4. It is my understanding that the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, 1982 has been used to uphold the maxim that “a man’s home is his castle”. In my case, my home is also my sanctuary and even my church; I pray regularly to my God, Creator of the Universe, Omnipotent Defender of the Truth, benevolent and compassionate to all God’s Creation.

5. Just as a church is meant to do, my home has been a sanctuary for those with no shelter. Diane Booth, a political refugee from the United States, Kim Morris and Rob Nicholson, who are both unemployed and staying with me, now. My home has been sanctuary for Minister Edward-Jay-Robin: Belanger and even Eddy Haymour when he became homeless in 2002, having also lost his principle source of income, simultaneously when he was evicted from his castle. My home has been sanctuary for Mr. Nicholson’s ritualistically abused children. They, to name just a few, all had no means of support. If we ate, we ate together; if we went hungry then we starved together. There have been many days that we went hungry.

6. In replying to this Petition, my first concern is for the cost. As I attach exhibits to prove my position, I am acutely aware of the rising costs, associated that are commensurate with the volume of documentation. In order to be able to answer to this Petition, I will require some waiver of the associated fees; I will require an Order finding me to be of indigent status, in order to proceed to defend this action against me; in order to have access to Justice.

7. I am not trained in law and possess only a Grade 10, public-school standard of education. If I err as to form, I understand that it should be of no consequence; to get to the truth is why we are here, today.

8. This issue gravely threatens my already meager sustenance, substantially. I plant a garden, tend my apricots, strawberries and saskatoon berries each year for sustenance. I have canned and frozen my produce to help see me through the winter. I’ve removed the gas furnace and rely on the woodstove, exclusively for heat, a savings of over $ 600.00 per year over gas in heating costs. I even cook on my wood-stove as does my tenant, David Lindsay and virtually every other disadvantaged soul who’s stayed with me, seeking sanctuary. I’ve survived in this fashion since 1996.

9. On May 13th 1996, Master Bishop ordered a “psychiatric examination of [my] ability to conduct my own taxation. On May 22nd 1996, I attended to my first of several interview sessions with Dr. Gary W. Lea, in compliance with Master Bishop’s Order. Now attached to this, my Asseveration and referred to as Exhibit “B”, is the report that Dr. Lea prepared, as prescribed by the order of Master Bishop. Exhibit “B” was also included in my Affidavit, filed on July 15th, 1996, Kelowna Registry # 25207, referred to as Exhibit “b”. Excerpts of Exhibit “B” are also published at my website:
http://british-columbia.ca.human-rights.org/Dr_Lea_Report.html

10. On May 24th 1996, I was taken from my home, having been attended to by four RCMP constables, for no apparent particular reason. I was delivered in the back of a squad car, to the Intensive Care Unit of the McNair wing of the Kelowna General Hospital. I now attach to this, my Asseveration and refer to as Exhibit “C”, the “Patient Apprehension Request Form” that is the only document that I could find that might authorize such a bizarre incident. Exhibit “C” is also published at my website:
http://british-columbia.ca.human-rights.org/Dr_Lea_Report.html#Patient_Apprehension_Request_Form

11. This “Patient Apprehension Request Form” appears quite deficient in it’s completion, relying on sketchy and questionable information from an unknown source. For instance, I weigh 122 pounds, never in my entire life, exceeding 130 pounds. If I lost 40 to 50 pounds I’d likely be clinically dead. Further, it states and I concur that I was apprehended with no previous diagnosis.

12. On admittance to the Intensive Care Unit, I was injected with a debilitating dose of what the nurse informed me was Haldol. When I asked her how much, she said “Just a gram.” I was told by the attending orderly that I would get the injection and I could have it “easy” or “hard”. He said that the choice was mine but either way, I was going to get it. The sinister tone behind this assurance gave me cause to acquiesce.

13. This same orderly also told me that I should remain seated, the drug tends to “weaken the knees”. I paced the room to keep track of the time for the injection to take effect. About ten minutes went by before I collapsed to the floor, paralyzed from the waist, down. Using my hands and arms, I dragged my body across the floor and onto the cot.

14. “The Complete Guide to Psychiatric Drugs”, by Edward Drummond, M.D. states about Halperidol (Haldol) on page 199, under the Heading, “Dosing” that no more than 100 milligrams of Haldol can be considered as to be administered to any patient in any given 24-hour period. I now attach and refer to as Exhibit “D” to this, my Asseveration, a photocopy of pages 198 and 199 and also pages 240 and 241, regarding Rispiridone, from “The Complete Guide to Psychiatric Drugs”, drawing attention as well, to the severe effect to the enjoyment of life and the pursuit of happiness, the dangers to the quality of life and even the longevity of life , suffered as a result of the side-effects.

15. I’d been admitted against my will, charged, I was told by the constable that transported me, “charged under the Mental Health Act, with schizophrenia”. I was administered anti-psychotic medications Rispiridone and Haldol over my protest and under threat, duress and intimidation, prior to any preliminary assessment of my state of mental health and for the entire week of my detention.

16. I was released with a diagnosis of “manic depressive bipolar manic” and sent home with a bottle of Rispiridone and a prescription for more Rispiridone, a hazardous anti-psychotic medication, of which any are highly detrimental to the safety and well-being of anyone suffering from any form of depression, also evidenced by Exhibit “D”. I now attach and refer to as Exhibit “E” to this, my Asseveration, a copy of the Discharge Summary authorized by Dr. Paul Latimer, the psychiatrist in charge of my admission and subsequent treatment.

17. In Exhibit “E” under the heading, “History”, Dr. Latimer elaborates on my obsession with ongoing law-suits, of which are the birth of today’s Petition. Dr. Latimer mentions three civil actions and then makes note of my “rapid speech”, “flight of ideas” and “agitation”. Given the strain of three on-going law-suits, one in the Supreme Court of Appeal, all being represented by myself, a lone lay-litigant, “agitation”, “rapid speech” and “flight of ideas” can only be considered as normal behaviour, in light of such life-altering and monumental circumstances.

18. In the second paragraph of Exhibit “E” under the heading, “History”, Dr. Latimer, after noting my rational thought and my understanding of my legal issues, then mentions my cooperation in taking medications. I was merely complying, under threat, duress and intimidation. At no time was I a volunteer.

19. I also complied under threat, duress and intimidation, to hospital orders regarding any absence I required, requesting permission first, then signing myself out and then back in, recording the time, accordingly. The first instance, after inquiring about my second appointment with Dr. Lea on May 29th 1996, after I phoned his office to have the appointment re-instated.

20. In Paragraph 4 of Exhibit “E” under the heading “Course And Treatment In Hospital”, Dr. Latimer refers to my attendance as a witness for the trial of the accused, charged with breaking into my home. He goes on to record his observation of my “rapid and pressured speech when talking about [my] legal cases”; four, counting the break and enter. Though I was not conducting the prosecution, even more affected, I was the victim. I maintain that said “rapid and pressured speech” is normal in consideration of such considerable strain, never mind the mounting criminal actions that I’d become the victim of.

21. In paragraph 4 of Exhibit “E”, Dr. Latimer reports on my attendance to an interview with Dr. Gary Lea, further evidencing my compliance with Master Bishop’s court-ordered assessment, even while I was infirmed in Dr. Latimer’s care. I had asked a nurse on the ward about authorization to release me to attend the interview and the nurse informed me that one Sandy Hildebrand from the Schizophrenic Society had cancelled my appointment, as is evidenced in the first paragraph of Exhibit “B”. She said further that Master Bishop had not pronounced the Order, that it was merely a passing comment on his way off the bench. It was Monday, May 27th and the appointment was for Wednesday, May 29th. I used a phone in the hospital to phone Dr. Lea’s office to have them re-instate the appointment.

22. As further evidence regarding the question of the validity of Master Bishop’s Order; did he or did he not Order my psychiatric examination, I now attach and refer to the Affidavit of Sandra Jean Bryksaw, filed June 21st, 1996, and refer to it as Exhibit “F” to this, my Affidavit. Exhibit “F” was also Exhibit “a” to my Affidavit, filed on July 15th, 1996, Kelowna Registry # 25207.

23. I had already become familiar and discussed with Sandy, the story of the events that surrounded Jack Cramm and his involuntary admittance into psychiatric care, a story that is extensively published on the internet and is also published on my website: http://british-columbia.ca.human-rights.org/Tale2lawyers.html

24. Further to Exhibit “B”, I note the fact that a copy of Exhibit “B” was hand-delivered by myself, to the RCMP Kelowna detachment, I maintain, evidencing a degree of apprehension on my part concerning actions of the RCMP before and now certainly by that date of service, June 11th, 1996, 12 days after my release from the McNair Unit of Kelowna General Hospital.

25. This apprehension of bias originated in 1995 when Grant Hardwick told me, with one working day before the trial against Marc Whittemore, that he, Marvin Geekie and Salloum Doak were withdrawing as my legal counsel. This bias was re-affirmed when Marvin Geekie affirmed to me on that same afternoon that it was because I was suing a lawyer that they’d withdrawn as my counsel. This statement was tape-recorded and provided along with a transcript of the recording, Exhibit “c” to my Affidavit that was filed on July 15th, 1996, Kelowna Registry # 25207. I now attach and refer to as Exhibit “G” to this, my Asseveration, the transcript of that tape.

26. The fact that Salloum Doak withheld my file, “prejudicing my ability to proceed with this matter that was already before the court”, remains as further evidence of this bias.

27. Further evidence of bias in the form of criminal activity is documented in the form of tampering with of a court document, Exhibit “j” of my Affidavit filed May 13th, 1995, Kelowna Registry # 25207 and also in my Application for Leave to Appeal, Kamloops Registry # CA 20829, filed in August 18th, 1995. I now attach and refer to as Exhibit “H” to this my Asseveration, a copy of the “erroneous draft” of the Order” apparently granted by Master A.W. Donaldson on November 22nd, 1993 and drafted and filed, then rejected by a clerk at the Kelowna Registry on December 9th, 1993. This exhibit is also published at my website: http://british-columbia.ca.human-rights.org/1storder.html

28. Exhibit “H” evidences tampering, starting with the note, stapled over the court registry stamp, claiming that the last paragraph, relating to costs, is not there. Clearly and contrary to the note, costs are included in this draft of the Order, plainly legible in the last paragraph of Exhibit “H”. Further evidence of tampering is also evident by the registry stamp at the bottom of the order, indicating that the Order had been checked and approved by someone at the Kelowna Registry but then someone has obliterated the initials of the individual who performed the check.

29. After my written complaint that this copy of the Order had been pilfered from my file, whilst in the hands and care of the Kelowna Registry, another copy was eventually drafted and filed. The original copy was also recovered. Gene Watt, District Registrar explained to me, referring to the note attached to the first Order, that this draft was erroneous and so it was pulled from the file. The second draft, filed on January 4th, 1996 was revised, corrected to replace the so-called erroneous draft. In fact, there are no significant differences between the two drafts. I now attach and refer to the second draft as “Exhibit “I”. Exhibit “I” is also published at my website:
http://british-columbia.ca.human-rights.org/coverup.html

30. In the July of 1995, my home was broken into, ransacked and the only items of any significance that were taken were:
a) my day-planner, containing notes from a myriad of lawyers whom I’d interviewed, looking to retain one in place of Messieurs Hardwick and Geekie and
b) the Affidavit of Marc R.B. Whittemore, filed January 13th 1995, in support of a Rule 18 Motion, attempting to dismiss my Claim, summarily.

31. This Affidavit also went missing out of the file at the Kelowna Law Courts Registry, as well as a copy that was contained in the Motion Brief, submitted by Jeffery Scoutin, appointed counsel for Marc Whittemore; in fact the entire Motion Brief went missing from my possession, which I noticed immediately after arriving home from a court hearing.

32. I wrote to Jeffery Scoutin and asked if he could supply me with another copy of the Motion Brief which he graciously did for me, except for this fresh copy was inclusive of all, except the Affidavit I had cause to peruse further. I now attach to this my Asseveration and refer to as Exhibit “J”, the index page of that replacement Motion Brief that shows evidence that the Affidavit was left out of this replacement Brief. This Exhibit is also filed in my Court of Appeals Application and is also published at my website:
http://british-columbia.ca.human-rights.org/mbindex.html

33. All this and other documents, many of them published at my website under the index:
http://british-columbia.ca.human-rights.org/evidence.html,
show clear and considerable criminal activity, conducted under a cloak of collusion, all aimed at obstructing the course of Justice, subverting the Law, causing harm to the public perception and integrity of the Court and all causing me grave damage, economically, physically, emotionally and spiritually.

34. After my week in psychiatric wing of Kelowna General Hospital, under the influence of Haldol, Rispiridone and Lithium for the week of May 24th to 31st, 1996, I experienced trembling, vertigo, involuntary muscle spasms, muscle cramps and a propensity to break out in tears. I broke out in tears at the final hearing of the Taxation, feeling hopeless and helpless, in spite of my evidence, a victim of a horrible conspiracy that had no limits or moral concience.

35. These emotional outbursts while perhaps a product of my grieving my mother’s passing in January of 1996, they were also produced by my feelings of hopelessness and helplessness in my victimization through these other events that had been ongoing for well over a year of my life, to that date.

36. Even as certainly as I feel today, I was certain then that Master Bishop’s Order for my psychiatric assessment and my unorthodox apprehension, confinement, mis-treatment and mis-diagnosis was merely a sample of how criminal those proceedings all were. As much as I was in tears over my mother’s passing, my trauma was further grotesquely embellished with the volume and degree of criminal treatment that I’d been subjected to, thus far.

37. I received Master Bishop’s Decision, virtually devoid of a reference to any of the abundance of exhibits and authorities that I’d provided in support of my position. To this, my Asseveration, I now attach and refer to the Decision of Master Bishop as Exhibit “K”. Exhibit “K” is also published at my website: http://british-columbia.ca.human-rights.org/DavesBishopDecision.html

38. It’s true that my mother’s ashes did reside in the living-room of my home. My sister had requested that I retrieve my mother’s ashes from the crematorium and wait for her to return to Kelowna for Mothers’ Day, to carry out Mom’s specific request, regarding her remains. My sister was unable to make the planned tribute and so my mother’s ashes remained on the window-sill in the living-room of my suite, downstairs.

39. At that time, I was trying to survive, primarily on rental income. Welfare allowed no deductions for any expenses that I legitimately incurred in the course of my “rental business” and at first, refused me any stipend on the grounds that my “rental income” exceeded the benefit for a single male.

40. As the fall of 1996 progressed to winter and Salloum Doak began acting on their judgement, my position deteriorated further. My entire “rental income” went to cover my mortgage, and I was scrounging to feed myself. I finally made the painful decision to give my dog away. When Salloum Doak garnished my bank account, I saw it as a monumental threat to my ability to meet my mortgage obligations.

41. My sister was distant and I was unsure about my future ability to hang on to anything, much less my mother’s ashes. I phoned a friend with a truck and asked if he would come and get me and my row-boat and take me to the park off Abbott, next to the Okanagan Lake bridge on the south side.

42. My father drowned at that spot in May of 1959, the first casualty on the Okanagan Lake bridge. My mother had requested that her ashes be scattered on that spot where my father drowned. The fact that I didn’t wait for my sister’s attendance has been a bone of contention between us, ever since.

43. I’d begun sending faxes off to seismic companies, applying for work but wasn’t accepted by any of them.

44. I’d worked on a seismic crew in 1980 and thought that the nature of the work, primarily walking, occasionally running in the dry cold of an Alberta winter would be therapeutic for my back and my soul, providing my basic necessities, money for my mounting bills and the solitude to heal my spirit, distanced from those who would cause me such harm.

45. On or about December 22nd, 1996, a process server showed up at my door and served me a form that said that he had the authority to “seize goods and chattels and house-hold affects”. A tow-truck arrived minutes later and he seized my truck. Along with my truck, went my transportation to find, secure and maintain employment.

46. Frankly, I was no more capable of holding down employment than I’d been when Dr. Lea assessed me, earlier that year, evidenced in an Addendum that he attached to another copy of his assessment that he faxed to the Health Services Branch on October 5th, 1998. I now attach to this, my Asseveration and refer to that page that contains the Addendum as Exhibit “L”.

47. I’d arranged with my tenant to pay her rent directly into my account and I’d removed the remainder of my savings, residual of my whole life insurance policy that I’d prematurely terminated, bought a pair of Sorrel snow-boots and pre-paid up my utilities for the next 4 months. I’d also renewed my expired drivers’ licence, disposing of an additional $540.00 of this last reserve of mine.

48. On or about December 23rd, I phoned another friend who was able to borrow his brother’s truck and together we removed some of my more personal possessions, legal briefs and family keep-sakes for safe-keeping. Then I asked him to drive me to the hospital which, after ascertaining that I was certain, he complied.

49. When I inquired about my voluntary admittance into psychiatric care, I was informed that this was “their busy time of the year”. Many people suffer from depression around this particular family-oriented holiday. They did not have an available bed for me. I told the attending nurse that I could go back home but that I’d been dwelling on thoughts of taking a radio into the bath-tub; or I could just turn on the gas for my antiquated oven, go back to bed and just wait till the gas hit the pilot for the furnace. She asked me to wait and they found me a bed.

50. On the morning of Christmas Day, 1996, I signed out of the psychiatric ward to go for a walk. I found myself on the sidewalk of the bridge, next to the span, overlooking the spot where my father had drowned, some 37 years earlier. As I pondered my situation, thinking that this is also where my mother wished to be laid to rest, it seemed natural that I should join them now, in this dark hour of my life. And then I had an epiphany.

51. I had a vision of lawyers, celebrating the holiday season, raising their glasses and toasting my demise, laughing and joking over it. It was then that I realized that if I continued along the path that harboured my suicide, I would only be completing the dirty work of those who were tormenting, persecuting and extorting me. The sun reflected off the morning calm on the lake and warmed me thoroughly through.

52. To this day I have not seen a copy of Master Bishop’s Order for my psychiatric assessment, nor has Dr. Lea ever been paid for conducting the assessment, evidenced by his correspondence to me, dated July 19th, 2005, that I now attach to this, my Asseveration and refer to as Exhibit “M”.

53. Exhibit “M” is quite contrary to Grant Hardwick’s claim in a letter that he wrote to Kirby Grant about me, on October 31st, 1997. I now attach and refer to Mr. Hardwick’s letter as as Exhibit “N”. At the bottom of the first page, Mr. Hardwick refers to ”our significant disbursements, including the cost of a psychological assessment that the court directed of Mr. Thomson.” Exhibit “N” is also published at my website: http://british-columbia.ca.human-rights.org/hardwick.html

54. On page 2 of Exhibit “N”, Mr. Hardwick writes; “We would ask you to convey to Mr. Thomson our serious concern that he is engaging in a program of slander against this firm…” Mr. Hardwick went on, “If he does not cease in that program, it may well be that the damages that he is liable for will completely eliminate any equity he has in his residence.”

55. I replied by letter on November 5, 1997, to Ms. Kirby who was at that time, my legal aid lawyer and I addressed the stated concern of Mr. Hardwick et al, asking specifically what part of my “barrage of facsimilies” did Mr. Hardwick consider slanderous? I offered to write a retraction for any part that he could show me was not true, if he would put his concerns on paper. Mr. Hardwick never replied to my letter of November 5, 1997, that I now attach and refer to as Exhibit “O” to this my Affirmation. Exhibit “O” is also published at my website:
http://british-columbia.ca.human-rights.org/replyhar.html

56. There has been no communication between Mr. Hardwick and myself, since November 5, 1997, until I wrote to Mr. Hardwick on December 20th, 2004, extending to him, an invitation.

57. A great deal has gone on in my life since November 5th, 1997, none of which has enabled me to meet any perceived obligation to Mr. Hardwick’s awarded judgment, no matter how sound the Decision of Master Bishop that I have attached and refer to as Exhibit “K” to this my Affirmation.

58. In looking at the registry stamp on the front page of Exhibit “K” Master Bishop appears confused as to where he is. The entire matter was filed at the Kelowna Registry, file # 25207 and exclusively heard at the Kelowna Law Courts. I had difficulty finding an electronic copy at “The Judges’ HomePage”:
http://www.courts.gov.bc.ca/SC/Sc-main.htm
(changed now to http://www.courts.gov.bc.ca/) until I contacted the webmaster who informed me that the Decision had not been registered. When I pointed out that this Decision was erroneously filed in the Vernon Registry offering up a copy of my hard-copy, the decision was located and subsequently posted.

59. I discovered another decision that had been rendered by Master Bishop, No. 15343 Vernon Registry IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA BETWEEN: ) ) Anthony Mathias Hirsch and ) Ruth Marie Hirsch ) REASONS FOR JUDGMENT ) Petitioners ) AND: ) ) 467145 B.C. Ltd. Terrapin ) OF MASTER BISHOP Mortgage Investment Corp. ) Peter's Bros. Construction, published at:
http://www.courts.gov.bc.ca/jdb-txt/sc/96/12/s96-1247.txt

60. It is my understanding that if there is any, even remote resemblance to an impropriety over any perceived bias regarding a presiding judge or a master of the court, trial coordination is to choose another adjudicator. Further, if the judge or master identifies anything that could be perceived as a bias regarding his position in any matter, that judge or master should decline the case. Yet both trial coordination and Master Bishop both see fit to allow Master bishop to preside over a matter that involves a corporation with the name, “Master Bishop Mortgage Investment Corporation.

61. Master Bishop also presided over the taxation of Berge v. Qually, Docket # 24137, Kelowna Registry, in spite of the fact that Master Michael Bishop and Howard Berge were senior partners in the same law firm, prior to Michael Bishop’s appointed tenure as a master in the Supreme Court of British Columbia. In spite of the fact that Alexis Qually drafted documents that expressed her legitimate and clearly perceived apprehension of bias, Master Bishop still heard the matter. This matter is also published at my website:
http://british-columbia.ca.human-rights.org/contempintro.html

62. In paragraphs 15 and 16 of Exhibit “K”, Master Bishop makes reference to Exhibits 1 and 2, hourly fee contracts but makes no mention of the letter that accompanied Exhibit 2, a letter written by Marvin Geekie, describing what Salloum Doak would or wouldn’t be doing on my behalf and how much this would all cost me, “globally speaking”. To this my Asseveration, I now attach and refer to this letter as Exhibit “P”. Exhibit “P” is also published at my website: http://british-columbia.ca.human-rights.org/undertak.html

63. It is significant that Exhibit “P”, which was also Exhibit 6 to the taxation is not mentioned at all in Master Bishop’s Decision, Exhibit “K” to this, my Asseveration. It is further significant that Exhibit “P”, though it accompanied the hourly fees contracts, exhibits 1 and 2 of the taxation, Exhibit “P” did not get entered as an exhibit until it finally became Exhibit 6 to the taxation.

64. Master Bishop resisted entering Exhibit “P” as an exhibit, continually refusing to see the relevance of the only document that I ever received from Salloum Doak that explained what it was that they would or wouldn’t be doing for me, the closest thing that I had to their “Solicitors’ Undertaking”. After he accepted Exhibit “P”, entering onto the record as Exhibit 6, he then referred to it as their “Solicitors’ Undertaking”.

65. In paragraph 19, on page 5 of Exhibit “K”, Master Bishop finally gets to “The starting point”, after meandering through pages, mis-documenting dates and times of hearings and adjournments.

66. In paragraph 20, master Bishop mistakenly reports that, though I could have sought an adjournment, I elected to proceed to trial. In fact, I did negotiate a 3 month adjournment so that I could:
a) find competent, unbiased legal counsel
b) release my file from the clutches of Salloum Doak.

67. In paragraph 22 of Exhibit “K”, Master Bishop claims that “the solicitor’s pleading were sufficient to carry Mr. Thomson through a four day trial. The four days of trial were spent largely in examination and cross-examination of the witnesses, the defendant and myself, the plaintiff. One morning was spent in qualifying exhibits and here also, I found the judge reluctant to accept my exhibits.

68. In particular, while Justice Hunter was happy to accept the “true and contemporaneously hand-written notes of the defendant’s, he was quite unwilling to accept my “true and contemporarily handwritten notes, scrawled on my copy of the first Purchase and Sales Agreement that I’d finally received on or about April 18th, 1991, in spite of the April 1st deadline, stipulated in the originating Real Estate Sales Agreement.

69. And there was one “true and contemporaneously handwritten note of the Defendant’s, Exhibit “8” to the trial, that the Defendant’s appointed solicitor, Jeffery Scoutin was anxious to keep off the record and I had to argue to keep it on the record, filed as an Exhibit to the Defendant’s Affidavit in support of a Rule 18 Motion, the Affidavit that continually went missing.

70. I relied on the documents, many of which were provided by myself, originally and many more, some duplicates that were provided in “The Defendant’s Brief of Documents” and his lengthy Affidavit, the one that kept going missing. If I were ever to have to rely on a lawyer in the future, I would photo-copy my file, giving the copies to the lawyer and retaining the originals in my own possession.

71. There was very little, if anything, other than the default judgment, granted by Master Donaldson that I relied upon at trial, provided by Salloum Doak. Even then, I ended up relying on a copy of the court clerk’s notes to prove my point that I did in fact “pursue the purchaser to the best of [my] ability”. I now attach and refer to that copy of the court clerk’s notes as Exhibit “Q” to this, my Asseveration.

72. In paragraph 23 of Exhibit “K” regarding Master Bishop’s comments about Justice Thomas’ preferences in his Reasons for Judgement, also published at my website:
http://british-columbia.ca.human-rights.org/hunter.html,
Master Bishop did over-look Justice Hunter’s propensity to contradict the law regarding a judge’s duty to disregard those portions of testimony that are supported by such physical evidence as are mentioned in said testimony. At least that’s what he told me with reference to Exhibit “H” to this, my Affirmation. For example:
a) In paragraph 7 of page 3 of Justice Hunter’s Reasons For Judgment, he wrote, referring to the sales subject, “subject to the vendor’s solicitor’s approval by April 1st, 1991”, that "Whittemore's evidence was that nobody told him of that clause", contradicting Whittemore's own affidavit testimony, found in paragraph 11 of his Affidavit, filed, January 5th, 1995, also published at my website:
http://british-columbia.ca.human-rights.org/whittaffi4.html
and also what is evidenced in the sales agreement, also published at my website:
http://british-columbia.ca.human-rights.org/realesta.html,
the 1st document that Mr. Whittemore received to indicate that he would be representing my interests in the sale of my business. If Whittemore didn’t see that written on the only piece of paper that resided in the file for the first 20 days or so, he’s incompetent and he lied, either in his Affidavit or in giving his “evidence”.
b) also in paragraph 7 of Justice Hunter's decision, the realtor, Dell Arens, could not have, as he testified, dropped off the "only copy of the Subject Removal Form", that he testified that he could not produce, yet Justice Hunter referred to it and relied on it in his decision. A real estate “subject removal form” is a triplicate document, as I later learned and pointed out in paragraph 6 of an affidavit that I later filed in Court of Appeals, also published at my website:
http://british-columbia.ca.human-rights.org/apealaf1.html
I even attached this entire Court of Appeals Motion and Affidavit, filed in the Kamloops Registry, file # CA 20829, as an exhibit to my May 22nd, 1996 Affidavit, so Master Bishop could see the fraud that had taken place in Hunter’s Decision.
c) Whittemore relied on as his assertion as his defense, that he’s advised me in the matter, warning me of my risks in financing $ 72,000.00 without registered securities attached but I wouldn’t listen. In fact, any prudent solicitor will put his advise in writing, prior to acting against his own advise, evidenced by the professional opinion that I paid a lawyer $ 230.00 to draft for me and is also Exhibit “6” at the trial. This professional opinion is also published at my website:
http://british-columbia.ca.human-rights.org/professi.html. There is no letter of advise on the record, yet Justice Hunter relied on Whittemore’s testimony, even in spite of Exhibit “6” of the trial, the Professional Opinion of Patrick Bell on the matter of a solicitor’s advice..

73. As for The Accord Capital file, a hand-written letter from their corporate director, Barry Sullivan to Marvin Geekie sheds some light. I now attach and refer to that letter as Exhibit “R” to this, my Asseveration.

74. This letter puts forward the offer of $ 5,000.00 cash to Marvin Geekie if he can convince me to accept a bad offer. It worked out even better for Barry Sullivan. After Salloum Doak quit, their problems with me simply went away. I had more than enough on my hands with the looming trial against Whittemore, then subsequent Court of Appeals applications and coinciding Taxation applications.

75. With regard to Paragraph 11 on page 3 of Exhibit “K”, Master Bishop comments that I “agreed” with his Order for my psychiatric examination. I no way did I ever agree, I merely complied; I’d heard about Jack Cramm, before that date, also.

76. In fact, I attended to my family doctor of then, Dr. Broome and asked him if he could recommend a psychologist to me. Dr. Broome asked me what kind of a psychologist was I looking for and I replied, “An ethical one.” He recommended Dr. Lea to me and I followed up, booking the subsequent appointments.

77. Further to paragraph 11 of Exhibit “K”, Dr. Lea did not find that I “was mentally competent to conduct his own affairs and these proceedings”. Dr. Lea noted, starting at the very bottom of page 6 and on to the top of page 7, that “This does not mean that Mr. Thomson would be less difficult to manage in a Courtroom setting given his perceptions, but he would be able to understand Court proceeding competently and advise Counsel.”

78. Looking at the whole of the last paragraph on page 6 of Exhibit “B”, Dr. Lea was referring to “no clinical elevations on any of the paranoia scales (apart from the aforementioned persecutory ideas)”. I thought I’d been the target of persecution but it seems I was due for some more.

79. I’d applied unsuccessfully on several occasions, to be advanced to Group 2 disability status, prior to and after this. Dr. Grant Smith, the psychiatrist who in 1997, inherited my file from Dr. Paul Latimer and subsequently diagnosed my disability as being the result of an “anxiety disorder”, not manic depressive, dissenting from Dr. Latimer’s diagnosis.

80. Dr. Smith told me that he’d chosen such a diagnosis as there was no non-addictive medication for such a disorder and as such, I would be within my rights to refuse all medication. Dr. Smith was well aware of my aversion to pharmaceutical treatments because:
a) of the volume of anti-psychotic medication that I’d already been forced to take while in the “care” of Dr. Paul Latimer and the adverse affects of those medications and
b) I maintain that I do not suffer from any disorder; I suffer from the depressing and debilitating effects of my legal quagmire that are founded in fraud and collusion. Item b is further supported by the findings reported in Exhibit “B”, paragraphs 2 and 6 of page 4, paragraphs 1 and 4 of page 5 and in paragraph 4 of page 6.

81. In the fall on 1998, Dr. Smith told me that if I took his prescription for Paxil, I would be granted a Group 2 disability status. When I pointed to his reason for diagnosing me as suffering from an anxiety disorder, he explained that he was prescribing it to treat the “compulsive obsessive feature of my anxiety disorder”. I rejected his offer, based on my sentiments as I’ve described in the above paragraph of this, my Affidavit.

82. Twice, the Ministry of Human Resources Enforcement division has investigated me for “income fraud”; arbitrarily withholding my pension benefits on baseless grounds, threatening my day-to-day survival.

83. On the first occasion, in November 1998, a simple facsimile barrage that stated my position and re-iterated theirs, faxed inter alia, to my accusers and the investigation vanished. It was immediately following that when my application for Group 2 disability status, still meager but less meager, was accepted. Dr. Smith has since informed me that I am his only patient on Group 2 disability benefits who is not on some form of prescribed medication.

84. On the second occasion, charges of “income fraud” were based on a recent word-redefinition found in the legislation that governs the administration of disability benefits; the word “income” now includes “income tax refund” in this new broader term of the definition as described in the Act. As a result, ten dollars per month is presently being deducted from my less meager monthly benefit.

85. As early as the year 2001, and again since, I’ve applied to the provincial Tax Deferral Program, legislated out of the admission that those who subside on disability benefits cannot afford to pay municipal taxes. Tests for qualification are that you are on a disability or other fixed income and that you possess a minimum of 25% equity in your home. I’ve been denied on the basis that I do not have the required 25% minimum equity when in fact, I possess at least 50% equity in my home, evidenced in the land title search attached to this Petition that I answer to and compared to even minimal family home sale prices in my area and for the last several years, now.

86. In September of 2004, my home, the subject of this Petition was the subject of a tax sale, the result of my two years delinquency, paying my taxes in July of 2003 and July of 2004. My home sold for $ 7,600.00. It’s worth about $ 230,000.00 to $ 250,000.00 on today’s market.

87. Interior and Savings Credit Union, holder of the first mortgage, eventually paid the delinquent taxes, interest, penalties and tax sale costs, in order to protect their interest in my home. This was added on to the back of my mortgage with them, an additional $ 1,000.00 in interest, penalties and sale costs to further disadvantage me for not being able to pay my municipal taxes and for being falsely denied the benefit of the provincial Tax Deferral Program, at least twice, so far.

88. Just last year, I learned that there was never a Death Certificate issued in the name of my father, Robert Hunter Thomson, who went missing when the car that he was driving plunged off the Okanagan Lake bridge. His car was recovered but not his body and the presumption of his death was immediate, due at least in part to a witness who saw him jump from the vehicle, into the lake but never saw him come back to the surface.

89. The missing Death Certificate came to my attention after inquiring at Vital Statistics. I was instructed to file an Application to a Judge, asking for an Order for the presumption of my father’s passing. That Application was heard on July 4th, 2005, by Justice of the Peace Taylor, presiding at the Kelowna Law Courts. Justice of the Peace Taylor dismissed my application, saying that he had no jurisdiction.

90. The Application for an Order for the presumption of death, was for a man who by all accounts, drowned 46 years ago and has never been seen, since. There was nobody present who had any interest in opposing the Application. I had local newspaper articles from May 18th 1959, documenting the accident and the presumption that my father had in fact drowned at the scene.

91. The above Application was heard in conjunction with another Application, Kelowna Registry file # AH08331530-1, that was previously heard on April 1st, 2005, presided over by the same Justice of the Peace, Taylor. When I arrived at the courtroom on April 1st, 2005, five minutes early, the matter was already proceeding in my absence. A woman who would only identify herself to me as “a friend of the court” was looking to have my application adjourned, “sine die”. She pointed out that my Application contained Constitutional challenges and that I would have to serve the Attorney Generals, provincial and federal. Judge Taylor agreed and adjourned the matter until July 4th, 2005.

92. This same challenge was put before Justice of the Peace Taylor in the summer of 2004 and is referenced in my continued attempts to be heard on this challenge, citing Justice of the Peace Taylor in my more recent Application and supporting Asseveration, filed March 31st, 2005, as displaying a bias with regard to his refusal to even look at my evidence, last summer. I am also relying on evidence of corruption that is contained in this Application, in my defense of this Petition, also. This Application is also published at my website:
http://british-columbia.ca.human-rights.org/Application%20to%20a%20Judge.html

93. My apprehension of bias is only further re-enforced by my appearance before Justice of the Peace Taylor again on July 4th, 2005, after he’d already determined at the April hearing that he had no jurisdiction. The fact that he dismissed my Application asking for an Order for the presumption of my father’s death, only serves to heighten my concern over his bias against me.

94. Earlier on, possibly in the summer on 1997, I had an unspoken conversation, addressing my Higher Intellect, the Creator who is a part of all Humanity and the Universe. I addressed these concerns of persecution that were only mounting as my position continued to deteriorate in spite of my efforts.

95. By that time I had spent 8 or so months, walking some 15 miles to town and back, daily, carrying around my Affidavit that I’d filed in the Supreme Court of Appeal on May 18th, 2006. I wore a sandwich board sign that I made, evidenced in Exhibit “L” to this, my Assevermation, and I walked people through the exhibits, showing them the proof. I heard replies like “you’re a little fish in a pond full of sharks”, “You’d better grow eyes on the back of your head!” I was even told that I could get killed by “these gangsters”.

96. So I asked my Creator to grant me the strength to stay grounded in the truth, even in the face of my adversaries. I gave my persecutory concerns up to my Creator and it was like a great weight was lifted from my entire being.

97. Attached and referred to as Exhibit “S” to this, my Affirmation, is a photo of me that was Published in the Kelowna Capital News during that time of my life. This photo was taken without my knowledge, the caption below it is pure fiction; I was never interviewed, though they might have known who I was by then.

98. The fact is, the constable saw me on Highway 33 as he drove by, turned around, drove back and parked in a church lot and waited for me to pass, beckoning to me as I did. He told me that I resembled somebody that he was looking for. While I went through my exhibits with him, the photo was taken with only the dog as a witness. Even this constable commented that I “got screwed”. And clearly, he couldn’t be all that bright.

99. I can’t imagine anyone that he might be looking for, would be wearing a sign like mine, unless this constable was looking for me and that would identify his role in the staging of this misleading news item. For instance, my dog is not sitting, he’s lying down; to demonstrate just how much thought and effort really went into delivering accurate, local news.

100. In Exhibit “N” to this my Asseveration, Grant Hardwick’s stated claim that I was engaging in slander is really just his attempt to intimidate me. If his allegations of slander had any merit to them, he would have surely charged me for my unrelenting campaign as I have shamelessly promoted my website domain name all over Kelowna with 5 foot wide signs and 6 inch red and blue lettering, attached, inter alia, to 3 different vehicles that I’ve owned over the last 4 years.

101. If Grant Hardwick’s stated claim is valid, he would have replied back to my letter, conveyed through my Legal Aid Lawyer of the day, Kirby Grant. Instead, Mr. Hardwick decided to remain silent about his alleged concerns that “I was engaging in “a slanderous facsimile barrage” and in doing so, agreed tacitly that his concerns were not valid. It is my contention that his letter is no less than evidence of conveying threats in an attempt to extort me for $ 7,500.00 and to unjustly squelch my right to my freedom of speech.

102. Attached to and referred to as Exhibit “T” to this, my Asseveration, is a copy of a Statement of Account, dated May 31st, 1997, evidencing a balance of $ 18,590.00. Also attached with it is a reply to a letter that I wrote out of concern for the exorbitant amount on the invoice. I wrote back to Dan R. Kilburn, Office Manager to Salloum Doak, explaining that I didn’t care how many invoices that their computer generates so long as it reflect an accurate accounting.

103. I challenge that Exhibit “T” is simply another example of intimidation and extortion in its’ fraudulent accounting. Dan Kilborn’s reply is simply nonsensical to the issue and an insult to my intelligence.

104. From antics on street-corners and even in front of the courthouse, I’ve mounted my campaign, advancing to acts of civil dis-obedience in my efforts to champion these injustices that continue to accumulate at my website, http://british-columbia.ca.human-rights.org

105. The media ignores me, as do others but gradually, I’m calling attention to these injustices with greater impact, affecting the minds of the public at large in the wake of a media blackout an attempted slander, also published at my website:
http://british-columbia.ca.human-rights.org/WebSiteTirades.html
I’m relentless. Like my website says; “It isn’t slander if it’s the truth - and you cam prove it.”

106. I’ve run for political office, twice, just to take my campaign into the media spotlight.

107. I’ve met many other very disgruntled Canadians.

108. I attended a hearing wherein the Accused was Nelson Meikle, charged with failure to file. David Lindsay was acting as Agent, speaking for Mr. Meikle, explaining the four avenues of redress that are open for citizens to challenges bad or unfair laws. Mr. Lindsay cited legislative steps, starting with canvassing of elected representatives, secondly, through the courts, third, through civil disobedience and lastly, through outright revolution.

109. Roy Sommerly was acting on behalf of The Crown and responded with a sweep of his arm; “If the people are unhappy, let them revolt.”

110. Clearly, Mr. Sommerly had over-looked me. I stood up in the gallery and queried him; “When would you like this revolution to start and should we start it at your door?”, or words to that effect. I was ordered to vacate the courtroom, denied a reply.

111. Rumour has it that this Petition was brought on by a growing lack of tolerance for my campaign. Rumour has it that Mr. Sommerly is more eager to take on this matter based more specifically on my outburst in the courtroom. After asking if I was a friend of Mr. Meikle or Mr. Lindsay, he threatened me in the hallway on that day of my outburst, that if I didn’t cease and desist, he would go harder on Mr. Meikle.

112. I challenge that Mr. Sommerly has over-stepped his ethical grounds, so cavalierly wielding the law around like a bat, trying to squelch my freedom of speech and my duty to inform others of impending harm.

113. I challenge that Mr. Hardwick’s Petition is frivolous and vexatious but not caused so much by my general behavior as it is caused by a letter of service that I sent to him by email, also published at my website:
http://british-columbia.ca.human-rights.org/ReplyToGrantB.html and then personally served up to him in hardcopy with my challenge attached, filed on March 31st, 2005, Kelowna Registry # AH08331530-1 and adjourned by The Crown again, to be heard on September 15th, 2005. This Challenge is also published at my website:
http://british-columbia.ca.human-rights.org/Application%20to%20a%20Judge.html I now attach and refer to as Exhibit “U” my proof of service copy of the hardcopy letter that I hand-delivered to Mr. Hardwick at his law firm, Doak Shirriff.

114. In defending my position against this Petition, I will be relying on the same facts, cognitive thought, Principles and Authorities as I have relied upon throughout the course of my mis-adventures at the hands of our courts. If this court should choose to reflect the same bias, once again engaging in thwarting my right to “equality before and under the law”, it only strengthens my position.

115. My invitation to Mr. Hardwick, dated December 20th, 2004 and sent via Registered Mail, which I now attach to this, my Asseveration and refer to as Exhibit “V” was a sincere and generous offer, considering my position and that of Mr. Hardwick’s but Mr. Hardwick in replying to my generous offer, was indignant about it, in spite of his position. It was his indignation that provoked my letter of service upon him in the form of Exhibit “U”.

116. Further, he again accuses me of slandering himself, his firm and his profession and still he chooses to refute not, a word of my claims against him. Instead, he gets out his “bat” in the form of this Petition that I now answer to.

117. On the evening of July 13th, 2005, Constable Lance Balcke of the Kelowna detachment of the RCMP attended to my house, alleging that he was “conducting an investigation into allegations of implied threats” that I allegedly made, to which I categorically deny. Minutes into Constable Balke’s attendance, he ascertained and deemed that I was not co-operating in his alleged investigation.

118. I was arrested under protest, threat, duress and intimidation, delivered to and detained at the downtown lock-up where I was held against my will for three and a half hours before I was released, after signing restraining orders to stay clear of Grant Hardwick and also my MLA, Al Horning. I also signed a promise to appear on (a) charge(s) of “Uttering Threats”, the details of which, I’ve yet to receive.

119. Throughout the three and one half hours that I was detained, no interview was ever conducted of me and in fact, no officer in attendance at the detachment wished to hear a word of the abundance that I had to say about the matter. This fact alone, refutes any legitimacy to the grounds that Constable Balcke alleged in arresting me.

120. I challenge that this arrest incident is but another example how Mr. Hardwick baselessly, frivolously, with vexatious and malicious intent, use the law like a bat in his self-serving attempt to silence me, rather than simply refute my assertions, as required by both, logic and law. In failing to do so, my assertions stand as fact.

121. Again I challenge that Mr. Hardwick’s behaviour is frivolous and vexatious, mischevious and baseless and well beyond the professional ethical principles that he has sworn to uphold and creeping into the domain of the Criminal Code of Canada. In fact, as is expressed in paragraph 5 of Exhibit “U”, Mr. Hardwick has slandered my good name and has engaged in a conspiracy to assassinate my good character.

122. As is evidenced in paragraph 6 of Exhibit “U” I give his due credit in inspiring my campaign that he’s so baselessly objected to from its’ inception. He has no one to blame but himself.

123. I challenge and the Law requires that if Mr. Hardwick wishes to justify his position, he must refute my assertions, now listed here within this, my Asseveration, each and every paragraph and point by point and in failing to do so, live with those as facts, now, these paragraphs and points that he fails to refute.

124. I believe that the court has a duty to uphold the laws as set out in the Criminal Code, uniformly and independent of any personal bias, even if it might only be a perceived biased.

125. I believe that the court exists as a function of any law-abiding society, for the benefit of the public; beneficial to the well-being of families, mandated to act “to set the example for society to follow.”

126. I believe that the court has a duty to live by the oath of allegiance that every officer of the court does swear upon acceptance to our Institution of Justice, here in Canada.

127. I believe that the court has a duty to give aid and direction, even offer it up, intuitively and that I am entitled to ask the court for aid and direction.

128. I believe that the court has a duty to consider establishing deterrents in passing judgments.

129. I believe that courts should always be seen to be acting in good faith.

130. Raymond LaHue took a scythe into a courtroom in his firm belief that our judicial system was corrupt. He served seven years without parole, having been found not guilty of attempted murder but guilty of aggravated assault. He was seventy-two years old when he committed the offence. I know this to be true, having been invited to testify, last November, at a subsequent hearing, asked to substantiate Mr. LaHue’s continued and fervent concern that corruption abounds in our courts.

131. Eddy Haymour took a machine-gun into a Canadian Embassy in his bid for an independent judicial review. This I know to be true, having researched archived newspaper accounts, court and internal government files, some accessed through requests to the Privacy Commissioner, correspondence, etc., co-authoring a book, in collaboration with Eddy Haymour.

132. Darrin Whyte simply hung himself in response to, what I believe to be his justified perception that the court was behaving unjustly and with bias against him.

133. I have personally gone so far as to spray-paint along road-sides, the domain-name of my web-site, “www.ourcourtssuck.com”, which I have stenciled in large red and blue lettering.

134. I wish to be clear that I am opposed to force and violence, having no record of conducting myself in any way, other than civilly.

135. About the third week of August of 2004, a Wednesday afternoon at about 1:45 P.M. I entered the foyer of the offices of the Crown Counsel in Kelowna, intent on serving a copy of my affidavit that I’d filed in relation to my previous challenge of the seat-belt legislation. In all, three prosecutors refused to accept service of my document, then two sheriffs appeared, so I simply dropped my document on the floor.

136. As I attempted to enter the elevator one of the sheriffs assaulted me as I stepped away from him, shoving me ahead, into the elevator, then shoved my affidavit back into my mid-section as I turned about to face him, causing me to instinctively grab it. I was escorted downstairs by both sheriffs and told that I would be arrested if I returned. I was too distraught, intimidated, fearing for my personal safety, to ask what charge would I be detained on.

137. I live in constant discomfort and fear over simply exercising my duty as a civic-minded, family-oriented, citizen, born and raised in British Columbia.

138. My question to this court is:
“How far must people go; how many people must partake before this court will admit that there is sufficient corruption, so as to warrant the facilitation of an orderly, independent, public review, complete with the prosecutorial power to let it be seen that justice is being carried out?”

139. Section 32 of Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms, 1982, clearly defines that this charter was never drafted for the benefit of the people of Canada but only for a select few of our elite who hold governmental positions. So be it. I defer to the Preamble, also the foundation for the British North America Act, 1867. I defer to “those Principles founded in the belief in the Supremacy of God and the Rule of Law.”

140. If Grant Hardwick can show that he has more need for the roof over my head than I do; If Mr. Hardwick can show that he has more need for my roof than do those who have and do seek and find sanctuary in this, my home, my castle, my Church and my sanctuary;
If Mr. Hardwick can refute all the above and provide proof for his assertions, his claim and justification for his actions that I list within for the record, then he should have my home.

141. For nearly ten years this has hung over my head, an ugly dark cloud and either way, it is time to move on. Grant Hardwick may take what he will and this Court might assist him in his process to see me homeless but I will continue with my Faith and my beliefs for the rest of my days, so help me, God. For this is enshrined in our most basic freedoms of a civilized society.

142. History has shown and it has been repeated in the words of David Lindsay, dismissed so arrogantly and cavalierly by Roy Sommerly, that revolution is clearly the last resort of the people.

143. History has shown that this last resort has been implemented, a desperate act, repeated a multitude of times throughout the course of Humanity. In Fact “oopas”, out of place artifacts suggest that humanity has enjoyed the technology that we today enjoy but that it was all destroyed, somehow.

144. In pondering these thoughts and the evidence that provokes them, a simple observation has been over-looked, both historically and even by Mr. Lindsay and especially Mr. Sommerly.

145. That is to say that within the word, “revolution” lies the word “evolution” and although the human race has evolved to a spectacular age of technology, we are still driven by that adolescent human trait - greed.

146. I submit that until we as a species on this planet, learn to evolve beyond that adolescent human characteristic of greed, we are doomed to repeat our mistakes, over and over, until we get it right. It is high time that we grow up and take responsibility for our words and our actions and set aside those personal agendas that are aimed, self-indulgently at the expense of others.

147. It is high time that we evolve.

In Response to the above Asseveration, Mr. Hardick filed an Affidavit, essentially dismissing my assertions, saying that the bulk of them are not relevent.

Paragraph 3 of Mr. Hardwick's Affidavit, seeks to dismiss my assertions without addressing, never mind refuting them. He wishes to dismiss, among other things, my right to my religious views, my rights to freedom of speech and that of expression.

In Paragraph 4, Grant Hardwick wishes to over-look the reasons for the break-down of my trust in his "Undertaking" to look after my best interests,

In paragraph 5, Grant Hardwick, asserting that his was an "exhibition of mercy" in failing to accept my invitation for him to clarify his allegation that I was "...engaging in a program of slander...", again dodging his duty to refute my "version of the facts", if he doth disagree. Instead, he attacks my good character.

In paragraph 6, Mr. Hardwick again dodges his responsibilty to back up his allegations, whilst simultaniously attempting to dismiss my "version of the facts".

In paragraph 8, he uses the word, "slander" again, referring to my efforts to expose the truth. Again, he offers no evidence to substantiate his claim.

As for paragraph 9, are we to believe that "the arresting officer" phoned Mr. Hardwick and requested Grant's participation in the Restraining Order, based on ???? an apparent mystery...

Please note the nature of the alleged offence, paricularily where this allegation came from that resulted in my arrest because, according to Constable Balke, I was "not co-operating in [his] 'investigation'". The resulting charge and subsequent "Undertakings" that I signed my name to, I did under much protest, duress, threat and intimidation, and in order to be released from jail...

The "alleged offence" came from the office of my newly-elected MLA, Al Horning. It's true that I'd been there that day and served up a copy of my "seatbelt challenge". There was only one individual at the office that I chanced to notice; Tyler, an assistant and on looking back, the entire meeting was cordial. I can't imagine anything that I might have said that could have been construed as "an implied threat".

I appeared at the Kelowna Law Courts on the 29th of September to face the charge but nobody knew anything about it. David Lindsay inquired at the offices of Crown Counsel on my behalf and learned that they had never received a police report on the charge, to even be able to consider it.

I also tended to the RCMP detachment as prescribed in the "Undertakings" that I had signed, a stipulation to my release from jail on that 13th night of July.

I explained the circumstances of my situation to the Kaye Dostie, a clerk at the detachment and she sent me to a side door in the parking lot with the letter "C" emblazoned above. Upon ringing the bell, I was greeted by a commissionaire. I explained that I was attending for finger-printing as per the "Undertakings" but that I was unlawfully arrested and detained, that I was present under much protest, duress, threat and intimidation and that I would need his name as I planned to charge, at the minimum, one count of Public Mischief against everyone, involved.

The commissionaire excused himself and returned with his commanding commissionaire who wanted to know what was going on. I repeated that I was present under much protest, duress, threat and intimidation and as he turned to his underling, he said; "Oh, you're one of those assholes" - "show him the door." So I left and returned to the main reception area but Kaye wouldn't even initial my paper-work so that it would attest to the fact that I had indeed, attended.

To this day, I have not received the complete disclosure that David Lindsay requested in a letter to the Crown, writing on my behalf, early on in this matter. Not a peep about any of it - nadda!

As I ponder the situation, painfully aware that I've been banned from any constructive representation in the provincial legislature, I ponder the mystery from time to time.

Is Al sore because I campaigned, competing with him for a seat at the legislature?

And what's the connection to Grant Hardwick, the other party to the restraing order? Is he a Liberal? Probably - Roy Sommerey is...