look at court file F/M/97/03 & F/M/115/00

Look at who lawyer Greg G. Byrne,Q.C., work for before becomeing M>L>A> for Shawn Graham, Governments.

From: "Burke, T.J. (Hon.) (JUS)"
To:
CC: "Premier Shawn Graham (PO/CPM)"
Subject: FW: http://govinjustice.blogspot.com i need help i will be cook monday at 1:30 in
Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2007 15:14:50 -0300

Dear Mr. Harris:

RE: Richard A. Harris et al v. Her Majesty the Queen in Right of the

Province of New Brunswick as represented by the

Minister of Transportation

Your email of February 20, 2007 to Premier Graham has been referred to me for reply.

You currently have an appeal in the Court of Appeal of New Brunswick from the decision of the Court of Queen’s Bench, dated June 30, 2005 in the above noted matter. The Attorney General is the solicitor of record for the Province of New Brunswick in this appeal, which is referenced in your email to the Premier. All correspondence in relation to this appeal should be forwarded to the attention of David Eidt, solicitor and agent for the Attorney General.

Your email to the Premier also refers to an action which you have commenced against a Mr. Goodwin. I understand from David Eidt that this is Harrison Goodwin, an appraiser. The Province of New Brunswick is not involved in that action and we are therefore unable to comment on it.

Your email complains about the solicitors who represented you in the trial of your claim against the Province and about certain members of the appraisal profession. Mr. Eidt advises me that you are aware that complaints against these persons should be directed to their professional societies or associations. These organizations are responsible for receiving and investigating complaints about the conduct of their members. If appropriate, they have the authority to impose sanctions upon members who are found to be derelict in their duties.

I trust this answers your concerns.

Yours truly,

The Honourable Thomas J. Burke, Q.C.

Attorney General

---

From: Richard Harris [mailto:injusticecoalition@hotmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, February 20, 2007 3:32 PM
To: Premier Shawn Graham (PO/CPM)
Subject: http://govinjustice.blogspot.com i need help i will be cook monday at 1:30 in

In court Monday at 1:30 the 26 /07 on a motion that my Action on Goodwin more then likely will be gone ? this man took 21,000.thousand from me 8 year ago please help me for i go off the deep end February 16,2007

To David D. Eidt, Esq. Richard Harris Office of the Attorney General 721 Irvine st.#40

670 King Street E3A-3E4

Room 444, Centennial Building

Fredericton New Brunswick

E3B-5H1

Dear Mr. David Eidt, Esq.

On February 12, 2007 when we were in Court on the matter of the appeal on court file, NO; F/C/328/00, I showed you a letter that I had received, from the Law Society of New Brunswick, it was a letter to Jamie Eddy, from Robert Pineo, where he is updating Mr. Eddy, on my expropriation case files. (No; F/C/328/00), am I correct?

I don’t think they are representing me on the Goodwin matter court file, which was imposed on me because of the expropriation matter. It should have been obvious to the government employee (assuming that they were taking into account my best interests.) that, they would be putting a stop to my self-employment on February 12, 1997.

I hold that since the Appraiser Society of New Brunswick and all the lawyers involved in the expropriation cases at this time were heavily dependent on government contracts and so were not motivated to act in the best interests of the public who were having their lands expropriated. In essence an inherent conflict of interest existed.

The Government gave large amounts of money to set up a contractor company. MRDC, and the Company law firm Patterson Palmer Hunt Murphy.

If they ran in to any difficult property owners, they would bully the land owners around until they were forced to quit their claim due to mental exhaustion or financial ruin.

Douglas Young (ex Ottawa Minister, also lawyer of the third biggest Atlantic Canada law firm, also head of MRDC at that time), seems to have operated on a principle tactic of force and control. Many land owners who were financially challenged or poorly educated were at greater risk of being financially savaged. Douglas Caldwell, a NS lawyer, who was and still is working for the same law firm Doug Young is affiliated with advertised that he would not charge for representing the client ascertaining that he was being funded by the expropriation act.

Lawyer Caldwell set up meetings with people that would be or might have been losing Property. (This is how so people were getting hook up with Caldwell.

I suspect MRDC or DOT, must have been giving the names of property owner to the Caldwell,

I think if there were an investigation on this matter you will find out this lawyer handled approximately 70% of the N.B. Expropriation cases.

Mr. Caldwell was telling people at meeting that under the Expropriation Act, he would be paid all legal and expert’s costs. See Attachment January 19, 1998 RETAINER AGREEMENT to Richard Harris. [Atlantic Canada Lawyers]

The Retainer Agreement of two page, that more or less stating the fees and Costs will be the responsibility of the Provincial Government, whether the billings are forwarded directly to the client or through Patterson Palmer Hunt Murphy.

On the Second page of the retainer agreements, where the party would sign, it says.

“Should you have any questions regarding our representation of your interests, at any time, do not hesitate to contact us.”

The Clients were unlikely get any letters from the Nova Scotia lawyer until it was be too late to do any good. Letters from the N.S. Lawyer that had Douglas Young’s name on it would be received from the N.S.Lawyer, after they would have signed the contract, or retainer agreement.

By the time most property owners would have found out, that there could be an ethical conflict of interest. Property owners would all ready owe money to the N.S. Lawyer. (Look at there Bill of costs from October 31/97 to January 15, 1998.)

But what is even more importance the date on the Retainer Agreement of January 19/98, is the day this Nova Scotia Lawyer knew for sure I was changing lawyers.

But what is really more important is testimony of the Appraiser Malcolm Carter in court on March of 2005, he said that he turned a subdivision development approach

report of value in to D.O.T. on January, 23, 1998. Also he said he did not know why he did this, because he doesn’t know how to do a subdivision approach to value.

A investigation or inquiry would more then likely show that the Government set the stage for the land taking in 1995, when they incorporated on January 1, 1995, when the province of New Brunswick’s Legislative Assembly passed bill 17, Chapter 108 of provincial legislation; the Act to incorporate the New Brunswick Association of Real Estate Appraisers thereby creating an inherent conflict of interest.

What did this do? It put all the N.B. Appraisers in an organized group, a gang, a group to intimidate property owners.

The Government gives out or controls about 90% of all work for Appraisers.

Now look at one of the top Appraisers of D.O.T. of the N.B. Appraisers gang , Yes it is John S Raymond . He not can only intimidate Property owner but also can intimidate the Appraisers in the Association of Real Estate Appraisers, (if they want Government Work.)

Now the way the legal system is set up by all Lawyers, if you need to changes lawyer you will have to pay the first Lawyer off, before another lawyer will take over your file, thereby preventing the property owner from getting adequate counsel if they find that they are receiving inadequate representation.

The logic here is the public didn’t know that in N.B. you should hire a NB Lawyer when you get in a matter like what I was involved in. (I did not find any of this out until 1999. But I was asking questions to the Government even in the summer of 1998, about the conflict of interest between MRDC, lawyers and the Government.

Why I am saying this is because in August of 2001, having had time to look over the Government documents that was on John S Raymond affidavit list that I received in October of 2000, I discovered he was writing letter to the Law Society of New Brunswick, See attachment. To the N.B. Law Society, July 17, 1998 Dear Mr. Carrier. From planning and Land Management Sincerely John S. Raymond [Assistant Director]. I enclose a copy of a letter, dated May 28, 1998, from Mr. Douglas A. Caldwell (Solicitor with Patterson Palmer Hunt Murphy) to the Hon. Sheldon Lee, Minister of Transportation. Mr. Caldwell advised that he is legal council to H.A.R. Construction, and to Richard and Marilyn Harris, Oromocto, N.B.

Now apparently John S.Raymond doesn’t know about Mr. Caldwell doing Expropriation files in NB. Look at this Attachment (M/M/206/96) the McLeod V. N.B. What is really funny here is that Mr. Raymond was not only getting letters from Mr. Caldwell, he was also receiving lots of letters from my New Brunswick Lawyer John B.D. Logan. Was Raymond writing letters to the Law Society also on the McLeod case, or would this letter have soon thing to do with the Pleading of May 28, 1998, or with what Richard turned in on February 24, 1998. That ended up as an exhibit, NO; 14 from Discovery of 2001.

Today is Monday 19, 2007 and I won’t have any more time to work on this letter.

I just faxed a six pages motion to Mr. Goodwin Lawyer. Hugh J. Cameron and not 25 min past and there was a S.A.Deliveries agent at my door, giving me a sign for Letter. Attachment Stewart McKinley Re; Court File No; F/C/187/04.

But I will say this, before the trial in March of 2005; I faxed a copy of the Action of Goodwin to Robert Pineo and Caldwell, instructing the Lawyers to enter this as a tab on the applicant’s Exhibit book list. (Fact this ended up on the respondent Exhibit book in trial)

I faxed this action on Mr. Goodwin and along also a 13 pages background report that I prepared for the Lawyer, my ex-lawyers or the lawyers that I did not have fighting for my Company or self at the trial in March of 2005. I told the lawyers Mr.Pineo, Mr.Eddy, and Mr. Caldwell that I had requested the Goodwin Action that was served on him in June of 2004 be entered by my law firm’s lawyers. That now the motion on this file number F/C/187/04 set to be heard on February 26/07. I should have had my files back by now. Is it only circumstancial that there was a status hearing on February 12/07 and now there a motion hearing set for the 26/07 as well.

So I am presuming that Jamie Eddy is or was my New Brunswick Lawyer. Is Robert Pineo, sending out Letter to Mr. Eddy? I guest I must be right. I’ll have you to know that on August 29, 2005, I took a heart attack and ended up having Heart Surgery. Now I was not allowed to do any thing, on doctor’s orders till the end of December of 2005, I also would have to move on December of 2005, due to these circumstances. I was telling my room house land lord that I would be moving out west, before I took the Heart attack, to be closer to my grand daughter and daughter Aimee. I had no intention of taking the money of Judge Russell Decision of June 3, 2005. Then I found out what I would be getting back on my costs and out of pocket expenses. This time in November of 2005, I was being forced to change my mind due to the stress of Surgery with no driver license and my landlady all ready had my room rented out for the month of December, to a person that would be there for two years. I was now being forced to try to get the money, I was very distressed and unhappy that under the circumstances I found my self in, that I would have to seek money from Russell Decision.

Now in order to get payment from the Lawyers, they were telling me that I would have to signs paper for then, to give to the Government. Before they would send the money from N.S. At first they sent out the paper an advice me to sign and return them to their office in N.S., before I would see the cheque. I informed them then that I would not be signing any paper for them on less than the money that was to be released to me the same time. This took about two weeks to come about. (I did not think they would give up the money.)

On or about November 2/05 my NB lawyer Jamie Eddy had a call put to me telling me that they have a cheque for us my son and my self.

On or about November 4, 2005 we went to the Fredericton office of Patterson Palmer Law office for a meeting with Jamie C.Eddy. Now at this Meeting Mr. Eddy had us to sign Affidavit of Execution of Release of funds.

See 9 pages of Attachment:

Now there was also a letter to your Attention: Mr. David Eidt that was already in advance of our Meeting with Mr. Eddy, as you can see by the letter head on this Letter to you the law Firm that represents us was Patterson Palmer law, and the lawyer in NB was at this time, was Jamie Eddy, that would have us sign these paper of Release. (It was not Douglas Caldwell or Robert Pineo.)

This brings us to the question if they had no intention to put in Documents of Cost for Payment of Costs and Disbursements, to be assessed by the court if necessary.

Then my files should of have been returned on this day of November 4 by Mr. Eddy.

Now in the matter of the appeal. Now Mr. Eddy being our N.B. lawyer should have known quite well if his Client, (in the case of Richard A. Harris), the results of the appeal initiated by him in the Court of Appeal, would necessitate that He would need his files as quickly as possible.

On or about September 14, 2006, I made a request to Patterson Palmer Hunt Murphy and Patterson Palmer Law, Firm. Requesting my total files as referred to the letter to Jamie Eddy, (see letters to Caldwell of 2005 and 2006)

See Attachment of nine pages of release Document of November 4/05

See Attachment of Letter. September 14, 2006.

Robert Pineo is talking about two issues in this email letter to Jamie C.Eddy.

The first Issue is the Taxation of their bill of Costs only. I’ll have you know

that I don’t accept this as being Legal, as you are well aware as I am, I am entitled as being the owner to costs as well.

I will need at least three months to do this case once I have my files returned.

Robert Pineo not only provided a bill of costs, he also provided you Mr.Eidt a Affidavit in March on 2006 that I was not aware of, until I received this letter from the Law Society. He is saying this is his Affidavit, there is a law under the Expropriation Act (o.c.84-46) requiring an affidavit order to be filed for the owner to get paid accordingly to this case.

Now Mr.Eidt I have informed you a number of times about this Court File: File No.: M/M/206/96

McLeod V. New Brunswick (province) now here we got a Case with all most all the same people involved. They are John S Raymond, Douglas Caldwell, a Government Lawyer, the appraiser Goodwin, testimony’s of Mac Carter on Jim McDonald reports that was done in 2000,

There were all most the same circumstances going on. This is evidentiary of an ongoing pattern of of landowners being strongarmed.

But what became more importance at this time is the Goodwin Matter of the up coming motion set for February 26,2007 that Robert Pineo not only provided a bill of costs, he also provided you Mr.Eidt a Affidavit in March on 2006, that I was not aware of, on till I received this latter from the Law Society.

Now you said to me in Court on February, 12, 2007 that you would give me a copy of this Affidavit. I would like a copy before February 22, 2007 as more then likely

I will need it on this Motion of the 26, day of February 2007.

I would like to bring this to your attention that the Goodwin Action would have not come to be if I was not in this land dispute. Now at Discovery of September 11, 2001 Mr. Caldwell said he would be entering the Goodwin Bill to the Government as well. I don’t believed this has been done. So I will be entering his costs along with mine as soon as I get my file back. Plus all the rest of my neverending costs that go on daily. Do to all matter of the loss of my self-employment.

This loss started on or about February 12, 1997. As of today February, 19, /07 this is over 10 years of outright abuse to a person. This pattern of delay is abuse in it self.

Robert Pineo said in this Attachment Email of October 25, 2006 that I presumed him talking about you? Counsel has agreed not to pursue the taxation until such time as the Court delivers its decisions on four pending taxations.

Am I allowed to know who these people are in Robert Pineo’s letter, as it looks like they also had a lot difficulty?

Now Mr.Pineo goes on to say that one of these cases is factually similar to the Harris case, and on a decision to act as precedent. Well I hope that there was no successful negotiations on their bill yet, as I have not even got my files back.

I think for sure I would have the right to know who this person is, that you know my ex lawyers are justifying there $212,359.86 bill of Costs on this File.

Mr. Pineo said the Second Issue is the return of the file to Mr. Harris.

Here a Question that I would like you to answer why is he tacking on an undertaken to Vet my File before returning it to the Client or to my self. Can you not see that there is something wrong here?

Well on the 26, day of February 2007 Robert Pineo now has been at vetting my Files for over four months now. Maybe this got a lot to do with the Goodwin matter that flowed from these four parcels of property being expropriated.

Three parcels, there would not even be marketable in size and shapes.

It is 5pm and I got to try to get ready for the Motion,

Your truly ___________________ _____________________

Richard Harris. February 19,2.007.

letter to T J Burke and DOT Minister

RICHARD A. HARRIS

721 IRVINE STREET – APT. 40

FREDERICTON, NEW BRUNSWICK

E3A 3E4

January 18, 2007

Province of New Brunswick

Department of Transportation

Department of Justice

To Minister T.J. Burke

To Minister Denis Landry

To Mr. David Eidt, Office of the Attorney General

Cc Bernard Richard, Ombudsman Office

In the Court of Queen’s Bench of New Brunswick,

In the matter of Court File Bill of Costs under File No: F/C/328, In the Matter of Court File NO: --- F/C/187/04, and in the Matter of Court File No: 100/05/CA

In the matter of a referral under paragraph 7(1) (A) of the Right to Information Act, Chapter R-10, 3 of the acts of New Brunswick.

This referral arises out of a request for information submitted under the act. Attachments as follows:

· Three page letter of October 23, 2006 to Attention: Denis Landry, Minister

· List of attachments: 1, 2, 2A, 3, 4, 5, 5A, 5B, 6, 6A

· New attachments: 7 ,8,8A,

I, Richard Harris make request under the Right to Information Act, Chapter R-10, 3 for the following questions and I am requesting answers not only documents: If I’m receiving only Documents, then I’m requesting Documents with the Dates and Times that work was done on them. Or Such as work Time Sheets of employees that worked was done on these documents?

Now: Regarding Attachment #1

· When and what date were these survey pin markings added to this non dated drawing?

· That indicated the boundary lines of the highway and the property requirements for highway. From Richard Harris and his Business name property.

· Who was the person or persons who made the drawing showing these 20 lots on the non dated drawing? As to Attachment #1

· On what date and year was this done (the Drawing #1 Attachment)

· The pin indication No, 616-619-626

· What date was the work in the field performed On the Property?

· What date was the pin information added to the non dated drawing that indicated the line showing lots and highway survey center lines, also curve 423-619, 95-02 20 to 137- 956 to curve 427.?

Regarding Attachment # 2

In reference to N.B. D.O.T. Property - Two Pages List- dated March 15, 2005

N.B. D.O.T – Property List – 3/15/2005. Why is this Date on Property List.? Is this the same list used before December 1996?

On Waasis Road interchange to Geary interchange See (attachment drawing # (6)

· Reference to # 39 to # 88 PID No: 607123106- to- 6010176

I would appreciate receiving a copy of these small drawings – like the undated drawing as to attachment # (2A) or the part that indicates reference to Property # 39 to 88. How many drawings are there? Is there one for each Property.

· I would appreciate receiving a copy of the drawing on the Property list that indicates the highway alignment line going through on reference #55, PID 60047909, owner, Irving Oil Limited. (See Attachment #6 A.)

· There must have been a drawing of this property prior to December 1996 as like drawing attachment (6A) Route 2 Oromocto to Jemseg – 10194 NTS.

· In reference to property owner – Brown, Lester J. & Myrtle V. Ref #59 PID 60045648

· On or what date would they receive a drawing similar to drawing as attachment (2A) did any one Receive a drawing?

· I would appreciate receiving a copy of the drawing of the Brown Property that they received. And if they did not why? Regarding, attachment #2 Property List.

· On Ref,# 60-61 =Jones William &Geneva

· On Ref.: 62 –PID.- 60047529 Jones John

· On Ref: 67- PID, - 60124187 Straiton, Gary N, & Levere, Carolyn Carter Report Dated December 9, 1997 before the Expropriation date of December 17, 1997? Why the date Dec, 9/97 as we all know that he did not get working on the three Reports until After January 23, 1998.

· Look at Attachment # 15 ,15A,15B and 15C

· #15: as to -page 31, of Report- RE: Complete Appraisal-Summary Report-Parcel 97-2 same as Richard Harris lot (92-1)? On page 31 Index No: 4 Date of Sale, August 10, 1995? From Grantor or seller William Jones and Geneva Jones. To buyer or Grantee: Gary Straiton and Carolyn Straiton.

· Was there any sketch of drawing, showing highway line on this property above? And if so what date were they done.( Like Attachment #2A )

· On Ref:# 88-PID:Jones William & Geneva (like Attachment #2A )

· Ref: # 80-PID, 60133709 Michael &Christine Briggs –Hall? Now why would they be receiving intent to Survey? Like Letter of 12/96.

· (On Attachment# 15) there a name of D.Harold Moore, AACI, SR /WA and (on Attachment #15B) I see Approved H.Moore Name as For Development Officer Province of New Brunswick. March 4/1996 date. Now is there a chance this is the same person or related to?

On (Attachment #15C) A (Agreement of Purchase and Sale), that I thought there was an offer 12 to 13 Thousand dollars. Till a required a copy of the agreement from the Real Estate people on March 29, 1999. Now, if Mr. Carter knew I turned an offer of $11,500.00 Dollars down, and made a Counters offer to them of $15,500.00? What would his Logistics be on this Report of only paying $10,000.Dollars on this property! I think the Mete of the merit here was that he knew that by doing this .That there was a real good chance the Patterson Palmer lawyers, would be rewarded with this Logic to the Expropriated Act. (See, Legal Bill of Costs that I won’t see it until after it was entered to the Government Lawyer?? (See the McLeod V. N.B., [2000] N.B.R. (2d) (Supp.) No.112 (TD)? Like the Government Justice System don’t know what is going on in a Mandate in a lot of Expropriated cases. (See Attachment #15 D)

· Attachment 15#E Letter to John B D Logan Fax to him on May 31, 2004 and a copy Fax to Brad Green Office. On or about the 16 day of October in the Year 2000. My Son Jamie Harris and I attended the Saint John Office at Patterson, Palmer Hunt Murphy, that the law firm changes the name by now to Patterson, Palmer Law. We went there to see Documents that I should have had a copy of soon of the Documents before this. Now at this time I Thought that John Logan all ready had all the Documents .That was on John Raymond Documents List. Now on this day I found out that he did not have the documents, I did understand how the change of Documents work .I figure that if I seen the Government Documents, I would know what I would have to supply as documents and Copy them, as by this time I had an office set up in Fredericton to do these tasks, with a person hired to do this. At this meeting with John Logan I had all ready supplied him with Wayne Brown’s report that said that I could make a profit of 50% of each unit. I had supplied him Documents of cost in October of 1999, when I went and got copies of every thing I gave Goodwin. As Goodwin had me doing this on his request on November 1998.Logan said in 1999 that he would run this Information by a contractor friend of his to see if I was factices that I could make a profit as high as 50% of the whole property. But at this meeting he kept saying that we can’t go to Court with out an Appraisal Report. So I ask him what he think the Case was worth, And you can see what he said by looking at ( Attachment #15E)

Now Attachment # 3? If there were drawing as Attachment # 2A on or about December 17, 1996 as like Attachment # 1 and #2A, showing the place of Highway Center line (Question) then I would like to know why property. Owner (Ref# 80 PID-60133709 ) Dembenski, Michael & Briggs-Hall Christine would get a registered Letter like the one as (Attachment # 3.) Like the one, I found out on March 13, 2005 “That now “, I know, my ex wife Marilyn picked up at the postal outlet in Oromocto. (Not my Self.)

Now on March 14, 2005, I supplied four pages of documents to my, now ex lawyers. Where he would "enter only two pages" of Four Pages on the Trial Division Exhibit List as ident, C. Now see new Attachment of all four Pages. Attachment #8 two pages with a date of 3/13/2005 to Patterson Palmer Mr.Caldwell. (See Attachment #8)

· Attachment #8 is 4 pages, (Attachment #8-A) is March 14, 2005 Three pages of- (I am instructing you to ask the Following Question in my Defense to Mr. Carter.)

· (Attachment # 7 is 25 Pages,) (Attachment #7A) is Trial Division Exhibit List, (Plaintiff or Applicant’s) & (Defendant or Respondent) list of Exhibits put in at Trial on the 7 -16 DAYS of MARCH 2005. (Attachment #7 B) is the Applicant’s Exhibit Book, index Tab-Documents. (Attachment#7 C) is Book of Exhibit on behalf of the Respondent.

Regarding Attachment # 2A

· When and what time was the highway center Line added to Attachment #2A Drawing.

· Why is there only a circle around number 82 and not around 78, 79 and 80?

· As you know all owned by the same Person or Business man.

· Why is there no property Reference Number #59 on (Brown, Lester J. & Myrtle Property? As to the drawing as Attachment #2A. Or on it.

The Property was put in Myrtle Brown’s name only in March of 1996, so did they have wind of this change in the highway new alignment in 1996.

· (Attachment # 8? The Two page letter.) There are two drawings I have that are factual.

· Drawing Hitchman Surveys (1987) Ltd. May 5, 1993 PID.60045648 - Arid C Brown, Annie M Brown, and Lester J. Brown. See Attachment #8K

· Now look at this AMENDING SUBDIVISION PLAN H.A.R.Construction Subdivision 92-1 N.B. HIGHWAY No.106 GEARY. Of Hitchman Surveys, date March 4, 1996. See Attachment #8M PID-60045648 - Myrtle Vivian Brown? Why! ------------- I think Lester J.Brown would be retrieving from CFB Gagetown and this was a way to reduce his income tax.

· On Attachment # 1 and 2A the highway center line. Added to both drawings are in the same Location. As the Highway was built.

· When and what date was the alignment line added to this drawing, as to Attachment 2A.

· Now here’s a Question about page 90 out of the Goodwin drafts report. Part of his Back Ground part.

· Now in court March 2005 there was a drawing showed to me that I have never took notions to before this time, but when I was working on the back Ground and look at the one that Goodwin did, as an example of what I was doing. This number 82 was stuck in my mind as I look for this number on the drawing that Lonnie Forbes sent me out. I could not find this number 82 anywhere on the Drawing. As to attachment #6.

· Goodwin Quote. In January 1997,J E Brooks & Associates., Consulting engineers prepared a tentative residential subdivision development plan ( now here is where I don’t agree with this theory) titled (Richard Harris Subdivision,) (look at Attachment #11A) should of said Tentative plan of H.A.R.Construction Subdivision the second Phase of the existing Development. Now what was the Theory of this .Now Gaylon Giggie did work on the Highway alignment when it was by the Smith Subdivision.Giggie was under Contracted for D.O.T., I think when I talked to him on or about January 6, 1997 and told him about the Highway changing location and asking about the mini –hone park it was a Tentative plan or not already approved. He said put both in, it would not cost any more .Dale Sander was the person I usually dealt with at Brooks.

· Goodwin Quote on pages 90 he said: February 3, 1997, a memorandum was faxed by Ross Little, NBDOT Land Management& Planning to Lonnie Forbes.?

· Who at DOT, Land Management& Planning branch .That would be informing Goodwin of what being faxed by Ross Little?

· How Goodwin would know what was going on inside Land Management Branch, Is John S Raymond not one of the head People.

· Why was none of this Information revealed at Discovery in 2001?

· Where is this Information on John S Raymond 25 pages Affidavit of Documents list.(form 31 B)

· On Trial Exhibit list, Document A-8 I guess my Lawyer Douglas Caldwell enter this Document in Court as A-8 Memo, Dated Dec.19/96 of Heather Pugh, Why Would He not enter all of Attachment #8 that I supply him on March 14/05. ?

· On memo of Heather Pugh, Copies to John Raymond, Assistant Director. From Heather Pugh, Planning Engineer. Copies to Mike Phillips, Brian McEwing and Colleen Brown. ? I find it real hard to Believed a memo that will play suck a importance part in Judge Russell Decision of June 3/05 some nine Year latter. Look at Judge Russell, Decision paragraph [51] I accept ms.pugh’s evidence as being Factual.

· Now This Document as Exhibit ( A-8), why is it not on John Raymond, 25 pages Affidavit of Documents list.

· Essentially when there were so many Copies of the memo. Now as you can see that Goodwin is saying on page 90, as to (Attachment 15#F) Mr. Lonnie Forbes, Development Officer for the Rural Planning District Commission concerning the Richard Harris and enclosing Plan#82. In my opinion that are based on Fact of a paper trail of 10 years long. In my Opinion Mr. Goodwin knew more of what was going on Inside of Government and DOT then Assistant Director John S. Raymond by the look of things.

· Now Mr. Goodwin Also knew about a Memorandum contained a note for the potential of the proposed highway to affect the RAH/HARCL Land.

· Now here is an Appraiser doing an Appraisal on property that has been Divided up in four pieces, and three of them in shapes and sizes that there would not even be a market for. He Must of know this early 1999, that he all ready got Thousand of Dollars from Richard Harris. Mr. Goodwin obviously knew what was to take place at the trial by the look of things.

· Dozes This Appraiser also know the Rules of Court. It sure looks that way by his Defence, that I received on March 3, 2005. This is also the day I would received the Goodwin number two Report from my Lawyers office in Fredericton.

Where did this Attachment 2A come from if it is not on John S Raymond Affidavit of Documents List: Sworn to on September 8, 2000, this (Attachment is # 7?)

· Attachment Number 7 is a 25 pages Documents

· Where in Attachment # 7 the list, where attachment 2A could be found, or located. I think on page 21, as listed A-161 October 10,1997 Notice of intention to Expropriate registered office as official Number 89339 in book 493 at page 72, with plans filed as 200482, pages 1-13 (copy) (20 pages).

· Or on Page 22 as A-166 December 17,1997 Notice of Expropriation registered in the Sunbury county registry office as Official number 89869 in book 498 at page 240, with plans filed as 2004-96, page 1-13 (copy) (30 pages)

· On Attachment # 2A. Who drew the circle around the number 82 and why is there a circle around 82 only, if it was not to point out my property, as to the about list of John Raymond # A-161 or A-166

· What year was the Salt and Sand storages building road constructed, and why is it not showing on this drawing as Attachment 2A.

But on Attachment # 6 - route 2 Fredericton to Moncton drawing, that I know now that was at the town hall public meeting on December 11, 1996 that showed the Road to the salt and sand Building. (Look when I found out about this in (December 20, 2002)? Why, my lawyers had this information on December of 2001. And the information what Carter was paid.

· (Question) On Attachment #3, why was not Attachment # 6 sent out with this Letter. On page 9 on Raymond Documents list as to Attachment #7. The documents are A-1? Dated December 12/1996.

· Documents A-1 is a letter from David J. Johnston (Department of Transportation) To Richard J. Harris (copy) ( 1 page )

(Question) Where is the Letter to H.A.R.construction limted on this Attachment list # 7 of John Raymond? On page 9, A-2 Documents is January 17, 1997 interim report signed by Stephen Leblanc (DOT) (original) (1 page) Now was he really on the property on this date? Look at Attachment #5

· Attachment #7B is the Applicants Exhibit book, or (plaintiff) under Index volume one, TAB 14? Documents are Interim report dated January 5, 1997 from Department of Transportation. Now did my lawyers not know that these Documents are the same Documents out of Raymond List on page 9 as A-2, date January 17, 1997? Here are four more attachment that show deliberately deceiving (setting up the Future Stage trial and Decision.) document # 1 is A-2 Document, #2 is A-6 .Document #3 is A-4 out of Raymond Documents List, and documents #4 are A.L.L. accounting Services LTD.account Statement. To client H.A.R. Construction .c/o Richard Harris RR#3 .26 Branch Road Oromocto, NB.E2V-2G3 Date of February 25, 1997. Invoice Description, corporate year end, final return Sep, 3/96, invoice amount $829.25 last service charge, Jan, 31/97, balance now $ 897.62 paid in full March 5, 1997 by Personal Check. Richard Harris employment stopped on February 12, 1997 but bill for H.A.R. Construction limited, did not stop on February 12, 1997?

· Why was the Letter for H.A.R. Construction that my ex wife Marilyn picked up at the postal outlet not on John Raymond’s List? (As Attachment # 7)? If DOT, did not know that Richard Harris owned H.A.R. Construction LTD.?

· If you don’t know already the letter dated December 12, 1996 was sent to my son Jamie Harris may be this was so, as the property Tax bill, also came in his name. I Richard A. Harris would not know about this until June of 2000 that the Lots 92-1 and 92-2 were really in my name? But Fredericton Appraisal Associates Ltd. must of know this in February 1998, that there was something wrong with the property tax bill and name of property owner on the deed ?

Regarding Attachment # 4 Now this document is found on page 9 of John Raymond Documents list as A-7 Letter: Honorable Sheldon Lee to Richard Harris (copy) (1 page ) dated May 28, 1997 “State I advise that the property acquisition Staff representative for the section of the proposed highway between Fredericton and Moncton now has the legal survey plans depicting our land requirements in the area of your property. “

(Questions) now if there were center line highway drawings, as Attachment #1 or #2A all ready in the System at D.O.T. why would Sheldon Lee Minister be sending me out this letter of May 28, 1997 This letter was sent later on to Allen Miles my first Lawyer?

Regarding Attachment # 4 RE; PROPERTY AT ROUTE 7, GEARY, NB.

· This letter was copy to cc: John Raymond, Colleen Brown, and Stephen Leblanc.

· Mailed June 6/97 (Question who mailed this letter,) why was it mailed to my address in Oromocto, because by June 6/97 I had already told Stephen Leblanc that all Correspondence was to be sent to Allen Miles. (Why)

· I had to Leave New Brunswick for Employment in Yellowknife. On June 9/97.

· That I Richard Harris will not see or know anything about this May 28, 1997 letter until Discovery on September 11 and 12 of 2001 (see Discovery volume 1 and 2 )

· (Questions) Would Sheldon Lee Not know that Stephen Leblanc was all ready out to see us on February 12, 1997. (As to Attachment 5.) (Raymond Did for Sure )

· I believed this letter was made for the Reason that DOT knew I lost my Attended employment on my property for the summer of 1997 and knew I left for the West for Employment and to look around for a place to start a new life, with my family.

· I do not believe there was any Drawing as Attachment #1 or 2A until March 1997. And if there was, then D.O.T. knew my intentions for my Property on February 12, 1997, as to Attachment # 5. and Attachment# 1

· (Question) For Information’s under the act? What date was Attachment #1 and 2A drawn up with the highway center line on them?

· When was the first time and date the NB Government and the Department of Transportation became aware that the Law firm of Patterson, Palmer, Hunt, Murphy were also acting Law firm with Solicitors for M.R.D.C.and one of the head persons of MRDC, Doug, Young, who was also, counsel for this Law Firm?

· When was the First Time that DOT, Employees as John Raymond, Colleen Brown, Stephen Leblanc, Jennifer Logan, and Brian McEwing knew that Fredericton Appraisal Associates Ltd. was also doing Appraisals on other Expropriations cases for Lawyers of Patterson, Palmer, Hunt, Murphy, Law. Attachment #8C

· (Question) Was it Before November 7, 1997 or before he was employed to do a report? Or 3 reports. Now we all know that his reports were not finish on the time of the date that are on the Reports. There was one Report that was turn in on January 23, 1998 and did over into three Reports after this date January 23, /98. Is it because DOT knew I had Changed Lawyers from Allen Miles to Douglas Caldwell. Or was it a way to justify paying Fredericton Appraisal more money. Look at Attachment February 9, 2006 letter to Hugh J.Cameron, Esq. (attachment # 8B)

· When was for the First time Minister Sheldon Lee, or DOT employee John Raymond knew this Lawyer Douglas Caldwell was from N.S., doing about 70% percents of all the Expropriations cases in New Brunswick.

(Question) was it before the Meeting with Minister Sheldon Lee on or about February 19, 1998, where Mr. Lee made a variable offer of one Hundred Thousand Dollars for all my property. (Question) did he know that there was all ready Cheques made up for 18 thousand at this time, on February 16, 1998 cheque? After this Meeting on February 19, 1998. Look what Lee ask us to do, to Justifify what we would take for the total Property, Exhibit 14 of Discovery 2001? Look at John Raymond Documents list as( A-44 meeting of Feb.19/98)

· Regarding Attachment # 5 ,two page as Exhibit # 21 From Discovery of 2001 and regards to attachments 5A&5B

Attachment #5 on John Raymond Documents List as A-5 February 12,1997 Interim report, signed by Stephen Leblanc (original ) (2 pages) “he said met with Marilyn Harris & Richard Harris “

· Was he paid over time, as he was at our place later than 5pm that day? Because my wife Marilyn did not get home until 5 pm on that day.

· “DOT. Proposed work.” I explained to them a route had been Determined?

· What date was it determined. Was it after December 11, 1996 or was it long before this date, look at attachment of new paper of March 27, 1996. “In particulars, the Evergreen Acres Subdivision in Burton and the Smith Subdivision in the town of Oromocto may not like what they find.’’( Look at Attachment # 9 &10 ) So if I lose my plan work at the start of 1997, and sold my Gravel pit Property while out West in August 1997 and was looking for a new place to start over, to have steady Employment? (Look at my Age at this Time.) (Look when my father died.)

· (Question) Now how could Mac Carter Appraiser put HAR Constructions Property as highest and best use as, holding Use-future Residential Development. There was no Future Residential Development on this Property after September 30, 1997 for Richard Harris, now this is at least 40 days before Carter would start his first Report. (Why did Carter Change his one report to three reports.) Attachment #10A

· Taken into account the concept as a professional person doing this, and the Concept of a Lawyer from N.S. Entering the Three Carter reports in the Applicants Documents at Trial. ( In The Applicants’ Exhibit Book, Volume 2) Now would a New Brunswick Lawyer Dare to do this. I think not?

· The Decision of Mr. Justice David H. Russell on Paragraph [56] Mr. Carter Correctly Utilized the Direct Comparison Approach .( Look at Attachment #8B )

· Justice David H.Russell Paragraph [51] I accept Ms.Pugh’s evidence as being factual. I conclude Mr. Harris did meet with Heather Pugh on the date mentioned in the memo. (look at Attachment # 8,) But what more importance looks at the Statement of Particulars the one that my lawyers had me spending money to get these Particulars done? I turned the Particulars in to the Fredericton office on December 23, 2002 with documents supporting the Particulars. I will supply my Particulars to anyone that will look at this matter and supplied what the Lawyers did over and turned them in to the Government I think. Now on or about August of 2004, I was looking at Goodwin draft and notions that he did a background report in his draft report (must be Importance so, I took it on my self to do a Background report my self!) I had a draft typed up by January 20, 2005 and faxed it to the Lawyers in Nova Scotia. See This Attachment #8-D Look at page 7 of this Attachment #8D and you will see that Douglas Caldwell was not working for me in Court March 2005. There are just to many events up to court to put then all down, I did not know until 2006 that my own Lawyers were the ones that entered the memo dated Dec.19/96 on Trial Division Exhibit list Attachment #8-E the Memo is Exhibit- A-8 I will leave the attachment the same as the Exhibit List. Now the meeting date that Heather Pugh testified under oath is December 17, 1996, just think the same day my now ex wife picked up the mail after her work at Service New Brunswick. Also she did not usually get home until 5pm.

· On Paragraph [56] would this property really be the highest and best use. But on Paragraph [39] Judge Russell knew I would be losing at least six (6) Building Lots for sure.

If he went with the best Evidence of Hitchman Group. New Brunswick land Surveyors Drawing

That Daniel A.Babineau, B.I.A., AACI.used this Drawing in his Report, but left out the Hitchman land surveyor’s company id of the drawing. Now this Drawing was a request from Goodwin. He had me getting this for him. When Goodwin had me thinking he was doing a Subdivision Development approach to value. A Before and After Approach, why else would I pay Hitchman over $772.80 to Draw up a Drawing? Also I drew up a drawing my self in November of 1997 and supplies it to Mr. Carter saying I would have six lots left after the taking. And told him to take all the property, what good was it to me at this time; I just sold my Gravel pit property. Also I had sold some of myeEquipments off.

· Now this Drawing was not in his File Notes that I would receive from Douglas Caldwell in June of 2002 or after? Now why was I given these Carter File?

· I believed because of the meeting that Rex Tucker arranged with DOT on March 15, 2000 on or about February 9, 2000. Goodwin sent out 2 letters.

· This is why Rex Tucker set up the meeting (my Lawyers were not doing anything on the Goodwin Matter and were delaying my life and other matter). ( I was told the meeting was so, we could get the Carter Reports cancel or toss out. So I would not have to hade an appraisal to get to court.

· See Six Pages Attachment #12 Cover Page February 10, 2000 – 2 letters

· That came from John Logan office in Saint John, on the concept how he would go on with his report to finish it up. (See after the March 15 /00 Meeting)?

· See the New Agreement that I would see on or about April 7, 2000.

· Three days after Raymond Letter. See Attachment #13 is three pages New AGREEMENT, made the -______day of March, 2000? Why April 7/00

· Now on April 4, 2000 Raymond letter, given to me by Jennifer Logan.

· Now at the meeting, I Richard Harris supplied Jennifer Logan with a one page bill of Goodwin (See Attachment #11B) on or about March 15, 2000.

· Where is this bill, listed on John Raymond Documents List (As To Attachment #7) looks like Raymond used only what documents he wanted to.

· Back to( Attachment # 5 ) of February 12, 1997 meeting with Stephen Leblanc

· Who sent Stephen Leblanc out to see us? On February 12/97 did he know I Richard Harris just came from a meeting at Kings Place, as to (attachment 5A &5B).

· Now if there were Drawings as Attachment in the system at DOT. Such as #1-#2A? Why would he not have them with him? But we know now that there was a drawing with a date on it 12/96 in the system that I Richard Harris would received from Mr. Forbs after this meeting on February 12/97 that was an Attachment of a letter dated February 5, 1997. Now this Drawing has a Fax date on it that it was sent to Mr. Forbs on February 3, 1997??

· (Question) Why would I not get this Letter in the Mail before February 12, 1997 if this whole matter was not Deceit, or deceive a person. It‘s not like Judge Russell did not know what the Highest and Best Use was for this Property. (Look at Judge Russell Paragraph [19] Judge Russell know or ought knew of attachment as 2A or#1) to have known the highest and best use of the property would be mobile home park. He ought to pay some attention to the street layout of the two different J E Brooks Drawing? The street layout are in the same place as to (Legal Public street size, = 20, meter wide,) you don’t need this for a Private street in a Mobile Home Park. Lay out, the bigger lots plan was talked about in 1993.

· Back to attachment #5 A & 5B, now does John Raymond not fill a day to day work time sheet out? Most Government employees justified what they do day to day.

· (Question) when I met with Lorraine O’Brian and John Raymond on February 12/97 and there was drawings as Attachment #1&2A (why was I not showing these drawings at this meeting at 11am on February 12/97?

· On or about February 12, 1997 on my way home from Fredericton at 4PM or about. I would see a strange car parked on my south street, it was Stephen Leblanc? So if he did not know that I Richard Harris owed the H.A.R. Property? Then he was trespassing? best to look at the undertaking of Discovery 2001 that I would see on December of 2002

· At the Meeting (as Attc #5) I indicated that I have over 90 thousand tied up in the property? Did he write this part just before the meeting with Sheldon Lee on February 19/98? His biggest offer up to this time was only 33 some Thousand Dollars? So we know this is a lie. I guess the DOT people can change memos or internal reports any time they want as Property owner will not see then for year latter. (I would guess my Lawyers were keeping DOT up on events and what was going on.

· At this meeting, I told him to take all the Property or none….I never ever told him at this time what I would take for the property, as I really did not know how mush I had in it. But in May of 1997 when I found out that the French lake Subdivision could be bough for 165 thousand, I told him to give me 150 thousand and pay me for my work on the Property?

· If drawing as attachment # 6 was available with a date on it 12/96 why did he not have it with him, at least this drawing showed the road to the salt and sand storage building on it.

· Leblanc said on Attachment #5 page 2 of 2 there for they preferred waiting to see the survey plan showing the amount of property. Fact at this time DOT only wanted to buy the 2 corner lots. One on each side of the South Street. So doesn’t this look like Stephen did not know I owned the HAR. property?

· DOT at this time would pay $15,000. Per lot. What about the street between the lots.

· Fact: this Attachment #5 indicated to me that there was no drawing such as Attachment as #1or 2A at this time. Leblanc said I am not willing to recommend the property in it’s entirely at this time.

· So we agreed to wait until the survey plans are available showing the limits required.

· Now again this point back to Attachment # 6- Fact on or about February 13 to 20 of 1997 I will receive a letter from Lonnie Forbs as a attachment to his letter was Attachment#6

· This letter is on John Raymond documents list as A-4 February 5,1997 - letter Lonnie Forbs to Richard Harris (copy ) (2pages)

· But in court on the Trial Division Exhibit List. that we will call it Attachment #7A Now not to confuse any one looking at this list, the header quote H.A.R.Construction LTD., Richard Harris, and Richard James Joseph Harris (plaintiff ) Now there is also a Applicant’s Exhibit book Volume 1, on attachment #7B trial Division Exhibit List, the (plaintiff is also the Applicant’s) meaning Same Party.( the Defendant on this list are also the RESPONDENT)

· Look at John Raymond Documents List A-4 February 5,1997 – letter Lonnie Forbes to Richard Harris (copy)- ( 2pages) then look at what the (plaintiff or Applicant’s lawyers enter in court Exhibit list as exhibit PLAINTIFF now there a 3 page Documents as NO:A-9 February 3, 1997? Why –

· That the Applicant’s Lawyers Douglas Caldwell enters Raymond Documents as A-9 in Court Exhibit list, February-3, 1997? Where are these Documents to be found on John Raymond Documents List? (as to Attachment # 7))On Pages 17, Part II-Documents FROM THE HAR CONSTRUCION LTD. FILE? But there was no letter as like on Page 9 schedule A Part 1-Documents from The Richard Harris File: (Documents A-1) December 12, 1996). In Part II-Documents list? Would this not be saying DOT knew that Richard Harris was Owner of The H.A.R. Subdivision Property? (see Attachment #11,A) (3 page Company Affidavit, pages NO:203, 204,and 205)

· Now on Part II of Raymond List: as Attach #7- Documents A—107 February 3, 1997--------Facsimile Message: Ross Little to Lonnie Forbes. (copy ) (3 pages) But on the same day documents A—106 Facsimile Message Lonnie Forbes to Ross Little (Department of Transportation ) (copy ) (3 Pages )

· Now A-4 Documents on Raymond List is a two pages letter to Harris. Now Forbes letter to Harris had 3 attachments with it. One drawing with a date 12/96 and a fax marking as February 3, 1997 on it .Now this is the only drawing that I would see on or about February 13, 1997. On or about September 11 or 12, 2001 there was a Discovery. On or About December 20, 2002 I would receive an undertaking given by John S. Raymond, 3 pages and one Attachment.

· Now my N.B. Lawyer Mr. Jamie C. Eddy of Patterson, Palmer, Hunt, Murphy

· Received the Undertakings on December 7, 2001, and delivery with held the Undertaking from me. If I only knew back in 1998 of March that Mac Carter was paid over 5 thousand Dollars to justify Paying me a cheque of $ 2,726. dollars for the H.A.R. property? I think I would have quit this property war right then.

·

· t