November 17, 2005
To:       David Hunter-Thomson
From:   Karl-Heintz Eisbrenner, M.A. (Oxon,); L.L.B.
                    Re:  The Spirit and the Letter of the Law
1.  The Law Society of British Columbia [LSBC] functions as "a public body", as defined in the B.C. Attorney General Act.
2.  Under the B.C. Law and Equity Act, the LSBC functions as a "court", i.e. "The enactments and the declarations in [made by] this Act must be applied in all courts in the province".  The Act does not define "court", however, the French word "tribunale", embraces all public bodies engaged in judicial decision-making, such as the decisions made against your property and your civil rights.
3.  The functions of "barristers and solicitors"  as defined in The Criminal Code of Canada are limited, and not absolute, AND, subject to liability, accountability, punishment and penalty.
4.   The conjuctive word "and" in paragraph 3 above, must be given all its meaning and connotation, according to the B.C. Interpretation Act, it must be given all and every remedial and liberal reading where anyone's property and civil rights are impacted by decisions of "a public body".
5.  Mr Sommerey admits he functions under his "oath of office", in previous correspondence with you, and with others.  He says he has kept his "oath of office".  You may wish to ask Mr Sommerey, or indeed, any LSBC "member in good standing" the difference between "The Solicitor's Oath" and "The Barrister's Oath".  The distinction is crucial, exceedingly crucial.
6.  With all due respect to Mr Sommerey, I suggest Mr Thomson that you and others look very closely at the LSBC certificate confirming every so - called "call to the bar".  When anyone signs on the dotted line, accepting the "call" to the B.C. Bar and accepting admission into the LSBC, everyone automatically gets admitted as a Solicitor into another very elite "public body", some educators describe as a "clique".
7.  Notice the word "Solicitor", by itself, and then recognize the principle that everyone and anyone must accept as a given, an absolute presupposition, not up for any discussion:
8.  Each and every "member in good standing", ostensibly "licensed" to do what the Legal Profession Act defines as "the practice of law", automatically, without any exception, by operation of LSBC "rules", gets admitted as a Solicitor of the Supreme Court of British Columbia.
9.  Notice!  The word and the function, the label and the title of "Barrister" does not appear in the "Call to the Bar" certificate, issued by and signed by the LSBC.
10.  The ommission is crucial.  As crucial as the conjuctive word "and" denoted above.  A "Solicitor" of the Supreme Court of British Columbia must belong on one or the other side of what we in Canada describe and believe in and subscribe to as "the separation of law-making powers.
11.  The British North America Act, 1867 forms the foundation, the basis, the "trunk" of what some Judges call "The Tree of the Constitution".  It stands as the tap-root of all British Columbia legislation enacted under "the separation of law-making powers", allowed by the BNA Act, 1867.
12.  The Act underlying all other provincial or federal legislation, statutes, statuettes, regulations, orders-in-council, judicial appointments indeed the Act forming the entire basis of what we loosely call "the administration of justice" in our talk about Canadian law... controls and limits the very powers, privileges, immunities of any public servant, functioning at any level of governance, including the LSBC.
13.  The Act clearly and precisely prohibits and punishes any federal "officer" or "official" who engages in any administrative [i.e. executive], legislative, and judicial function, whatsoever, where that function oversteps or trespasses or otherwise obviates "the separation of law-making powers".
14.  No federal officer or official, not even The Queen, not even The Queen's Representative can overstep their boundaries, can trespass over prescribed limits and proscribed functions.  The Act clearly states, all "officers" must exclusively engage in either an exclusively provincial law-making function or an exclusively federal law-making function, not both.
15.  "The administration of Law" = a Matter solely within the exclusive jurisdiction of provincial law-making power.  No "federal" officer can engage in what the Act describes as an exclusively provincial Matter.
16.  Therefore, by definition, the conclusion inevitably follows that whatever the LSBC "members in good standing" have done to you, Mr Thomson, whether to your property or to you..., cannot involve "the administration of justice".
17.  The Act clearly and unequivocally states : "The Queen may make laws, subject to this Act".  No ifs, no ands, and no buts.  The Queen, i.e. whatever gets included in the phrase "The Crown", must include "all public bodies" engaged in, participating in, or otherwise involved in what "the course of justice".
18.  For example.  The Act expressly divides, separates and distinguishes between "exclusive" law making functions, distributed between federal and provincial officials or officers holding or occupying or engaging in government decision-making, of any sort.
19.  The chasm cannot be breached.  The abyss has no bottom.  Like a "bottom-less" pit, Mr Sommerey and all other members in good standing must accept they are and they function as "federal officers" - who are precluded from engaging in exclusively provincial matters.
20.  The word "exclusive" must be given full import.  The LSBC certainly exercises its power and control over any and all of those who do not possess the "magic" title of "member in good standing".  It uses s. 15(3) of the Legal Profession Act to shut down, to shut up or to otherwise persecute and to prosecute any and all who dare encroach on what the LSBC admits as "a legal money-making monopoloy".  Courts who claim independence, and Judges sitting on the benches of the Courts, seem to believe they belong to some sort of "ranking system", some sort of "master-servant" hierarchy, where the "superior" dictates to the "inferior" and the inferior must obey!
21.  This false hypocrisy gets well illustrated in the LSBC's own Code of Professional Conduct which expressly makes two statements:
- the profession of law is a branch of the adminstratioin of justice
- the profession of law is not a money-making business.
22.  Mr Sommerey and all LSBC "members in good standing" must choose, one way or the other path.  There is no in between.  Sadly, perhaps, that choice is not available to Mr Sommerey anymore.  By allowing himself to be admitted as an officer of a federal public body, neither he nor anyone else carrying the title of "lawyer" in British Columbia, can be engaged in the administration of justice.
23.  Proof is not hard to find.  The federal officers functioning in any governing public body in Canada, can only engage in federal functions... illustrated well by the GST tax [usury] applied to and enforced on laypeople... who engage B.C. Solicitors... all pay the 7% GST, a federal tax, on fees.  The LSBC engages in "trade and commerce", another exclusively federal function...  Hence, whatever Mr Sommerey's oath means, it means he engages in activities depicted by Mr Justice Lambert [B.C. Court of Appeal] in the case Harry v. Kreutziger - activities that are governed by "principles of commercial morality".
24.  The word "morality" does not get much "play" these days, when the prevailing philosophy of jurisprudence, the prevailing sentiments and beliefs and thought-habits echoing in lawyers' brains includes believing as true the premise : "It may not be ethical, but it can still be legal".
25.  Is it moral for Mr Sommerey's firm or any firm for that matter, to sit on a judgment for 9 years, without executing on it... and then, taking steps to sell a home out from under a home-owner?  Is it moral for Mr Sommerey's firm or any other firm, to threaten or to cajole or to apply duress, pressure or any other means, to shut up your voice, or the voice of any other?  Interestingly, Mr Sommerey's letters do not allege nor do they threaten "defamation" against you for your website and email proclamations.  Why?  Because the only defence to defamation = the truth.
26.  As a Solicitor, admitted as a ranking "officer" of the politically appointed British Columbia Supreme Court, Mr Sommerey and every other "member in good standing" stands outside what we call "the administration of justice".  That includes the "lawyers" who promised to help you in your original claim, and who then reneged, left you in the lurch, abandoned you... for other [outside] interests and motives.
27.  On July 28, 2003, in Kelowna Provincial Court, giving sworn testimony under oath, under penalty of perjury, I testified to what Her Honor Judge Phillips described as "largely legal argument, well - thought out, and passionately held".  In that testimony, I made the following statements, un-opposed by Crown Counsel:
1.  Under s. 31 of the British North America Act, 1867 former Prime Minister Jean Chretien is guilty of treason.  The same "charge" levied against Louis Riel, who was hung for speaking out against injustice.
2.  Under s. 31 of the Act no legislature, whether provincial or federal, can write laws "willy-nilly", using words to create "crimes", such as cultivation of the green herb, known as marijuana.  Similarly, the federal "gun registry" laws enacted by the federal officers in Ottawa, is invalid, inapplicable and illegitimate, as is Part XXVII of the Criminal Code of Canada, that ostensibly allows the federal officers to "create" hybrid crimes, combining what is exclusively a provincial Matter, with what is exclusively a federal Matter.
3.  Even Sea Cadets... know the difference between style and principle.  Thomas Jefferson spoke clearly and unequivocally and sternly when he said : in matters of style - swim with the current, in matters of principle - stand like a rock.  The Sailor's motto says it more poetically and perhaps more powerfully : "suaviter in modo, fortitus in re" - suave in Manner [style], strong in Matter.
4.  The Act clearly designates certain law-making powers as being the sole and exclusive prerogative of one or other side in the separation [distribution] of law-making powers available to legislators.  There is no cross-over, there is no blending, there is no room for administrative agreements or other devices to allow federal encroachment on exclusive provincial taxing powers...  Hence, the federal direct income tax and goods and services taxes levied as 'head' taxes on the people are illegitimate and invalid and inapplicable!
5.  The designation of "Barrister and Solicitor" in the B.C. Legal Profession Act contains an inherent divided loyalty, an inherent conflict of interest, an inherent schizophrenia and an inherent hypocrisy.  Jesus taught no man can serve two masters.  The prophet Elijah [in I Kings 18 - familiar to all judeo-christian believers], made it abundantly clear, either what happened to you Mr Thomson, was right or it was wrong.  No inbetween.  No fence sitting.  Judges who adopt and adapt to such rabbinic hermeneutic beliefs as "stare decisis" or "status quo" breach their oath of office.  Any judge who presumes to be "bound" by the decision of a "higher" court, fails to exercise "independence" and "liberty".
This testimony was not disputed.  It was not contradicted despite opportunity being given to Crown Counsel to take the stand and to testify otherwise.
Indeed, spoke my testimony after having the Court accept and admit that I could open The Holy Bible and to use its teachings to support my evidence, my testimony, my legal argument.  There is no question, Canada is founded on principles...
Principles that exist in the B.C. Law and Equity Act - principles that override any and all "principals" and "powers" and "principalities", by whatever name or label we wish to describe them.
The B.C. legislature is guilty of child abuse, and guilty of offences against the administration of justice, by continuing to allow application of a "law" that tears joint parenting from children, by operation of words contained in the Family Relations Act s. 27, that force parents to become adversaries in a money-making adversarial system... making mom and dad, plaintiffs and defendants, taking away all dutiful freedoms from one parent based on a law of property... where "possession = 9/10 of the law"... in the case where "who has the children" has all the power and control as a parent, effectively depriving the other parent of any parenting abilities, prerogatives, or privileges and responsibilities, forcing that parent to "hire" a "member in good standing" to regain some redress or recourse - taken away by words written by 'provincial officers".
The argument is not new.  It is not up for discussion.  My article in The Advocate July 1998, Vol. 56, No. 4 "What is the scope of Provincial Court jurisdiction under the Family Relations Act" - clearly proves beyond doubt, judges of all courts - officers engaging in judicial functions, must apply principles of Law and Equity in each and every case before them... unfettered by any status quo or other "dicta"...  Their duty, their simple function, involves "judicial review"... does the alleged "law" fit inside or outside the law-making functions proscribed by the British North America Act, 1867 or not?
"The Queen may make laws, subject to this Act", clearly and unequivocally limits the abilities of any provincial or federal "officer" [i.e. politician transmuted or shape-shifted into an oath-taker or law-maker] in exercising their functions.  Not just any law will hold up to scrutiny, proper scrutiny, using principles such as : function and status, context and perspective, text and commentary, origin and essence [fons et origo]... developed in my submissions to B.C. Provincial Court in the case of R. v. Evans [August 26, 2002, Penticton Provincial Court].
Professor Robert Ivan Martin, recently wrote scathingly true words about the administration of justice in Canada.  In his "The Most Dangerous Branch" he and Senator Anne C. Cools, clearly identify the malaise... a symptom which we see in your treatment by the LSBC and certain of its "members in good standing"... better referred to as "dildos with wallets".
Mr Thomson... the Law and Equity Act clearly states that you are entitled to any relief, redress and recourse that may be available in law or equity.  It says where the rules of common law [e.g. the judgment against your home] conflict with the rules of equity, the rules of equity prevail.  Those rules of equity simply refer to "the spirit of the law"... as distinct from what Jesus calls "the customs and traditions of Moses", what others depict in The Mishnah and other rabbinic commentaries, as "dicta" espoused by one school of thought or another.
Mr Sommerey's plea for you to shut up, and to shut down your commentary, your stance on principle, smacks of hypocrisy.  He, as a "Solicitor" engaged purely in "trade and commerce" charging "goods and services" taxes on money extorted from the people, should be ashamed of himself... as should any other participant in what clearly shows itself as a blatant attempt to use 'rules' to oppress and to "tax" the already heavy stress burdens levied on all people living above the 49th parallel, that as far as I know extends in a circle all around the globe.  Stress kills.  A prominent [late] Supreme Court Justice commented and gave a directive in a decision involving the GST - a tax introduced by Mr Mulroney... a clear violation of the principles and enactments we associate with Equity, and a clear violation of the separation of powers that governs all law-making governance for residents of a place we call "Canada" on the map.  The comment can be read, much like an oracular pronouncement from the Delphi Oracle's cave:
                                 the power to tax is the power to destroy.
A descriptive phrase?  Yes.  Of course, we can point and say and complain and moan and whine... yes, the power to tax is the power to destroy.  An injunctive phrase?  Yes.  Of course, we can point and say and stand on our principles of courage and honor and proclaim... yes, the power to tax must be destroyed.
So says the Koran.  So says the Old Testament.  Arabic and Hebrew tongues join together in a "lei" of harmony.  Moses' teaching : "an eye for an eye - a tooth for a tooth", means nothing less than "fair trade"... illustrative in "the potlatch", the "giveaway".
Mr Sommerey and the Law Society of British Columbia, cannot have it both ways.  They cannot claim "exclusive" power and control - using legislation to shut down or to shut up anyone's voice, raised to help a brother in need, for we are indeed, as Dire Straits sings, "brothers-in-arms".  The same word "exclusive" means what it says, it appears 7 times in crucial Matters outlined in the British North America Act, 1867, just as the 7 note music scale Beethoven used to pen his "Song of Joy".
Injunctive language leaves no room for discussion, talk-back, or opposition.  Like a recipe for cake [as in "let them eat cake"], injunctive language commands and directs and orders.  It does not "describe" or invite talk about law, or talk about talk about law.  The Law is clear.  The judgments against your property are the fruit of ill-gotten gain, a good tree cannot bring forth bad fruit.  No other party, save you, Mr Thomson, in your story, has "clean hands" sufficient or necessary to enter into a Court of Law [not a court of evidence, psychiatry or any other 'discipline'], and claim relief or judgment against you or your property.
The first principle of equity, like the first principle we all know and hear : "cleanliness next to godliness", comes through loud and clear.  "He who comes to equity must come to equity with clean hands".
To sit on a judgment for 9 years... to take no steps to collect on it... and then to threaten you and to persuade you and to coerce you and to put you in duress... just to silence your voice, Mr Thomson, smacks of Stalinist techniques, where the politburo "officers" were all given plenary powers to extract as much pain and money from the populace as possible, under guise of "law".
No "law", not even the Legal Profession Act can be used to stife anyone's voice... anyone's exercise of the principle I call NIMBY...
N  neighbour
I   is
M me
B  beside
Y  you
Sincerely yours,
Karl-Heintz Eisbrenner, M.A. (Oxon.); L.L.B.
Pastor, Universal Life Temple

David Thomson <> wrote:
Do you ever wonder how much is chance and whether there's such a thing as destiny? I wonder how much was left to chance, my running into you at the Armistice service, last Friday morning. More than anything else, I was there to pay my due respects to my father, that morning.
My father enlisted in 1939, at the age of 19, willing to lay his life on the line for those "principles that recognise the supremacy of God and the rule of law". He became a signalman, parachuting behind enemy lines in search of suitable bombing targets. Once located, he would dig himself in and set up a signal; "Bomb here!" Then he would try to get out, alive. Imagine the living hell he must have endured.
Numerous references to "s.o.s." in his service records suggest that he'd been missing in action or wounded or both, several times but he always recovered to jump again. He jumped into Sicily and then, two days later, jumped into France. He was dropped into the North European Theatre.
Of some 10,500 Canadian paratroopers who were dropped behind enemy lines, only about 2,100, survived. There are probably not many men who made the number of jumps that my father undertook and completed. My father was "one of a kind".
After the war, he was discharged from active duty but he re-enlisted, a full inch shorter than he was when he signed up the first time. In physical sture, he was never any bigger than I've ever been.
Stationed in Rivers, Manitoba, my father was in the same platoon as a fellow who contacted me, this summer. He'd read the newspaper articles on the Coroner's Inquiry into my father's death and the unusual absence of a Death Certificate. This man asked to meet with me and he told me to bring a picture of my father so that he'd be sure that it was the same Robert-Hunter: Thomson.
This fellow told me that he used to give haircuts to the other soldiers in his platoon. He explained that training was long and rigorous and the men were unavailable when the base barber was open for business. This man told me that my father suffered a trauma attack, right there, wide awake in the barber-chair. He told me that my father was plagued with re-occurring nightmares.
This man also told me when he saw me, that I needn't have brought the picture; that I look just like my father did.
Any military man will agree that it is wise to know your adversary, I'm sure you agree, Roy. I'm sure you'll agree that we have assumed adversarial roles and that your client is, by nature, quite adversarial. It became quite evident when I read about his daughter's recent marriage - congratulations, Grant.
What "leaped out at me", in stark contrast to the symbol of union that matrimony is, was the reporting of a polo match that was a highlight of the reception, with the bride's team facing off against the groom's team. What better way to launch a life, united - engaged, opposing each other in an adversarial contest! And judging by the look on the bride's face, she was not too pleased; nor does the groom look happy. 
That must be quite an estate that your client has, extravagant enough to host a polo match. I imagine there's a paddock, riding ring; the whole shooting match. Ask yourself, Roy, does your client really need the roof over my head more than I do? It seems to me that he would benefit more from a tax break. In stark contrast, as much as I'd like my own pony, I couldn't even afford to feed my dog and had to give him up, 9 years ago.
But I digress.
The point of this correspondence, between you and I, Roy and others with a material interest and also, those others with whom you've corresponded, behind my back, is to let you and all concerned know that, while $10,000.00 is a significant and more achievable difference for me to pay out in aquiecence to fraud and extortion, than is $36,000.00, still, it is fraud and extortion and my acquiecence is simply my best effort to mitigate further damage that your client appears oblivious to.
What is entirely unacceptable though, is your incessant demand to silence me. I have my responsibility to those other citizens in my "Global Village", after all. Indeed, each and every "villager" has a duty to the others, to warn, should a predator lurk. More often than not, the predator will turn on the one who sounded the alarm. Surely, a fox always goes after the first chicken that squawks.
Your turning on me to silence me, establishes your role in this Global Village.
Likewise, those other "villagers" have a duty to rise to the ocassion and together, vanquish the beast, for surely, together lies our strength. Indeed, there have been many other "villagers" have risen to the challenge and you've shown them nothing short of disrespect and dishonour with your delayed replies, avoidance, misrepresentations, and comments, such as "ill-informed". Indeed, those responsive "villagers" appear to be better informed than you appear to be, Roy.
We can only spread the word, Roy.
So how can I possibly agree to remove my "evidence" when the position that you continue to impose upon me, conficts with all these principles, so fundamentally? Am I not merely upholding those principles that my father so willingly put his life on the line to defend? And in all of those most critical moments that we can only imagine; moments where my father's performance was relied upon, he never quit. Can your client can't make that claim?
I won't submit to your intimidation. Your vexatious threats of law-suits are baseless and only serve to inspire my further defiance, apply demonstrated. Most assuredly, if your client's concerns were valid, your client would have acted on those threats, years ago. Further, if his assertions had been valid, he owed a duty to respond in a timely fashion, to my request for him to document the specifics of his concerns, then. He simply did not respond - period! At best, your client has been willfully negligent, causing his own damage.
Again, I assert that if your client wishes that people not talk poorly of him, he should not treat people so poorly. 
Roy, you and your client have demonstrated considerable sway, moving things against me within your own realm of influence; we are all aware that you could sell my house and I'd be forced to "move on".  Still, I cannot allow the suppression of the truth among that "jury of my peers" in the "court of public opinion". 
You'll still have to go through the motions of getting your injuction, with me, kicking and screaming, all the way. And I'll be dragging my evidence in front of the courts, once more, looking to block your SLAPP lawsuit.
Indeed, things could get much uglier before this whole thing is ever concluded. Could it be that it is your client that is experiencing difficulty in "letting go" and "moving on"? After all, it is he that has the most to gain (or lose) in pursuing his agenda.
They say, "Never fight with an ugly man; he's got nothing to lose." Soon, I might be that "ugly man", Roy.
Frankly Roy, I would prefer to avoid the additional conflict. I would prefer to be a part of that Global Village that my father risked his life to defend. I contend that so long as we can reach an amicable agreement, there's room for all of us in that Global Village.
So in good faith, I offer to you once more, posession of my domain name,, in exchange for the combined value of all those judgements and liens that are registered against my home.
To demonstrate my good faith and willingness to mitigate your damages as well as my own, I have made substantial changes to the index page of my site, omitting all reference to you, your client and your firm. I have also made changes to "My Horror Story", making anonymous, your firm and those of your firm, involved. In good faith I have made these changes but I've removed nothing. The other pages that concern you are simply obscured but easily resurrected, dependent on your acceptance or not. Simply put, I don't trust you, Roy.
As a demonstration of good faith on your part, you will pay me, additionally to the sum total of the above-mentioned liens, one thousand dollars, a token for the time, effort and innovation that I have exerted in the 6 years that I've spent promoting my domain name and for all the residual value that I will lose on turning the name over to you, a value that is worth considerably more to you, your client and your best interests.
To expedite the matter, I will add an extra thousand dollars to my price, for every day that you hesitate to accept - still cheap at ten times the price.
Most assuredly, in accepting my offer, you and your client will also be benefitting so many others who hold tenure in the administration of justice.
Just think, Roy; no more signs on my truck, no more email barrages, no more public demonstrations and other innovative promotions. That sounds to me like "win - win" for everybody.
The damages that I've suffered may never be recovered and I'm willing to live with that and the lessons that came with it. This agreement makes no provisions for those substantial losses and likewise, this agreement does not impose any restrictions on any future possibility of recovery on those substantial damages. What this agreement does is effectively reduce the likelihood of further damages, occuring.
Should you accept and abide by all of the terms of this agreement to "cease and desist", I will continue to honour it, according to your ability to abide; no more, no less. You can rest, assured that my website will remain with all references to your concerns, obscured, just as they are, now, should you accept and abide by my offer.
I'm not sure that I could endure that special kind of hell, with bombs raining down, that my father repeatedly survived, defending those "principles that "recognise the supremacy of God and the rule of law". Indeed, my father was "one of a kind". Though I appreciate your compliment, Roy, my father's shadow is a challenge to fill. I will say though Roy, that I am cut from the same cloth.
Alternatively to my generous offer, you could, as you've amply demonstrated, easily displace me. And like my father, I will survive and you shall have succeeded in provoking me to continue to make a monkey out of you and yours at every opportunity, (ya big gorrilla).
Ultimately, the choice is yours to end this amicably or not; the more amicable, the happier (for all) the ending will read.
Lest we forget, Roy.
Yours very truly,
David Thomson
----- Original Message -----
From: Roy Sommerey
To: David Thomson
Sent: Monday, November 14, 2005 2:12 PM
Subject: RE: Paying your Judgment Debts

I wish to confirm in writing that I have spoken to the Law Society who have conduct of the Whittemore Judgment also registered against your home as well.   They have indicated they will accept $5,000.00 in full payment of the approximately $19,000.00 you owe them.  Provided you remove the sections we are asking you to remove from your web site,  we will accept $5,000.00 for the approximately $18, 500 you owe us.  That means based on the information we have received, you should be able to refinance your debt, including these judgments and avoid the sale of your house.
 If you accept our proposal, please remove the web site material we are asking you to remove as soon as you can, as we will not provide a registerable discharge of  our judgment  and release of our certificate of pending litigation which your lawyer will need to finish the refinance until we see that done.   Please have your lawyer on the refinance contact us in due course.
We are willing to take the financial cut as you are asking.  We donít expect you to change your opinion.  Weíre just asking you to stop broadcasting your opinions about our firm on your web site and to stop your email campaign.   You have already pointed out that we could likely obtain an injunction to accomplish this objective.  We havenít done so because we are still willing to try to work with you on solving this situation.  We will wait to see the portions of the web site and the cessation of emails before your lawyer will receive a signed discharge of our judgment. 
We will wait until November 20, 2005  to receive word from you that  you will accept this proposal.   Thereafter, we will presume you have decided to reject our financial concession. 

From: David Thomson []
Sent: Friday, November 11, 2005 1:33 PM
To: Roy Sommerey
Cc: TheFirm
Subject: Our conversation today
In the end, you may see me homeless; your power and your willingness to do just that, I don't doubt.
In the end, judging by all that I've experienced, witnessed and documented at my website,, you may very well get an injunction to silence me and my efforts to warn others of those predatory elements who masquerade as administrators and officers of our courts. That still remains to be seen.
In the end, though perhaps destitute and homeless, I will still maintain some modicum of dignity, for whatever that might be worth; I doubt that you will be able to boast the same.
The way I see it, Roy, you and your client stand to lose way more that I could ever accumulate, even in two life-times.
They tell me, Roy, that repeating the same excercise, over and over again, expecting a different result, is the very definition of insanity. This matter has already earned me that dubious designation; what's your excuse?
Freedom of Speech  -  Use it or Lose it! -  You be the Judge!
Yours very truly,

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.362 / Virus Database: 267.13.0/167 - Release Date: 11/11/2005

Yahoo! FareChase - Search multiple travel sites in one click.