Lying under oath.

Thursday, January 10, 2008

THE_ crime of lying under oath= PERURE

The Perjure at trial were : Heather lee Pugh,

John,S.Raymond, and one of my owned Expert

Qualifications of my accounted Mr. Gerald Withers. = Trial Division Exhibit List. A-6 the point here is must be Qualified to lie, and miss lead the Judge at Trial:

Richard Harris must start a Personal Injury Litigation" Because there will be no relief at the Appeal court on February 13,2008, at 10.am for Richard Harris Life work up to February 12/1997, the first time that i would have any ID of the Property requirement of what they D.O.T. would need from me.???

will the police Investigations in to this Matter of PERJURY.???

The Law Society did not do a thing about the Conflict of interest of MRDC law firm,

going to the Ombudsman was a wast of time and Money.

Going to the The New Brunswick Association of Real Estate Appraisers was a wast of time and money, fighting for my life from February 12/1997 up to this day January 11/2008 was a com pleat wast of a life.?

If i could do life over and know what i know now ! i would of just gave the property away.

Posted: Wednesday, December 17, 2003

From CLE The upcoming "Oatley-McLeish Guide to Personal Injury Litigation" course on February 6, 2004 covers a personal injury case from injury or loss to final resolution at trial. As you walk through the various stages of litigation with these distinguished trial lawyers, you will receive invaluable tips to help you be effective and persuasive, and get your clients the compensation they deserve.

The Supreme Court of Canada in Odhavji Estate v. Woodhouse, 2003 SCC 69, has detailed the requirements for the tort of "misfeasance in a public office", an intentional tort in which a public officer deliberately fails to exercise a public function, knowing that his or her conduct is unlawful and likely to injure the plaintiff.

An Ontario resident was fatally shot by police. The police officers involved did not comply with the investigator's instructions to stay segregated, attend interviews the same day as the shooting, and provide their notes, clothing and blood samples quickly.

An Ontario statute puts police officers under a statutory duty to comply with such investigations, and the chief of police under a duty to ensure officers carry out their duties in accordance with the Act (Police Services Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 15). The investigation cleared the officers of wrongdoing.

The estate and family of the deceased brought actions against the officers and the police chief for misfeasance in a public office, and actions for negligence against the chief, the police board, and the province.

The motions judge and the Court of appeal struck out portions of the claims.

The palintiffs appealed the Court of Appeals decision to strike the claims for misfeasance in a public office against the officers and the chief, and the claims for negligence against the board and the province.

The chief cross-appealed the Court of Appeal's decision to let the action against him for negligence to go forward.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that the actions in misfeasance against the officers and the chief, as well as the action in negligence against the chief could proceed.

The Court struck the actions in negligence against the board and the province.

The Court ruled that misfeasance in a public office:

can include a public officer's failure to perform a statutory duty, but is not limited to unlawful exercises of statutory powers;

is an intentional tort that includes

deliberate, unlawful conduct in exercising public functions; and

awareness that the conduct is unlawful and likely to injury the plaintiff;

must include the requirements common to all torts—that the tortious conduct was the legal cause of the plaintiff's injuries, and the injuries are compensable in tort law.

The statement of claim i

Lawyer David Eidt.

On or about September 14, 2006, I made a request to Patterson Palmer Hunt Murphy

Or Patterson Palmer Law, Firm. Requesting my total files as to the letter to Jamie Eddy (see letters to Caldwell of 2005 and 2006)

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

See Attachment of Letter. September 14, 2006.

Robert Pineo is talking about two Issues in this Email letter to Jamie C.Eddy.

The first Issue is the Taxation of there bill of Costs only. I have you to know

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

I will need at least three month to do this taste once I have my file return to my self.

Robert Pineo not only provided a bill of costs ,he also provided you Mr.Eidt a Affidavit in March on 2006 that I was not aware of, on till I received this letter from the Law Society. He is saying this is his Affidavit, is it not a law under the Expropriation Act (o.c.84-46) accordingly to this case.

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

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

Mr. Eidt do you know what the word cul-de-sac mean (a dead end street) after my gravel pit was sold A cul-de-sac was a dead end JOB.

There were all most the same circumstances going on, the different is in Court the Government knew that there side, and did not have any Appraisal reports, with Mr. Carter as there appraiser. So my Lawyer would enter his reports,??

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

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

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

I would like to bring this to your attention that the Goodwin Action would have not come to be if I was not in this land disputed. Now at Discovery of September 11, 2001 Mr. Caldwell said he would be Entering the Goodwin Bill to the Government as well. I don’t be lived this has been done. So I will be entering his costs along with mine as soon as I get my file back. Plus all the rest of my never ending costs that go on daily. Do to all matter of the loss of my self Employments.

This loss started on or about February 12, 1997. As of to day February, 19, /07 this is over 10 years of out right delved abuse to a person. This time faring of Delay is Abuse in it self.

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

Am I aloud to know who these people are, as it looks like they also had a lot difficulty?

Now Mr.Pineo go on to say that one of these cases is Factually similar to the Harris case, and on a Decision to act as Precedent. Well I hope that there was no Successful Negotiations on there bill yet. As I have not even got my files back.

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

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

Here a Question that I would like you to answer why is he tacking on an undertaken to Vet my File before returning it to the Client or to my self. Do you not know that there are soon tings rung here?

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

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

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

Your truly ___________________ _____________________