February 16,2007
To David D. Eidt, Esq.
Office of the Attorney General 721
Room 444,
E3B-5H1
Dear Mr. David Eidt, Esq. [who is he] (Government Lawyer that was just hired on in 2001, fact about this,
Rex Tucker ?Daughter was his secretary when this lawyer Eidt, was in private-practice
??? Did Rex Tucker have smoothing to do with Eidt getting his Government Job. ?
Who is Rex Tucker.
What kind of a person that would write 377 pages of E-mail to your lawyers ,? Arrange meeting with the Government, for you, arrange meeting with your lawyers and a appraiser, in
This is after he already in basil $21,000.00 from you.
On February 12, 2007 when we were in Court on the matter of the appeal on court file, NO; F/C/328/00, /????
(see Court order at canlii.org )( search Richard Harris in N.B.Court of Appeal.) 100/05/CA
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF
Richard, J.A.
B E T W E E N:
RICHARD A. HARRIS ) Richard A. Harris,
) appeared in person
APPELLANT )
)
- and - )
)
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN IN RIGHT ) David Eidt, Esq.
OF THE
AS REPRESENTED BY THE MINISTER )
OF TRANSPORTATION )
)
RESPONDENT )
DATE OF HEARING: February 12, 2007
DATE OF ORDER: February 12, 2007
ORDER
WHEREAS Richard A. Harris filed a Notice of Appeal on June 27, 2005 from a decision of the Court of Queen’s Bench dated June 3, 2005;
AND WHEREAS the appeal has not yet been perfected;
AND WHEREAS a status hearing, as contemplated in Rule 62.15.1, has been held on this date;
HAVING heard the Intended Appellant and counsel for the Intended Respondent;
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AS FOLLOWS:
1. The time prescribed in Rule 62.15.1(4)(b) is abridged;
2. Subject to any further order of the Court of Appeal or of a judge thereof, the Intended Appellant shall perfect his appeal by November 30, 2007.
3. If the appeal is not perfected within the time set out in paragraph 2 hereof, the Registrar shall dismiss the appeal for delay, in accordance with Rule 62.15.1(7).
DATED at
_________________________________
J.C. MARC RICHARD, J.A.
Court of Appeal of
http://www.canlii.org/en/nb/nbca/doc/2007/2007 canlii3921/2007canlii3921.html
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. ?
I was back in court on feb-26,2007 on this matter.
It should have been obvious to the government employee, Steven Lablanc , John Raymond, Sheldon Lee, (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.?
Why did I buy this property,when was the highway plane change ; ?
when was the survey work done for this change.and drawing done with dates.
This is key to fraud .?
[49] The applicants had not obtained approval for the draft subdivision plan submitted in February 1997. Why was that plan submitted? Mr. Harris said he learned on December 1996 that his property was going to be affected by the highway. An acquaintance, Mr. Herb Colburne, told him, “If you don’t have a tentative plan submitted you will not get paid for lots”. On December 19, 1996, Heather Pugh, then a planning engineer with the respondent, wrote a memo (see: Exhibit A-8). It said, in part, referencing lots 92-1 and -2:
Mr. Harris was in on December 17, 1996 to see the plans. I explained what we required and he mentioned that he had intended to build next year on one of these lots.
[50] On January 13, 1997, Mr. Harris engaged J.E. Brooks & Associates Ltd., consulting engineers, to prepare a plan for a residential subdivision utilizing the parent lot. This plan was submitted on January 20, 1997 to the Rural Planning District Commission along with the 1993 plan for a mobile home park for the same land. When the plans were submitted for approval by Richard Giggie of Brooks on behalf of the applicant he wrote in part: “Mr. Harris is submitting the two layouts as he wishes to develop this land but has not yet decided which development option to pursue.”
[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 and that he knew on that date not only were the two front lots going to be affected but some of the parent lot including the access between lots 92-1 and 92-2. Supporting this conclusion is a portion of the Statement of Claim in an action Mr. Harris has commenced against an appraiser initially retained to value the subject lands. The Statement of Claim was prepared by Mr. Harris. Paragraph 3 says (see: Exhibit R-1, Tab 11):
On or about December 20, 1996, the Plaintiff received, by registered mail, an Intent to Survey Notice dated, December 12, 1996. Receipt of this letter cause (sic) the Plaintiff to cease his plans of further self-employment and land development, because of the intention of the Minister of Transportation to relocate a highway and expropriate land from the Plaintiffs. (page 4, paragraph 3)
[52] Mr. Harris acknowledged the two concepts were submitted by his engineers with his knowledge. Mr. Harris’s answers were often unresponsive to the questions posed. He contradicted himself on several occasions. Apart from these inconsistencies, however, and simply utilizing the documentation, I conclude the subdivision plan was prepared to bolster his claim for compensation in face of the impending expropriation which, when the plan was prepared, he knew was going to occur. He did not engage Brooks in January 1997 for the purposes of building a subdivision plan that was going to go forward. The plan was prepared solely for the purposes of augmenting the compensation available for the upcoming expropriation. Apart from that and taken at its best, the Brooks plan was not fully engineered or dimensioned.
[53] Up to then, and most particularly in the summer or fall of 1996, he had not begun construction of any houses on either lot 92-1 or 92-2. These lots were already subdivided, adjacent to the
[54] The two access roads were, at best, rough and not of any significance in relation to accessing the complete parent lot. I accept Mr. Carter’s evidence in this regard. The parent lot was far from being a subdivision ready for the construction of even one house. Thus, Mr. Harris did not display an active intention to construct houses. He had a subdivision plan prepared for a purpose other than to sell lots and construct homes. In R.P.B. Construction Ltd. v.
¶21 b) The purpose of all of the evidence adduced by R.P.B. was to demonstrate that if a subdivision plan was eventually approved, if a municipal water and sewerage system could one day serve the planned residential subdivision, if R.P.B. created residential lots and streets to serve them, then it was reasonable to believe that 17 residential lots could be sold within 5 years.
There was no meeting with Heather Pugh until late February of 1997.
http://www.canlii.org/en/nb/nbqb/doc/2005/2005nbqb197/2005nbqb197.html
Who would beneficent from this Change of location,
I hold that since the Appraiser Association, of
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.
http://coxandpalmer.com/people.asp?cmPageID=238&action=detais&lID=240
http://coxandpalmer.com/default.asp
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
(This is how so people were getting hook up with
I suspect MRDC or DOT, must have been giving the names of property owner to the Lawyer, 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
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 to get any letters from the
Letters from the N.S. Lawyer that had Douglas Young’s name on it would not be received from the N.S.Lawyer,until after they would have signed the contract, or retainer agreement.
( this is why I have never sign a 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.) ? N.S.lawyer had bill even befor he was hire on.??? (bill of Costs)
That went to the N.B.Government on March 19/2006. Goodwin 70, thousand bill was not part of it.??
But if you look at the first book of Examination for Discovery ,Volume one and two, of September, 11and 12 A.D. 2001. you will see that this 70,thousand dollars Goodwin bill was to be part of the bill of cost that was enter to the Government on March 19,2006.? And other cost of Richard Harris.?
This was why the N.S.lawyers was holding my files, I was told.,
Think about this, Did not hire this N.S. lawyer until January 23/1998.
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. Whitehead Bird & Miles
WWw
Whitehead Bird & Miles
Phone: 506-458-9077
Fax: 506-458-1274
Approximately 15 employees work at this location
Sales: $500,000 - $1 Million
AAAAabbbbbbb
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.
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,and all people.
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 theyAssociation of real Estate, Appraisers want Government Work.)
Who but the Government would paid a Appraiser over 10,thousand Dollars to justified paying a property owner a cheque for 20.thousand dollars.
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.
You can go to the Law society? is this a joke.
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. ? to late, ? my cost started before February 12,1997.
[ see bill of lawyer in this blog soon.]
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. See Canlii.org. 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. Mr. Caldwell in his article “Forensic Expropriations “ says:
Notwithstanding that the client hopes to pass on all of the expert’s account to the expropriating authority, the authority is usually only responsible for paying all “reasonable” accounts of experts. There may be excess charges in the expert’s account which are not recoverable from the authority and which may well have to be borne by the client. This, too, needs to be stipulated in the retainer agreement. What is reasonable must be distinguished from what is excessive, i.e. not recoverable even from the client.
I found that the legal and appraisal cost were excessive. Consequently the cost not approved herein should not be recoverable from the McLeods.
DISPOSITION
I order the
a) the sum of $362.25 on or before June 30, 2000.
b) the sum of $15, 228.84 on or before June 30, 2000.
c) the sum of $72,825.06 within a reasonable time.
d) the sum of $28,750.00 within a reasonable time.
________________________
George S. Rideout
Justice of the Court of Queen's Bench of
June 22, 2000
Now this case started in 1993.????? So Raymond don’t know
http://www.canlii.org/en/nb/nbqb/doc/2000/2000canlii10107/2000canlii10107.html
Today is Monday February, 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, getting me a sign for Letter.
Attachment Stewart McKinley Re; Court File No; F/C/187/04.
( here me in court by Judge Judy,February 26,2007.)
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 there a 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 circumstantial 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 until the end of December of 2005, ?
That is if I was heel up.
I also would have to move on December of 2005, due to these circumstances.
I was telling my rooming 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.
Until 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
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 4/2005. 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 or Patterson Palmer Law, Firm. Requesting my total files as referred to the letter to Jamie Eddy,
(see letters to
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 of this case to costs as well.
I will need at least three months to do this, put my own costs in ,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 of 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 in order to be filed for the owner to get paid cost ,??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 ( see canlii.org) web-site.
McLeod V.
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 the landowners being strong-armed.
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, un- 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.
( there would not be no cost to me if D.O.T. left the highway where it was in 1995. ) ?
Look at the date this highway shifted the location.?
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 believe 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 never-ending 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 he 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? I know now October 19, 2007 that there were 2 taxation heard.( See Canlii.org Rankin and Rowan file ? look at who was the N.B. lawyer on these files , look at the Appraiser.? ( you see the evident for your self,.
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. ? what about the Clint cost.
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 of these 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 19,2007.
TEXTAREA_ID
1 comment:
my god you did a lot of work
Post a Comment