Heather Pugh is lying about when i saw her,because

there was no survey work done until late February of 1997, there was no drawing to see on December of 1996, ? and if there was a drawing.Then why would the Government send out?
an Intent to Survey Notice dated, December 12, 1996. I Richard Harris Didn't even know the highway was shifting until December 20/1996/


so is there anyone out there that can tell me how Judge David Russell could believing this Lying.

The Evidence was in the date of the 4 parcel of property ? Intent to Survey,???? Why so D.O.T.would know how much Property they would need. Question??? is Judge Russell on Glue.

I have Evidence that John S.Raymond made Judge Russell Decisions on The street work that was on the property in summer of 1998, ? so why are us Taxpayer paying the Judges.

to live in a Mafia Province .



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 Broad Road and ready f