stairways clear so that nobody trips and falls.
89
Just a bunch of common sense, like walking a dog on a leash and we know the disastrous consequences if the
dog were to bite someone.
Many issues can be resolved with reason, good sound unbiased reasoning.
So, if we are clear in mind and coherent in matters of law we must obey it and reason for the benefit of the whole
and not for the benefit of one group or another nor the beliefs of another.
We simply must stay focused.
Strange enough that goes against the very way we vote now in this here democratic society doesn’t it?
Three or four parties striving to have it their way gives us something to think about.
No problem with the voting system if the people could be held responsible as well as the parties.
Need a lot of work there to and it will all come together if we shore up the foundation of the Constitution and
patch the holes.
So here is the problem as I have reiterated and reiterated. The administers of the Constitution have failed to put a
modus operandi in place capable of backing the guarantee of the Charter and in so doing allows the immoral to
flourish at the expense of the people.
The people have paid to see the immoral decline and it is their hope that they will disappear over time.
By doing so, so will the taxes..
As the evidence in the BLACK BOOK attests, so do you and the Ombudsman and you have put it on paper for
us all to have a look at.
For various reasons the administers have disregarded the supreme law of Canada and the authorities of Ontario
have put it in writing. Right there in their Acts for all to see.
There is nothing to argue, just correct them. Correct the minds of the people who write them and the minds of
those who administer them and we are set to go.
In your case you were asked to investigate into the reason why the Investigations and Enforcement Unit declined
to charge Don Wilson with Fraud.
And you state, let’s see, what did you state? Oh yes, you have every confidence in the professionalism and
expertise of the Investigations and Enforcement Unit and see no reason to revisit the conclusions reached by Mr.
Grech.
I have provided you the evidence but you trust Dave Grech. Like the wisdom of a mother’s love for her children
you have decided. This is not acceptable for a person who is in a position of trust and personally I do not see any
logical reason for you to keep that position of trust.
Have a look at the fax I sent you on September 25 2006 with special attention to the laws and get back to me
ASAP please.
90
Are you saying they are above the law?
91
September 28 2006
To Honourable John Gerretsen

Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing
From: Frank Gallagher PRWP

Peoples Representative Without Portfolio
Honourable John Gerretsen. September 28 2006
Who would they be to teach?

Brain washing would best describe.
Who allows them to do this?
Who empowers the minister?
Who enacts the Act?
So many questions, so many people paid by the taxpayer and yet no answers.
If you can answer these questions, pleas to do so.
Thank you.
September 28, 2006 Frank Gallagher
Words I wish I had said but didn’t but am now.
The evidence shows perhaps the Tribunal applies impartial treatment. No matter who you are all victims will receive
the same treatment and all the immoral will receive the same treatment although different than
the treatment for the victims.
The Tribunal like government services has a special place in their hearts for the immoral as they relate best with
them. They are their bread and butter. Without them they would be out of business. When one of their bread winner’s
is caught up with the law it is in the best interests to the Tribunal to get the immoral back on the road.
At the same time they have to do something to appear as if they are there for the people so they order him to pay me
what he owes me but don’t enforce it. Then to make it like there is some pressure for him to pay me they order that
4% interest will be paid on outstanding balance as of the court date.
So, because of him not paying me I am paying 16-18% on credit cards I was forced to use in lieu.
Not exactly a punishment to deter the immoral, and in no way will that back the guarantee of the Constitution.
He was not ordered to pay me interest for the term from August 1 2004- August 8 2005 the date of the order.
If the tenant had given me a deposit I would have been ordered to pay 6% for the term.
(6) A landlord of a rental unit shall pay interest to the tenant annually on the amount of the rent
deposit at the rate of 6 per cent per year
The Tribunal has infringed upon my equality rights and supports the immoral and punishes the victim contrary to the
Constitution. On and on the people are being betrayed.
92
Administration and Enforcement
Duties of Minister
200. The Minister shall,
(a) monitor compliance with this Act;
(b) investigate cases of alleged failure to comply with this Act; and
(c) where the circumstances warrant, commence or cause to be commenced proceedings with
respect to alleged failures to comply with this Act. 1997, c. 24, s. 200.
Delegation
201. The Minister may in writing delegate to any person any power or duty vested in the Minister
under this Act, subject to the conditions set out in the delegation. 1997, c. 24, s. 201.
Investigators and inspectors
202. The Minister may appoint investigators for the purpose of investigating alleged offences and
inspectors for the purposes of sections 154 and 155. 1997, c. 24, s. 202.
Protection from personal liability
205. (1) No proceeding for damages shall be commenced against an investigator, an inspector, a
member of the Tribunal, a lawyer for the Tribunal or an officer or employee of the Ministry or the
Tribunal for any act done in good faith in the performance or intended performance of any duty or in
the exercise or intended exercise of any power under this Act or for any neglect or default in the
performance or exercise in good faith of such a duty or power.
good faith is the key
Crown liability
(2) Despite subsections 5 (2) and (4) of the Proceedings Against the Crown Act, subsection (1) does
not relieve the Crown of any liability to which it would otherwise be subject in respect of a tort
committed by an investigator, an inspector, a member of the Tribunal, a lawyer for the Tribunal or an
officer or employee of the Ministry or the Tribunal. 1997, c. 24, s. 205
93
Offence
206 (1) Any person who knowingly does any of the following
6. Harass, hinder, obstruct or interfere with a landlord in the exercise of,
i. securing a right or seeking relief under this Act or in the court, or
ii. participating in a proceeding under this Act.
(2) Any person who does any of the following is guilty of an offence:
1. Furnish false or misleading information in any material filed in any proceeding under this Act or
provided to the Tribunal, an employee or official of the Tribunal, an inspector, an investigator, the
Minister or a designate of the Minister.
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.
Dear John.Gerretsen
This is not about a dispute between a landlord and a tenant.
It is a request for you to review the decision of Dave Grech of Investigations and Enforcements
who has refused to charge Don Wilson (Tenant) under 206(2) of the Tenant Protection Act, 1997
Don Wilson has obviously and deliberately filed a dispute which was false and misleading information.
Don Wilson signed it. Don Wilson claimed he had paid rent up to February 2009 .
Don has committed Fraud regarding two documents which I filed to support my application.
Don Wilson signed both of these and it was proven at the hearing
Don Wilson denied having ever seen either of these two documents and he denied having ever signed them He
agreed to vacate my premises on May 31 2005 and he agreed that he owed me so much for rent at the time of
signing the agreement.
By order TNL-67103 under section 69 Tenants Protection Act, 1997

It was determined that:
1) Don Wilson has not paid the rent
2) Don Wilson gave notice to terminate the tenancy as of May 31 2005.
If that isn’t proof beyond a reasonable doubt Nancy Fahlgren ORHT is dispensing injustice.
94
That was proof enough for Don to vacate the premises and he has had a year to file a complaint.
Lets see August 2005- February 2009 42 months at $800 =$33,600 he tried to do me for.
He would not have tried it if he thought he couldn’t get away with it and he obviously was right so far.
The failure of the ORHT and the Investigations and Enforcement Unit of the Ministry of Municipal
Affairs and Housing to file charges against this man for filing a false and misleading information
under Section 206 (2) is a an offence under Section 206(1)
This is an offence that you are now guilty of.
You are also guilty of Ministering the Tenant and Protection Act, 1997 which is inconsistent with the
Constitution Act, 1982 in matters of equal rights regarding interest rates and obstructing my right to
justice regarding his filing a dispute of false and misleading information and his committing fraud
regarding the two agreements.
If the decision had of found for him the value of the fraud would have exceeded $200,000 on paper.
The fact is he has already defrauded us of $150,000 and you will see in the September 25 2006 fax to you that on
the prospectus he provided me at investment time he claims Rod Bradbury who owns a lab out in Vancouver is
the Vice President of the company. He has an impressive web site and Don showed me that.
You will also find a letter from Rod Bradbury stating that he is not and never was the Vice-President of BioSafe
nor has he held any position with BioSafe.
I have evidence that proves he was trying to frame me for stealing $7,000 and he tried to file charges against me
with the police because I told him I wanted him out of my house on December 17 2004 when he and my Son
attempted to oust me. On December 24 2004 he signed documents with my son declaring a document that Don
and I had signed December 17 2004 was null and void and my son was the witness to that document so he was
going to side with Don. On that very same day he signed a document declaring that the December 17 2004
agreement with me was valid.
It just goes on and on and then when the ORHT has an opportunity to do the right thing you turn out to be no
different than this man.
Your letter confirms that which the evidence shows in the 266 page BLACK BOOK. This man harassed my ex
wife and my ex girl friend and threatened me and my mother. He promised to pay me back
about $15,000 he owed me when he collected $50,000 from a potential investor and when he got it went missing
for three weeks and I never saw my money. That is the short story.
It is not likely he has any money now and I have resigned myself to that fact but you can damn well bet I won’t
quit until he has his day in court and any one who obstructs my right to justice will have their day in court also.
That is the law under the Tenants Protection Act and the Constitution Act.
That can’t be too difficult to understand.
You are all guilty under section 205(1) and you will have a difficult time proving you acted in good faith
with the evidence being so obvious and so plentiful.
What the hell is wrong with you people?

Gee, there I go again. I wonder what the hell is wrong with me?
Sincerely
Frank Gallagher
95

RCMP Compiled December 20 2008

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

RCMP Compiled December 20 2008

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

1

Commission for Public Complaints Against the RCMP

Reviews & Investigations Unit

E-MAIL ADDRESS: reviews@cpc-cpp.gc.ca

From: Frank Gallagher [mailto:frank.gallagher@sympatico.ca]

September 23 2008 Frank Gallagher

Re: Request Review of my Complaint

Dear Commission Representative

Police Services Act

Address of contents of Superintendent Robert Davis dated September 3 2008

False statements are underlined

1) Complaint date November 7 2007 in error (False-November 8 2007)

Police Services Act

10) If I wish to exercise my right to a review of this investigation of my complaint I may do so by

Of course I wish to exercise my right!!!

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

Excerpt from page 4 follows

False statements are underlined

1) Complaint date November 7 2007 in error (False-November 8 2007)

Re: File Nos. PC-2007-2316 & PC-2007-2317

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

I request immediate acknowledgement of receipt of this document

www.cdf.name PUBLIC INQUIRY NOW!!!!

There oughta be a law!!!!

I know there is.

“Reviews” refuse to respond.

They may be in on it too.

What do you think?

September 18, 2008

From: Frank Gallagher [mailto:frank.gallagher@sympatico.ca]

Attention Andree Leduc

Re: Request Review of Complaint

Dear Andree Leduc

Please acknowledge receipt and your intent to cooperate

Attention Andree Leduc

On my complaint I identified my mother as witnessing the refusal by Sergeant Roy Steinebach on

I believe the complaint itself is evident that it is not trivial, Right?

You don’t know right?

I suggest you make particular note of that.

To that endeavor I will expect an immediate acknowledgement of receipt as a reply

It is absolutely ridiculous to use Canada Post which serves only to delay.

The consequences are your choice.

Obviously not the Commissioner nor is

I will tentatively presume this to be

December 31 2007 Resent by e-mail

Please see attachment “Commission RCMP

Immediate response required …….Get up to speed……..Formal complaint coming soon

Confucius 551 BC – 479 BC

Frank 1942 AD – 200_

Manager, Charter Democracy Force

Police Services Act

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

Simple fact is it will betray you.

OOPS: They are in serious trouble aren’t they?

Don’t answer, we know don’t we?

I suppose the obvious does not require the formality.

We cannot have that can we?

I wonder why RCMP Professional Standards sited

Attention Andree Leduc

On my complaint I identified my mother as witnessing the refusal by Sergeant Roy Steinebach on

I believe the complaint itself is evident that it is not trivial, Right?

You don’t know right?

I suggest you make particular note of that.

It is absolutely ridiculous to use Canada Post which serves only to delay.