gov-Injustice

Mr.Goodwin

2010-05-12T18:04:00.000-03:00

ENTRE: PETER GAUVIN, exécuteur de la SUCCESSION DE MARY ESTELLA GAUVIN,

REQUÉRANT,

- et -

LA CITÉ DE DIEPPE,

INTIMÉE.

DÉCISION

MOTIFS : le juge Stephen J. McNally.

LIEU DE L’AUDIENCE : Moncton (Nouveau-Brunswick).

DATES DU PROCÈS : du 14 au 30 janvier, et du 25 au 28 février 2008.

MÉMOIRES POSTÉRIEURS

AU PROCÈS : le 7 avril 2008.

DATE DE LA DÉCISION : le 30 juin 2009.

COMPARUTIONS

M^es Douglas H. Caldwell, c.r., et Robert H. Pineo, pour le requérant;

M^es John D. Townsend, c.r., et Paul Landry, pour l’intimée.

[TRADUCTION]

Le juge McNally

[1] Peter Gauvin, exécuteur de la succession d’Estella Gauvin, demande que soit fixée, en application de la Loi sur l’expropriation, L.R.N.-B. 1973, ch. E-14, l’indemnité à accorder par suite de l’expropriation par l’intimée, le 18 avril 2001, d’un bien-fonds non aménagé de quelque 12,4 acres (appelé ci-après « le bien », ou « le bien visé »), de la rue Champlain, à Dieppe, au Nouveau-Brunswick.

[2] La succession demande une indemnité établie d’après la valeur marchande de 2 014 892 $ attribuée au bien par son évaluateur, W. Harrison Goodwin (par. 81, mémoire postérieur au procès de la succession), alors que Dieppe maintient que, d’après l’évaluation de son expert, Daniel Doucet, la valeur marchande du bien était de 474 600 $ à la date d’expropriation.

[3] Le bien est situé du côté sud de la rue Champlain, au carrefour de la rue Champlain et du boulevard Dieppe. Il se trouve à environ cinq kilomètres à l’est du centre commercial Place Champlain. À l’époque de l’expropriation, le bien-fonds n’était pas aménagé et demeurait vacant.

[4] L’expropriation avait pour objet l’agrandissement du Parc industriel de Dieppe, projet qui prévoyait que le boulevard Dieppe serait prolongé et traverserait le bien. L’expropriation et le prolongement du boulevard Dieppe ont ouvert le secteur immédiat, dont une partie importante du reste du bien visé, à un développement commercial considérable depuis l’appropriation du bien.

[5] Les parties et leurs experts respectifs, malgré le vaste écart qui sépare les valeurs qu’ils attribuent au bien, s’entendent pour l’essentiel sur bon nombre des points que soulève une demande d’indemnisation sous le régime de la Loi sur l’expropriation. Les dispositions législatives et les principes juridiques qui s’appliquent à la fixation de la valeur du bien exproprié ne sont pas véritablement contestés. Les faits préalables se rapportant à l’usage antérieur du bien et à la façon dont il était considéré par la partie requérante avant l’expropriation ne sont guère contestés non plus. De même, à ce stade-ci, les faits pertinents relatifs au processus d’expropriation proprement dit et aux aménagements opérés dans le secteur du bien visé depuis l’expropriation ne sont à peu près pas contestés.

[6] Les évaluateurs experts des parties s’entendent largement, aussi, sur la démarche initiale à adopter pour déterminer la valeur du bien en application de la Loi sur l’expropriation. De fait, ils conviennent de certains points cruciaux : le bien était, à l’époque de l’expropriation, un bien-fonds vacant non aménagé qui présentait environ 400 pieds de façade le long de la rue Champlain; sur quelque 200 pieds en direction sud depuis la rue Champlain, le terrain se trouvait en zone commerce routier; la fraction du bien située en zone commerce routier aurait probablement pu être élargie par rezonage. Les experts ne s’entendent pas cependant sur l’ampleur du rezonage qui aurait probablement été autorisé. Ils conviennent que Dieppe a rezoné le bien la veille de l’expropriation, mais que, comme ce n’était qu’une étape du processus d’expropriation, ce rezonage est sans incidence réelle sur l’évaluation du bien en l’instance.

[7] Le noeud réel du débat, point de désaccord des parties et de leurs experts respectifs, tient à la méthode qu’il convient d’appliquer pour déterminer la valeur marchande du bien visé à la date d’expropriation. Dieppe et son évaluateur soutiennent que la technique appropriée d’évaluation du bien-fonds, en l’espèce, est celle de la parité. Cette technique suppose que la valeur du bien est établie à parité avec les prix payés pour des biens semblables, vendus récemment, sous réserve des rajustements nécessaires du fait de caractéristiques uniques des biens respectifs.

[8] La succession, elle, soutient que la valeur marchande correspond au [TRADUCTION] « prix monétaire maximal que rapporterait un bien s’il était vendu sur le marché libre, à supposer un temps raisonnable pour que se manifeste un acheteur prudent, pleinement informé, au fait de tous les usages auxquels le bien peut être adapté, ou peut servir, qui achèterait d’un vendeur tout aussi prudent et informé, sans contrainte de part et d’autre » (mémoires préparatoire et postérieur au procès de la succession; rapport de W. Harrison Goodwin, pièce A-3, p. 6 ). La succession fait valoir que cette définition exige de procéder à une analyse beaucoup plus élaborée et beaucoup plus pointue pour déterminer le prix maximal auquel arriveraient un [TRADUCTION] « acheteur pleinement informé » et un [TRADUCTION] « vendeur pleinement informé ». Elle avance que la méthode qui convient le mieux au calcul de la valeur marchande est un amalgame de la technique de lotissement ou d’aménagement et de la technique du revenu résiduel au terrain.

Droit applicable

[9] Il est utile d’ouvrir l’analyse par un retour sur les dispositions législatives et principes juridiques qui entrent en jeu en l’instance, malgré qu’il n’y ait guère de désaccord entre les parties à leur égard. Les passages pertinents des art. 38 et 39 de la Loi sur l’expropriation prévoient ce qui suit :

38(1) Lorsque le bien-fonds d’un propriétaire est exproprié, l’indemnité à verser au propriétaire doit être fondée sur

a) la valeur marchande du bien,

b) les dommages attribuables au trouble de jouissance,

c) les dommages causés par un préjudice,

d) tout avantage économique particulier résultant de son occupation du bien-fonds, qui n’est pas reflété dans la valeur marchande du bien-fonds,

mais lorsque la valeur marchande est fondée sur un usage du bien-fonds autre que l’usage actuel, l’indemnité au titre des alinéas a) et b) ne doit pas dépasser le plus élevé des montants suivants

e) le montant fondé sur l’usage actuel auquel est affecté le bien-fonds et sur les dommages causés par le trouble de jouissance, ou

f) le montant fondé sur l’usage optimal et le meilleur auquel peut être affecté le bien-fonds,

et aucune indemnité ne doit être allouée en application de l’alinéa d).

[...]

39(1) La valeur marchande d’un bien-fonds exproprié est égale à la somme qui aurait été payée pour le bien-fonds s’il avait été vendu à la date d’expropriation sur le marché libre par un vendeur consentant à un acheteur consentant.

[...]

39(4) Pour déterminer la valeur marchande du bien-fonds, il n’y a pas lieu de tenir compte

a) de tout usage que l’autorité expropriante envisage de faire ou fait réellement du bien-fonds;

b) d’une augmentation ou d’une diminution de la valeur du bien-fonds résultant de l’imminence de l’aménagement en vue duquel l’expropriation a lieu, ou des perspectives imminentes d’expropriation; ou

c) d’une augmentation de la valeur du bien-fonds résultant de l’affectation à un usage qui pourrait être interdit par un tribunal ou qui est contraire à la loi ou qui nuit à la santé des occupants du bien-fonds ou à l’hygiène publique.

[10] Dans Young c. Moncton (City) (2002), 248 R.N.-B. (2^e) 360 (C.A.N.-B.), aux par. 23 et 24, le juge d’appel Drapeau, tel était alors son titre, a précisé la nature du processus d’évaluation :

23 Le paragraphe 38(1) de la Loi prévoit que l’indemnité à verser en cas d’expropriation doit être fondée, en partie, sur la valeur marchande du bien. La « valeur marchande » est définie au paragraphe 39(1) comme « la somme qui aurait été payée pour le bien-fonds s’il avait été vendu à la date d’expropriation sur le marché libre par un vendeur consentant à un acheteur consentant ». La Loi exige implicitement que la « valeur marchande » soit établie en fonction des possibilités actuelles d’utilisation optimale du bien-fonds exproprié. Voir E.C.E. Todd, The Law of Expropriation and Compensation in Canada, 2^e édition (Scarborough, Ontario: Carswell, 1992) à la page 133. Cette utilisation, qui peut être différente de celle reconnue au moment de l’expropriation du bien-fonds, est la pierre angulaire de l’établissement de toute indemnité payable en vertu de la Loi et en vertu de la plupart, sinon de la totalité, des autres lois canadiennes en matière d’expropriation. Voir Saint John Priory of Canada Properties c. Saint John (City), 1972 CanLII 133 (C.S.C.), [1972] R.C.S. 746, et Valley Improvement Co. c. Metropolitan Toronto Region Conservation Authority (1965), 51 D.L.R. (2d) 481 (C.A. Ont.), à la page 491 des motifs du juge Roach.

24 Cela étant dit, il faut se rappeler que le concept de « l’utilisation optimale » fait référence à « l’utilisation la plus rentable à laquelle un acheteur et un vendeur informés et consentants s’attendraient raisonnablement que le bien-fonds serait probablement affecté » (c’est moi qui souligne). Voir l’ouvrage de J.A. Coates et S.F. Waqué intitulé New Law of Expropriation, feuillets mobiles, vol. 1 (Scarborough, Ontario: Carswell, 1986) à la page 10-84. L’utilisation optimale préconisée par le propriétaire du bien-fonds exproprié devrait être rejetée comme fondement de la détermination de la valeur marchande en vertu de la Loi lorsque cette utilisation n’est pas économiquement rentable. Voir Guido (Estate) et al. c. Canada (Ministry of Transportation and Communications) (1977), 13 L.C.R. 97 (C. div. Ont.), à la page 98. Les éléments constitutifs de l’utilisation optimale d’un bien-fonds particulier faisant l’objet d’une expropriation sont une question de fait.

[11] Vu le cadre défini ci-dessus, la valeur marchande se fixe en deux étapes dans une affaire d’expropriation. La première requiert de déterminer l’usage optimal du bien-fonds exproprié. La seconde étape appelle à [TRADUCTION] « établir l’indemnité à accorder au propriétaire d’après cet usage » : Re Farlinger Developments Ltd. and Borough of East York, [1975] O.J. No. 2429 (C.A. Ont.); Higgins et al. c. New Brunswick (2005), 285 R.N.-B. (2^e) 130 (C.B.R.N.-B., le juge Grant); McLeod c. New Brunswick, [2000] A.N.‑B. n^o 86 (C.B.R.N.-B., le juge Rideout).

[12] Il appartient au propriétaire du bien exproprié de prouver le bien-fondé de l’évaluation et la norme de preuve est celle de la prépondérance des probabilités. Si la preuve présentée ne satisfait pas à cette norme, la cour doit se tourner vers d’autres évaluations : David c. Minister of Natural Resources (1976), 14 R.N.-B. (2^e) 300 (C.A.). Cependant, il est évident qu’un juge du procès n’est obligé d’adopter ni l’une ni l’autre des opinions des évaluateurs respectifs des parties sur la valeur marchande du bien visé : Young c. Moncton (City), précité, par. 13.

[13] Quatre facteurs sont à prendre en considération pour déterminer l’usage optimal d’un bien exproprié :

a) conformité aux lois et aux règlements,

b) possibilité physique,

c) faisabilité financière,

d) rentabilité maximale.

[14] Les quatre facteurs à examiner pour déterminer l’usage optimal d’un bien doivent l’être sur la base objective des conditions du marché, et non d’après les intentions subjectives du propriétaire du bien : Higgins c. New Brunswick, [2005] A.N.-B. n^o 262 (C.B.R.N.-B., le juge Grant).

[15] Pour déterminer l’usage optimal d’un bien, ainsi que sa valeur marchande, l’évaluateur choisit parmi trois méthodes admises, qu’il peut combiner : a) la technique de parité, b) la technique du revenu, c) la technique du coût. À la page 178 de The Law of Expropriation and Compensation in Canada (2^e éd., Carswell, 1992), le professeur Eric C.E. Todd décrit les trois techniques :

[TRADUCTION]

a) La méthode de comparaison directe des ventes, ou technique de parité, requiert une comparaison directe entre le bien visé et les autres données statistiques, notamment les prix de vente de biens comparables sur le marché libre. La technique produit une estimation de la valeur d’échange du bien visé. Elle repose sur la théorie économique voulant que la valeur du bien soit le prix auquel il serait vendu sur un marché théoriquement libre, où agirait le principe de l’offre et de la demande.

b) La technique du revenu appelle à une comparaison indirecte entre le bien visé et les autres biens ou les autres possibilités d’investissement comparables. Le revenu réel ou hypothétique du bien visé est comparé au revenu de biens comparables, ou d’autres types d’investissements. Ensuite, le flux de rentrées du bien visé est capitalisé à un taux établi par analyse du marché du placement immobilier. La capitalisation obtenue est considérée comme la valeur en capital du bien visé. La technique du revenu repose sur la théorie économique voulant que la valeur d’un bien soit déterminée par le montant des gains futurs qu’il produira.

c) La technique du coût requiert d’estimer le coût actuel de reproduction des améliorations apportées au bien visé ou le coût de leur remplacement par des améliorations d’une égale utilité fonctionnelle. On ajoute ensuite au coût de reproduction ou de remplacement des améliorations la valeur marchande estimative du terrain, déterminée en appliquant la technique de comparaison directe des ventes ou la technique du revenu, ou encore l’une et l’autre. La somme de ces montants est une estimation de la valeur du bien. La technique du coût repose sur la théorie économique voulant que la valeur soit égale au coût de production.

[16] Une fois déterminé l’usage optimal du bien, l’étape de l’évaluation foncière débute. Six techniques, ou méthodes, s’offrent essentiellement aux évaluateurs. L’évaluateur de Dieppe les a présentées ainsi dans son rapport :

[TRADUCTION]

Méthodes d’évaluation foncière

En évaluation foncière, plusieurs techniques s’offrent aux évaluateurs :

Parité	Cette technique appelle à rapprocher données de vente et terrains évalués, à les pondérer et à les comparer.
Répartition	Cette technique s’appuie sur le rapport type de la valeur d’un terrain à la valeur des améliorations, dans une catégorie donnée de biens immeubles et en un lieu donné.
Soustraction	Cette technique s’apparente à celle de la répartition, en ce sens que l’apport des améliorations est défalqué de la valeur totale du bien.
Lotissement	Cette technique, surtout applicable aux terrains non aménagés, appelle à estimer la valeur totale du terrain en supposant son lotissement, puis la vente des lots, et à soustraire de cette valeur estimative les frais d’aménagement.
Revenu résiduel au terrain	Cette technique capitalise le revenu résiduel imputable au terrain. L’évaluateur suppose, pour établir ce revenu, un bâtiment neuf et approprié, réel ou hypothétique.
Capitalisation du loyer du fonds de terre	Cette technique est employée pour évaluer le terrain lorsque le loyer du fonds de terre correspond à la valeur de l’intérêt du propriétaire foncier dans le bien, et que l’évaluateur dispose de taux de capitalisation émanant du marché qui permettent de convertir le loyer en une indication de la valeur marchande.

La technique de parité est considérée comme la méthode d’évaluation applicable au plus grand nombre de cas. Malgré qu’un plan de lotissement préliminaire ait été produit, le recours à la technique de lotissement n’est pas justifié.

Le bien visé; historique de l’affaire

[17] Le bien est un lot de forme irrégulière doté d’un peu plus de 400 pieds de façade en bordure de la rue Champlain et situé du côté sud de la rue. À l’époque de l’expropriation, le boulevard Dieppe s’achevait à la rue Champlain, en face du terrain visé, du côté nord, et formait avec la rue un carrefour en T. Le bien visé peut être décrit comme une parcelle de façade de dimension carrée, d’environ 400 pieds, rue Champlain, sur 400 pieds en direction sud, jointe au sud à une parcelle triangulaire mesurant quelque 830 pieds de son côté nord, 980 pieds de son côté ouest et 1 000 pieds de son côté est. La superficie totale du bien est de 12,4 acres environ. Le bien-fonds était vacant, boisé et non aménagé, et l’était depuis de nombreuses années, au moins depuis le milieu des années quatre-vingts.

[18] À l’époque de l’appropriation, la partie du bien attenante à la rue Champlain se trouvait en zone commerce routier sur environ 250 pieds en direction sud, ce qui permettait divers usages commerciaux. La partie située immédiatement au sud de cette fraction de façade, bornée à l’ouest par le prolongement du boulevard Dieppe de part en part du bien visé, à l’est par le ruisseau Fox, se trouvait en zone parc industriel, laquelle zone permettait des usages industriels légers et certains usages commerciaux, dont bureaux et restaurants. Le reste du terrain, situé à l’ouest du prolongement du boulevard Dieppe et au sud de terrains d’autres propriétaires qui bordaient la rue Champlain, d’une profondeur approximative de 400 pieds, appartenait à une zone résidentielle (R2) autorisant l’aménagement d’habitations unifamiliales ou bifamiliales.

[19] La famille Gauvin était propriétaire du bien depuis 1837. À l’époque de l’expropriation, ce bien était le vestige d’un terrain plus vaste dans lequel avaient été formés deux autres lots, qui avaient été vendus par Estella Gauvin en 1987 et en 1988. Vers ces années-là, un agent d’immeubles résidentiels et commerciaux de la région, David Gagnon, qui avait eu part à la vente de ces lots pour le compte de M^me Gauvin par l’entremise de sa compagnie, Prime Realty Ltd., a placé sur le bien, face à la rue Champlain, un grand panneau d’affichage qui annonçait ce qui suit : [TRADUCTION] « Terrain à aménager - 13 acres – commercial ». Le panneau portait aussi le numéro de téléphone de Prime Realty Ltd. Il est demeuré sur le bien jusqu’au jour de l’appropriation.

[20] M. Gagnon a indiqué que, malgré ses efforts considérables, au fil des ans, en vue de mettre en oeuvre l’aménagement du bien visé, il n’avait jamais véritablement reçu d’Estella Gauvin le mandat de vendre le bien ou de le mettre en vente. Il a expliqué que M^me Gauvin et lui avaient convenu qu’il se contenterait de recevoir les propositions d’aménagement et qu’il ne les lui transmettrait que si elles méritaient d’être prises en considération. Il ne devait pas communiquer à M^me Gauvin toutes les expressions d’intérêt reçues. Par contre, dût-on se montrer intéressé sérieusement à réaliser un aménagement qui conférerait à la famille Gauvin un intérêt à long terme, il devait lui présenter la proposition. Il a confirmé qu’il avait la permission de M^me Gauvin pour placer sur le bien le panneau qui annonçait un terrain à aménager.

[21] M. Gagnon a affirmé en outre qu’il s’était efforcé tous les mois sans relâche, pendant plus de quinze ans, à intéresser des entrepreneurs à l’aménagement du bien. M^meGauvin n’avait jamais vendu que deux lots cependant. Ces biens, qui bordaient la rue Champlain, étaient adjacents au bien visé, du côté ouest. La première parcelle avait été vendue à Main Street Developments en juillet 1987 (parcelle 87-1A), la seconde à Stean Marble Ltd. en 1988 (lot 88-1A). Estella Gauvin ou la succession n’ont vendu aucune autre partie du bien de 1988 à la date d’expropriation, soit pendant environ treize ans.

[22] Les documents provenant des dossiers de M. Gagnon ont confirmé qu’il avait pris une part très active, au fil des ans, aux démarches de mise en marché du bien en vue de son aménagement. Entre autres, il avait sollicité des promoteurs et leur avait proposé divers projets d’aménagement, dont la construction de postes d’essence et d’hôtels. Malgré ses efforts, il n’avait pu susciter d’intérêt réel pour l’aménagement du bien.

[23] M. Gagnon a expliqué qu’un des problèmes posés par l’emplacement, selon lui, tenait à ce que le prolongement en direction sud du boulevard Dieppe, qui devait traverser le bien visé, n’avait pas été réalisé, encore que proposé depuis un certain nombre d’années. Par conséquent, le bien demeurait situé à un carrefour en T où s’arrêtait le boulevard Dieppe et, tant que le bien n’a pas été exproprié, le prolongement du boulevard en direction sud n’a pas eu lieu. M. Gagnon y voyait une entrave à la mise en marché du bien en vue de son aménagement. Il était d’avis que le bien avait une valeur latente avant la construction et le prolongement du boulevard Dieppe, mais que sa valeur avait augmenté sensiblement une fois le projet réalisé.

[24] Fin décembre 2000, ou début janvier 2001, Dieppe a retenu les services de Daniel Doucet, AACI, évaluateur chez Hardy Appraisals (aujourd’hui Altus Helyer). Elle a chargé M. Doucet de la préparation du rapport d’évaluation prévu par la Loi. Il a visité le bien le 12 janvier 2001 et il a remis son évaluation à Dieppe le 13 février suivant. Il a estimé la valeur marchande du bien à 474 600 $ au 12 janvier 2001. En conformité avec le par. 37(1) de la Loi, Dieppe a offert à la succession un chèque de 474 600 $, accompagné d’une copie du rapport d’évaluation de M. Doucet.

[25] À l’époque où M. Doucet a procédé à l’évaluation, une partie du bien bornée par la rue Champlain, et d’une profondeur de 200 pieds depuis cette rue, se trouvait en zone commerce routier. Le reste du bien était réparti entre une zone parc industriel et une zone résidentielle. M. Doucet est arrivé à la conclusion que l’usage optimal du bien serait un usage commerce routier pour une fraction qui, depuis la rue Champlain, s’étendrait sur une distance de 400 pieds en direction sud, et un usage résidentiel pour l’arrière-terrain. Il faisait l’hypothèse, pour la parcelle de façade, d’une demande de rezonage accueillie qui élargirait de 200 pieds en direction sud la zone commerce routier, étant donné que la zone commerce routier des biens contigus avait déjà cette largeur et qu’un représentant de la Commission du district d’aménagement du Grand Moncton lui avait confirmé que l’hypothèse était raisonnable.

[26] Après avoir déterminé les usages optimaux du bien, M. Doucet a appliqué la technique de parité pour en fixer la valeur marchande. Il s’est reporté aux chiffres de ventes de biens comparables, dans la zone de marché des rues Champlain et Amirault, à Dieppe, et leur a appliqué divers rajustements suivant les pratiques d’évaluation normales. Il a adopté la technique de parité tant pour la zone commerce routier que pour la zone résidentielle du bien.

[27] M. Doucet a ensuite choisi les taux unitaires qui lui paraissaient appropriés (un prix au pied carré pour la partie du bien située en zone commerce routier; un prix à l’acre pour la partie résidentielle), multiplié la superficie de chacune des parties par les prix unitaires retenus et procédé encore une fois à des rajustements, qui ont consisté en l’application de réductions appropriées à certaines tranches du terrain situé en zone commerce routier. Plus précisément, il a attribué une valeur de 3,20 $ le pied carré à la tranche du terrain de zone commerce routier qui, profonde de 400 pieds, bordait la rue Champlain sur une distance de 270 pieds depuis la limite ouest du bien (270 pi x 400 pi = 108 000 pi² x 3,20 $/pi² = 345 600 $). Il a réduit de moitié la valeur de la tranche suivante du terrain situé en zone commerce routier, de 50 pieds en façade sur 400 pieds de profondeur, pour la ramener à 1,60 $ le pied carré, du fait qu’elle était grevée d’une servitude d’égout qui interdisait d’y ériger le moindre bâtiment (50 pi x 400 pi = 20 000 pi² x 1,60 $/pi² = 32 000 $).

[28] M. Doucet a également appliqué une réduction à la tranche restante du terrain de zone commerce routier, tranche de 80 pieds en façade sur 400 pieds de profondeur dont il a ramené le taux à 0,32 $ le pied carré (80 pi x 400 pi = 32 000 pi² x 0,32 $/pi² = 10 240 $). Cette tranche du bien appartenant à la zone commerce routier longeait le ruisseau Fox et les usages possibles en étaient restreints par les règlements de la Loi sur l’assainissement de l’eau et par la topographie des lieux. Il n’a pas appliqué de réduction à la partie du bien grevée d’une servitude d’eau de trente pieds d’est en ouest, parce que cette servitude avait été abandonnée plusieurs années auparavant et qu’il croyait probable qu’elle puisse être éteinte. De même, il n’a pas réduit la valeur de la partie résidentielle riveraine du ruisseau Fox, parce qu’il estimait que le ruisseau pourrait être un attrait d’un bien résidentiel.

[29] En résumé, M. Doucet est arrivé, une fois appliquées les réductions appropriées, à une valeur marchande de 387 800 $ pour la partie du bien, hypothétiquement élargie, située en zone commerce routier. En outre, il a fixé la valeur marchande de ce qui devait être la partie résidentielle restante à 10 000 $ l’acre, plus précisément à 86 800 $ pour ses 8,677 acres. Après avoir additionné toutes les valeurs de la partie commerce routier à celle de la partie résidentielle, il a conclu que le bien-fonds dans son ensemble avait une valeur marchande de 474 600 $.

[30] Au mois de septembre 2001, des représentants de la succession sont entrés en contact avec Harrison Goodwin, AACI, FRI, évaluateur de biens immobiliers de Moncton à qui ils ont demandé de préparer une évaluation du bien. La succession et M. Goodwin ont passé un contrat de services en due forme le 1^er octobre 2001. M. Goodwin envisageait alors une évaluation du bien qui y grouperait divers usages réglementaires et légaux : un restaurant; un hôtel ou un hôtel-motel; des installations associant un poste d’essence à un dépanneur et accueillant un restaurant franchisé à service rapide; un ensemble d’habitation de densité faible à moyenne, avec ou sans ascenseurs. Sur la recommandation de M. Goodwin, la succession a retenu aussi les services de Paul Martin, AACI. Cet évaluateur d’Aurora, en Ontario, devait procéder à une étude d’usage optimal en vue d’un éventuel usage hôtelier du bien et d’autres usages éventuels.

[31] Quelque dix-sept mois plus tard, le 28 février 2003, le rapport de MM. Goodwin et Martin était achevé et remis à la succession. Leur évaluation prévoyait un aménagement du terrain en quatre lots distincts, dont chacun servirait à l’un des usages suivants : a) poste d’essence-dépanneur doté d’un restaurant à service rapide et d’un lave-auto; b) hôtel-motel de trois étages et de soixante-dix-huit chambres; c) restaurant familial d’une chaîne connue; d) ensemble d’habitation de style motel, comptant trois bâtiments et quatre-vingt-seize appartements.

[32] Le rapport de M. Martin, qui contenait l’étude d’usage optimal et l’évaluation menées pour la partie de l’aménagement hypothétique prévoyant la construction d’une auberge pour voyageurs et d’un restaurant familial de chaîne connue, comptait 128 pages. Le rapport exhaustif de M. Goodwin faisait 395 pages. Son analyse historique de la région s’ouvrait au voyage d’exploration de Jacques Cartier, en 1534. Les rapports ont été onéreux également. Dans son témoignage, David Gauvin a estimé que les frais engagés par la succession pour les services de MM. Goodwin et Martin, jusqu’à deux ans avant le procès, avaient été respectivement de 146 000 $ et de 46 000 $.

[33] La configuration de l’aménagement envisagé par M. Goodwin apparaissait sur ce qui était appelé le plan A (pièce A-3, p. 178E). Ce plan dessinait un prolongement du boulevard Dieppe vers le sud qui pénétrait dans le bien visé sur une distance approximative de 400 pieds. Le boulevard s’achevait en un large cul-de-sac qui permettait d’accéder aux parties sud du bien. La partie de l’aménagement formée du poste d’essence assorti d’un dépanneur, d’un restaurant rapide et d’un lave-auto devait border la rue Champlain depuis le prolongement prévu du boulevard Dieppe, à l’ouest, jusqu’à un terrain réservé à un espace vert, juste à l’ouest du ruisseau Fox, lequel traçait la limite est du bien. L’hôtel projeté de trois étages et de soixante-dix-huit chambres se trouvait immédiatement au sud du poste d’essence. Le restaurant familial était situé plus au sud, à l’est du prolongement du boulevard Dieppe. Au sud et à l’ouest du cul-de-sac par lequel devait s’achever le boulevard Dieppe se dressaient les trois bâtiments de l’ensemble d’habitation de quatre-vingt-seize appartements.

[34] M. Goodwin a appliqué la technique de lotissement pour fixer la valeur marchande du bien-fonds dans son ensemble, et lui et M. Martin ont procédé à une analyse qui faisait appel à la technique de la valeur résiduelle au terrain pour déterminer l’usage optimal de chacun des éléments de l’aménagement hypothétique : hôtel, ensemble d’habitation, poste d’essence et Mega Mart, restaurant de chaîne connue. À la page 218 de son ouvrage, le professeur Todd écrivait que la technique de lotissement n’est pas une méthode d’évaluation d’application générale et qu’elle peut être définie comme une technique :

[TRADUCTION]

[...] qui appelle à concevoir un lotissement futur possible, à estimer le prix de vente des lots viabilisés et à multiplier ce prix par le nombre estimatif de lots du lotissement. Les frais de viabilisation et d’aménagement sont ensuite chiffrés et soustraits des recettes brutes prévues. Le solde net est enfin actualisé par déduction d’un pourcentage pour les profits futurs. Le résultat se veut la valeur actualisée du bien, à la date d’expropriation.

[35] M. Goodwin a néanmoins choisi cette technique. Il résume comme suit, aux pages 292 et 293 de son rapport, son opinion finale sur la valeur du bien-fonds visé :

[TRADUCTION]

Produit brut de la vente des lots et du bois marchand
mégamarché, produits pétroliers et produits de détail		1 207 500,00 $
hôtel-résidence pour voyageurs, 78 chambres, services réduits		600 000,00
restaurant familial de 125 places		440 000,00
ensemble d’habitation, plan de motel, 96 appartements		547 200,00
bois marchand récupéré et vendu		3 500,00

sous-total des ventes brutes (TVH incluse)		2 798 200,00 $

Frais d’élaboration du projet

frais juridiques et frais d’arpentage	10 476,00 $
conception et travaux d’ingénierie	51 185,36
construction de rues	426 544,65
mise en marché	139 910,00
dépenses diverses, permis, intérêts, assurances, éventualités, frais généraux, incitatif à l’entrepreneur	62 032,72

sous-total des frais	690 148,73 $
TVH (15 %)	103 522,31
total des frais	793 621,04 $
VALEUR MARCHANDE INDIQUÉE		2 004 528,96 $
VALEUR ARRONDIE		2 005 000,00 $

[36] Comme les experts de Dieppe en planification de l’utilisation des terres et en technique de la circulation avaient contesté certaines des hypothèses sur lesquelles son rapport original reposait, M. Goodwin a présenté une opinion finale modifiée au cours de son témoignage, au procès. Compte tenu des réserves exprimées, il avait préparé un projet de lotissement et d’aménagement révisé qui, essentiellement, déplaçait les diverses composantes du plan initial et substituait à l’ensemble d’habitation de trois bâtiments et de quatre-vingt-seize unités un immeuble unique de quarante-huit appartements. M. Goodwin était cependant d’avis que le projet révisé proposait un aménagement qui demeurait réglementaire et légal, possible au plan physique, et qui conservait sa faisabilité financière et une rentabilité maximale. Il en estimait la valeur marchande à 2 312 181,28 $ par application de la même technique de lotissement, valeur ramenée à 2 014 892 $ par les avocats de la succession dans leur mémoire postérieur au procès.

[37] Il est intéressant de constater que, depuis l’expropriation, le prolongement du boulevard Dieppe en direction sud s’est réalisé et que son tracé, en plus de passer par le bien-fonds, se poursuit sur une distance considérable, dans le territoire de Dieppe, jusqu’au chemin Me Lanson. Le Parc industriel de Dieppe a connu l’agrandissement prévu. Des aménagements importants se sont concrétisés : aménagements commerciaux dans le parc industriel agrandi, résidentiels le long du prolongement du boulevard Dieppe, au sud du bien-fonds visé. Plus tard, Dieppe a vendu le reste du bien, qui s’est fortement développé depuis. Le bien-fonds visé, outre qu’une partie de son terrain a servi au prolongement du boulevard Dieppe, accueille aujourd’hui un hôtel, un bâtiment commercial et deux restaurants, éléments qui ne sont pas tout à fait étrangers à ceux des aménagements hypothétiques qu’avaient imaginés M. Goodwin, dans son évaluation, et David Gagnon à l’époque où il tâchait de mettre en oeuvre l’aménagement du bien au nom de la famille Gauvin.

[38] Il est toutefois utile de rappeler que le par. 39(4) de la Loi sur l’expropriation prescrit que, « [p]our déterminer la valeur marchande du bien-fonds, il n’y a pas lieu de tenir compte a) de tout usage que l’autorité expropriante envisage de faire ou fait réellement du bien-fonds [ou] b) d’une augmentation ou d’une diminution de la valeur du bien-fonds résultant de l’imminence de l’aménagement en vue duquel l’expropriation a lieu, ou des perspectives imminentes d’expropriation ».

Analyse et conclusion

[39] Encore que je ne sois tenu d’accueillir ni l’une ni l’autre des opinions des experts pour fixer la valeur marchande du bien visé, je suis d’avis que l’évaluation de M. Doucet est celle qui donne l’indication la plus juste et l’estimation la meilleure et la plus fiable de sa valeur marchande au moment de l’appropriation. J’arrive à cette conclusion malgré que le rapport de M. Doucet propose une valeur au 12 janvier 2001, antérieure au changement qu’a subi le bien, dans une certaine mesure, du fait du rezonage intervenu la veille de l’appropriation. À mon sens, ni l’intervalle de trois mois ni le rezonage n’ont sensiblement modifié la valeur marchande du bien-fonds à la date d’appropriation. La preuve ne justifiait certainement pas de conclure que les trois mois qui s’étaient écoulés et le rezonage adopté par Dieppe avaient eu une incidence réelle sur la valeur du bien au moment de l’appropriation.

[40] Dans l’ensemble, l’évaluation de M. Doucet est apparue logique, par la méthode et par l’analyse mises en oeuvre, et fidèle à la technique dont les tribunaux et les autorités du domaine de l’évaluation reconnaissent qu’elle est indiquée pour les biens de cette nature. Eric C.E. Todd, à la p. 181 de son ouvrage, fait état de la préférence des tribunaux pour la technique de parité lorsqu’il s’agit d’expropriation :

[TRADUCTION]

Les tribunaux judiciaires et administratifs ont une préférence pour la technique de parité. En général, les autres techniques sont plus compliquées et font intervenir des facteurs où le jugement entre davantage en jeu, ce qui peut se traduire par une fiabilité moindre de l’évaluation produite.

[41] Également, pour l’application de la technique de parité, M. Doucet a comparé le bien-fonds visé avec des biens semblables situés dans un rayon de quatre kilomètres. Ses rajustements étaient logiques; ils n’ont pas été sérieusement contestés et n’ont certainement pas été discrédités. Je suis d’avis que, dans l’ensemble, son rapport est cohérent, raisonnable, étayé par la preuve et représentatif de l’état du marché, dans le secteur du bien-fonds, à l’époque de l’appropriation. La technique retenue par M. Doucet a abouti à une évaluation qui dénotait l’échec par lequel s’étaient largement soldées les démarches entreprises par la famille Gauvin et par la succession depuis 1986, par l’intermédiaire de David Gagnon, pour mettre en marché le bien visé.

[42] La succession soutient toutefois que la définition de valeur marchande, dans le contexte d’une expropriation, ne se résume pas à la définition législative donnée au par. 39(1) de la Loi sur l’expropriation, mais suppose également que le vendeur et l’acheteur hypothétiques sont [TRADUCTION] « pleinement informés ». Cette définition, affirme-t-elle, exige de procéder à une analyse beaucoup plus élaborée et beaucoup plus pointue pour déterminer le prix maximal auquel arriveraient un [TRADUCTION] « acheteur pleinement informé » et un [TRADUCTION] « vendeur pleinement informé ». La succession soutient en fait, sauf erreur, que le vendeur et l’acheteur informés, pour l’être pleinement, doivent avoir envisagé et soupesé tous les usages ou toutes les combinaisons d’usages auxquels le bien pourrait être affecté, en zone commerce routier, pour en maximiser la valeur. À mon sens, les textes qui font autorité ne permettent pas d’adopter cette interprétation et d’imposer cette démarche, qui serait tout aussi incommode qu’inefficace dans un cas comme le présent.

[43] Ce concept des « vendeur et acheteur pleinement informés », sur lequel la succession s’appuie, semble dériver de l’interprétation donnée par M. Goodwin de la décision rendue par l’ancien Office d’indemnisation des biens du Nouveau-Brunswick dans Henderson c. Minister of Tourism (1981), 23 L.C.R. 30 (O.I.B.), confirmée dans (1982), 25 L.C.R. 291 (C.A.N.-B.) (voir note 1, au bas de la page 6 de son rapport). M. Goodwin s’y est reporté pour formuler sa définition de « valeur marchande ». Dans Henderson, l’Office a écarté la définition étroite que le ministre du Tourisme intimé donnait de « valeur marchande » d’après le par. 39(1) de la Loi sur l’expropriation. Il a résumé ainsi cette définition, à la p. 55 :

[TRADUCTION]

La partie intimée a maintenu qu’il y avait lieu d’interpréter ce paragraphe comme signifiant que la valeur marchande du bien doit être établie en fonction d’une vente à la date d’expropriation. Elle a fait valoir aussi que le paragraphe n’indique aucunement que la valeur marchande ne doit être établie qu’après que le bien est demeuré sur le marché pendant un temps raisonnable, que la définition législative ne contient pas de disposition en ce sens et qu’elle exige, non que les vendeurs et acheteurs éventuels soient « prudents » ou « informés », ou raisonnablement au fait de tous les aspects pertinents, mais simplement qu’ils soient « consentants ».

[44] Non que je veuille ergoter ou couper les cheveux en quatre, mais il me faut signaler que le mot fully [pleinement] n’est appliqué nulle part dans cette décision aux vendeurs ou aux acheteurs informés. L’Office ne faisait que souscrire à l’idée que les vendeurs et les acheteurs hypothétiques sont d’ordinaire prudents, informés ou raisonnablement au fait de tous les aspects pertinents, relativement au bien, et non pas strictement consentants. Les tribunaux ont reconnu le bien-fondé de ce point de vue par le passé, et notre Cour d’appel l’a repris récemment dans Young c. Moncton (City), précité. Extrait des motifs du juge d’appel Drapeau :

[45] Je crois que, dans la plupart des affaires d’expropriation, et certainement dans le cas présent, déterminer quelles sont les « utilisations rentables attendues et raisonnables d’un bien » ne requiert vraisemblablement pas d’envisager chacun des usages et chacune des combinaisons d’usages que pourraient permettre les dispositions de zonage applicables, de les soupeser et d’en analyser la faisabilité. Cette démarche, dût-elle être imposée, serait parfaitement incommode, financièrement irréalisable et extrêmement inefficace, comme le montre abondamment la présente espèce.

[46] L’arrêté de zonage en vigueur à l’époque autorisait une quarantaine d’usages différents en zone commerce routier et des usages multiples en zone résidentielle. La succession, pour soupeser seulement quatre des usages admissibles dans le cadre d’un aménagement hypothétique du bien visé, a chargé deux évaluateurs experts de produire un rapport global qui leur a demandé presque un an et demi et qui a coûté près de 200 000 $. Je ne crois pas que la Loi sur l’expropriation prévoie, ou que le droit requière ou même envisage, qu’on s’engage dans une entreprise d’une envergure et d’une complexité semblables, à prix aussi prohibitif, à seule fin de déterminer la valeur marchande d’un bien exproprié dans un cas comme celui-ci.

[47] En outre, les sources doctrinales et jurisprudentielles reconnaissent les points faibles de la technique de lotissement proposée par la succession, en particulier dans le cas de biens-fonds vacants qui ne sont pas prêts à recevoir un aménagement. À propos de cette technique, le professeur Todd a écrit ce qui suit à la p. 219 de son livre :

[TRADUCTION]

Les tribunaux hésitent habituellement à utiliser la technique de lotissement pour deux raisons. Premièrement, à moins qu’un projet de lotissement ait déjà été approuvé officiellement, il existe toujours un certain degré d’incertitude relativement à la question de savoir si le lotissement se réalisera et à quelles conditions il sera assujetti. En pareil cas,

[il] s’agit de spéculation par-dessus spéculation que d’essayer d’indemniser le propriétaire d’un bien exproprié en se fondant sur la vente possible à long terme de parcelles de terrain obtenues du lotissement théorique du bien en question après l’expropriation, au prix actualisé estimatif de ces parcelles, mais comme si l’expropriation n’avait pas eu lieu [...]

Deuxièmement, cette méthode est considérée comme « fluctuante » dans ce sens qu’un changement comparativement mineur comme dans le coût des services, par exemple, peut entraîner un changement considérable de la valeur résiduelle. [TRADUCTION] « Ainsi que l’indiquent les variations et les changements des chiffres en l’espèce, un seul lapsus peut coûter des milliers de dollars; alors il faut agir avec prudence. » (St. Catharines Crushed Stone Ltd. c. St. Catharines (City) (1978), 15 L.C.R. 363, 372 (O.I.F. Ont.); Accettola c. London (City) (1975), 8 L.C.R. 193, 196 (O.I.F. Ont.) (fluctuations inhérentes); Associated Builders Ltd. c. Newfoundland (Minister of Public Works) (1978), 17 L.C.R. 101, 109 (C.A.T.-N.); Genstar Corp. c. Greater Vancouver (Regional District) (1990), 43 L.C.R. 121, 128 (B.C. Arbit.). Une ou plusieurs des raisons ci-après sont invariablement données pour justification du rejet de cette méthode en faveur d’autres techniques d’estimation de la valeur marchande.

a) Disponibilité de données de ventes comparables

La technique de lotissement [TRADUCTION] « est reconnue comme la méthode appropriée, voire nécessaire, d’estimation de la valeur marchande présumée du bien visé, dans le seul cas toutefois où la technique plus fiable de comparaison des ventes, ou des données du marché, ne peut être employée en raison de données insuffisantes ». [TRADUCTION] « Il est clair, en droit, que la méthode de lotissement [...] ne doit pas être utilisée, en temps normal, à moins que la technique de comparaison ne soit inapplicable. » Il est donc approprié de recourir à la méthode lorsque les ventes comparables se révèlent peu nombreuses du fait que, quelques années avant l’expropriation, des promoteurs ont acquis la quasi-totalité des autres terrains non aménagés du secteur, lorsque les [TRADUCTION] « données du marché sur les ventes de superficies (sont) de pertinence douteuse » ou lorsque les évaluateurs des deux parties constatent que les ventes comparables ne suffisent pas pour qu’ils puissent se former une opinion par application de la technique des données du marché et conviennent que l’aménagement était imminent à la date d’expropriation.

b) Le bien n’est pas prêt à recevoir un aménagement à la date d’expropriation

La technique de lotissement, affirme-t-on, [TRADUCTION] « n’est applicable que si le bien-fonds est raisonnablement prêt à recevoir un aménagement, et son application ne doit pas attribuer une valeur au terrain comme s’il était déjà bâti. »

Idéalement, le lotissement est en cours à la date d’expropriation. Sinon , il faut que les parties conviennent que le bien est prêt ou qu’on dispose d’indications convaincantes de ce qu’il est prêt : dépôt d’un plan de lotissement auprès de l’autorité compétente, disponibilité de services, marché s’offrant à la vente des lots.

Les tribunaux judiciaires et administratifs [TRADUCTION] « ont indiqué qu’ils désapprouvent le recours à la technique de lotissement dans l’évaluation de terrains nus », par exemple si [TRADUCTION] « les chances d’obtention d’un rezonage ou d’approbation d’un plan de lotissement, le nombre de lots qui pourrait être autorisé, le coût de l’aménagement des lots, (et) le temps nécessaire et les frais à engager pour les vendre donnent lieu à des conjectures ». L’emploi de la technique a été écarté lorsque, n’eût été l’expropriation, le lotissement aurait attendu encore des années. En pareil cas, [TRADUCTION] « les estimations à long terme ne valent, de toute évidence, que ce que valent les prémisses sur lesquelles elles reposent. Il est malavisé de s’en remettre à la boule de cristal de l’évaluateur et de tenter de prédire comment auront évolué des facteurs économiques jusqu’à sept ans après l’expropriation, s’il est possible d’user d’une méthode plus fiable. »

b) Les facteurs utilisés ne sont pas appuyés par les faits

Lorsque le recours à la méthode de lotissement est indiqué, les divers facteurs, par exemple les frais de viabilisation, ne doivent pas provenir de sources fantaisistes, mais du marché. L’emploi de la technique sera rejeté à moins que [TRADUCTION] « les chiffres ayant servi au calcul d’une valeur globale (ne reposent) sur des faits solides ». Quand l’évaluateur se sert de données pour chiffrer des facteurs tels les frais d’ingénierie, ou d’autres frais d’aménagement, un témoin compétent devrait confirmer leur validité.

[48] En l’espèce, les évaluateurs disposaient de données abondantes et fiables pour estimer la valeur marchande du bien visé par analyse comparative. M. Doucet a étudié les données issues de la vente de quatorze biens commerciaux comparables, pour la partie du bien dont il prévoyait qu’elle serait de zone commerce routier; pour l’autre partie, il a examiné les données de vente de douze biens vacants comparables d’une superficie de plusieurs acres, situés en zone résidentielle. Tous les biens commerciaux comparables bordaient la rue Champlain, l’avenue Acadie ou la rue Amirault, à Dieppe, dans un rayon de quatre kilomètres du bien. Tous les biens résidentiels comparables dont M. Doucet a examiné les données de vente, sauf un, se trouvaient dans le territoire de Dieppe.

[49] Également, il est clair que le bien visé n’était pas prêt à recevoir un aménagement à la date d’appropriation. L’approbation d’un rezonage ou d’un lotissement n’a été obtenue pour ni l’un ni l’autre des aménagements hypothétiques de M. Goodwin. La succession n’avait pas même de plan de lotissement provisoire, ou de plan dont elle aurait été prête à demander l’approbation. Le bien était inexploité depuis le milieu des années quatre-vingts et l’on n’en avait pas concrètement entrepris l’aménagement ou le lotissement. Les chances d’obtenir une approbation de lotissement ou le rezonage nécessaire en vue des aménagements hypothétiques n’étaient établies par aucune preuve fiable. Les experts que Dieppe a appelés à témoigner ont confirmé que, à de nombreux égards, obtenir cette approbation pouvait être tout aussi problématique qu’improbable.

[50] L’experte en planification de l’utilisation des terres et en zonage, M^me Voss, a expliqué les problèmes que présentait le plan hypothétique original de M. Goodwin, son Plan A, et confirmé que le lotissement proposé n’aurait probablement pas été approuvé. Elle a fait état, en outre, des incertitudes et des difficultés d’ordre général que peut susciter une demande de rezonage et de modification du plan municipal. L’expert en technique de la circulation, M. Don Good, a confirmé qu’il était peu probable qu’un prolongement du boulevard Dieppe qui se serait achevé en un cul-de-sac, prolongement prévu par l’un et l’autre des plans hypothétiques A et D de M. Goodwin, eût été approuvé. Ce serait allé à l’encontre du plan municipal que Dieppe avait adopté à l’époque. Les prétentions de la succession, en ce qui concerne les chances d’obtention du rezonage et des approbations nécessaires à la réalisation des plans hypothétiques A et D, s’appuient sur les assertions de M. Goodwin selon lesquelles Dieppe n’applique pas rigoureusement son arrêté de zonage et modifierait ses dispositions pour permettre l’aménagement projeté. Celui-ci a indiqué que ses assertions reposaient sur son [TRADUCTION] « expérience de l’évaluation d’immeubles à Dieppe » (p. 124, par. 6235, rapport de M. Goodwin). À mon sens, l’opinion donnée sur les chances d’obtention d’un rezonage et de l’approbation d’un lotissement, si elle ne s’appuie que sur l’expérience d’un évaluateur, sans expertise et sans consultation expresse de l’autorité de zonage, ne justifie pas de présumer que les approbations nécessaires seront obtenues en définitive.

[51] En revanche, l’hypothèse de M. Doucet, qui supposait un rezonage de la partie du bien attenante à la rue Champlain portant la zone commerce routier à 400 pieds en profondeur, n’a été formulée qu’après qu’il a consulté les représentants de la Commission du district d’aménagement du Grand Moncton, autorité de zonage à l’époque, qu’il leur a signalé que la zone commerce routier de tous les biens-fonds adjacents atteignait une profondeur de 400 pieds, et qu’ils ont conclu que l’approbation d’un rezonage était hautement probable. L’assise sur laquelle repose l’hypothèse de M. Doucet est beaucoup plus solide que celle de M. Goodwin.

[52] En somme, pour ce qui est de savoir si le bien était prêt à recevoir un aménagement au moment de l’expropriation, divers facteurs sont à prendre en considération. Ni plan de lotissement ni demande de rezonage n’étaient en préparation ou n’avaient été approuvés. L’aménagement du bien-fonds n’était pas en cours, et n’était pas non plus sur le point de débuter. Aucune partie du bien de la succession, dans le secteur, n’avait été vendue depuis 1988, et aucune offre d’achat ou d’aménagement du bien visé n’avait été reçue, en plus de treize ans, alors qu’on travaillait activement à sa mise en marché en vue d’un aménagement. Je suis convaincu que, n’eût été l’expropriation, la présentation de demandes de lotissement ou de rezonage, leur approbation et l’aménagement du bien auraient probablement attendu des années encore, si tant est qu’elles aient jamais eu lieu. Il est clair que le bien ne s’est trouvé prêt à recevoir un lotissement ou un aménagement qu’après l’expropriation. Il s’ensuit que la technique de lotissement, retenue par M. Goodwin, n’est pas une méthode appropriée pour l’estimation de la valeur marchande du bien à la date d’appropriation.

[53] Les problèmes et les lacunes que présente la technique de lotissement sont en outre apparus, en l’espèce, lorsque des erreurs commises par MM. Goodwin et Martin dans leurs calculs ou dans leurs hypothèses, dont certaines semblaient d’assez peu de portée et de gravité, ont produit des résultats sensiblement différents aux plans de la faisabilité et de la rentabilité prévues de leur aménagement hypothétique.

[54] Je ne crois pas qu’il soit nécessaire ni justifié d’entreprendre une analyse et une critique détaillées de l’ensemble des calculs et des hypothèses problématiques que contiennent les rapports de MM. Goodwin et Martin. Je suis convaincu que la démarche qu’ils ont adoptée, encore que très détaillée, méthodique, et assez impressionnante à prime abord, se perd en considérations théoriques à de nombreux égards et fait abstraction de ce qu’était le marché immobilier à l’époque, dans le secteur du bien visé.

[55] Il n’en demeure pas moins que plusieurs difficultés non résolues des hypothèses et des calculs du rapport de MM. Goodwin et Martin compromettent la fiabilité et la crédibilité de leurs conclusions. Je ne me pencherai, dans les paragraphes suivants, que sur quelques-unes des plus manifestes.

Omission de la taxe de vente harmonisée – coût des marchandises vendues

[56] L’analyse à laquelle M. Goodwin a procédé pour le poste d’essence omet la TVH dans le calcul du coût des ventes de produits pétroliers. L’avocat de la succession concède que M. Goodwin a omis la TVH dans le coût de gros de l’essence et qu’il en résulte une erreur dans l’estimation des profits du poste d’essence hypothétique. En fait, selon Paul Bradley, auteur du rapport que Dieppe a commandé à Grant Thornton, rectifier l’omission se traduit par une perte réelle pour le poste d’essence. Il s’ensuit vraisemblablement qu’il n’est pas prouvé que le poste d’essence projeté est économiquement rentable, auquel cas il ne peut être considéré comme un usage optimal du bien.

[57] La succession ne conteste pas les calculs de M. Bradley sur ce point. Elle maintient que son rapport et sa conclusion quant à l’absence de rentabilité économique sont erronés, du fait qu’il n’a tenté de déterminer par aucune analyse si le promoteur hypothétique aurait pu [TRADUCTION] « retoucher » d’autres frais d’aménagement ou d’exploitation de façon à rentabiliser le poste d’essence. Ces retouches auraient pu consister à rectifier certaines hypothèses sur le coût en capital du projet, par des modifications de conception, ou sur les éventuels taux d’actualisation à employer. Ces prétentions de la succession me paraissent susciter deux difficultés.

[58] Premièrement, le fardeau échoit à la succession d’établir la valeur marchande du bien par prépondérance des probabilités. La méthode qu’elle a adoptée présentait des failles, ses calculs des erreurs. Il n’appartient, ni à la partie adverse de corriger ces erreurs ou de se demander comment réviser les calculs pour établir la rentabilité de l’aménagement, ni à la Cour d’apporter son aide en tentant de deviner quels changements pourraient concourir à rendre le projet viable.

[59] Considération plus fondamentale, toutefois, l’omission de la TVH et son effet sur les conclusions tirées quant à la rentabilité du projet témoignent de la fragilité et du peu de fiabilité que présente la méthode adoptée par M. Goodwin, notamment face aux incertitudes suscitées par un terrain vacant pour lequel n’ont pas été obtenues les approbations de lotissement et de rezonage nécessaires et qui n’est pas prêt à recevoir un aménagement. Un oubli ou une erreur apparemment bénins peuvent avoir des répercussions importantes sur la rentabilité et sur la faisabilité du projet.

Marges prévues – ventes d’essence

[60] Paul Bradley a contesté en outre l’hypothèse de M. Goodwin voulant que la marge de détail des ventes d’essence soit de 0,15 $ le litre. Il était d’avis que la marge proposée par M. Goodwin était d’environ 0,10 $ supérieure à celle qui était véritablement obtenue sur le marché. L’opinion de M. Bradley, dût-elle être retenue, démontre que la marge moindre signifierait une perte d’exploitation pour le poste d’essence, plutôt qu’un profit.

[61] La succession avance que cette opinion de M. Bradley ne doit pas être retenue, parce qu’il a tiré ses données, en ce qui a trait aux volumes de ventes et aux marges, de sources secondaires (données du marché et documents publiés), alors que M. Goodwin a témoigné qu’il avait obtenu ses renseignements sur les volumes et les marges en s’entretenant avec des exploitants locaux qui commerçaient dans la zone de marché du bien visé.

[62] Malgré ce qu’avance la succession sur ce point, je préfère considérer les données de source indépendante obtenues par M. Bradley comme les plus fiables en l’instance. Il a été démontré que le souvenir qu’avait M. Goodwin des renseignements que des tiers lui avaient communiqués était parfois chancelant. Par exemple, il a relaté inexactement que M. Roger LeBlanc lui avait indiqué que les terres de la partie arrière du bien de Cora et de Wilfred Gauvin adjacent au bien visé étaient des terres humides qui ne se prêtaient pas à un aménagement ou qui requerraient des travaux d’assèchement pouvant se révéler onéreux. M. LeBlanc a témoigné et confirmé qu’il ne se rappelait avoir indiqué rien de semblable à M. Goodwin et qu’il ne lui aurait vraisemblablement rien dit de tel, étant donné qu’il n’avait jamais mis les pieds à l’arrière du bien et qu’il ne savait absolument pas si les terres y étaient humides ou non. À mon sens, les données objectives obtenues de tiers par M. Bradley sont la source de renseignements la plus fiable, ici, en ce qui concerne les volumes et les marges des ventes d’essence dans la zone de marché.

Frais d’entretien structurel et mécanique prévus

[63] Dans les calculs auxquels il a procédé pour déterminer s’il était rentable d’aménager un ensemble d’habitation sur une partie du bien visé, M. Goodwin a prévu des frais annuels d’entretien mécanique de 20 $ par logement, et des frais annuels d’entretien structurel de 40 $ par logement. Daniel Doucet estimait qu’il était plus réaliste de prévoir que ces frais annuels seraient respectivement de l’ordre de 100 $ et de 250 $ par logement. Je préfère l’opinion de M. Doucet à ce propos, parce qu’il a confirmé qu’il avait une expérience toute récente de l’évaluation d’aménagements de cette nature, travail qui avait requis les calculs et les estimations dont il est question ici. Qui plus est, les chiffres de M. Goodwin semblent pécher par optimisme, et le sembleraient même à une personne qui ne s’y connaîtrait pas particulièrement en frais d’entretien et de construction.

[64] Refaire les calculs de la méthode de valeur résiduelle au terrain, appliquée par M. Goodwin, au moyen de ces chiffres révisés confère au terrain, pour l’ensemble d’habitation, une valeur négative. Encore une fois, il apparaît que procéder à des révisions même assez mineures des calculs de M. Goodwin peut conduire à une appréciation sensiblement différente de la faisabilité du projet.

[65] La preuve rendait compte d’autres erreurs, dans les hypothèses et dans les calculs de MM. Goodwin ou Martin, qui faisaient ressortir la fragilité de la technique de lotissement adoptée, mais je suis convaincu que les exemples qui précèdent sont probants.

Fiabilité incertaine des analyses comparatives de ventes de MM. Goodwin et Martin

[66] Pour contrôler la validité des conclusions auxquelles ils étaient arrivés par application des techniques de lotissement et de valeur résiduelle au terrain, M. Goodwin et M. Martin ont tous deux fait appel ensuite à la technique de comparaison des ventes. Pour le projet hôtelier, M. Martin s’est servi de biens comparables dont treize étaient situés en Ontario, deux en Nouvelle-Écosse. Les biens comparables de M. Goodwin se trouvaient en général plus proches de la région de Moncton, mais n’étaient pas non plus situés dans le secteur immédiat du bien visé. M. Goodwin accorde beaucoup de poids aux données de vente de biens qui appartenaient au secteur du chemin Mapleton, à Moncton. Ce secteur du Grand Moncton présentait une croissance extrêmement forte à l’époque; de fait, il connaissait une véritable explosion. Cela étant, il n’apporte pas les points de comparaison les plus pertinents, puisque le bien visé se trouvait dans un secteur où semblable croissance était inconnue. En outre, M. Goodwin a appliqué des rajustements considérables, allant de 69 % à 144 %, à ces ventes de biens censément comparables.

[67] À mon sens, les biens comparables de référence utilisés par MM. Martin et Goodwin ne sont pas des repères aussi solides ou valables que les biens dont s’est servi M. Doucet, qui n’a choisi, pour l’évaluation de la partie du bien visé située en zone commerce routier, que des comparables de Dieppe qui se trouvaient dans un rayon de quatre kilomètres de ce bien. Les facteurs de rajustement qu’il a appliqués sont allés de 10 % à 25 % en général (pour dix des comparables), mais il a appliqué des facteurs de rajustement de 33 %, 55 %, 65 % et 75 % à certains autres des biens commerciaux comparables.

Défaut de prendre en compte le prix d’inscription du bien adjacent

[68] MM. Goodwin et Martin ont refusé l’un et l’autre d’admettre que le bien adjacent de Cora et de Wilfred Gauvin était un bien comparable qu’il était approprié d’utiliser pour l’évaluation du bien visé. Ils avançaient, à l’appui de ce refus, que les terres de la partie arrière du bien-fonds voisin étaient des terres humides qui ne se prêtaient pas à un aménagement ou qui requerraient des travaux d’assèchement pouvant se révéler onéreux. L’assertion apparaît dans le rapport de M. Goodwin et s’appuie, semble-t-il, sur les renseignements qu’il avait obtenus de Roger LeBlanc, l’agent immobilier chargé de la vente du bien voisin. Encore une fois, M. LeBlanc ne se rappelait avoir indiqué rien de tel à M. Goodwin et, surtout, affirmait n’avoir aucune raison de tenir des propos en ce sens, puisqu’il n’avait jamais mis les pieds à l’arrière du bien et que l’état lui en était inconnu. Aucune autre preuve n’a été présentée qui eût confirmé que la partie arrière du bien de Cora Gauvin ne se prêtait pas à un aménagement ou requerrait un assèchement et, à mon sens, rien n’interdit de considérer ce bien comme comparable, à juste titre, au bien visé.

[69] En dernière analyse, M. Goodwin et M. Martin prétendent que, du seul fait que leurs calculs complexes sont indicatifs d’une faisabilité théorique, un ou des promoteurs éventuels paieraient 2 005 000 $ pour le bien-fonds visé sans faire cas de la possibilité d’acquérir un bien adjacent comparable de superficie supérieure, et d’un métrage de façade supérieur en bordure de la rue Champlain, au prix de 429 500 $ seulement, prix inférieur à la valeur du terrain de l’un quelconque des quatre éléments de leur aménagement hypothétique. Je suis d’avis qu’il est tout simplement absurde de présumer qu’un acheteur raisonnablement informé (a fortiori un acheteur pleinement informé) acquerrait le bien visé au quintuple environ du prix qu’il pourrait payer pour un bien-fonds adjacent comparable, ou sans même prendre en considération ces faits au moment de déterminer le prix à payer pour le bien visé.

[70] Il est à noter également que l’aménagement hypothétique original de M. Goodwin, son plan A, attribuait au bien une valeur de 2 005 000 $. Après avoir reçu le rapport de M. Good, de M^me Voss et d’ADI, M. Goodwin a produit une version considérablement révisée, et d’envergure réduite, de l’aménagement hypothétique : son plan D. Au procès, il a témoigné que ce plan d’aménagement révisé conférait au bien une valeur marchande accrue de 2 312 181,28 $. Il semble que cet accroissement de valeur soit illogique et que M. Goodwin y soit arrivé parcequ’il est allé trop loin dans les conjectures et les considérations théoriques inhérentes à un recours aux techniques de lotissement et de valeur résiduelle au terrain.

[71] Le plan D était la version révisée du lotissement hypothétique, qui supposait un terrain utilisable de moindre étendue pour les quatre éléments de l’aménagement et qui substituait à l’ensemble d’habitation de trois bâtiments et de quatre-vingt-seize appartements un immeuble unique de quarante-huit appartements. Chose étonnante, M. Goodwin arrive, en remaniant chiffres, calculs et hypothèses, à attribuer une valeur supérieure au terrain en dépit d’une diminution de la superficie constructible et d’un ensemble d’habitation ramené à une taille beaucoup plus modeste. Il apparaît encore une fois que la technique de lotissement est de fiabilité douteuse et ne convient pas.

[72] Enfin, les techniques que MM. Goodwin et Martin ont employées et les conclusions auxquelles ils sont arrivés, dans le cadre de leur estimation de la valeur du bien-fonds visé, paraissent éloignées de la réalité, compte tenu de ce qu’était véritablement le marché dans le secteur immédiat et de ce qui est advenu du bien avant l’expropriation. Plus précisément, elles ne tiennent pas compte de la réalité de l’insuccès connu par les démarches de mise en marché du bien en vue de son aménagement, démarches que la famille Gauvin et David Gagnon avaient entreprises depuis 1986 au moins. Elles ne tiennent pas compte non plus de ce que les propriétaires du bien voisin n’étaient pas arrivés à vendre, entre septembre 1996 et le 18 avril 2001, un terrain semblable mais de dimensions supérieures, notamment en façade, pour lequel ils demandaient 429 500 $.

[73] En conclusion, et pour les motifs qui précèdent, je ne suis pas persuadé que la succession ait établi par prépondérance des probabilités que le bien visé avait une valeur marchande de 2 005 000 $, de 2 312 181,28 $ ou de 2 014 982 $, ou même une valeur approchante. La prépondérance des probabilités me convainc que la valeur du bien à la date d’appropriation était de 474 600 $, montant de l’indemnité offerte par Dieppe à la succession à l’époque de l’expropriation et chiffre auquel M. Doucet est arrivé par application de la technique de parité, technique la plus appropriée et la plus fiable dans les circonstances de l’espèce. Il s’agit du montant auquel la succession a droit, suivant le par. 38(1) de la Loi sur l’expropriation, à titre d’indemnité pour l’expropriation du bien-fonds visé.

[74] Ni l’une ni l’autre partie n’a véritablement traité des intérêts et des dépens. Si les parties ne peuvent s’entendre à cet égard, l’une ou l’autre pourra demander une date d’audience en vue d’une décision sur celles d’entre ces questions qui n’auront pas été résolues.

____________________________

Stephen J. McNally,

juge à la Cour du Banc de la Reine

du Nouveau-Brunswick

Moncton (N.-B.)

Le 30 juin 2009

Law Society joke

2010-02-22T02:41:00.000-04:00

This is a copy of a letter I sent to the New Brunswick and the Nova Scotia Law Society

I have filed complaints in New Brunswick about the return of my files and documents against a lawyer in this Province.

His name is Jamie Eddy!!!!

I now wish to do so against two Nova Scotia lawyers as well.

I am not a lawyer, but I have appeared in court on February 26^th 2007 on a motion that has come about regarding an expropriation case that a decision was handed down upon on June 3th, 2005.

I will send you an attachment of a letter that I have received from the New Brunswick Law Society, dated October 25, 2006.

This email letter is from a Robert Pineo <> to my NB lawyer, James Eddy.

Since then more than 90 days have passed.

Obviously Mr. Pineo and Mr. Douglas Caldwell <> would know that with my own appeal of File: F/C/328/00 and the action on the Goodwin matter File: F/C/ 187/04 requires that I would need my files and documents back immediately.

They have moved these files to Nova Scotia without my knowledge.

When I went to Fredericton to look at what was in my files in May of 2004, because the Government lawyers had requested me to do an undertaking,

Mr. Eddy informed me the NS lawyer Doug Caldwell had the files moved to his office in NS.

I asked Mr. Eddy to show me what he had for files in his office in Fredericton?

He produced 2 file folders which I was allowed to view in a private room.

When I was looking through these files I came upon an email memo which basically instructions directing the removal of my documents to the Truro office to make it more difficult for Richard (myself) to see them.

I asked Mr. Eddy what was up with this?

He QUICKLY grabbed the documents from me and said that that memo should not have been there.

When challenged, he said those files are the property of Mr. Eddy. <>

I was very upset and left the office.

I called him up the next day and left a message on his answering machine requesting a copy of the memo that I had viewed, but never received one.

Now the defense might be successful because I cannot obtain the files and documents necessary to back my claim.

I am at a loss for what further to do?

I am pleading for you < New Brunswick and Nova Scotia Law Society > to intervene and have my files returned to me as there are many documents in the files pertinent to the Goodwin matter File: F/C/ 187/ 04.

Yours truly,

Expropriation Case Law ? bull SSSSS

2010-02-15T02:48:00.001-04:00

EDDY??????

2010-02-05T13:21:00.000-04:00

lawyer-Jamie-Eddy.

2010-02-05T13:17:00.000-04:00

Mr Raymond Questions

2010-01-19T02:57:00.001-04:00

conflict of interest great theft exists.

2010-01-04T12:39:00.000-04:00

Here are a few big pointers for everyone's comprehension:

1. ENRON promoted their profit and hid their debt. Government on the other hand promotes their debt and hides their profit. The reason being is that as government promotes their debt to the public at the front door, and through the back door they are using their own investment funds to fund their own debt and thus locking in the public for repayment to guarantee a substantial profit. This is done through several methods. The basic is through investment accounts held through domestic and "international" banks, Insurance companies, and brokerage firms. The internal way of doing it is for a state to start a Financial Enterprise Operation as was the case back in the 90's in Missouri through the creation of The Missouri finance Authority (State created and run operation created without taxpayer approval or general knowledge thereof being that it had no taxing authority) whereby all of the Cities; Counties; School Districts; and State agencies invested through. Example: City (X) invests $100,000,000 and the same City (X) has three bond issuance's totaling $100,000,000 that are funded by the Missouri Finance Authority. Well, if city (X) was asked "Are you funding your own debt? They could honestly answer "No". If they were asked: "Do you have $100,000,000 invested with the Missouri Finance Authority and is the Missouri Finance Authority funding approximately 100% of your $100,000,000 in bond offerings, then the honest answer would be "Yes". This practice started back in the 70's across the country and come the year 2000 many local governments were 100% self funded using their own investment assets and as was the case with Missouri back in the 90's, the outstanding bond issuance that were funded by the private sector they came in and refinanced themselves a a .25 (1/4) pt lower. The only response I received from the investment manager of that authority when I contacted him back in 1999 was: "Look at what a good job we are doing investing the public funds, we got them a quarter point lower then they could have got from the private sector"

2. Most local Government pension / retirement investment funds are set up as "strictly participatory". What that means is it is like buying a ticket on a train. You get to ride from point A to point C but you do not own one piece of the train when you get off at point C. For the local government employees participating in this type of program they get a ticket to ride under set terms but do not own 1c of those funds, the local governments own the fund; balance; and holdings... This gives a very big incentive for the local governments to play actuarial projection games to inflate the balances being that they are growth in their power base. I put up as an example the NY State Retirement Fund listing of investments for several years for viewing. I note that as you look down the listing of domestic and international investments held you will notice in order of the top profit makers rolling over returns of 200% to 600% over a few years in order of the top four: Pharmaceutical Companies; Bank / Financial Companies; Oil / Energy Companies; War industry Groups. Personally I say that's a tad bit of a conflict of interest towards the underling motives for policy set me says.. Now you will not find one specific government fund owning by statutory restriction more than 5% to 7% of any one company but from the thousands of government funds large and small you will have in collective totals controlling interest held in these companies both domestic and foreign. (Those collective 5%'s held add up quickly). Now here is where the monopoly of control sets in. Many local governments will now participate with private associations established with nice sounding government acronyms. There may be several hundred if not several thousand local governments that are members. By being members they can assign proxy voting rights to these private associations whereby collective ownership exercised can determine policy and if needed replace the entire board of directors if policy edicts suggested are not followed. This includes mandatory outsourcing to accomplish higher rates of returns for investments held.

Did you just have one of your biggest Ah, Ha moments of your life?

You will never see collective ownership totals by collective local government talked about or qualified anywhere officially for obvious and condemning reasons. The world is not as we are spoon feed to believe it is when government collective ownership totals are tabulated and digested.

An important note here when looking at the above referenced report is that when it comes also to debt held by the private sector either by mortgages or credit cards, please look at the investments shown below the listing of domestic and international companies, You will see the billions in cash loans; bonds held; real-estate held (Condo; apartment; shopping malls) etc. Investment ownership by government branches out into many different arenas which before reading this most probably assumed were held by private investment and not government.

On a last note, let me qualify how a profit is turned into an "advanced liability". Here I will use a county run recycling plant as an example. The public is pitched that recycling is a good thing and passes a fifty million dollar bond issuance to build a recycling plant. The plant is built and mandatory recycling is enforced in the county. I note that this is supposed to be a "NON-PROFIT" government run enterprise operation; Well, within the first year the recycling plant generates 45 million dollars and its cost for operation is 35 million so the buy more equipment and expand there personnel to eat up the extra 10 million to be a not for profit operation, BUT they know their curve is going to yield a 25 million dollar profit next year, SO they contact an actuary and say: "We are doing so well that in fifteen years we are going to have to expand our operation five times fold, how much money are we going to need?" The actuary then takes into account land; equipment; personnel; transfer costs; etc., and comes up with a figure of say 780 million dollars needed 15 years down the road to get this done..... SO, then the recycling plant as expected makes a 25 million dollar profit BUT monthly or quarterly makes a payment into the advance liability account equaling 25 million dollars listing it as a line item operating liability payment and voi'la' no profit for the year. The same happens each following year as the fund of 780 million is built. Now if they want to take it a step further in year five and they make a 45 million dollar profit for the year but funnel 55 million dollars into the advance forward liability account, they can come back on the residents and say: "Gee we all know that recycling is a good thing, but we are operating at a 10 million dollar deficit on our "operating budget" and we are going to have to raise collection fees". This is one way of turning a profit into an advance forward debt. Well, if the public does not know about the advance forward liability account the increase in fees slides right in without opposition where as in the alternative if the public did know that an advance liability account existed of several hundred million dollars (only "discreetly" accounted for on the books of the county enterprise operation's Annual Financial report and not the County's AFR), they would in most probabilities organized to cancel any collections fees and take a very close look at government operating as a for profit enterprise under mandatory terms in their own back yard.

I hope I have given some substantial food for thought to the readers here. When their is great wealth the potential for great theft exists.

Walter Burien
P. O. Box 2112
Saint Johns, Arizona 85936

Tel. (928) 445-3532

Be...in dis-grace.wmv

2009-12-09T14:27:00.001-04:00

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x1F3si9CXBg

Be...in dis-grace.wmv

CANCER AND BIRTH DEFECTS?

2009-11-20T14:38:00.000-04:00

Friday, November 20, 2009Nuclear Industry Flooding Canada with Radioactive Tritium (Ottawa) Canadians should be concerned about birth defects and cancerscaused by radioactive tritium in their drinking water according toTritium on Tap, a report by Sierra Club Canada. The report also notesthat routine and accidental releases of tritium are rising. Canada’s nuclear industry releases massive quantities of tritium intowaterways, sewers and the atmosphere. Levels in drinking water remainbelow present federal guidelines, but Canada allows 70 times moretritium than the European Union standard, and 473 times more tritiumthan California’s Public Health Goal of 14.8 becquerels per litre. “According to the UK’s Committee Examining Radiation Risks of InternalEmitters (CERRIE), current estimates of risk from tritium exposure donot take into account the properties of tritium, especially its abilityto exchange with non-radioactive forms of hydrogen and combine withhuman DNA leading to cancer and birth defects,” said Mike Buckthought ofSierra Club Canada. The report documents a nuclear industry that relies on lax out of datefederal guidelines in order to ignore the problem of increasing releasesof tritium from its aging reactors. Following leaks at the NRU reactor in Chalk River, Atomic Energy ofCanada Limited (AECL) deliberately dumps radioactive water into theOttawa River -- resulting in spikes in tritium levels in Ottawa’sdrinking water. During the summer, AECL collected an estimated 4.5tonnes of radioactive water, leading to concerns that it may be about todump the contaminated water into the river. “The problem is not just leaks and accidents. Every year 6.6 quadrillionbecquerels of radioactive tritium is released into our rivers, lakes andthe atmosphere -- leading to widespread contamination. Radioactive watergets into our food and drinking water, exposing millions of people to aknown carcinogen,” said Buckthought.Monitoring of fruits and vegetables around Pembroke and Peterboroughhave found radioactive potatoes, rhubarb and apples. There have beensimilar problems with radioactive contamination around the Bruce andDarlington nuclear plants. “The nuclear industry should consider the impact of releasing largequantities of tritium. When tritium gets into our food and drinkingwater, it can cause cancer and birth defects,” said John Bennett, SierraClub Canada’s Executive Director. - 30 – For more information, contact: Mike Buckthought, National Climate Change Campaigner, Sierra ClubCanada, 613-241-4611 x235John Bennett, Executive Director, Sierra Club Canada, 613-241-4611 x222 Jb. John BennettExecutive Director.Sierra Club Canada.

LEPREAU Candu 6 plant

2009-11-12T12:08:00.001-04:00

Greenpeace petition questions Lepreau refit funding
Energy: Ottawa has until March to respond to environmental group's queries
Published Monday November 9th, 2009
Rob Linke
Telegraph-Journal
http://telegraphjournal.canadaeast.com/search/article/851226

OTTAWA - The federal government has until March to respond in writing to 
an argument that the hundreds of millions of dollars Ottawa is spending 
to refurbish Point Lepreau is a backdoor subsidy to New Brunswick.

The federal taxpayer is increasingly being exposed to financial risks 
for delayed and over-budget projects like Lepreau, says the argument.

It is contained in a petition filed this week with the Commissioner of 
the Environment and Sustainable Development.

"Because of the high cost and risks involved, Candu (reactor) operators 
have sought to increase the viability of such projects by "¦ 
transferring financial risk for cost overruns, delays and even future 
performance" to Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd., a federal Crown 
corporation, says the petition.

It was filed by energy campaigner Shawn-Patrick Stensil of the 
anti-nuclear group Greenpeace Canada.

He said Lepreau is a case study in his petition because other 
jurisdictions facing decisions about building new reactors, or giving 
old ones mid-life overhauls, need to learn from it.

"Lepreau is a warning," Stensil said in an interview.

"Canadians are being put on the hook for these costs at Lepreau and New 
Brunswickers will be on the hook if Ontario rebuilds 16 reactors as 
planned."

The project to extend Lepreau's operating life by 25 years was supposed 
to take 18 months, have the plant back online this fall and cost $1.4 
billion on a fixed-price contract.

Delays mean the plant won't be online until February 2011 at best.

AECL is picking up the extra tab other than the cost of replacement power.

That's being paid by NB Power, and is expected to double from $400 
million to roughly $800 million.

Perhaps surprisingly, Greenpeace draws on free-market economic 
principles in making the case against federal funding for nuclear power 
generation.

In fact, Greenpeace supports the privatization of AECL because it would 
have to account for its costs internally, which it believes would create 
a level playing field offering renewable energy fairer competition.

Federal Natural Resources Minister Lisa Raitt has launched a 
restructuring of AECL that is expected to include partial privatization.

"We didn't come at this as a left- or right-wing perspective," said Stensil.

"Our long-term principles are precaution and sustainability, which 
Canada has undertaken as part of its international obligations."

Raitt defended AECL and Canada's nuclear industry to the Commons natural 
resources committee this week.

She said the industry generates 30,000 jobs and 15 per cent of Canada's 
electricity worth roughly $6 billion.

And, with nuclear set to play an increasing global role to address 
climate change, positioning AECL for growth is a key goal, she said.

So is maximizing the return on the investment already made in nuclear is 
a key goal.

Greenpeace's petition argues more public funding for nuclear is putting 
good money after bad.

The petition is not the sort filled with names.

With 12 pages of heavily footnoted research critical of public funding 
for the nuclear industry, it reads more like a position paper or legal 
brief - with pointed questions.

The commissioner runs a branch of the federal auditor general's office.

It has a little-used process that facilitates Canadians asking 
well-researched questions of any federal department about environmental 
issues.

The law obliges the government to reply within 120 days - and the 
commissioner monitors the answers based on their relevance and thoroughness.

Stensil asks about 30 questions of the Department of Natural Resources, 
which funds AECL.

On Lepreau, he asks Natural Resources to summarize the performance 
guarantees in the refurbishment contract AECL and NB Power signed in 2005.

It was never made public.

He also asks Natural Resources to provide a breakdown of the $500 
million AECL has on its books for off-balance sheet or contingency 
liabilities, which means potential future costs from things such as 
project overruns.

This week, federal government documents revealed AECL has been given an 
extra $200 million to allow it to complete refurbishments at Lepreau and 
two reactors run by Bruce Power in Ontario that are also months behind 
schedule.

David Willey is the director for environmental petitions in the 
commissioner's office.

He said it can be hard to pinpoint a direct cause-and-effect between 
petitions and later government action.

But petitions have built momentum for issues, helped prompt government 
action and help the auditor general decide what programs and spending to 
audit.

"The process creates a dialogue between a petitioner and their 
government," said Willey.

Natural Resources is not obliged to make any policy or spending 
decisions based on the petition.

It can also get an extension beyond 120 days if it notifies Greenpeace.

An AECL spokesman did not respond to a request to comment Friday.

Also Friday, federal Green Party leader Elizabeth May issued a statement 
condemning Ottawa's decision to give $200 million in extra funding to AECL.

"This amounts to more subsidies to a nuclear white elephant," she said 
in a release.

Lepreau was one of the world's top-performing nuclear plants before it 
started to show its age.

The 635-megawatt Candu 6 plant went into service in 1983.

It typically provides between 25 and 30 per cent of the province's power.

/Is-Newfoundland-s-Justice-Minister-Tom-Marshall-Covering-up

2009-10-25T17:11:00.002-03:00

Partager sur les réseaux socials / Envoyer à vos amis

I want to know if Tom Marshall is doing a Government Cover-up for his good friend Alex Hickman a former justice Minister of Newfoundland? I want to get to the bottom of it. Please phone Raph Pritchard from Tom Marshall's office The Justice Minister of Newfoudland at; 709-729-2869.

Auteur: Eachtem
Tags: Byron Prior Alex Hickman Tom Marshall The Justice Minister of Newfoundland Pedofile Rape Government Cover Up Cronyism Judicial Fraud
Ajoutée: dimanche 20 septembre 2009 16:36:07

Statistiques :

Vue : 215
Commentaires : 0
Mise en favoris :

Envoyée par courriel :

Note :

Votée :

Ajouter cette vidéo à vos favoris

Code pour le lecteur Flash

http://www.prise1.com/Is-Newfoundland-s-Justice-Minister-Tom-Marshall-Covering-up-for-former-Justice-Minister-Pedofile-_-AMLj4e6qYQc.html

" name="codeembed">

Lien

Partager sur les réseaux socials

Grand Bank, Newfoundland and Labrador

2009-10-13T03:22:00.000-03:00

Alexander Hickman

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

Thomas Alexander Hickman, OC , QC , LL.B , LL.D (born 1925) is a Canadian lawyer, former politician and former judge.

Born in Grand Bank, Newfoundland and Labrador, he studied at Memorial University of Newfoundland and received a LL.B from Dalhousie University in 1947. He was called to the Bar of Nova Scotia in 1947, and to the Bar of Newfoundland in 1948. In 1964, he was made a Queen's Counsel. He started to practice law in 1948.

From 1966 to 1979, he was a member of the Newfoundland and Labrador House of Assembly. He held numerous cabinet positions including Minister of Justice and Attorney General, Minister of Health, Minister Responsible for Intergovernmental Affairs, Minister of Finance, and Minister of Education.

In 1979, he was appointed to the Supreme Court of Newfoundland as Chief Justice of the Trial Division. As Chief Justice, he was the chairman of two well known Royal Commissions. From 1982 to 1985, he was the chairman of the Royal Commission on the Ocean Ranger marine disaster. From 1986 to 1989, he was the chairman of the Royal Commission on the Donald Marshall, Jr.

In 2003, he was made an Officer of the Order of Canada.

[edit] References

in Newfoundland and Labrador

2009-10-13T03:07:00.001-03:00

Anonymous said...

mikel look at this http://www.youtube.com/user/cdnjusticedelayed#p/a

this man don't seem ill to me

i think it a rail road job,//??

cdnjusticedelayed (3 weeks ago) We were let outdoors at the Waterford yesterday afternoon, Sept. 11/09, for one hour. It was the first time in five weeks. While we were out there my room and bag was searched and my papers gone through.

Canadian Gulag: Byron Prior Update 2009 Pt 1 From: cdnjusticedelayed | April 10, 2009 | 1,048 views The latest developments in Byron's ongoing legal battle to expose the truth about the rape of his sister by a very prominent Newfoundland politician, judge, and businessman. The system is covering for itself, and now threatens Byron with forced confinement and drugging in a mental institution. His sentencing is on April 21, 2009. Is this Soviet Russia, or Canada? Please circulate this far and wide. ... (more info)

3:47 PM, October 09, 2009

Anonymous said...

So the Newfoundland and Labrador Premier Danny Williams law firm was your original lawyers then when Danny went political he dropped your case ,i see the connection to Chief Justice Alex Hickman very clear now,, Alex Hickman being the judge who raped and impregnated your 11 year old sister ,and the Judge who is trying you for slander is going after your human rights had ordered you to take a assessment n he chose the Judge ,the judge is protecting Chief Justice Alex Hickman in Canada .

3:53 PM, October 09, 2009

THE INFOWARRIOR with Jason Bermas 1/3: John Elway 'Fearmongering' to The People!!

2009-10-13T02:36:00.000-03:00

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_aN-qUjCqHo

THE INFOWARRIOR with Jason Bermas 1/3: John Elway 'Fearmongering' to The People!!

RCMP Reports

2009-10-09T15:25:00.001-03:00

RCMP Reports http://maxpages.com/sexualabuse

STATUTORY DECLARATION

I, Byron Prior, of 66 Readers Hill Crescent, in the Town of Conception Bay South, in the Province of Newfoundland, HEREBY MAKE OATH AND SAY AS FOLLOWS:

1. I am the Declarant herein and as such have personal knowledge of the facts and matters hereinafter deposed to except where the same are stated to be based on information and belief and where the same are so stated I verily believe them to be true.

2. I was born in Grand Bank, Newfoundland. My date of birth is the 29th day of July, 1953.

3. I am the oldest in a family of six (06) girls and four (04) boys all of whom were also born in Grand Bank, Newfoundland.

4. From approximately the are of four (04) until approximately the age of seventeen (17), I was subjected to numerous physical, sexual and emotional assaults.

5. All of my siblings were also subjected to physical, sexual and emotional assaults by several different persons for a number of years when they were adolescents.

6. In 1966, T. Alexander Hickman, the Newfoundland Justice Minister, raped and impregnated my sister Susan Prior who was twelve (12) years old at the time.

7. Susan Prior subsequently gave birth to a child, Marjorie, as a result of this rape by T. Alexander Hickman. Another child, Aaron, could also possibly be from Hickman.

8. T. Alexander Hickman was fourty two (42) years old and a prominent lawyer at the time he raped my sister Susan, on the day he was elected to represent Grand Bank, in our Provincial Government.

9. T. Alex Hickman was appointed as Newfoundland Minister of Health 1968 to 1969, appointed as Newfoundland Justice Minister 1966 to 1979, and appointed as the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Newfoundland from 1979 to 2000.

10. I have reported the acts of physical, sexual and emotional abuse perpetrated on myself and/or my siblings to the authorities on a number of occasions during the times relevant to there occurrences in an attempt to prevent further abuse.

REPORTS MADE TO THE RCMP, GRAND BANK, NL.

(a) In or about the year 1960 I reported the abuses to RCMP Sergeant Sturge;
(b) In or about the year 1962 I reported the abuses to RCMP office Gilbert White;
(c) In or about the year 1962 I reported the abuses to RCMP officer Jerry Lahey;
(d) In or about the year 1966 I reported the abuses to RCMP Cpl. Eaton;
(e) In or about the year 1968 I reported the abuses to RCMP Cpl. Sparkes, who took my written statement;
(f) In or about the years 1970-1972 I reported the abuses to RCMP officer Len Briand and Municipal Policeman Richard Foote;
(g) On March 09, 1998, I reported the abuses at the RCMP Detachment in St. John’s, Newfoundland. On this occasion I spoke with several RCMP officers over a fifty two and a half hour (52.5) period of time. Several RCMP officers took written statements from me.

11. I have reported the above sexual, physical and emotional abuse of myself and my siblings to Newfoundland Child Protection Agencies numerous times during the time periods relevant to the abuse occurrences.

12. In the 1970’s my three sisters, Joan, Lucy, Donna and my brother Allan and my niece Betty Ann also made reports to the Grand Bank RCMP.

13. To this date, neither myself no my siblings have received any assistance whatsoever from the RCMP or any Newfoundland government agencies despite the multitude of evidence provided by myself and my siblings since these abuse occurrences began. The authorities won’t even ask the people involved for DNA samples.

SWORN BEFORE ME at the town of
Conception Bay South, in the Province
of Newfoundland, this 27 day of April, 2004.

Jody Miller
A Commissioner for taking Affidavits Byron Prior
For Newfoundland

The Justice system is just an illusion

2009-10-09T14:56:00.004-03:00

Byron Prior"s need help now

2009-10-07T03:31:00.002-03:00

----- Forwarded Message ----
From: BYRON PRIOR
To: brinson6@telus.net; abinns@telus.net; karol_karolak@yahoo.ca; jmld@nb.sympatico.ca; Derek ; Gordon Zaretzki ; janet_cresswell@yahoo.com.au; marthajette@yahoo.com; samsongold@hotmail.com; Michele Montgomery ; Frankie Picasso ; dbnewhook@yahoo.ca; dkrekic@tampabay.rr.com; ahunter100@shaw.ca
Sent: Tue, October 6, 2009 7:17:43 PM
Subject: Byron Prior's Hearing - Waterford Mental Hospital - Oct. 06, 2009

If I am released, it maybe within 2 weeks, and if I am released in 2 weeks there will be restrictions on me for everything. I'm not allowed to write or communicate to anyone on the Internet to have published or anything else and I'm going to have to come back here as an outpatient constantly. They asked if I would take medication for my "delusion" and I refused. if one of the restrictions requires me to cancel my website or you-tube I will refuse to do it and I won't be released. If you want to publish anything you better do it now within the next two weeks.

Here at the Waterford office they refused to take telephone calls from Toronto, Ontario because the staff here suspected that it's private investigators working for me on my case. They refused because these people were asking questions like if I was still there, etc.

They are going to restrict me so I will not be permitted to move or to do anything without them knowing it.

Byron

Honourable Stephen Harper:

2009-10-05T10:14:00.001-03:00

Sent: Sunday, October 4, 2009 1:45:00 PM
Subject: Democracy??

The Right Honourable Stephen Harper:

I sent an email to Canada's Governor General informing her of the ongoing problem in Canada of the conspiracy problem that seems unfixable. There has been so much trouble with police policing police that some effort is now being made to correct it but the judge judging judges problem is still alive and doing well.

While those responsible are all snug in there untouchable positions, other countries are going to be wondering why they should convert to this democracy of ours when our corruption is no better than theirs. One recent example is the Byron Prior case where Justice David Orr has sentenced Byron to the Waterford Mental Hospital for complaining about former Justice T. Alex Hickman impregnating his 11 year old sister. All Mr. Prior is asking for is a DNA test from Mr. Hickman to prove one way or the other whether he is the father of the child. This pits the expensive court case and the expensive Hospital confinement against one Q-tip swab to get a DNA test. I believe in these times of tight tax payer money most any reasonable judge (an unbiased judge) would order the DNA test. It almost seems like these judges need a dictionary to separate the word "independence" from the words "Violation without penalty".

Sincerely, Lloyd Brinson, 'Concerned Citizens for Justice" group member
But then it's so convenient for those who have th authority to hide behind the "Independence of the judiciary"

" Truth and Justice"

2009-09-29T15:42:00.001-03:00

----- Forwarded Message ----

From: "samsongold@hotmail.com"
To: BYRON PRIOR ; steve@thecrimereport.org@yahoo.com; support@corruptionmonitor.org@yahoo.com; mikeduffy@conservative.ca@yahoo.com; Beth Buchanan ; Carol Rutz ; SNAP Office ; Rod Vienneau
Cc: deb newhook ; Eagle Strong Voice ; gerry duffett ; john finch
Sent: Friday, September 25, 2009 7:34:04 PM
Subject: Re: Conflict of Interest - Byron Prior Case

Justice? What justice?

Here, we have a child, victim of atrocities ( rapes, beatings, and forced to be a witness ) to the rapes and beatings of his brothers and sisters; by the very peoples, charged with their protection and well being. At this time, this child is being held illegally, in order to protect those guilty of said crimes. Today, Byron Prior is an adult, the child has grown to adulthood and is seeking justice!

Oh Canada Movie 1 - Intro

For the audacity to speak out against those guilty, he is send to an asylum under the pretext that Mr. Byron Prior is " DELUSIONAL". What a convenient way to silence the victim from speaking out for the truth. But mind you, we do live in a country, where " Truth and Justice" are nothing more than an illusion or delusion. Politician can take kick backs in the millions or lie under Oath and get nothing more than a slap on the wrist and they get to keep the loot, go figure.

I am Pierre Samson, one of the Duplessis Orphans. The premier of Quebec in 1953 was Maurice Duplessis, a religious fanatic of roman catholic shit, who with the church, sold ( condemned) over 20,000 innocent children to a living hell; has lab rats, check out " MK Ultra/CIA" mind control. This jerk, Maurice Duplessis, was / is revered as an outstanding member of society, Politicians, they sure know how to screw us good and get away with it.

Today, I am 62 years old and like all victims, we never forget the rapes or beatings we had to endure at the hands of those, charged with "OUR" protection, the Politicians, the Justice System, the church. What of the so called doctors, who performed all those lobotomies, those electroshocks given to children while under the influence of LSD 25. Imagine a young child of 7 strapped to the operating table, a doctor administers a dose of LSD 25 ( 2400 microgram) then after 15 minutes, administers electroshocks; I am that child, this was done to me, by Dr. Ewen Cameron at the St Jean de Dieu Asylum, for 8 long years.

What Justice, for who? To this day, they still deny it, regardless of evidences. Byron Prior, is a victim, an innocent child who as been seeking justice, for a long time. If they silence him, then who's next? Who is the next innocent victim to be committed, to be silenced, by electroshocks or LSD 25 or both? Today, Byron is in his mid 50's, he is fighting to obtain justice for himself and siblings, and now, he is being held in this mental hospital against his will, and they have no legal grounds to stand on. This so called assessment that they forced on him, is prejudicial in any sense of the word. Judge Orr's wife ( Dena ) is sitting on this panel, that will decide Byron's fate, if that is not prejudice, then what is? Is our justice system so CORRUPTED?

It would appear that in this country Canada, you need to be able to buy justice or know who's; ass to kiss. The rape of the First Nation peoples, no justice. The rape of the Orphans, Duplessis amongst other Orphans, no justice. The rapes of Mount Cashell, the rapes of Mount St Antoine, the rapes of Jericho Hill School for the blind and deaf and the list goes on. With so much corruption in this country, how is one person to get justice?

Byron, stay strong my friend, you are not alone. I still live with the memories of the past, I do know how you feel too well, I might say. At which point to we say enough? This person has the right to seek justice. if a swap is all that it takes, to find out the truth, then why not? Or is it possible that Byron " IS " right? And " They " will do what ever it takes to silence him, so that " WE " the peoples, never find out how evil and corrupted, the governments and the justice system in this country has become?

Audrey, you can use this as you see fit, all those that can help Byron, please do so, Thanks.

PS: this is world wide.

Pierre Samson

electroshocks given to children

2009-09-27T11:04:00.002-03:00

Sent: Friday, September 25, 2009 7:34:04 PM
Subject: Re: Conflict of Interest - Byron Prior Case

Justice? What justice?

Here, we have a child, victim of atrocities ( rapes, beatings, and forced to be a witness ) to the rapes and beatings of his brothers and sisters; by the very peoples, charged with their protection and well being.

At this time, this child is being held illegally, in order to protect those guilty of said crimes.

Today, Byron Prior is an adult, the child has grown to adulthood and is seeking justice!

For the audacity to speak out against those guilty, he is send to an asylum under the pretext that Mr. Byron Prior is " DELUSIONAL".

What a convenient way to silence the victim from speaking out for the truth. But mind you, we do live in a country, where

" Truth and Justice" are nothing more than an illusion or delusion.

Politician can take kick backs in the millions or lie under Oath and get nothing more than a slap on the wrist and they get to keep the loot, go figure.???

I am Pierre Samson, one of the Duplessis Orphans.

The premier of Quebec in 1953 was Maurice Duplessis, a religious fanatic of roman catholic shit, who with the church, sold ( condemned) over 20,000 innocent children to a living hell; has lab rats, check out " MK Ultra/CIA" mind control.

This jerk, Maurice Duplessis, was / is revered as an outstanding member of society, Politicians, they sure know how to screw us good and get away with it.

Today, I am 62 years old and like all victims, we never forget the rapes or beatings we had to endure at the hands of those, charged with "OUR" protection, the Politicians, the Justice System, the church.

What of the so called doctors, who performed all those lobotomies, those electroshock's given to children while under the influence of LSD 25.

Imagine a young child of 7 strapped to the operating table, a doctor administers a dose of LSD 25 ( 2400 microgram) then after 15 minutes, administers electroshocks;

I am that child, this was done to me, by Dr. Ewen Cameron at the St Jean de Dieu Asylum, for 8 long years.

What Justice, for who? To this day, they still deny it, regardless of evidences.

Byron Prior, is a victim, an innocent child who as been seeking justice, for a long time.

If they silence him, then who's next?

Who is the next innocent victim to be committed, to be silenced, by electroshocks or LSD 25 or both?

Today, Byron is in his mid 50's, he is fighting to obtain justice for himself and siblings, and now, he is being held in this mental hospital against his will, and they have no legal grounds to stand on.

This so called assessment that they forced on him, is prejudicial in any sense of the word.

Judge Orr's wife ( Dena ) is sitting on this panel, that will decide Byron's fate, if that is not prejudice, then what is?

Is our justice system so CORRUPTED?

It would appear that in this country Canada, you need to be able to buy justice or know who's; ass to kiss.

The rape of the First Nation peoples, no justice.

The rape of the Orphans, Duplessis amongst other Orphans, no justice.

The rapes of Mount Cashell, the rapes of Mount St Antoine, the rapes of Jericho Hill School for the blind and deaf and the list goes on.

With so much corruption in this country, how is one person to get justice?

Byron, stay strong my friend, you are not alone.

I still live with the memories of the past, I do know how you feel too well, I might say.

At which point to we say enough? This person has the right to seek justice. if a swap is all that it takes, to find out the truth, then why not?

Or is it possible that Byron " IS " right? And " They " will do what ever it takes to silence him, so that

" WE " the peoples, never find out how evil and corrupted, the governments and the justice system in this country has become?

Audrey, you can use this as you see fit, all those that can help Byron,

please do so, Thanks.

PS: this is world wide.
Pierre Samson

Dena Orr, Justice David Orr’s wife. Isn’t this a conflict of interest?

2009-09-26T16:45:00.002-03:00

go to link on title???

Hon. Danny Williams

Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador

Confederation Bldg.

Prince Philip Parkway

St. John’s, NL. Canada, A1B 3V6

Personal, but not confidential.

Dear Mr. Premier:

Re: Citizen’s Representative File # 37CF02 of Judith Day, and the Justice system of Newfoundland and Labrador under T. Alex Hickman, a former chief Justice.

I, Judith Day was informed by Mr. Barry Fleming, Citizen’s representative, by letter dated April 9, 2009 that a formal investigation that was launched in accordance with the Citizen’s Representative Act , section 24(d) in 2002, regarding my complaint against my employer at that time, the Health Care Corporation of St. John’s, will not be reopened.

The complaint was filed with Mr. Fraser March, in May 2002, when he was Citizen’s Representative in Newfoundland and Labrador. It was a separate issue from my complaints to the Medical board, of medical malpractice, negligence, resulting in harm, which went through the justice system.

Without my knowledge, this complaint was shelved in 2006 by Mr. Robert Jenkins, then acting citizen’s representative, when the office was reopened four years after Mr. March’s dismissal.

I wrote Mr. Fleming and sent a copy to Mr. Ross Wiseman to express my disappointment and concern with that decision not to pursue this matter, as I thought that some very important questions can be objectively compiled, asked and answered. This was a separate matter from my complaint and lawsuit, as it concerned violations of my human rights by my employer, the Health Care Corporation of St. John’s.

After Mr. Fleming did not handle my claim against my employer, as a separate issue, I wrote Justice Minister Marshall on the matter of the injustice that I had received in the courts during my medical malpractice lawsuit, and claimed that physicians had perjured themselves during my trial. I received a letter from Mr. Herder of the minister’s office who advised me to contact the police force with my complaint and have it investigated by them.

. After that, I let the matter of my injustice rest as I thought it was time to give up my quest for justice and move on. But I can’t, as something else always seems to crop up to urge me on in my “quest for justice”.

This summer, during my semi-annual trip back to St. John’s NL from Fredericton, NB, I learned about the Byron Pryor Case and have become very interested in “his” fight for justice as the people involved with his case parallel with mine.

Your law firm represented Byron Pryor before you became Premier and now Byron has been reduced to being unable to obtain another firm, due to the high profile of Mr. T. Alex Hickman, the accused pedophile, who, according to Mr. Pryor, supposedly raped and impregnated an eleven year old child, his sister, some forty years ago. Byron, now in his fifties, insists that at the age of fourteen, he witnessed the events leading up to and after that atrocity.

Mr. T. Alex Hickman is retired now from the helm as Chief Justice. The judge who was presiding over my trial, Mr. Ray Halley, was appointed “acting” chief justice during that time and now is retired on a substantial pension.

Mr. Halley’s promotion certainly increased his income a great deal when he retired, after, in my case, making a ridiculous decision, by not charging Dr. Karagianis and Dr. Craig with medical malpractice for the physiological damage they did to me, proven by medical tests and supported by many specialists.

The infamous Dr. Craig now has diagnosed Byron Pryor as “delusional” and the court has remanded a perfectly mentally competent, according to the test results of five specialists, (evidence that the presiding judge, David Orr ignored), to spend three months inside the Waterford Hospital under psychiatric evaluation being monitored and assessed by Dena Orr, Justice David Orr’s wife. Isn’t this a conflict of interest?

I believe this is another example of the incompetence and corruptness of the courts of Newfoundland and Labrador and it is time it is investigated by professionals outside the province.
I have already one letter on file somewhere that I wrote to the courts following a mini-trial during my lawsuit with Justice Leo Barry, This mini-trial was a total atrocity of justice, as I saw it at the time, and I expressed my concerns in writing.

Mr. Williams, you are the head of the province now as premier’ and it is time you took some action regarding the injustice that has been done to me for ten years, Mr. Bryon Pryor for the past forty and many others who have fallen by the wayside, not to mention the Hughes and other inquiries that were held in Newfoundland and Labrador during the past thirty years or more under Chief Justice T. Alex Hickman.

You say that money is not your motive to work as hard as you do, for our province and its people. If that is the case, and you are truly altruistic, then it is time that you come to the aid of both of us and all others who have been struggling for justice long enough and justice should be possible, in such a beautiful and free province and country.

I did not go to the police and request an investigation into the illegal doings of physicians, namely perjury, but I was advised to do so, by the minister of justice’s office, in a letter received from David Herder.

In this case as in others, I believe that would be a complete waste of time and money for an under funded force who really have their hands tied anyway, as is evident in Byron Prior’s case and others.

Besides, I have already been roughed up by a police officer last summer while driving across the island of Newfoundland during a publicly announced, in a marked car, road tour for the National ME/FM Action Network. I am the director for the Atlantic provinces of that network and was on official business, when I was stopped for supposedly speeding.

I, on behalf of the network was doing a road tour, advocating the importance of medical standards being set for physicians who are involved in independent medical examinations and their reports that are written for insurance companies and the courts.

Throughout my road tour, I was deliberately driving below 100 km to save on gas expenses, but had picked up speed, approximately 110kms, coming down a steep hill, with many lanes, and no traffic, outside of Springdale and got stopped by a lone police officer, who treated me harshly. I do not get intimidated easily, but his actions frightened me.

I filed an objection to the ticket and complaint with Grand Falls/ Windsor, but withdrew it and paid the fine, as it would be my word against the officer’s, and what judge would believe me over a police officer? Even though I know for sure that police officers lie on the witness stand as I had witnessed that in Harbour Grace Court, in 1993 during a criminal trial against my previous husband that also involved police brutality, when he was beaten up by them and denied medical treatment in jail.

At least at the time, my husband and I received an apology from the Commissioner of RCMP after I had filed a formal complaint of that police brutality and it was investigated. I was impressed by the complaints commission at the time and it solidified in me the importance of speaking out when I believe injustice is being done.

Besides, now I have much larger issues to get dealt with, so an unwarranted speeding ticket being issued to me is very trivial. I paid the fine and it was forgotten. But the thought is coming back now. Was I being harassed? Or was it a coincidence? I was certainly stopped and bullied by a police officer who hid behind sunglasses.

According to Mr. Pryor’s association with police and their reports, nothing gets done, in high profile cases, anyway. It is up to the justice system and the government to handle these serious matters, when high ranking people, like doctors, lawyers, and judges are involved.

Last summer, when I arrived in St. John’s, I scheduled a meeting with Dr. Robert Young, president of the College of Physicians and Surgeons, but when I appeared at the office, I was told by the secretary that he was busy and for me to leave a note, which I did.

I left information, on the matter of the importance of independent medical assessments, for Dr. Young, but I did not receive any response.

We, as a national network, have been advocating professional standards for medical experts for years, as many patients continue to suffer from adverse written reports by supposedly independent medical examiners, whoare highly paid for their adverse reporting to suit the needs of insurance companies or defendants of medical malpractice, as in my lawsuit.

Personally, I just want to have the doctors, who lied during my trial investigated and brought to justice. Judge Halley knew one of them had lied as I presented the evidence to support that, but the document that I had received from that physician’s lawyer, was supposedly privileged information between a lawyer and his client. I learned quite early during my trial that “what is legal is not necessarily just”.

In my case, many of Judge Halley’s decisions were erroneous and unjust and now I understand why. I believe he was given a much greater incentive by Chief Justice T. Alex Hickman to rule against me, to be promoted as acting chief justice and was in anticipation of a huge retirement pension. I believe he retired shortly after my case was finished.

At least Judge Halley, in his decision, had enough compassion for me not to award the defense their costs, but the court of appeal overturned that decision, which resulted in my bankruptcy. In Judge Halley’s decision, he wrote, “Due to the circumstances of this case no costs will be awarded.” I guess that cleared his conscience regarding his decision to rule in favor of physicians who were negligent and caused me harm.

I filed an appeal. Hon. Clyde Wells, Chief of Court of Appeal was the spokesperson for that appeal. He appeared objective and I felt that he had listened. He was only one of three judges who decided against me and that costs would be awarded to the defense, as I lost the cross-appeal for costs as well. Again, for whatever reason, justice was not served.

During that appeal, Judge Halley, the trial judge should have been asked to explain what circumstances he was referring to as any judge would have known Judge Halley did not mean “financial.” Every lawyer and judge would be aware of the court rules that clearly state. “Financial circumstance” is not a reason not to deny a party costs.

Going back to the beginning of my serious accusations of negligence and violation of my human rights against two psychiatrists and The Health Care Corporation of St. John’s, which was my employer as well, I filed a complaint re my treatment as an employee, with Mr. Fraser March, who was the first citizen’s representative, newly appointed at that time in 2002.

Before anything was accomplished for me, Mr. March was relieved of his duties for supposed misappropriation of funds, which, I believe, is still being investigated and no charges were laid. In my opinion, Mr. March is a decent and honest man and I do not think he deserved that insult.

At the time of my complaint to Mr. March, he had suggested in a letter to me that he would hire a private investigator, as it had been in other cases like mine, across Canada.

This action suggested by the citizen’s representative’s office may have been the break I needed to help me obtain positive answers and results. But instead, Mr. March was fired and my complaint, against my employer, closed. It is presently in a vault, where it has been since 2006. Mr. Barry Fleming, presiding Citizen’s Representative, in 2009, has decided not to reopen.

I had pursued this alleged injustice and violation of my human rights for over nine years and reached a glass ceiling when the Supreme Court of Canada denied my application to have my case heard there. My civil actions in the courts have failed after I went to the highest level of this country, The Supreme Court of Canada.

I guess the three Supreme Court of Canada judges who assessed my application to appeal could never believe that there could possibly be so many violations of one’s civil rights and ignored by the establishment. After all, my case had gone through the supposed proper channels of a provincial court system in Newfoundland and Labrador for nine years.

This past year, I again saw a flickering light at the end of this long and torturous tunnel, when I had received correspondence from the Newfoundland and Labrador Nurses’ Union, NLNU informing me that my grievance, which I had filed November 10, 1999, was still ongoing and the Health Care Corporation of St John’s (HCCSJ) wanted closed, in my favor.

I did not want the file closed as again the evidence that I was unjustly maligned by the management of the Health Care Corporation of St. John’s, including the medical director, Dr. James Karagianis, would be lost.

This correspondence with the NLNU prompted me to inquire in writing about my complaint to the citizen’s representative that I had filed in 2002, which had been inactive since then.

I learned just this past summer that the citizen representative’s office had been reopened, in 2006, some years after the dismissal of Mr. Fraser March. I was not informed of that event as my contact information became outdated. I was not aware that my complaint was closed and vaulted by Mr. Jenkins, acting citizen’s representative, when the office was reopened in 2006.

After correspondence with Mr. Barry Fleming, Citizen’s Representative, this past summer of 2009, the decision was made by him that the complaint would remain closed and vaulted.

The Newfoundland and Labrador Nurses’ Union has since closed my grievance with the Health Care corporation after the matter was settled in my favor, but this action to close my file was against my will as the charges claimed against me, by a physician, were very serious and unwarranted.

The results of an independent investigation into my allegations of violation of my civil rights by the Health Care Corporation, my workplace, as Mr. March had wanted to do, may have benefited me from having to endure the humility and losses that I have had, including my professional status, in the name of being labeled mentally incompetent as Mr. Byron Pryor has just been, by the same psychiatrist, Dr. Craig, who was one of two psychiatrists I sued for medical incompetence.

I was administered drugs by Dr. Craig that nearly cost me my life. Dr. David Craig has had many complaints, approximately twenty two, filed against him by patients and he is still allowed to practice medicine in that province, by the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Presently Dr. Craig is practicing on the inmates at Her Majesty’s Penitentiary, which is now on a lock down for undisclosed reasons. There was an article in the Telegram a month ago where Dr. Lahda, a very well respected forensic psychiatrist with the courts, disagreed with Dr. Craig’s treatment of the inmates.

In my case, Dr. Lahda did not testify for the defense as was planned, even though he was on the defense’s witness list to be called. I have often wondered why?

Did Dr. Lahda refuse to testify on behalf of the physicians because he had gleaned knowledge of my accurate medical history, the misdiagnosis and maltreatment, and could not honestly support their defense?

Now I hear that Dr. Lahda, is not assessing Mr. Pryor anymore, but another psychiatrist Dr. Lynch has been appointed. Is this because Dr. Lahda feels Mr. Pryor is mentally competent as well and should be discharged, as he possibly felt I was misdiagnosed and maltreated by Dr. Craig as well?

Being labeled with a mental illness is the number one way that supposed trouble makers and whistle blowers are silenced. Once one’s credibility is in question, nobody listens to what he/she has to say anymore, “forever”. Please help me change that and assist to eliminate the medical hit men, especially psychiatrists, who are allowed to continue to practice this form of medicine, which is so subjective, and can be lethal.

I survived a very toxic assault on my body through the forceful administration of very potent drugs at high dosages for my biochemical make-up. I could have died. I lived.

Yes I lived, but I live with the stigma of being labeled to this day, which has stifled me considerably. Also, I cannot remain silent as the issues are too serious and will continue to happen, if people don’t speak out. Perhaps, finally someday, somebody will pay attention to those injustices and things will change for the better and psychiatrist will not have the power to ruin peoples’ lives as they do today.

I can give many examples of how being labeled with a mental illness, thus considered incompetent, has negatively impacted my life and will continue to do so forever, especially when I remain stable and mentally competent and have been for the past eleven years, since I have discontinued the prescribed medication that made me so ill, nearly killed me, and caused permanent damage to my brain, thyroid and heart.

Before that assault and battery on my body by psychiatrists, I led a normal, successful life. My contribution to health care and my extensive knowledge that I had acquired through thirty years of nursing practice and education were destroyed by medical incompetence and powerful people practicing hegemony. I am not the first person that this has happened to and Byron Pryor won’t be the last.

The erroneous information that was placed on my file at the Health Science Centre, May 15, 1995, eg, “Bipolar, Manic, had several admissions before for same.” was erroneous and has ruined my life. Dr. Karagianis treated a diagnosis, not a person and Dr. Craig took over from him, against my wishes, and continued the maltreatment, and cover-up, when he should have investigated further for another diagnosis, considering I was so seriously ill, with fibromyalgia, chronic fatigue syndrome and multiple chemical intolerance. FM/CFS/MCI.

I pray that this documented false information was obtained and written May 15, 1995, in error, not out of vindictiveness, or a means of ridding me from my job as Quality Control Coordinator in the operating room at the Health Science Centre. I could not imagine anybody being so cruel, but it does happen in many disciplines. I will never know for sure, as it was never properly investigated.

This clerical written error, “bipolar Manic, had several admissions before for same” was the beginning of almost three years of hell, when I was placed in a psychiatric trap, injured by medical treatment, and lost everything that was important to me, my career, my credibility, my financial independence, my relationships with my siblings, and most importantly, my health, due to neuro toxicity from prescribed psychotropic drugs that were wrong for me, forced on me, and caused permanent neurological- endocrinological damage, proven by medical tests, which were presented to the courts by specialists, which Judge Halley ignored and ruled that the diagnosis was correct and the medical treatment was appropriate.

When I was following the investigation of the botched oncology testing at the Health Care Corporation, On many occasions, the thought of my illegal and unfair elimination from their system, did enter my mind., especially when the Health Care Corporation tried to have the courts order that the evidence of the retesting was privileged, under the auspices of “quality control”, especially, when there was no system set up for the labs in the first place.

I believe I was eliminated from my job as Quality Control Coordinator as I was reporting deficiencies in operating rooms, managed by the Health Care Corporation, which were very serious at the time and could have had negative consequences for the newly formed corporation of which Dr. Karagianis was the newly appointed medical director. Is that a consequence or a coincidence?

The inaccurate information, “bipolar, manic, had many admissions before for same”, was written on my file by a ward clerk that day in May 15, 1995, in the Health Sciences Emergency and I was transferred by “cab” without being medicated, to the Waterford Hospital as I was told there were no beds available at the Health Science Centre, and I would be transferred back as soon as there was a bed available. ( One specialist for the defense testified that it would have been highly unusual for a patient to be transferred by cab, without being medicated if mania was the diagnosis.)

I thought I would be treated exactly the same as if I had been admitted to Health Science Centre as I had questioned that detail, and was told that all the hospitals were incorporated and following the same policies. This was not the case as I learned very quickly.

I was certified upon admission and was locked up for six weeks, with a completely normal mental status, except no insight into having bipolar disorder. My physical symptoms of profound fatigue, confusion, sinus infection, abnormal thyroid testing were ignored.

Where the information of a diagnosis of bipolar disorder originated was never investigated properly and that misdiagnosis has ruined my career, credibility and my health.

After I presented my evidence, in the courtroom, of misdiagnosis and maltreatment by Dr. Karagianis, the medical director of Health Care Corporation and Dr. Craig, Chief of Psychiatry, the defense filed a non-suit, but it was denied by Judge Halley as I had enough evidence to go to trial. At that time Judge Halley seemed to have a handle on the case and the negligence that had occurred.

I had presented enough evidence to prove my case, but I eventually lost the lawsuit as The Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador Judge Halley’s decision was not to accept my family doctor’s, other medical specialists’, my medical expert’s, and my own testimony, but to accept the defense’s expert opinion only, which was given months later, based on the proven erroneous information written on my medical records. This was wrong as the main expert Dr. Pearce lacked credibility and was biased and untruthful.

Dr. Pearce, the defense’s expert, gave the exact opposite opinion of my medical expert. Dr. Stein. Dr. Pearce’s credibility was tainted many times from prejudicial and biased testimony that he had given in Alberta on more than a few occasions.

I presented Dr. Pearce’s controversarisal cases, but Judge Halley ignored those facts and accepted Dr. Pearce’s testimony as correct and credible. It was not.

Dr. Lahda who was supposed to have been called by the defense was not called. I would have called him myself, if I had known he was not going to be called, as his opinions were always so objective and well received and respected by the court.

In Bryon Pryor’s case, the judge accepted Dr. Craig’s evidence over five medical experts who had tested Mr. Pryor, and stated he was not “delusional” and was not mentally ill, now Dr. Lahda is off Bryon Pryor’s case as well, again another similarity with my injustice.

In my case, there was another psychiatrist who perjured himself in the courtroom as well, Dr. Jain:

Dr. Jain, psychiatrist, a former employee of the Health Science Centre, who had moved to London, Ontario, a witness called by me, believing he would tell the truth; testified that he had diagnosed me with bipolar disorder in 1983, but did not tell my family, or me, or record it on my medical records, because, according to him, he wanted to protect my job. Can you imagine the consequences of that irrational decision, if that were true? Dr. Jain lied. He never had diagnosed me with bipolar disorder.

This action, of withholding information from the patient, etc. in itself should have been deemed malpractice by Dr. Jain, if I had suffered from a mental illness, I should have been told, treated, and it should have been recorded on my medical records.

I should not have been in charge as Clinical Coordinator, Operating Room for thirteen years during 1983 to 1995, and receiving no treatment for the second most serious mental illness in Psychiatry, if indeed I did have bipolar disorder for all those years.

This information that Dr. Jain presented to the court was wrong and there is no evidence anywhere on my medical files, before May 15, 1995, that I was suffering from a mental illness. If a physician actually made a diagnosis and had not recorded it, as Dr. Jain said he had done, this definitely would be unethical, immoral and illegal.

Dr. Jain lied on the stand as he had told me personally in 1997 that he had never diagnosed me with bipolar disorder, nor, according to his written report, did I exhibit any symptoms of bipolar disorder from 1983 to 1995, after my first episode of drug induced toxicity while being ill with sinusitis and bronchitis and placed under his care for observation and treatment. I was actually suffering from undiagnosed FM/CFS/MCI.

The proof exists that at least two physicians lied during my trial, and I paid the price. Perjury is a criminal offence. The judge knew for sure one did, but ignored this fact and considered the evidence privileged, when I presented the letter, given to me by his lawyer, which proved that he did indeed lie.

If you want more information, you may have a copy of the medical expert Dr. Stein’s psychiatric report, who spent over three hours a day for five days interviewing me, plus reviewing my complete medical history before she agreed to be my medical expert witness as her credibility would have been on the line, if I had been a crank.

Byron Pryor had the same psychological testing in Ontario and was found mentally stable as well.

My medical expert, Dr. Stein’s opinion was objective, non-biased and factual. Her written report was not accepted as evidence, by Judge Halley, as he considered her biased and acting as an advocate, which she was not.

Dr. Stein had nothing to gain by her writing a report of my medical mismanagement. She was on the witness stand for five days and stated in court that she owed it to her profession of psychiatry to right the wrong that had been done to me, so I could receive financial compensation.

I was denied justice by Judge Halley, the trial Judge..

The trial judge, Judge Halley, only ruled on the diagnosis and treatment. “The diagnosis was correct, therefore the treatment,” was correct”. This treatment also included blatant illegal confinement from May 15, 1995 to June 19, 1995 in the Waterford Hospital for nothing more than the fact that I had no insight into having a mental illness of bipolar disorder. How could I have insight, if I had never been informed or experienced the symptoms of that second most serious mental disorder, next to schizophrenia?

I wrote a journal during that illegal confinement that will be written in a book to be published in 2010 called Judging Judi, My Quest for Justice.

After Judge Halley’s decision against me, I filed an appeal, but lost that. I lost a cross-appeal by the defense for costs, and was now ordered by the court of appeal to pay the defense their costs.

I have often wondered if Mr. March had not been relieved of his duties, and if there had been an investigation of the Health Care Corporation, as was initiated by him, would the outcome of my injustice have been different.

This is the same Health Care Corporation that tried so hard to cover up the botched oncology testing a few years ago, but failed, and is now being sued millions of dollaqrs for incompetence. People did lose their lives over those incidents.

I believe what happened to me, which destroyed my nursing career, began as a written error, by a ward clerk, on my chart, May 15, 1995 and this negatively impacted my care and treatment.

In my case, many mistakes happened and were covered up by the Health Care Corporation and the Canadian Medical Protective Association. For ten years during the trial, I had never been found not telling the truth or have never had any symptoms of bipolar disorder. The truth did not prevail.

Because my lawsuit concerned a supposed mental illness, I could not obtain legal representation as no lawyer would take my case, on a contingency basis, so I represented myself. I was denied justice in the Supreme Court of Canada as my application was declined.

To add insult to injury, I was ordered by the Court of Appeal in Newfoundland and Labrador to pay the medical defense’s cost of $170,000, which landed me into bankruptcy, where I am still, as I write.

The charges that I had filed against the Canadian Medical Protective Association, (CMPA) and the HCCSJ are finished; the complaint I filed with the citizen’s representative was vaulted; the grievance with the Health Care Corporation, which I filed with the Newfoundland and Labrador nurses’ union was closed in my favor, without a hearing, but I will continue my pursuit for justice and longing for what is right and good. I still have faith that justice will prevail, even if it is poetic.

You know Bryon Pryor’s case as you represented him. I pray you will see the injustice done to both him and me and have it in your conscience to order a public inquiry into these serious matters.

Bryon Pryor had police investigations: I did not, but the only person who can see these cases receive the justice that has been delayed in Byron’s case and denied in mine, is You.

I believe in you. You have the power now, and you know the truth. I hope that you will take the time to study this lengthy letter and find it in your conscience to act accordingly.

As the late Lord Alfred Thompson Denning so eloquently said as he addressed the court, Justice should be blind to favor or prejudice, but clear to see which way the truth lies”.

Yours truly,

Judith Day

280 Dunn’s Crossing

Fredericton, NB

Canada, E3B 2A6

email jmld@nb.sympatico.ca.

c.c. Legal Advocate,

Ms. Andrea Benns

abenns@telus.net.

c.c. Mr. Bill Rowe

VOCM Open Line

bill.rowe@vocm.com

c.c. Ms. Danette Dooley

Freelance Reporter

danette@nl.rogers.com

c.c. News Editor

The Telegram

letters@thetelegram.com

Dr. Robert Young, President

College of Physicians and Surgeons of

Newfoundland and Labrador

ryoung@cpsnl.ca

lawyers working for government in N.B.for property

2009-09-23T17:00:00.006-03:00

richardharris1_64kb

13:27

embed this

THe first part of the interview with Richard Harris, who had his land expropriated just outside the Oromocto city limits and is currently in court seeking reparations.

Government takes land for many reasons - from widening roads to constructing water and sewage plants to building new highways. Usually, government representatives will negotiate with a landowner before the power to forcibly take land is exercised.

Understanding your options is critical if you have been approached by a government authority. We offer expertise in expropriation law; that is, the law governing the taking of land from individuals and corporations by the government.

If you are a government authority we can advise on the process of acquiring land from individuals and corporations.

If you need a lawyer in this area, please contact any of the following lawyers:

Douglas A. Caldwell, Q.C.
Dennis J. James
Robert H. Pineo

If you want to loose your life ? you should get these guys,??

There bill in my case to the N.B. Government was $212,000.00 dollars ? what do you think they got me

. A

cheque for $2,726.00 dollars for my company property.

tell me what you think of this, i have a carpenter lesson

and loss nine Building lots for this money , can any one tell me where i can get one building lot for this money,

Danny Williams, the Premier of Newfoundland

2009-09-19T13:26:00.001-03:00

I am sending this e-mail to everyone to have them forward it on to the 6 people listed below and get your friends to e-mail it as well. The 6 e-mail addresses are supplied. We need to get justice for this family so the more letters they receive the better. Thank you.

To: Louise Arbour, High Commissioner for Canada, United Nations Human Rights Commission InfoDesk@ohchr.org

To: The Right Hon. Madam Chief Justice of Canada, Beverley McLachlin, P.C.

reception@scc-csc.gc.ca
Carbon copy it to Prime Minister of Canada, Stephen Harper HarpeS@parl.gc.ca

Carbon copy it to Hon. Robert Nicholson, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada NichoR@parl.gc.ca

Carbon copy it to Tom Marshall, Minister of Justice for Newfoundland tommarshall@gov.nl.ca

Carbon copy it to The Right Hon. Madam Chief Justice of Canada, Beverley McLachlin, P.C. reception@scc-csc.gc.ca
Carbon copy it to Danny Williams, the Premier of Newfoundland dannywilliams@gov.nl.ca

Byron Prior's family was destroyed as young children by Incest, Child Rape and Abuse of every kind in a small town of 2500 people in Newfoundland, Canada. Supreme Court Judges, Politicians and RCMP are involved.

Byron has 50 years of being deprived justice in Newfoundland and has now been sentenced to the Waterford Mental Hospital in St. John’s, Newfoundland. The court ordered him to have a psychiatric assessment done with Dr. David Craig. The assessment lasted for 55 minutes and then Dr. Craig wrote a report to the court saying Byron was delusional. A group from British Columbia, Canada paid for his trip to Toronto, Ontario, Canada for 2 weeks of medical tests and examinations with five different Psychologists and neither of whom found him delusional.

Byron has been tied up in the Newfoundland Court System since 1998 until July 20, 2009, when he was just sentenced, because he reported the people who abused him and his family. Politicians names and faces change but the Corruption continues to rule our country. He spent 7 months in 2006 in Ottawa, Ontario on Parliament Hill, with permits, handing out information sheets about what happened to his family and still no one has resolved this great INJUSTICE.

All Byron Prior is asking for, as proof of whether or not Mr. T. Alex Hickman, Retired Chief Justice, is the father of his sister's child, is a DNA test. Most any innocent individual would prefer to submit a simple saliva swab rather than to testify in court. The fact that T. Alex Hickman did not volunteer such a simple method of proof raises the question - why not? It appears to us the answer could be because he didn't know if he was the father or not and was afraid to find out. It's also possible he knew his friend Justice David Orr would shield him from harms way and throw Byron to the dogs. The fact that Justice Orr did not order the saliva swab from Mr. T. Alex Hickman might be because he reasoned that if T. Alex Hickman didn't volunteer it he could very well be guilty, in which case T. Alex Hickman could not be saved.

Byron was arrested on May 29, 2008. He is alleged to have published a defamatory libel.

The trial started on February 02/09 in Provincial Court, St. John's, Newfoundland with Judge David Orr and the victim, Byron, was further persecuted for telling the truth and this system will protect the criminal, Alex Hickman. Byron's Government appointed lawyer told him she won't even ask for a DNA test to prove the TRUTH. Once again Newfoundland courts will knowingly convict the wrong person.

The court continued over the months and was concluded on July 20, 2009 with Judge Orr making no disposition at that time. Byron is remanded in custody to the Waterford Mental Hospital pending a disposition by the review board. There was a hearing scheduled for September 01, 2009 at the Waterford Hospital but was postponed until October 06, 2009 because they didn't have a report from Dr. Lynch, the Psychiatrist who is suppose to be assessing Byron. She has been on vacation for the past 2 weeks and she didn't see him before she went. Byron only found out about this doctor last week, he thought Dr. Ladha was doing the assessments. He has been appointed a lawyer from Mental Health Project and Court Support Services to represent him.

On Sept. 15, 2009, in a meeting with Dr. Lynch and Dena Orr, Byron was told by Dr. Lynch that she was asked to take his case because one summer he worked at the Yacht Club and met Dr. Ladha's 2 sons putting their sailboat in and out of the water with the cranes. Dr. Ladha asked to have Dr. Lynch do his assessment so there would be no conflict of interest.

Byron asked if Dena Orr could be excused from his assessments because of conflict of interest and it was refused. She is the wife of Judge David Orr, the judge who sent Byron to that hospital. She said she is a professional with ethics and he should respect that. Obviously her standards aren't as high as Dr. Ladha's.

Byron is being further abused and persecuted by the Newfoundland Legal System and Politics. He says that the staff at the Waterford are constantly trying to provoke him to get him to act out so they will have something on him in order to keep him in for an extended sentence.

He needs help. No one in Newfoundland will represent him and the last lawyer he asked told him, "If any lawyer in Newfoundland represents you, it will be the last job they have in this province."

A simple DNA test would see Justice served and prove Byron's allegations. The system protects the Criminals and itself, not the public or victims. Rather than rely on the findings of officials who are friends of former Justice T. Alex Hickman, we believe a simple DNA test of Mr. Hickman would be more accurate, quicker, cheaper and less stressful for all involved as was suggested by Byron in the beginning. Just a saliva smear is not that hard to do is it????

To understand why Byron Prior and his family cannot get justice in this province please check the websites and You Tube listed below.

There are three attachments with this e-mail.

Thank you.

Audrey Prior

http://maxpages.com/sexualabuse

www.youtube.com/cdnjusticedelayed

www.petitiononline.com/TRUTH/petition.html

http://www.equalparenting-bc.ca/testimonials/prior_byron.htm

http://www.meetup.com/equalparentingtrek/messages/boards/forum/763132

The Radical Press » Blog Archive » Newfoundland Sexual Abuse

gov-Injustice: from Byron Prior to Danny Williams his old lawyer///???

denial of due process,in Justice in Canada.also

2009-08-27T10:35:00.001-03:00

No Place to Turn!

-----Original Message-----
From: Diane Johnson [mailto:flutend@yahoo.com]
Sent: Sunday, August 16, 2009 10:08 PM
To: JAIL4Judges
Subject: Re: * * * DEAR ROBERT * * *

Dear JAIL for Corrupt:

Would you know of any lawyer in the United States who would take a big case for denial of due process, a Human and Civil Rights case that could bring down one of the biggest insurance companies, and a state administration full of their henchmen?

I was willfully crippled for life by crimes proven in court fight. Now I am forced to seek help outside the United States….

Iris

flutend@yahoo.com

From: Offering Accountability of Judges Directly to the People

Subject: * * * DEAR ROBERT * * *

To: "Judicial Acct. Directly to the People" VictoryUSA@jail4judges.org

Date: Friday, August 14, 2009, 8:22 AM

DEAR ROBERT

(Ron Branson’s response below – VictoryUSA@jail4judges.org)

From: Robert L. Cheney Jr. [mailto:cheney5512@comcast.net]

Sent: Friday, August 14, 2009 7:25 AM

To: JAIL4Judges

Subject: Unlawful Arrest by Court

Dear Jail4Judges:

Hello. My name is Robert L. Cheney Jr., and I have been in the Father's Rights movement for quite some time and have also been battling these California courts on the order of 25 years.

We just recently had a man, railroaded into prison in MARIPOSA COUNTY

in California. (Very corrupt). This court is also working in conjunction with an out-of-control DIVORCE CASE in Merced County. Both courts are acting in unison and cannot arrest Daniel Vienna (the Father) enough! (They have repeatedly arrested him for an imagined crime (traffic).

The first case is a traffic infraction case (crossing yellow line, driving without license, obstructing officer (lie). We asked for Administrative Hearing with the CHP officer to which he denied the hearing (which was a default). We then made a Special Appearance at all times in the traffic case -- to which that court steam rolled over him, moved to jury trial which "convicted" him. At all times we made Special Appearance.

We then moved into the appeals court and demanded proof of jurisdiction ("Once jurisdiction is challenged it must be proven"). We had the definitive case law showing that when Administrative hearing is denied, the Superior Court loses

jurisdiction (double jeopardy). The court would not listen to the law. We've gone up through the courts on that issue and now are in the Federal Court on a REMOVAL (Fresno DCUS 1:09 CV 01124 ). Under Anthony v. Runyon, once it has been removed, the lower superior court loses jurisdiction.

He then had a divorce. The wife left him for a lesbian relationship and left him, the home and the family stranded. A "divorce" case then ensued in Madera County. He got a lawyer (Maurice E. Joy)--worst decision he ever made.

HIs lawyer drained him of everything (30K plus) and of course did nothing. When the money was gone, the lawyer then moved to be relieved of the case. Dan asked the lawyer to stay, asked the lawyer what is defense was (never answered), never provided a defense. Dan also asked for TIME to procure another lawyer (never given). The California Rules of Professional Conduct state that the lawyer cannot

just leave, and that the lawyer stay and MUST secure his interests before leaving and MUST give him time to procure a new lawyer. THIS WAS NEVER DONE ... the court just STEAMROLLED OVER HIM AND THEN SEIZED HIS HOUSE! There was no hearing on this, even though we demanded it--and the court summarily granted the lawyers motion to leave the case, and then immediately seized this guys home (forcibly threw him off) and left the whole family homeless. This was done by both lawyers who wanted to be paid.

The Madera divorce court was told by the wife and her lawyer of the Mariposa court and his fight on that issue. Both courts then conspired against him. The Mariposa court put him up for arrest on a bogus FTA (when he appeared by paper -- and the date for that hearing was thrown in when they knew he was in LA). The court immediately put a 'bench warrant" out for him.

He applied for bail ($15000). They would ONLY let him have bail IF he booked. (No cause, as that case was a VOID JUDGMENT). They then upped the bail to $25,000...he got a bailbonds to pay it and the court finally accepted.

We asked for a DEMAND FOR PRODUCTION OF WARRANT under PC 842 which they never have given him in almost a year of asking for the alleged

warrant. WE also asked for the affidavit in support. They refused.

Yesterday, at the hearing for production of warrant, they arrested him, EVEN THOUGH HE HAD SECURED THE BAIL. (That was shown to the Judge Dana Walton Mariposa Superior Court). He shuffled and then said he was still going to arrest him and 'exonerate' the bail. Dan then stated that the case was removed to Federal Court, and that this court didn't have jurisdiction. The judge had the clerk called the Federal court, and the clerk returned admitting that "yes, it was removed to federal court." They still arrested him anyways, violating his 8th Amendment right to bail and the jurisdictional prohibition that was on the record that the case had been removed and was pending in the upper federal court.

We have noticed that the courts are in a complete FREEFALL. Law is nowhere found in these courts. What has happened in this case is PURE ABUSE. I believe the discussion has to go from "working" with these courts TO COMPLETELY REPLACING THEM.

AS FAR AS I CAN SEE, THESE COURTS ARE ONLY A DOMESTIC ENEMY.

We would endeavor your help in this matter. An instant writ of habeas is going into the federal court today, but I doubt that the court will give any remedy.

We need help.

Please RSVP or call me at 530-327-xxxx.

Thanx

Robert L. Cheney Jr.

Author: Suffering Patriarchy and,

ORIGINS OF SOCIETY (new book)

Founder: Legends Legal Aid Society

Dear Robert!

Thank you for writing us. My name is Ron Branson. What you have experienced is typical when you deal with the courts and expect justice. Write this up as a cheap education on what the “law” is all about. I am often confronted with “educated” people who think they know the law, and set out to prove it in court from all parts of this country.

I could tell you story after story of my own personal experiences in the courts. This was in the days when I, like most every other patriot, thought I knew what I was doing. I had to be kicked to the curb and the boot stomped in my face and tortured with electricity until I came to know what the law was really about. I began to feel sorry for the law students who would come to the copy machine in law school to make photocopies as I began to educate them on how they were being brainwashed. I could not have learned what I have learned had I gone to Harvard Law School and earned a degree in law, and received a doctorate.

I have had the Deputy State Attorney General stand before the Appeals Court and yell angrily to the Justices, “Mr. Branson may not be an attorney, but he knows just as much as an attorney, and so you have to treat him as an attorney.” I did my best to retain my composure and not smile or make comment. The fact is, I deem most all of the government attorneys of which I have come up against as total idiots with law degrees, but unable to legally punch their way out of a wet paper bag. The only thing they had going for them is that they were government attorneys covered by the omnipotent judiciary. That is all!

Perhaps you may remember the scene in the movie, 1984 in which electrodes were attached to the subject, and he was asked by the Administrator how many fingers he was holding up. The subject, seeing four fingers, responded, “Four.” The Administrator nodded to the torturer and the electricity was applied. After a torture session, the Administrator nodded again, and the electricity was turned off.

The Administrator said, “I ask you the same question, how many fingers am I holding up?” The subject knew not to say four the second time, so he tried five. The same head nod followed, and he was again tortured with electricity.

The subject was then asked a third time how many fingers the Administrator was holding up. This continued until the subject stated, “How ever many you want it to be.” The Administrator said, “That is correct, and don’t you ever forget it.” The “Law” is whatever the “Administrator” wants it to be, and everything else is wrong!

So I congratulate you on your newly discovered knowledge of the law. You are one step ahead of all those people who think they know the law, when they are actually “educated idiots” naïve to believe that the law is what can be cited from a bound volume called “a law book.” You are now a great candidate for becoming a JAILer, i.e., one who has come to grasp the lesson of which you have now discovered. Great are your words, “AS FAR AS I CAN SEE, THESE COURTS ARE ONLY A DOMESTIC ENEMY.” You can’t imagine the value of lesson this is. It is more valuable than gold, and more to be coveted than precious rubies. My most difficult lesson is getting across to people what you have just learned. I call it the deprogramming of the delusional brainwashing most all go through. So long as people have ingenious ideas, I have to contend with them. But when they reach the bottom of their ingenious ideas, they become candidates for learning.

God bless you, Robert Chaney

Loss of Faith

2009-08-24T13:17:00.001-03:00

Prisoners are persons whom most of us would rather not think about. Banished from everyday sight, they exist in a shadow world that only dimly enters our awareness. They are members of a "total institution" that controls their daily existence in a way that few of us can imagine. "[P]rison is a complex of physical arrangements and of measures, all wholly governmental, all wholly performed by agents of government, which determine the total existence of certain human beings (except perhaps in the realm of the spirit, and inevitably there as well) from sundown to sundown, sleeping, walking, speaking, silent, working, playing, viewing, eating, voiding, reading, alone, with others. . . ." It is thus easy to think of prisoners as members of a separate netherworld, driven by its own demands, ordered by its own customs, ruled by those whose claim to power rests on raw necessity. -- Justice William Brennan, dissenting in O’Lone v. Estate of Shabazz, 482 U.S. 342, 354-55 (1987).

Tuesday, April 7, 2009

Loss of Faith

In an article in today's NY Times, "Judge Orders Investigation of Stevens Prosecutors," former Senator Ted Stevens is quoted:

“Until recently, my faith in the criminal justice system, particularly the judicial system, was unwavering,” he said. “But what some members of the prosecution team did nearly destroyed my faith. Their conduct had consequences for me that they will never realize and can never be reversed.”

Welcome to the club Mr. Stevens!

There is no doubt that the general public has "unwavering" support for the criminal justice system. Police officers, FBI agents, atorrneys general, and prosecutors are all assumed to be the "good guys" -- there is an overwhelming presumption in their favor.

This is further burnished by the fact that they usually have tremendous resource advantages over the typically hapless defendant, including a press release department that presents the government's point of view while the defendant typically is advised to keep his mouth shut. Thus the public for months or years only hears the charges against someone and the "truth" only comes out in a carefully scripted charade called a trial, in which

1. the jury already assumes that the person sitting in the defendant's chair must have done something wrong (otherwise they wouldn't be in trouble!).
2. the govt gets to present their case first (since, the theory goes, the burden is on them to prove their case)
3. the govt gets to present their case LAST in closing, although in theory this is only to rebut any defense arguments
4. the jury is not allowed to know what sentence a defendant is facing if convicted (this is important because "reasonable doubt" means different things depending on the consequences of being wrong if you are a juror). Most federal juries are shocked to find out the severity of the sentence given to defendants they have convicted and oftentimes simply give the govt the benefit of the doubt in complicated cases or convict on what they believe are lesser counts only to find out the defendant can still be sentenced as if guilty of the other counts (this is know as "acquitted conduct" enhancements).

The pollyannish view of our criminal justice system that so many share is to some degree necessary from a social point of view. I get that. A police state system that does not have the confidence of the majority of its citizens cannot function effectively. That is why what is happening in the Stevens case is so important.

I am convinced that most of what the criminal justice system (at least at the federal level) does is create the perception among the citizens that they are being protected from "bad guys." It doesn't actually matter whether the individuals prosecuted are actually "bad" or even guilty for that matter. What matters is that people believe that the government is doing something. The primary goal of most federal prosecutions is general deterrance; that is, successfully prosecute someone -- anyone -- for some alleged bad actions and then use the publicity from that prosecution to deter other bad acts.

A truly innocent individual, once convicted, has virtually no chance being believed because no one has the time or interest to give his case an independent review to determine if the jury was actually right.... we just assume the system works and leave it at that.

Unfortunately, the lesson that Mr. Stevens has learned -- this journey into the Rabbit Hole -- is a lesson that tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of citizens have already learned about the justice system. They, however, lacked the resources to fight and expose the improper conduct. Furthermore, if they do attempt to fight it, they will oftentimes find themselves punished even more.

There was significant prosecutorial misconduct in my case which I wanted to challenge. However, the consequences of failing in that challenge would have been disastrous so I made the only rational decision I could and fell on my sword so to speak in order to minimize the potential damage. I am still reluctant to talk about it because I am still on supervised release and fear possible retaliation. However, one day I will talk about it.

The larger story however is that THIS HAPPENS TO DEFENDANTS EVERY DAY and no one every knows about it. They take the plea deal, accept their sentence, the govt issues their self-serving press releases about how they are once again ever-vigilant in their prosecution of dangerous or fraudulent criminals and that this or that prosecution "serves as an example", yada, yada, yada..... And the press and public just eats it up.

Anyone who suggests that what happened in the Stevens case was the exception is a naive fool. I believe it is routine and widespread; it is just never caught because there is no one there to expose it.

3 comments:

Kathy said...: Amen Bill! All you said is so true!; April 22, 2009 12:36 AM
Anonymous said...: Well written. As the wife of a former federal inmate, I can relate and share your views. This system is skewed and broken. Before our nightmare began, I was just as naive about our justice system and the government, gross prosecutorial misconduct, and then the BOP, a cruel and ugly monster in our midst. I'd like to add defense attorneys to that list. They are battling such a big beast that they give up the fight before it starts, their focus is not on justice, it's on damage control, guilt or innocence play a very small part in their defense strategies. It's too bad the general public knows nothing about "guidelines" until they're in it, especially if their role is juror. I would love to tell my husband's story here too, but as he is on supervised release, I cannot take that chance.; June 23, 2009 9:26 AM
Bill Bailey said...: Thanks for your commment anonymous.

I'm not as hard on the defense attorneys because I think they are right to approach this as "damage control." Once you realize the system is not about right/wrong or justice/injustice, you can think more clearly about how to approach that system.

If, as a defense lawyer, you persuade your client that just because he is innocent (or trivially guilty) he should fight for "justice" then you may very well end up consigning him to a longer prison term.

I approach it now like a game of poker. Once investigated/indicted, it is like being dealt a bad hand. You can complaign about the unfairness of it all, but at the end of the day, you still have to play the cards you are dealt and the stakes are very high. To the degree that you are caught up in the "injustice," you will be unable to think soberly about the task at hand.

It feels good to fight and there is a certain pride in knowing you never gave in, but after several years in prison -- knowing you could have plead out to, say, several months -- that pride doesn't carry you very far.

I am still on supervised release also (hopefully not much longer) and so far no one has given me any grief over my blog. Early on there were a few concerns expressed, but I actually think most people who understand the system agree with what I am saying.

Government’s concern, swine flu campaign

2009-08-19T11:05:00.000-03:00

* * *

Swine flu jab link to killer nerve disease: Leaked letter reveals concern of neurologists over 25 deaths in America

By Jo Macfarlane
Last updated at 11:05 PM on 15th August 2009

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-1206898/Kerry-Katona-sacked-Iceland-photographed-snorting-white-powder.html

Prevention: Is the swine flu jab safe?

A warning that the new swine flu jab is linked to a deadly nerve disease has been sent by the Government to senior neurologists in a confidential letter.

The letter from the Health Protection Agency, the official body that oversees public health, has been leaked to The Mail on Sunday, leading to demands to know why the information has not been given to the public before the vaccination of millions of people, including children, begins.

It tells the neurologists that they must be alert for an increase in a brain disorder called Guillain-Barre Syndrome (GBS), which could be triggered by the vaccine.

GBS attacks the lining of the nerves, causing paralysis and inability to breathe, and can be fatal.

The letter, sent to about 600 neurologists on July 29, is the first sign that there is concern at the highest levels that the vaccine itself could cause serious complications.

It refers to the use of a similar swine flu vaccine in the United States in 1976 when:

More people died from the vaccination than from swine flu.

500 cases of GBS were detected.

The vaccine may have increased the risk of contracting GBS by eight times.

The vaccine was withdrawn after just ten weeks when the link with GBS became clear.

The US Government was forced to pay out millions of dollars to those affected.

Concerns have already been raised that the new vaccine has not been sufficiently tested and that the effects, especially on children, are unknown.

It is being developed by pharmaceutical companies and will be given to about 13million people during the first wave of immunisation, expected to start in October.

Top priority will be given to everyone aged six months to 65 with an underlying health problem, pregnant women and health professionals.

The British Neurological Surveillance Unit (BNSU), part of the British Association of Neurologists, has been asked to monitor closely any cases of GBS as the vaccine is rolled out.

One senior neurologist said last night: ‘I would not have the swine flu jab because of the GBS risk.’ There are concerns that there could be a repeat of what became known as the ‘1976 debacle’ in the US, where a swine flu vaccine killed 25 people – more than the virus itself.

A mass vaccination was given the go-ahead by President Gerald Ford because scientists believed that the swine flu strain was similar to the one responsible for the 1918-19 pandemic, which killed half a million Americans and 20million people worldwide.

The swine flu vaccine being offered to children has not been tested on infants

Within days, symptoms of GBS were reported among those who had been immunised and 25 people died from respiratory failure after severe paralysis. One in 80,000 people came down with the condition. In contrast, just one person died of swine flu.

More than 40million Americans had received the vaccine by the time the programme was stopped after ten weeks. The US Government paid out millions of dollars in compensation to those affected.

The swine flu virus in the new vaccine is a slightly different strain from the 1976 virus, but the possibility of an increased incidence of GBS remains a concern.

Shadow health spokesman Mike Penning said last night: ‘The last thing we want is secret letters handed around experts within the NHS. We need a vaccine but we also need to know about potential risks.

‘Our job is to make sure that the public knows what’s going on. Why
is the Government not being open about this? It’s also very worrying if GPs, who will be administering the vaccine, aren’t being warned.’

Two letters were posted together to neurologists advising them of the concerns. The first, dated July 29, was written by Professor Elizabeth Miller, head of the HPA’s Immunisation Department. It says: ‘The vaccines used to combat an expected swine influenza pandemic in 1976 were shown to be associated with GBS and were withdrawn from use.

‘GBS has been identified as a condition needing enhanced surveillance when the swine flu vaccines are rolled out. ‘Reporting every case of GBS irrespective of vaccination or disease history is essential for conducting robust epidemiological analyses capable of identifying whether there is an increased risk of GBS in defined time periods after vaccination, or after influenza itself, compared with the background risk.’

The second letter, dated July 27, is from the Association of British Neurologists and is written by Dr Rustam Al-Shahi Salman, chair of its surveillance unit, and Professor Patrick Chinnery, chair of its clinical research committee.

Halted: The 1976 US swine flu campaign

It says: ‘Traditionally, the BNSU has monitored rare diseases for long periods of time. However, the swine influenza (H1N1) pandemic has overtaken us and we need every member’s involvement with a new BNSU survey of Guillain-Barre Syndrome that will start on August 1 and run for approximately nine months.

‘Following the 1976 programme of vaccination against swine influenza in the US, a retrospective study found a possible eight-fold increase in the incidence of GBS.

‘Active prospective ascertainment of every case of GBS in the UK is required. Please tell BNSU about every case.

‘You will have seen Press coverage describing the Government’s concern about releasing a vaccine of unknown safety.’ If there are signs of a rise in GBS after the vaccination programme begins, the Government could decide to halt it.

GBS attacks the lining of the nerves, leaving them unable to transmit signals to muscles effectively.

It can cause partial paralysis and mostly affects the hands and feet. In serious cases, patients need to be kept on a ventilator, but it can be fatal. Death is caused by paralysis of the respiratory system, causing the victim to suffocate. It is not known exactly what causes GBS and research on the subject has been inconclusive. However, it is thought that one in a million people who have a seasonal flu vaccination could be at risk and it has also been linked to people recovering from a bout of flu of any sort.

The HPA said it was part of the Government’s pandemic plan to monitor GBS cases in the event of a mass vaccination campaign, regardless of the strain of flu involved. But vaccine experts warned that the letters proved the programme was a ‘guinea-pig trial’.

Dr Tom Jefferson, co-ordinator of the vaccines section of the influential Cochrane Collaboration, an independent group that reviews research, said: ‘New vaccines never behave in the way you expect them to. It may be that there is a link to GBS, which is certainly not something I would wish on anybody.

‘But it could end up being anything because one of the additives in one of the vaccines is a substance called squalene, and none of the studies we’ve extracted have any research on it at all.’ He said squalene, a naturally occurring enzyme, could potentially cause so-far-undiscovered side effects.

Jackie Fletcher, founder of vaccine support group Jabs, said: ‘The Government would not be anticipating this if they didn’t think there was a connection. What we’ve got is a massive guinea-pig trial.’ Professor Chinnery said: ‘During the last swine flu pandemic, it was observed that there was an increased frequency of cases of GBS. No one knows whether it was the virus or the vaccine that caused this.

‘The purpose of the survey is for us to assess rapidly whether there is an increase in the frequency of GBS when the vaccine is released in the UK. It also increases consultants’ awareness of the condition.

Panic over? The number of swine flu cases has fallen sharply in the past few weeks

‘This is a belt-and-braces approach to safety and is not something people should be substantially worried about as it’s a rare condition.’ If neurologists do identify a case of GBS, it will be logged on a central database. Details about patients, including blood samples, will be collected and monitored by the HPA.

It is hoped this will help scientists establish why some people develop the condition and whether it is directly related to the vaccine.

But some question why there needs to be a vaccine, given the risks. Dr Richard Halvorsen, author of The Truth About Vaccines, said: ‘For people with serious underlying health problems, the risk of dying from swine flu is probably greater than the risk of side effects from the vaccine. ‘But it would be tragic if we repeated the US example and ended up with more casualties from the jabs.

‘I applaud the Government for recognising the risk but in most cases this is a mild virus which needs a few days in bed. I’d question why we need a vaccine at all.’

Professor Miller at the HPA said: ‘This monitoring system activates pandemic plans that have been in place for a number of years. We’ll be able to get information on whether a patient has had a prior influenza illness and will look at whether influenza itself is linked to GBS. ‘We are not expecting a link to the vaccine but a link to disease, which would make having the vaccine even more important.’

The UK’s medicines watchdog, the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency, is already monitoring reported side effects from Tamiflu and Relenza and it is set to extend that surveillance to the vaccine.

A Department of Health spokesperson said: ‘The European Medicines Agency

has strict processes in place for licensing pandemic vaccines. ‘In preparing for a pandemic, appropriate trials to assess safety and the immune responses have been carried out on vaccines very similar to the swine flu vaccine. The vaccines have been shown to have a good safety profile. ‘It is extremely irresponsible to suggest that the UK would use a vaccine without careful consideration of safety issues. The UK has one of the most successful immunisation programmes in the world.’

I COULDN''T EAT OR SPEAK... IT WAS HORRENDOUS

Victim: Hilary Wilkinson spent three months in hospital after she was diagnosed with Guillain-Barre Syndrome. When Hilary Wilkinson woke up with muscle weakness in her left arm and difficulty breathing, doctors initially put it down to a stroke. But within hours, she was on a ventilator in intensive care after being diagnosed with Guillain-Barre Syndrome.

She spent three months in hospital and had to learn how to talk and walk again. But at times, when she was being fed through a drip and needed a tracheotomy just to breathe, she doubted whether she would survive. The mother of two, 57, from Maryport, Cumbria, had been in good health until she developed a chest infection in March 2006. She gradually became so weak she could not walk downstairs.

Doctors did not diagnose Guillain-Barre until her condition worsened in hospital and tests showed her reflexes slowing down. It is impossible for doctors to know how she contracted the disorder, although it is thought to be linked to some infections.

Mrs Wilkinson said: ‘It was very scary. I couldn’t eat and I couldn’t speak. My arms and feet had no strength and breathing was hard.

I was treated with immunoglobulin, which are proteins found in blood, to stop damage to my nerves. After ten days, I still couldn’t speak and had to mime to nurses or my family.

‘It was absolutely horrendous and I had no idea whether I would get through it. You reach very dark moments at such times and wonder how long it can last.

But I’m a very determined person and I had lots of support.’ After three weeks, she was transferred to a neurological ward, where she had an MRI scan and nerve tests to assess the extent of the damage. Still unable to speak and in a wheelchair, Mrs Wilkinson eventually began gruelling physiotherapy to improve her muscle strength and movement but it was exhausting and painful.

Three years later, she is almost fully recovered. She can now walk for several miles at a time, has been abroad and carries out voluntary work for a GBS Support Group helpline. She said: ‘It makes me feel wary that the Government is rolling out this vaccine without any clear idea of the GBS risk, if any. I wouldn’t wish it on anyone and it certainly changed my life. ‘I’m frightened to have the swine flu vaccine if this might happen again – it’s a frightening illness and I think more research needs to be done on the effect of the vaccine.’

Hotline staff given access to confidential records

Confidential NHS staff records and disciplinary complaints could be accessed by hundreds of workers manning the Government’s special swine flu hotline.

They were able to browse through a database of emails containing doctors’ and nurses’ National Insurance numbers, home addresses, dates of birth, mobile phone numbers and scanned passport pages – all details that could be used fraudulently.

And private and confidential complaints sent by hospitals about temporary medical staff – some of whom were named – were also made available to the call-centre workers, who were given a special password to log in to an internal NHS website. It could be a breach of the Data Protection Act.

The hotline staff work for NHS Professionals, which was set up using taxpayers’ money to employ temporary medical and administrative staff for the health service. The not-for-profit company runs two of the Government’s swine flu call centres – with 300 staff in Farnborough, Hampshire, and 900 in Watford, Hertfordshire. Shadow Health Secretary Andrew Lansley described the revelations as ‘disturbing’.

Anne Mitchell, a spokeswoman for Unison, said: ‘There’s no excuse for such a fundamental breach of personal security. Action needs to be taken as soon as possible to make sure this does not happen again.’ A spokeswoman for NHS Professionals would not confirm whether access to the confidential files had been granted.

______________________________________________

J.A.I.L. (Judicial Accountability Initiative Law) www.jail4judges.org, has been in existence since 1995, and is in all 50 states and foreign countries.

To manage your email, place the word Subscribe or Unsubscribe

in 'subject' line and hit reply. Your request will be automatically & instantly

processed.

Our Founding Fathers said, "...with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine

Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes, and

our sacred honor." Dec. of Independence. We are a ministry in great need of

your financial support. Donate to this vitally important work at;

"J.A.I.L." P.O. Box 207, North Hollywood, CA 91603

J.A.I.L. is a unique addition to our Constitution heretofore unrealized.

JAIL is powerful! JAIL is dynamic! JAIL is America's ONLY hope!

J.A.I.L. has not been tried and found wanting.

It has been found difficult and left untried!

E-Group sign on at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/jail4judges/join

Visit our active flash - http://www.jail4judges.org/national_001.htm

* * *

He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to

our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his assent to

their acts of pretended legislation. - Declaration of Independence

"..it does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless

minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds.." - Samuel Adams

"There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who is

striking at the root." -- Henry David Thoreau

We seek for justice,

2009-08-14T09:38:00.000-03:00

Mission Statement JNJ Library Federal J.A.I.L.

FAQs What?MeWarden?

____________________________________________________________

Riding the Debt Coaster

Straight into Hell

“The king spake, and said, Is not this great Babylon, that I have built for the house of the kingdom by the might of my power, and for the honour of my majesty?”

– King Nebuchadnezzar, King of Babylon, Daniel 4:30

In that very same hour, as the words were in Nebuchadnezzar’s mouth, he was smitten with madness, and driven out from the presence of men where he dwelt amoung the beasts of the earth, and ate grass.

It seems it is the nature of mankind to tempt God with his pride and arrogance. When we boast ourselves against God, we are certain to face doom. “The wicked shall be turned into hell, and all the nations that forget God.”

Everyone is in a quandry today wondering where our nation is headed. We seek for justice, but behold, inequity. We seek for light, but behold, darkness! We hope for economic recovery, but behold, emptiness, desolation and doom! “… our hands wax feeble: anguish hath taken hold of us, and pain, as of a woman in travail.” Jer. 6:24. All this because we will not hear nor give heed to the words of wisdom!

– Ron Branson

I didn't speak up because

2009-07-30T09:05:00.000-03:00

Socialistic Health Care System (8 min.)

…First came for the Communists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist.

Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew.

Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Catholics,
and I didn't speak up because I was a Protestant.

Then they came for me —
and by that time no one was left to speak up.

Congress is now voting on a ”health care Bill” that calls for the extermination of the sick, the elderly and the infirm for the common good of society!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7w4f04zrF2s&feature=player_embedded

______________________________________________

J.A.I.L. (Judicial Accountability Initiative Law) www.jail4judges.org, has been in existence since 1995, and is in all 50 states and foreign countries.

To manage your email, place the word Subscribe or Unsubscribe

in 'subject' line and hit reply. Your request will be automatically & instantly

processed.

Our Founding Fathers said, "...with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine

Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes, and

our sacred honor." Dec. of Independence. We are a ministry in great need of

your financial support. Donate to this vitally important work at;

"J.A.I.L." P.O. Box 207, North Hollywood, CA 91603

J.A.I.L. is a unique addition to our Constitution heretofore unrealized.

JAIL is powerful! JAIL is dynamic! JAIL is America's ONLY hope!

E-Group sign on at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/jail4judges/join

Visit our active flash - http://www.jail4judges.org/national_001.htm

* * *

He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to

our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his assent to

their acts of pretended legislation. - Declaration of Independence

"..it does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless

minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds.." - Samuel Adams

"There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who is

striking at the root." -- Henry David Thoreau

gov-Injustice

Mr.Goodwin

Law Society joke

Expropriation Case Law ? bull SSSSS

EDDY??????

lawyer-Jamie-Eddy.

Mr Raymond Questions

conflict of interest great theft exists.

Be...in dis-grace.wmv

Be...in dis-grace.wmv

CANCER AND BIRTH DEFECTS?

LEPREAU Candu 6 plant

/Is-Newfoundland-s-Justice-Minister-Tom-Marshall-Covering-up

Grand Bank, Newfoundland and Labrador

Alexander Hickman

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] References

in Newfoundland and﻿ Labrador

THE INFOWARRIOR with Jason Bermas 1/3: John Elway 'Fearmongering' to The People!!

THE INFOWARRIOR with Jason Bermas 1/3: John Elway 'Fearmongering' to The People!!

RCMP Reports

The Justice system is just an illusion

Byron Prior"s need help now

Honourable Stephen Harper:

" Truth and Justice"

electroshocks given to children

Dena Orr, Justice David Orr’s wife. Isn’t this a conflict of interest?

Re: Citizen’s Representative File # 37CF02 of Judith Day, and the Justice system of Newfoundland and Labrador under T. Alex Hickman, a former chief Justice.

lawyers working for government in N.B.for property

If you need a lawyer in this area, please contact any of the following lawyers:

Danny Williams, the Premier of Newfoundland

denial of due process,in Justice in Canada.also

Loss of Faith

The Rabbit Hole

Tuesday, April 7, 2009

Loss of Faith

3 comments:

Government’s concern, swine flu campaign

* * *

Swine flu jab link to killer nerve disease: Leaked letter reveals concern of neurologists over 25 deaths in America

We seek for justice,

I didn't speak up because

in Newfoundland and Labrador