Inbox From: Connie Fogal
Subject: Re: your case Date: Sat, 02 Oct 1999 17:36:35 -0700 Reply
David, I never work on contingency. I just cannot afford it. Some kinds of cases lend themselves to contingency. Others do not. But in any case I do not do them. I cannot even recommend a lawyers who might be interested and is capable in that area. Sorry. Connie At 03:22 PM 1999-10-01 -0700, you wrote:
David Hunter Thomson
October 1, 1999
Constance C. Fogal
Dear Ms. Fogal:
Thank you for your reply dated September 28,1999. I accept your apology for any belatedness to your response. I don't believe an apology is necessary considering the degree of punctuality that I have witnessed and exprienced on the part of a miriad of other administrations.
The purpose in sending you a copy of affidavit and related court documents is to validate my story and beyond that, to reflect the strength of any legal action that may persued on my part, based on the variety of immoral, illegal and unethical actions directed at me. The people that have committed these acts are an embarrasment (to say the least) to the image of our supreme courts and I understand that our courts are supposed to look down on such behavior with great distain. (Contrary to my experiences.) In passing judgment, a truly unbiased and ethical court would be inclined to impose harsh punitive damages upon the guilty parties and there appear to be several (parties) involved.
The sovereignty agenda that your group is persuing in our supreme court requires adequate funding to see it through and I, in my present cercumstance, have little to offer. If I were able to have my case put forward in a reputable environment, I am certain that the damages awarded would be significant. As Marvin Geekie, my ex-lawyer at Salloum Doak once told me (referring to Mr. Whittemore's insurers) "Their pockets are deep."
While I have no interest in retaining a lawer on a conventional basis, (I have no faith that a "reputable environment" exists in our supreme court) I would be happy to be represented on a straight contingency fee (no retainer) contract. Certainly any person successful in persuing such a legal matter would do a great deal towards encouraging a more "reputable environment" within our courts. My purpose today and always is to promote this effect. Would you be willing to enter into an arrangment, such as I have described above and put these matters forward in our supreme court?
Yours very truly,
David Hunter Thomson ______________________________________________________
DEFENCE of CANADIAN LIBERTY COMMITTEE/LE COMITÉ de la LIBERTÉ CANADIENNE C/0 CONSTANCE FOGAL LAW OFFICE, #401 -207 West Hastings St., Vancouver, B.C. V6B1H7 Tel: (604)687-0588; fax: (604) 872 -1504 or (604) 688-0550;cellular(604) 202 7334; E-MAIL firstname.lastname@example.org; www.canadianliberty.bc.ca The constitution of Canada does not belong either to Parliament, or to the Legislatures; it belongs to the country and it is there that the citizens of the country will find the protection of the rights to which they are entitled Supreme Court of Canada A.G. of Nova Scotia and A.G. of Canada, S.C.R. 1951 pp 32