Thursday, July 31, 2008

King Dog

Horn,
It bugs me when you slam our great Country -
Read the front page of the Gleaner today! from
BUREAUCRAT Brian telling me to move on with life///?? HE DON'T THINK THERE IS ANY

WRONG ?? $$$$ 212,460.00 THOUSAND DOLLARS LAWYER BILL??/ WHAT DID THEY DO? I guest Brian king dog get his bucks from the taxpayer also,

Make work for a few
57% of Canadians give Canada a 10!
Another 25% give it a 9 or 8.
Only 3% give it less than 5 like you.
THE AVERAGE CANADIAN SCORE FOR PRIDE IN CANADA WAS 8.85 -
you should take your Justice arguments to live in Zimbabwe, Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, North Korea, China, Chile, Columbia, Burma, Kenya, Peru, etc. - you would 'dissapear'.
Happy Canada Day - the GREATEST COUNTRY IN THE WORLD!!!
Oh, and Happy Birthday Hornet to you also!

but Brian i was born in canada

Wednesday, July 30, 2008

ISSUED moratoriums on uranium exploration.

New Brunswick is mentioned in the second last sentence.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20080729.RURANIUM29/TPStory?cid=al_gam_globeedge


Ottawa rejects call to guide uranium drilling
ANDY HOFFMAN
MINING REPORTER
July 29, 2008

The federal government is rejecting calls to take over the regulation of
uranium exploration despite mounting public concerns about the search for
the radioactive metal, according to documents obtained by The Globe and Mail.

Ottawa currently oversees all uranium project development and mining due to
the dangerous nature of the commodity, which is used to make fuel for
nuclear reactors. But it has left the regulation of uranium exploration to
the provinces.

An internal briefing document prepared for federal Natural Resource
Minister Gary Lunn's office indicates there are no plans to wade into a
growing controversy regarding uranium drilling efforts.

Titled "Uranium Exploration and Mining in Canada and the North Frontenac
Ventures Issue," the briefing memo concerns the uproar about a junior
mining company's attempts to drill for uranium in Eastern Ontario.

The 20-page document, prepared by federal bureaucrats, notes that as the
price of uranium has increased amid rising demand, exploration activities
across Canada have grown dramatically. Some junior companies are now
drilling for uranium in less remote areas, prompting protests from nearby
residents and native groups who have called for a moratorium on uranium
exploration because of environmental concerns.

Under a section titled "Federal Response," the briefing document states
that Ottawa is "monitoring events closely" but emphasizes that "exploration
is a provincial responsibility." The memo also says that "exploration
drilling for uranium should not have a significant environmental impact."

Gordon Edwards, president of the Montreal-based Canadian Coalition for
Nuclear Responsibility, said Ottawa should take over uranium exploration
regulation or at least take a leadership role. "To simply pass the buck and
say, 'We don't want to get involved,' I think, is irresponsible," Mr.
Edwards said in an interview.

The boom in uranium prices has led to a surge in staking and exploration
activities, sometimes in populated areas or near watersheds. "It's absurd.
It's a free-for-all," Mr. Edwards said. "There should be firm guidelines
and I think there should be no permission to explore in built-up areas."

The briefing document was prompted by an exploration program in Ontario's
North Frontenac region by a privately held company, Frontenac Ventures
Corp. The Oakville, Ont.-based company has run into fierce opposition from
local residents and leaders of native communities in the Sharbot Lake area,
about 100 kilometres north of Kingston, who worry that drilling could cause
severe environmental damage and contaminate water.

The company has staked claims to about 12,000 hectares in the area,
including some on residential property.

"A handful of exploration companies are a little short of corporate social
responsibility - little sensitivity and perspective, or understanding of
the need to consult and build support," the briefing memo says.

The memo, dated Jan. 15, 2008, represents the first indication of the
federal position on the Frontenac controversy.

"Many people perceive exploration activities as indicating that a mine will
be developed," says the document, obtained by Ottawa researcher Ken Rubin
under the Access to Information Act.

"This has boiled over into calls for a moratorium in these areas - so far,
this is a provincial matter to sort out - if they get to the development
stage, these companies will have to deal with the CNSC [Canadian Nuclear
Safety Commission] and there will be all kinds of opportunity for public
consultation," the document says.

Frontenac Ventures president and chief executive officer George White said
the federal government assessment of the company's public relations efforts
is incorrect.

"I don't know where they are coming from. We've never attended any meetings
with them and never had any dialogue with them. Consequently, I would say
they are off-base," he said in an interview.

With 30 employees in the Sharbot Lake area, the company has spent more than
$4-million on its exploration program so far and is holding consultation
meetings with some native communities.

"Frontenac does not have a duty to consult; that rests squarely with the
federal and provincial governments," Mr. White said.

Currently, uranium is mined only in Saskatchewan. However, the resurgence
of nuclear power as a viable energy source has spurred a rush of
exploration in other provinces and territories. The federal government
estimates some 250 exploration firms will spend $350-million on uranium
exploration this year.

In response to potential environmental concerns, British Colombia and Nova
Scotia have issued moratoriums on uranium exploration.

New Brunswick recently established strict rules governing uranium
exploration after some companies began searching for the radioactive metal
near Moncton, spurring protests from residents who say the activities
threatened the environment.

Several lobby groups are calling on Ontario to bring in a moratorium on
exploration, but the province has refused.

Tuesday, July 29, 2008

The Applicant seeks costs.

statements of fact. The

court finds that the

affidavit [14]

As well, the issue of

proper affidavit evidence

was discussed in

Richard A. Harris and HAR Construction Limited v. W.H. Goodwin & Co. Ltd. And W. Harrison Goodwin,

2008 N.B.C.A. 14 at

paragraph 6.

[15] It is clear in both

types of applications, the

affidavit evidence must

be clear, unequivocal,

and accurate.

[16] The court agrees that

defective, false, misleading or incomplete

affidavits will invalidate a

claim and will lead to

dismissal.

[17] As counsel for the

Applicant pointed out,

the Respondent has a

right to pursue his claim

by proceeding with an

action.

That right will not be

affected by this order. If

there are facts in dispute,

which both counsel have

acknowledged there are,

that evidence and those

facts can be more

properly decided at a

hearing.

[18] The court accepts the

Applicant’s submission

that the Respondent’s

affidavit contained

misleading or false is

defective. It is the

affidavit which forms the

foundation of the lien.

[19] As well, it is to be noted that the affidavit of the Respondent is not consistent with the wording of the lien. The affidavit deposes that there was a supply of $59,520.97 worth of materials to the property, yet, the lien as filed in the Registry Office states that the claim is for a LGS Floor system, LGS Wall system and wages. The two documents are not consistent.

[20] Given the above, the lien must fail and is not valid. The Respondent is ordered to vacate the Lien and to file same with Service New Brunswick forthwith.

Costs

[21] The Applicant seeks costs. The Applicant prepared, filed and served a detailed and lengthy Notice of Application with supporting affidavits and exhibits. The Applicant filed a brief. These documents involved time and an expenditure of funds.

[22] Costs are awarded to the Applicant in the amount of $1,000.00 plus HST. The following disbursements are

assessed in addition: court filing fees, process service fee, and reasonable photocopies plus HST. Costs are payable forthwith.

______________________________

Barbara L. Baird, J.C.Q.B.

SUN ALLIANCE INSURANCE COMPANY and JOHN HARDING INSURANCE LTD.,

Defendants

BEFORE: The Honourable Mr. Justice Thomas W. Riordan

HELD AT: Newcastle, New Brunswick

DATE OF HEARING: July 6, 1994

DATE OF DECISION: August 12, 1994

COUNSEL AT HEARING:

John McAllister, Esq. - for the Applicants

Edwin G. Ehrhardt, Esq. - for the Defendants, Sun Alliance Insurance Company

Cynthia J. Benson, Esq. - for the Defendants, John Harding Insurance Ltd.

Monday, July 28, 2008

Lake Watershed Guardians

http://dailygleaner.canadaeast.com/search/article/365267
Also Times & Transcript:
http://timestranscript.canadaeast.com/search/article/365344

More than 30 environmental groups are pressuring the provincial government
to ban uranium exploration and mining in New Brunswick.

The groups say they're against any uranium activity in the province,
despite the recent implementation of new guidelines for exploration.

The guidelines banned mining companies from staking claims near any
communities, free-standing buildings or near provincial watersheds.

The new legislation also changed the way companies could stake land claims,
forcing them to make claims electronically instead of physically placing
blue ribbons on the property.

Inka Milewski, the Conservation Council of New Brunswick's health-watch
director and science adviser, said the province isn't listening to what New
Brunswickers want.

"While we applaud added protections to watersheds, the government is
missing the point," she said.

"In light of long-term radiological dangers from drill cores, trenching and
bulk sampling, we want a ban on uranium exploring in New Brunswick. Several
municipalities and groups have issued calls to ban uranium exploration and
mining, and it's time for the government to listen."

Randy Nason of the Grand Lake Watershed Guardians said the province should
allow New Brunswickers to participate more in a review of the Mining Act.

"Public participation processes lead to regulations that best reflect
public concerns," he said.

"Nova Scotia, Quebec and Ontario have conducted recent public participation
processes in reviews of their mining regulations. We demand no less."

Public Safety ! Hah! Government Coverup Whitewash Artist!

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Why would you lie about Foran?

He did not do what you say he did. You're making it up!

Just yesterday, you posted what he really did to make you angry, which is refuse to meet you and you lawyer to talk about your case.

1:15 PM, July 25, 2008

Blogger Charles LeBlanc said...

Moi??? Conter une mentrie????

I don't think so!!!!

There's a change in policy with the Liberal.

They will not meet with the less fortunate.

Only rich people.

THis was proven yesterday and next week we'll really have some action.

Will the Fredericton Police support John Foran by have me arrested?

We'll dealing with pure fascism here against the less fortunate and I'm not going to go away!!!!

Hey??? There's a new chief of the Saint John Police Force!!!!

Stay tuned!!!!

1:33 PM, July 25, 2008

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Public Safety ! Hah! Government Coverup Whitewash Artist!

1:47 PM, July 25, 2008

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Actually I believe they will not meet with you. But then why should they, your complaints have been heard, again and again and again. Perhaps it is time you stopped bothering them so will will be able to spend the time with those that really matter and not those that only want to hear themselves talk. As to supporting your arrest, well break the law and I am sure he will as any good citizen would. Are you suggesting your above the law, it sure sounds like it.

3:35 PM, July 25, 2008

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Go for it Charles, what else do the poor have to loose????

3:56 PM, July 25, 2008

Anonymous T-Dot said...

I think Charles should confront John Foran in public and let the public know how outrageous this issue is! If you make some noise, maybe you'll get TV and radio coverage, and help traffic to your blog... thus ensuring more public support. It's worth a shot, isn't it?

4:02 PM, July 25, 2008

Anonymous Anonymous said...

I thought he wouldn't speak to you yesterday, what has that got to do witht the less fortunate? YOU were whining about a meeting to talk about YOU. You ONLY ever talk about. YOU are as bad if not worse than those you complain about here.

10:48 PM, July 25, 2008

Blogger Charles LeBlanc said...

Some people believe that some people should be jailed and the Police should delete the evidence before a court of law.

Well? Not this guy!!!!

Port City.

Departing police chief re-invented the force Published Saturday July 26th, 2008


A8Stumble Upondel.icio.usDiggFacebookPrintEmailspeakupDuring last year's debate over the proposed police-justice complex, some members of common council took the attitude that the building would be a legacy development.

Police Chief Allen Bodechon can boast of having made a far more significant contribution - having the foresight to make community policing a priority.

Under his leadership, police made a sustained effort to address community concerns about safety. Chief Bodechon and other members of the force stood side-by-side with North End residents who were determined to take back their neighbourhoods from the drug dealers who had invaded it. Through this joint effort, the police and neighbourhood leaders such as Councillor Gary Sullivan were able to bridge a rift of distrust and despair.

When dealers paid an addict to destroy the community police office, residents helped police catch every member of the conspiracy. What rose from the ashes was a community centre, in which a designated police officer forms part of a team dedicated to meeting the community's needs.

At the end of December, Chief Bodechon will leave the force to head up Criminal Intelligence Service N.B. The officers he has assigned to community duties have become trusted members of the neighbourhoods they serve, and community policing in the North End has became a model for efforts to reduce crime across the Port City.

Chief Bodechon's successor will need to support and enhance the community policing model. It's a legacy worth preserving.

Robert T.kickham?

Small world EH Frenchys? Maybe we will all meet in court in short order EH?

I would love to have a long talk to you Mr. Parachini but only if you
are an honest man who doesn't try to play dumb. I can smell Bullshit
through the phone from halfway around the world. you can take that
fact to the World Trade Bank and mention my name. please pay attention
to my next emails for your benefit as well as mine. I am as serious as
a heart attack even though I crack a joke or two..

http://www.millercanfield.com/people/attorneys/bio.asp?Id=298

Rest assured Ropes and Gray has had Hard Copy of my material ever
since they replaced the Rogers Law Firm in Beantown right after
Cardinal Law quit and run off. As far as I know my wife's cousin the
ex banker turned Priest Robert T. Kickham is still cardinal O'Malley's
secretary. Now that the ex Hitler youth whom they picked as pope is
running around the World apologizing for pious diddlers. do ya think I
should sue you god damned Churh in Canada Chucky Baby?

The truly funny part is do ya think the fancy lawyers in Philly have
even two clues as to what I am talking about? I doubt if Paul Kinsella
associates in Beantown have told him shit. Perhaps he should seek the
corrupt counsel of his long lost Canadian cousind Noel and Warren
Kinsella right after they receive my next emails N'est Pas?

Other than laugh at the nonsense of it all, the layman in me should
advise lawyers that they should be more careful with whom they
associate with EH? Do ya think any of them have the balls to call the
RCMP or the FBI Chucky Baby? I doubt it too.

If Mr. Fitterman is paying attention

http://morganlewis.com/index.cfm/fuseaction/people.viewBio/personID/9668f0af-17c4-4ef0-bec7-57987886d746

Perhaps he should consider taking me as a client.i can make him rather
famous and wealthy as well if he is ethical that is. All he has to do
is press print on the tiff document he receives next and then assure
himself that I am the whistleblower that I caused Shelby and Dodds etc
to pitch fits in the hearings of the Senate Banking Comittee on
November 18th and 20th, 2003 It was about the Industry that Billy
casey claims he knows a lot about. Before the lawyers in Philly etc
dare to call me a liar they really should ask themselves why Power
Corp in Canada bought Putnam Investments and the transcripts went
"Poof" once the sub prime mortage bullshit started picking up steam
and the FBI caught Eliot Spitzer with the wrong broad. Rest assured
stuttering French bastards will never tell ya the truth about this
shit. Power Corp owns Montreal. Correct Gilles Baby?

Look for this email right here within the comments of Danny Boy's blog about me.

http://qslspolitics.blogspot.com/2008/05/david-amos-nb-nwo-whistleblower-part-4.html

And my blog right here as a doublecheck and to put Stevey Boy
Harper's fancy pink panties in a knot.

http://davidamos.blogspot.com/2006/05/harper-and-bankers.html

Here is how I discovered the Yankee lawyers checking out the doings
between me and chickenshit little French priques.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&rlz=1T4EGLC_enUS272US273&q=%22ropes%20%26%20gray%22%20kinsella&start=60&sa=N

http://www.ropesgray.com/paulkinsella/

Veritas Vincit
David Raymond Amos

Sunday, July 27, 2008

military

2008, 6:13 PM


Good Afternoon,

I have received your email and I am not in a position to be able to
assist in your complaints. Would you please refrain from forwarding any
emails to my attention.

Thank You,

Paulette Delaney-Smith, Cpl.
RCMP "J" Division HQ
2008-07-14



On 7/21/08, Dan Fitzgerald wrote:
> Thanks for the great mailing list, Dave.
>
> Now I can take my concerns to the very 'top' too, like any real Canadian
> should be morally compelled to do.
>
> Though their action on your case indicates a slothful composition - it'll
> be easy the next time they have to claim incompetence for a disastrous
> mishap that always morphs into something "unavoidable" when the force-fed
> press are through with it.
> ------------------
>
> Dear Steven Harper,
>
> Please don't let your neo-con / nwo-eu / Bilderberg buddies crash any more
> planes with Canadians aboard.
>
> http://qslspolitics.blogspot.com/2008/07/enough-semptex-for-40-lockerbies-stolen.html
>
> And for God's sake, check the cargo holds on all military and
> corporofascist planes (for that matter, the boats) coming in and out of
> maritime harbours until this bullshit Olympic hysteria dies down.
>
> And explain to me why again we can't jointly explore the oil with Russia -
> I really don't see who is helped by the bluster except Enron rejects and
> clinger-on debt thieves.
>
> http://www.rense.com/general69/gander.htm
>
> http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=6845

New York Times propaganda service has often been dramatically displayed in connection with the shooting down of civilian airliners. The editors were hysterical over the Soviet shooting down of Korean airliner 007 on August 31, 1983: 270 articles and 2,789 column inches during September 1983 alone, along with an editorial designation of the incident as “cold-blooded mass murder.” The paper took as truth the official and party line that the Soviets knew they were shooting down a civilian airliner. Several years later the editors acknowledged that their assumption had been wrong, but they blamed this on the government, not their own gullibility (ed., “The Lie That Wasn’t Shot Down,” Jan. 18, 1988). It had done no investigative work on the case in the interim, and the lie was shot down based on information developed outside the media.

In a markedly contrasting response, when Israel shot down a Libyan airliner over the Sinai desert in February 1973, although in this case there was no question but that the Israelis knew they were downing a civilian airliner, the New York Times covered the incident much less intensively and without expressing the slightest indignation, let alone using words like “cold-blooded” or “murder.”

Equally interesting, the paper recognized the political importance of their treatment of each of these events: in the Soviet case, in a year-later retrospective, Times reporter Bernard Gwertzman wrote that U.S. officials “assert that worldwide criticism of the Soviet handling of the crisis has strengthened the United States in its relations with Moscow.” With the orchestrated intense and indignant coverage of this shootdown the Soviets had suffered not only harsh criticism but boycotts for its action. By contrast, Israel suffered not the slightest damage. The New York Times editorialized that “No useful purpose is served by an acrimonious debate over the assignment of blame for the downing of a Libyan plane in the Sinai peninsula last week” (ed., March 1, 1973). Within a week of the shootdown, the Israeli Prime Minister was welcomed in Washington without incident or intrusive questions. In short, blame and debate is a function of utility, which is to say, political advantage. Where it helps, as in putting the Soviets in a bad light, we support assigning blame, indignation and debate; where it would injure a client, “no useful purpose” would be served by such treatment. And somehow the UN and “international community” react in ways that conform to what the U.S. government and New York Times perceive as useful.

In the case of Pan Am 103, the political aspect of assigning blame has been clearly and, arguably, overwhelmingly important. The plane was blown up over Lockerbie, Scotland on December 21, 1988, with 270 plane casualties (and 11 persons killed on the ground). This followed by only five and a half months the U.S. navy’s shooting down of Iranian airliner 655 in July 1988, killing 290, mainly Iranian pilgrims. The link between the two events was quickly seen, and the likelihood that the later event was an act of vengeance by Iran was a working hypothesis, supported further by an unproven claim of Western security forces that Iran had offered a $10 million reward for a retaliatory act. As the case developed it was soon a consensus of investigators that the Pan Am action had been the work of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine-General Command (PFLP-GC) under the leadership of Ahmed Jibral, based in Syria, and responding to the Iranian offer.

But then, as relations with Saddam Hussein deteriorated in 1989 and 1990, and the United States sought better relations with Syria and Iran in the run-up to the first Persian Gulf War, Western officials became quiet on the Syria-Iran connection, followed by a fairly rapid shift from “definitive” proof of PFLP-Syrian-Iranian involvement to “definitive” proof that it was a Libyan act. As Paul Foot noted, “The evidence against the PFLP which had been so carefully put together and was so immensely impressive was quietly but firmly junked” (“Lockerbie: The Flight From Justice,” Private Eye, May/June 2001, p. 10). Libya provided a suitable new culprit, as it was already on the U.S.-UK hit list and had been subjected to a series of efforts at “regime change,” a hostility based on its independence, support of the Palestinians and other dissident forces (including the ANC and Mandela in their resistance to the apartheid regime), as well as occasional support of anti-Western terrorists. So Libya it was.

The Libyan connection lasted



>

Clean Water Act.?

Conservationists question why work continues at Fredericton bog

Last Updated: Thursday, July 24, 2008 | 10:26 AM AT Comments18Recommend11

New Brunswick conservationists are demanding to know why a Fredericton businessman was apparently given permission to develop a property that includes a wetland.

The wetlands are part of a 2.4-hectare patch of land owned by RAR Properties Inc. off Bishop Drive near the Regent Mall.

Al Lacey, a former Liberal cabinet minister in Frank McKenna's government and co-owner of RAR Properties, said the company has reached a compromise with the government that is allowing 1.8 hectares of the land to be filled as long as about 0.8 hectares are left untouched.

In 2004, New Brunswick's Environment Department said the company was not allowed to fill in the land, which is adjacent to an area known as the Regent Street bog.


Companies are not allowed to do fill-in work or development within 30 metres of a wetland without a permit issued by the environment minister.

But RAR Properties began its work anyway and was given a cease-and-desist order in 2005.

The company was still working inside the buffer zone in 2006 and was fined $1,000 by a judge in 2008 after pleading guilty to violating the Clean Water Act.

Lacey told CBC News when he bought the property there was no wetland in the area but other developments have now pushed water onto his land.

"I'm really disappointed that this has been allowed to go ahead," said Megan de Graaf, watershed project co-ordinator with the Conservation Council of New Brunswick.

The Environment Department declined to comment on if a permit has been issued to RAR Properties or explain why the work is now allowed to proceed.

A spokesperson for the department said it will not be commenting because of ongoing enforcement action related to the piece of land.

Conservative Leader Jeannot Volpé said he'd also like some explanation on why the work is being allowed to proceed.

"I haven't seen any change in rules so for them now to change the decision, I would like to know from staff from environment why they say they have changed," Volpé said.

Friday, July 25, 2008

like fascistism

people that like fascistism

The Expropriation of my property has ruined my life.

Go to my blog site and see for your self what went on, document that was not disclose until in court on March 2005,

My owned lawyers entering the documents,

The Evidence was tacking out the applicant's evidence ,one day before trial and so on.

There was a total conflict of Interest on all of the Law firm files on this new highway deal. See http://www.govinjustice.blogspot.com

I know my spelling is bad, but I think you will get the just of what up. I have been Abuse by the system? These Judges, lawyers, law society, and so on.

Would you know how I could get my Expropriation Investigation done on all the Issues of the Law?

Abuse means mistreating another person. It can take any of the Following forms, many of which are Criminal in nature.

The $212,000.00 lawyer bill. Is Criminal in nature to the taxpayer of New Brunswick in it self, to put a man on welfare,

the delay of 11 years out of a person life, deepockeing a person from February 12,1997 and so on, there can’t be know relief for me.

I know, I am to old to start over, now?

Why would I want too knowing what is going on in the system, go see and lesson to audio files. Court trial.

http:govinjustice.blogspot.com ,there a lot more will be on this site, stay tune

[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.

? if the engineers put the two concepts in on January 20/1997? How could I have knowledge if I didn’t pay him until January 21/1997. I think Judge Russell Decision was made in my case on January 3, 1997 when I call the engineers, why ? because he did lay out work for the Government, when the highway was to be in a different location. (smith Subdivision) This is the reason that Heather Pugh had to lie,!! Heather Pugh , God know, and every one you work with know.

Government needs to ban uranium

Français ci-dessous

New Uranium Rules Not Enough:
Government needs to ban uranium and overhaul the outdated N.B. Mining Act

For Immediate Release

July 24, 2008 - Over thirty citizen environmental groups are renewing
calls to immediately ban uranium exploration and mining in the province.

"While we applaud added protections to watersheds, the government is
missing the point. In light of long-term radiological dangers from drill
cores, trenching and bulk sampling, we want a ban on uranium exploring in
New Brunswick. Several municipalities and groups have issued calls to ban
uranium exploration and mining and it’s time for the government to listen,"
stated Inka Milewski, Health Watch Director and Science Advisor for the
Conservation Council of New Brunswick.

"There are several flaws in the new uranium rules. The move from blue
ribbon staking to an electronic claims staking system will keep property
owners in the dark about any claims made on their property. This is
especially worrisome for those who do not have online access to the
information," stated Randy Nason of the Grand Lake Watershed Guardians.

Environmental groups are encouraging the government to genuinely include
the public in their review of the N.B.'s outdated Mining Act. "Public
participation processes lead to regulations that best reflect public
concerns. Nova Scotia, Quebec and Ontario have conducted recent public
participation processes in reviews of their mining regulations. We demand
no less," stated Nason.

"The Mining Act should be amended to include required consultation with
members of the public including municipalities, landowners, Aboriginal
people, ecologists and environmental organizations at all phases of mining
including claim staking," added Nason.

"Besides mandatory public consultation, the public would be surprised to
learn that quarries and exploration do not require Environmental Impact
Assessments in this province. Since all mining activities and phases
involve an environmental impact, we want to see it all subject to an EIA,"
stated Inka Milewski.

"There is only one inspector in the Department of Natural Resources and
more than 38,000 claims. The Department needs more resources to properly
inspect sites. Uranium exploration guidelines announced last month should
be turned into enforceable standards and regularly monitored. The
government must also undertake a cost-benefits analysis of exploration that
includes the impacts to our valuable ecosystem services," added Milewski.

-30-

Inka Milewski, Health Watch Director and Science Advisor, Conservation
Council of New Brunswick, 506 622-2460
Randy Nason, Grand Lake Watershed Guardians, 506 339-5448
In Fredericton, Tracy Glynn, Conservation Council of NB, 506 458-8747
(available after 12 noon)

See list of groups endorsing uranium ban here:
http://nuclearfreenb.org/2008/05/13/a-responsible-stand-against-uranium-mining-in-new-brunswick/

******************
Nouvelles règlementations sur l’uranium insuffisantes : le gouvernement
devrait interdire l’uranium et réviser la loi vétuste sur les mines du
Nouveau-Brunswick

Pour diffusion immédiate

Le 24 juillet, 2008 - Plus que 30 groupes environnementaux de citoyens
renouvellent leur demande d’interdire immédiatement l’exploration et
l’exploitation minière de l’uranium dans la province.

« Quoique nous applaudissions la protection additionnelle réservée pour les
bassins versants, le gouvernement passe à côté de la question. Lorsque
l’on considère les dangers à long terme du forage de carottes, des travaux
de creusement et des échantillonnages en vrac, nous voulons que
l’exploration de l’uranium soit bannie au Nouveau-Brunswick. Plusieurs
municipalités et de nombreux groupes ont exprimé qu’ils exigeaient que l’on
bannisse l’exploration et l’extraction minière de l’uranium et il est temps
que le gouvernement soit à l’écoute, » affirme Inka Milewski, directrice de
Vigilance santé et conseillère scientifique du Conseil de conservation du
Nouveau-Brunswick.

« Il existe plusieurs failles dans les nouveaux règlements sur
l’uranium. Le changement d’un système de jalonnage au ruban bleu à un
système électronique continuera de laisser les propriétaires dans le noir
concernant les concessions minières accordées sur leur propriété. Ce qui
est particulièrement inquiétant pour ceux qui n’ont pas l’accès en ligne à
ces renseignements, » fait remarquer Randy Nason des Gardiens du bassin
versant du lac Grand.

Les groupes environnementaux encouragent le gouvernement à véritablement
inclure le public dans sa révision de la loi désuète sur les mines du
Nouveau-Brunswick. « Un processus de participation du public donne des
règlementations qui reflètent mieux les inquiétudes du public. La
Nouvelle-Écosse, le Québec et l’Ontario ont mené récemment un processus de
consultations publiques lorsque ces provinces ont renouvelé leurs
règlementations minières. Nous ne demandons pas plus, » précise Nason.

« La loi sur les mines devrait être modifiée de façon à inclure des
consultations avec les membres du public y inclus les municipalités, les
propriétaires, les nations aborigènes, les écologistes et les organisations
environnementales durant toutes les phases de l’exploitation minière y
inclus le jalonnage des concessions minières, » ajoute Nason.

« En dehors de la question des consultations obligatoires du public, la
population serait surprise d’apprendre que les carrières et l’exploitation
minière ne sont pas obligées d’être soumises à des évaluations de leurs
impacts environnementaux, nous voulons voir tous ces projets soumis à des
ÉIE, » souligne Inka Milewski.

« Il n’existe qu’un seul inspecteur au ministère des Ressources naturelles
et plus de 38 000 concessions minières. Le ministère a besoin de plus de
ressources pour inspecter adéquatement ces endroits. Les directives
concernant l’exploitation minière de l’uranium annoncées le mois dernier
devraient être transformées en normes exécutoires régulièrement
surveillées. Le gouvernement doit aussi préparer une analyse coût-bénéfice
des explorations qui tient compte des impacts sur les appréciables services
rendus par nos écosystèmes, » explique Milewski.

-30-

Inka Milewski, directrice Vigilance Santé et conseillère scientifique du
Conseil de conservation du Nouveau-Brunswick, 506 622-2460
Randy Nason, gardien du bassin versant du lac Grand, 506 339-5448
À Fredericton, Tracy Glynn, Conseil de conservation du Nouveau-Brunswick,
506 458-8747 (disponible après 12 midi)

Voyez la liste de groupes qui supportent une prohibition sur l'uranium ici:

http://nuclearfreenb.org/2008/05/12/une-position-responsable-contre-l%e2%80%99exploitation-miniere-de-l%e2%80%99uranium-au-nouveau-brunswick/

Wednesday, July 23, 2008

The Crime , the Cover-up

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, 8b,8c8d,8m,8k,9,10,10a,11,11a,11b,all to 25.

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 knows the Rules of Court. It sure looks that way by his Defense 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 is 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 Justify 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.

· 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 If drawing as attachment # 6 was available with a date on it 12/96 why 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.

· On or about May of 2004 in a phone call with Mr. Fred J.Hackett, Oromocto Development Officer. I was told that the town did not get any pulmonary drawing from DOT ,till March,1997,

· On or about February 5, 2007 I made a phone call to Fred Hackett to confirm what I was told was factual. He quotes the date on the Drawing of when the Survey work was started was March 7, 1997 on new location of highway. The first Drawing that they received from DOT. So this bring us to the Question of as to Attachment#1and #2A that have Survey center line the same Location of where the Highway is Location. Then how could there be Drawing as attachment #1and2A in December of 1996.

· The Evidence here is that Heather Pugh’s Memo is obvious delivery perjury that was engineer at some point of time. I would think this Tactic started on or about February 3, 1997 or sooner. Like January 17/97

· On or about February 5,2007 Mr. Hackett also Confirm that at the town hull meeting on December 11,1996 that DOT only Had one larges drawing at the meeting with then. Just one drawing with a date of 12/96 on it. As he can remember there was no other drawing there. Or they would of have a copy of then .The first time the Town would now what the land requirements would be, was in March, 1997,

· Attachment #20 is 5 pages of Expropriation Case Law .

· The question is these 5 pages Case Law or not .yes or no .

· Now in Court Judge Russell said the trial record was junk. So if this so the offer under the rules of court made in 2004 that I would think would be part of the Trial Record must have been remove also. Yes or no ?

.

·

· k 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?

· Attachment #21 June 20,2005 letter to Robert H. Pineo from David D Eidt. He quotes Offer of the Respondent to the Applicants of November 17,2003. If the trial is gong is this offer under the rule of court not gong to. Yes or no. There will more to follow latters

Yours very truly­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­___________________

· did he not hat