July 15 2007 ( Ammends July 14 2007)

We pay protection money. Protect us please

In the Spirit and the letter of the Constitution I

demonstrate my displeasure with the
administration and enforcement of the
Constitution Act, 1982 with great pleasure for
the benefit of the people of Canada and others
who exist for the pleasures of those who would
have us believe we are free spirits of a
democratic society.
Harper.S@parl.gc.ca franklyone@hotmail.com

July 9 2007 the coming into force of the Conflict of Interest Act.
There are plenty of words in the Constitution Act, 1982 with provisions for guaranteed Charter Rights.
I have great faith and trust in the words of the Constitution that they provide the Spirit which we the
people can abide by conducive to the aspirations of the Spirit of God.
25 years later we still wait for someone to back the words.

You can not restore what never was however you can make things as they need to be in the Spirit of the
Constitution and the Spirit of the aspirations of God to raise the Spirit of the individual and society as a
whole.
I hereby reiterate my concerns to see what difference a day makes. Namely July 9 2007

Please forward to the Commissioner, Mary Elizabeth Dawson and acknowledge receipt. Thank you

1
To: Mary Elizabeth Dawson
Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner

Dear Commissioner Mary Elizabeth Dawson

Firstly I would like to congratulate you on your new exalted position which provides you the opportunity
to bring the people together with our government to act as one in the Spirit of the Constitution.

My Spirit has been tremendously encouraged by the news of your appointment and I suspect you are very
pleased with your new found opportunity to make Canada the country the Constitution demands whereas
Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law.

It’s been said God helps those who help themselves but unfortunately the majority of us are not in a
position to take full advantage as are the government personnel who have been put in positions of trust.

In the Spirit of what has come to be known as that of the aspirations of God which I know to be consistent
with a fair, moral, peaceful society whether or not God exists or ever did I dare say when the Spirit of the
Constitution is enforced as intended the Spirit of God will surely exist within us all.

At the moment it is not and I back my words with a prodigious amount of evidence which I will be
forwarding you for your review with the expectation that you will commence or cause to commence
proceedings to correct the misguided attitudes that run rampant throughout the government as you and the
Prime Minister are well aware which gave cause for the Federal Accountability Act.

At this moment I trust you are of the Spirit of the Constitution and believe whole heartedly in the
individual’s guaranteed Charter rights and have no misunderstanding of the consistency it must be enforced
so as to back the individual’s guaranteed rights in particular as stated in

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.

No reasonable person can argue the verbiage to be unfair as they are conducive to happiness for all.

No reasonable person can argue the necessity of consistent enforcement with consistent attentiveness to the
words and Spirit intended that must go hand in hand if the Spirit is to exist.

That which I am about to present will be a significant challenge and test of the integrity and authority of
your office to the task which could very well prove to be a surprise to you. I hope it is a surprise to me.

It is my hope for the sake of the people and of course me that you fair better than the Ontario Ombudsman
whose web site encouraged me but his actions placed me back in despair where the Ontario government
feel is my inherent right of privilege.

Perhaps that is the problem. I am in denial.

If that is fact perhaps a few kind words from you to explain the necessity of my lowly lot in life deserving
the disrespect they have shown me in an endeavor to comfort me so I may ease my way into a submissive
and passive state necessary to endure the associated burdens of hopelessness and despair.

2
Until that eventuality I shall continue to believe I am a worthwhile person entitled to equal rights as per the
Charter guarantee
eedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such
reasonable
The following limits prescribed
was extracted by law
from the Law as can
Society be
of Upper Canada Lawyers Rules of Conduct.
(f) rules of professional conduct cannot address every situation, and a lawyer should observe the rules in
the spirit as well as in the letter.

It is in the Spirit as well as the letter I address the following so as to be on the same page though humble.

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:

Guarantee of Rights and Freedoms

1. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and
freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law
as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.

7. Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived
thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.

12. Everyone has the right not to be subjected to any cruel and unusual treatment or punishment.

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.

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.

There lies the Spirit of the law and the letter which clearly treats us all equally as is the
aspirations of God who is recognized as supreme whether or not he exists, ever has or ever
will who I believe most certainly will as the Spirit of the Constitution and God will live in
the Spirit of the people when the law is administered and enforced consistently in the Spirit as
well as the letter as it must to consistently serve and protect the rights and freedoms of each and every
individual as guaranteed and must be as only can be to be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic
society.
The Attorney General of Ontario is accountable to and responsible for most everything in matters of law
where he is the guardian of the individual’s rights which he has not yet demonstrated his accountability but
has in fact demonstrated irrefutably that he is not of the Spirit of the Constitution. Read for yourself.

3
 Roles and Responsibilities of the Attorney General
The Attorney General has a unique role to play as a Minister.

One part of the Attorney General's role is that of a Cabinet Minister. In this capacity the Minister is
responsible for representing the interests and perspectives of the Ministry at Cabinet, while simultaneously
representing the interests and perspectives of Cabinet and consequently the Government to the Ministry
and the Ministry's communities of interest.

The Attorney General is the chief law officer of the Executive Council. The responsibilities stemming from
this role are unlike those of any other Cabinet member. The role has been referred to as "judicial-like" and
as the "guardian of the public interest".

Much has been written on the subject of ministerial responsibilities and the unique role of the Attorney
General.

There are various components of the Attorney General's role. The Attorney General has unique
responsibilities to the Crown, the courts, the Legislature and the executive branch of government. While
there are different emphases and nuances attached to these there is a general theme throughout all the
various aspects of the Attorney General's responsibilities that the office has a constitutional and traditional
responsibility beyond that of a political minister.

The statutory responsibilities of the office are found in section 5 of the Ministry of the Attorney General
Act. Section 5 states:

The Attorney General,

(a) is the Law Officer of the Executive Council;
(b) shall see that the administration of public affairs is in accordance with the law;
(c) shall superintend all matters connected with the administration of justice in Ontario;
(d) shall perform the duties and have the powers that belong to the Attorney General and Solicitor General
of England by law and usage, so far as those powers and duties are applicable to Ontario, and also shall
perform the duties and powers that, until the Constitution Act, 1867 came into effect, belonged to the
offices of the Attorney General and Solicitor General in the provinces of Canada and Upper Canada and
which, under the provisions of that Act, are within the scope of the powers of the Legislature;
(e) shall advise the Government upon all matters of law connected with legislative enactments and upon all
matters of law referred to him or her by the Government;
(f) shall advise the Government upon all matters of a legislative nature and superintend all Government
measures of a legislative nature;
(g) shall advise the heads of ministries and agencies of Government upon all matters of law connected with
such ministries and agency;
(h) shall conduct and regulate all litigation for and against the Crown or any ministry or agency of
government in respect of any subject within the authority or jurisdiction of the Legislature;
(i) shall superintend all matters connected with judicial offices;
(j) shall perform such other functions as are assigned to him or her by the Legislature or by the Lieutenant
Governor in Council. "

What follows is an overview of the various components of the Attorney General's roles and
responsibilities, primarily as outlined in the Act.

4
Chief Law Officer of the Executive Council (s. 5(a))
The role of chief law officer might be referred to as the Attorney General's overall responsibility as the
independent legal advisor to the Cabinet - and some have even suggested that the role possibly extends to
the Legislature as well. The importance of the independence of the role is fundamental to the position and
well established in common law, statutes and tradition.
As chief law officer, the Attorney General has a special responsibility to be the guardian of that most
elusive concept - the rule of law. The rule of law is a well established legal principle, but hard to easily
define. It is the rule of law that protects individuals, and society as a whole, from arbitrary measures and
safeguards personal liberties.

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

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

Criminal prosecutions (s.5(d))

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

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

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

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

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

5
The responsibility is to present the case fairly - not necessarily to convict. This is a fundamental precept of
criminal law, even if it is not a particularly well-understood concept among the general public. One of the
Attorney General's responsibilities in fostering public respect for the rule of law, is to assist the public in
understanding the nature and limits of the prosecutorial function.

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

Although the Attorney general can become involved in decision-making in relation to individual criminal
Now
cases, such that wewould
a practice are allleave the Minister vulnerable to accusations of political interference.
Accordingly, it is traditional to leave the day-to-day decision-making in the hands of the Attorney
General's agents, the Crown Attorneys, except in cases of exceptional importance where the public would
expect the Attorney General to be briefed.

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

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

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

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

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

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

In addition to the specific responsibilities to conduct civil litigation on behalf of the Government and its
agencies (s. 5(h)), the Attorney General has broader litigation responsibilities flowing from the historical
powers of the Attorney General referred to in s. 5(d) of the Act. These powers are based on the Crown's
parens 6
patriae (parental) authority. The Attorney General's authority, therefore, is not only to conduct litigation in
cases directly affecting the government or its agencies but also to litigate cases where there is a clear matter
of public interest or public rights at stake.

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

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

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

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

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

The preceeding “Role of the Attorney General” was copied from my Lawyer File # 7 which I downloaded
from his web site.

Given the number of hats the Attorney General wears which includes the following it is predictable that
the individual’s guaranteed Charter rights would be compromised.

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

Clearly there is a conflict of interest and it is overwhelmingly prejudiced against the individual.

The office of the Ombudsman was purportedly provided to give the people a voice to offset government
misjudgments inherent to such positions of power and trust.

This clearly demonstrates the awareness of the probability of such occurrences if there were not safe
guards set in place.

I have been corresponding with the Ombudsman since March 30 2006 regarding matters detailed in the
Black Book (see http://groups.google.com/group/black-book) dated September 1 2006 which I sent to
Premier Dalton McGuinty and copied my MPP Julia Munro, my MP Peter Van Loan, the York Regional
Police, the RCMP, the Ombudsman, Dave Grech, Investigations and Enforcement and Minister Hon. John
Gerretsen both of the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing and Attorney General Michael Bryant.

7
The fact is I have written all of the above a preponderance of letters in an effort to have proceedings
commenced against my former tenant Don Wilson who is the president, ceo, director, treasurer and janitor
of a company named Bio Safe Natural Technologies Inc. which I am a major share holder.

During an Ontario Rental Housing Tribunal hearing June 30 2005 TNL-67103 Don Wilson committed the
criminal act of Fraud over $100,000 and filed false and misleading information over $43,000 which is an
offense under s. 206. (2) of the Tenant Protection Act, 1997.

He committed these crimes right there before the judicator in a public building financed by the people to
dispense justice to and for the people of Ontario and the government personnel mentioned above and in my
Lawyer Files #s 1-14 and 13A refused to commence or cause to commence proceedings against him.

I provided copies of the 15 Lawyer Files dated March 30 2007 to the people mentioned above which
details the criminal acts requesting various government personnel to deal with the issues stated within them
but they have all declined to act.

They are all guilty of an offense under s. 206 (1) of the Tenant Protection Act, 1997 and obstruction of
justice.

On June 20 2007 I sent Hon. John Gerretsen a letter and copied to Attorney General Michael Bryant to
reiterate my concerns and he responded June 27 2007 remaining steadfast in his refusal to commence or
cause to commence proceedings as stated in the letter.

I wrote Michael Bryant on July 9 2007 requesting he deal with the issues but I have yet to hear from him.

He has adamantly refused to respond to me and I expect the same for this letter.

These are very serious matters and I suspect I have been treated equally as well as any other individual
would be which leaves the guaranteed Charter rights of all individuals seriously compromised and in fact
without guarantee.

I have sent them all copies of a letter to the Toronto Sun dated October 8 2006 which contains the
irrefutable evidence that the crimes were committed.

I will be sending you a copy of this along with copies of the 15 Lawyer Files where in Lawyer File # 2
pages 4 and 5 you will see Dave Grech’s, ridiculous response dated September 6 2005 where he explains
why he would not commence or cause to commence proceedings against Don Wilson.

On pages 6 and 7 of the same file you will see copies of Hon. John Gerretsen’s September 26 2006
ridiculous response as to why he won’t commence or cause to commence proceedings against Don Wilson.

He would also have me believe the ORHT are so independent that they can do just whatever they want.
They operate under the auspices of the Tenant Protection Act, 1997 and the Minister is responsible for
monitoring compliance with the Act.

In Lawyer File # 1 you will see that not only did the ORHT refuse to deal with the matter but tampered
with the evidence and did not record the 2nd day of the hearing July 28 2005 for some reason.

I suspect this is all about the inconsistencies of the Tenant Protection Act, 1997 with the Constitution Act,
1982 and I highly expect the Attorney General’s office is involved.

8
Upon reading the “Role of the Attorney General” you will see he holds a very powerful and influential
position where he influences or is influenced by everyone involved with the administering and enforcing of
the laws of Ontario.

You will note that the Attorney General can advise the police but ultimately the police must lay the charges
but then it is up to him whether or not to proceed.

In other matters it is mentioned that they are left up to the Crown Attorneys because he wouldn’t want it to
appear as if he is influencing the case.

How ignorant does he think the people are to publish all this on his web site?

He is responsible for the administration of law throughout the government and I presume the Ombudsman
would consult the Attorney General or someone under him in controversial matters such as mine.

The York Regional Police say they have to go to a judge for a warrant on such cases as mine and they are
often frustrated that one judge will grant and another deny and it is no coincidence that the judges are
under the Chief Justice Roy McMurchy who is under the Attorney General.

The Attorney General has all the bases covered.

In my particular case the YRP did not attempt to get a warrant because they have been so frustrated which
leaves me considerably frustrated.

I have been on this 24/7 for over 2 years now and I don’t believe frustrated does justice to my thoughts.

I have attached a copy of the letters to Hon. John Gerretsen dated June 20 2007 and Michael Bryant dated
July 9 2007 and Lawyer Files # 1-3.

The other 12 will follow as will the letter to the Toronto Sun in 2 parts and a letter to Peter Kormos.

It is imperative that you peruse these 73 pages with particular scrutiny because they provide the evidence
which proves irrefutably that Don Wilson did commit the crimes and when you read Dave Grech’s
response for not commencing or causing to commence proceedings you will know that he is absurd.

It took me 1 month of persistence to get him to write and I suspect he consulted with the Minister who is
his superior and in turn I suspect the Minister has consulted with Michael Bryant who would be his legal
representative according to the “Role of the Attorney General”.

The individual doesn’t have a hope in hell.

This particular case should get your Commission off to a flying start or a rude awakening.

I wish you luck of course.

Respectfully yours
Frank Gallagher

PS Any questions, don’t hesitate. Please acknowledge receipt