Wednesday, October 20, 2004

What is this anger?

What is this anger? Justice Dovell turns it on and off like turning a light switch on and off. Audrey Brent is the same way and her law partner Lynne Greenhorn. My X wife is the same way and so is her mother and daughter. Is it inherited, it seems to runs in her family. I have been told that the anger is their way of keeping control.

In the late sixties I read a book by an Irish author and play right. He said in his book that men within the church in Ireland were gay and that this was known by the people and accepted. Gay men had found a safe haven within the churches in Ireland.

In Canada children were being raped in the churches across the country, wards of the court were warehoused on the third floor of the YMCA and selling themselves on the streets in Vancouver. It was and still is legal to rape a fourteen year old child in Canada. This seemed to be accepted by the people in Canada. It was not gay men that found a safe haven in the churches in Canada, it was pedophiles.

Family courts, social services and other agencies changed in Canada in the fifties and sixties. At that time men worked in family court registries, social services and other agencies. How many men work in family court registries and social services and other family based agencies now? There are no men in the family court registry in Saskatoon except for the registrar whose name appears on the form letters signed by a women. There are no male social workers in Saskatoon. There is only one male counsellor at family services in Saskatoon.

I look on the internet and the casualties of the family courts in Canada and around the world are waging a war. The courts have damaged and scared for life not just men, or women, but children, grandparents, brothers, sisters and other family members. I have looked a family law Acts and I have to ask, what is wrong with the laws that we have now? Why is Canada rewriting family laws? Is it because the law is not being applied equality? How is rewriting them going to help?

Most women know that there are women who have this anger about men. Men and women can not work with them. If they do they are in constant fear of being stabbed in the back. Excellent caring men and women have left the court registries, social services and other family based agencies. Those that have stayed live in fear of reprisals if they speak out about these angry women. Anyone that has lived with a Border Line Personality Disorder women will know what it is like. The anger is a means of control and they will go to any lengths to maintain that control.

I have many comments like this from women about Justice Dovell: “It's people like the female judge who make me very disappointed in our sex at times. Women are supposed to be smarter and more compassionate than this”.

I do not think it is just Border Line Personality Disorder. I think it is heterophobia. het·er·o·pho·bi·a -- n. The fear of straight people. Another definition is Heterophobia- Fear of the opposite sex. (Sexophobia). I believe that these sick women have found a safe haven in the family courts, social services and other family based services. Would it not be wise to get these angry sick women away from families and out of places where they can abuse their power and put disabled men into hospitals and wheelchairs? The biggest deception of all in Justice Dovell’s court is that it is said that the interests of the children comes first.

Tuesday, October 19, 2004

The essential difference between rule of law and rule by law

“There is an essential difference between rule of law and rule by law. Countries with no real claim to democracy may have rule by law. One person - or a select group of people - may make the law according to their whim. They may do so arbitrarily, or without announcing the laws beforehand, meting out sanctions when people fail to obey. Rule of law is different. Rule of law means that all exercise of power - whether by the Prime Minister and executive, the elected members of Parliament, or by the most minor functionary - must be authorized by and fall within the bounds prescribed by the law.”

The Right Honourable Beverley McLachlin

How extensive is the corruption within the Court of Queen’s Bench?

Justice Hrabinsky and Justice Dovell have used the law and The Court of Queen’s Bench to assault a disabled man and steal his assets. The independence of the judiciary means nothing to them. What is the going price for Justice Dovell to cook up a court order for Audrey Brent? Is it because they enjoy assaulting men or is it because they think they can get away with assaulting a disabled man? Is Justice Dovell being blackmailed by Audrey Brent? Do Justice Dovell and Audrey Brent have an agreement and if so what percentage of the blackmail money goes into Justice Dovell’s pocket? Is it just two angry man hating women getting their jollies? How many times have they done this? How many court orders has Justice Dovell cooked up in her time as a justice of the court? Is it just Justice Hrabinsky that helps her or do the other justices of the court engage in blackmail scams with Justice Dovell and Audrey Brent? Is it just her former law partners or can anyone have Justice Dovell cook up a court order for them? If Audrey Brent can have Justice Dovell cook up a court order has the attorney general or a police officer had her cook up a court order for them? How extensive is the corruption within the Court of Queen’s Bench? These questions and more need to be answered by a public inquiry. The damage done to people as a result of the actions of Justice Hrabinsky and Dovell is calculable, the damage to the court itself is incalculable.

Monday, October 18, 2004

This is not rule of law, it is rule by law.

I received the letter from the court dated February 24, 2004 after I collapsed in the court house. I was on the floor just by the court registry for twenty minutes. This resulted in a morphine injection at emergency. This is what can happen to men in family court who have a neurological movement disorder and are required to represent themselves. This was after a letter from my doctor was ignored by the court that said, “The court events before the treatments will seriously affect his health and must be delayed". The court proceedings were not delayed, again resulting in a morphine injection at emergency.

I received the letter dated May 10, 2004 from Audrey Brent. I did not attend at the trial three days later as I was told it had been adjourned.

I received the court order made by Justice Dovell on May 13, 2004. There was no application under Section 193 of the rules: “when a trial date has been assigned to any proceedings, it shall only be adjourned on the order of a judge upon application by a party and supported by affidavit. R. 193, Gaz. Jan. 18/91.

"UPON this action coming before a Trial before Madam Justice M.L. Dovell"

The court order committed Justice Dovell as the trial judge under Queen’s Bench Act section 18 (b): all proceedings in an action or matter that are subsequent to a hearing or trial, down to and including the final judgement or order, shell be heard, determined and disposed of before the judge before whom the trial or hearing took place.

There was no pre-trial or trial, I was being set-up by Justice Dovell and Audrey Brent. This is not rule of law, it is rule by law. Audrey Brent’s and Justice Dovell’s law.

These two sick angry women have conspired to assault and blackmail a disabled man. It gives a new meaning to “working for women”. This is in retaliation for reporting two lawyers to the Saskatoon police for filling a false claim of lien under The Builders Lien Act. Audrey Brent and Justice Dovell were law partners for years in the late eighties. The lawyer I reported to the police joined the firm in 1990.

I helped a homeowner with a Motion to have a lien removed from his property. He detailed the scam in his affidavit. The chambers judge and lawyer verbally attacked the homeowner in chambers and he was rushed to the hospital in serious condition three hours later, he was in the hospital for three weeks.

Lawyers are using The Builders Lien Act to blackmail home owners in Saskatoon. They do it with the protection of the justices of the Court of Queen’s Bench. This is not just corruption, it is a perverted idea of justice.

James Hunter

Letter from court registrar Feb 24 2004

Letter from court Feb 24 2004 Posted by Hello

Letter from Audrey Brent May 10 2004

Letter From Audrey Brent Posted by Hello

Dovell court order May 13, 2004

Dovell Order May 13 Posted by Hello

Wednesday, October 13, 2004

Lawyerless Litigants

Lawyerless Litigants Posted by Hello

What is Honourable about this? John Lucas’s Gag Order

The Honourable Justice L. A. Kyle’s January 8th 2004, CONDITIONS;
1. To keep the peace and be of good behaviour.

2. Appear in Court when required to do so.

3. Have no contact directly or indirectly with Justice Paul Hrabinsky.

4. Have no contact directly or indirectly with any Judge or any Court in the Province of Saskatchewan unless required by law.

5. Not phone or contact the offices of any Court in the Province of Saskatchewan unless required by law.

6. Have no contact with Rod Donlevy or with anyone associated with his place of employment either directly or indirectly.

7. Not to publish or cause to be published in any format including electronic format, nor to distribute or cause to be distributed or displayed any material referring to Justice Paul Hrabinsky or any Judge or Justice of any Court in Saskatchewan without the express written permission of this Court.

8. Not to publish or cause to be published in any format including electronic format, nor to distribute or cause to be distributed or displayed any material referring to Rod Donlevy or any other member or past member of the Law Society of Saskatchewan without the express written permission of this Court.

9. Not to publish or cause to be published in any format including electronic format, nor to distribute or cause to be distributed or displayed any material referring to Brian Dueck or any other member or past member of any police force without the express written permission of this Court.

10. Not to place any poster in any public place without the express written permission of this Court.

11. Not to be in the City of Saskatoon, Saskatchewan except for Court appearances or for medical appointments with consent of the Crown. ( … “or for the purposes of meeting with counsel or prospective counsel…” AMENDED BY JUSTICE G. N. ALLBRIGHT THIS 13TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2004 …. )

12. Not to communicate in any way on a website or e-mail with anyone regarding his Court case, or anything that pertains to child sex abuse in the Province of Saskatchewan. He can download but he can’t upload information on his computer in relation to these matters.

13. The following was designated # 13 by the accused, John David Lucas…
On July 6th, 2004, The Honourable Chief justice W. F. Gerein, varied the above ORDER with the following;
“Order that the Undertaking is Amended by adding that Mr. Lucas may attend at any time in the City of Saskatoon for the purpose of visiting his wife at the Royal University Hospital while she is having to renam there as well as to accompany her to any consequent medical appointments…”

Judges or Political Hacks

Is it just me? In any case that may embarrass the Attorney General, Social Services, the administration of justice or the Government of Saskatchewan it seems that it is the same judges over and over that hear the cases. Justice Hrabinsky and Justice Dovell are involved in most of them. The other judges that hear these cases are also the same. They proceed to issue gag orders, publication bans and to me it seems like they are just out to keep the people of Saskatchewan in the dark. They make defamatory remarks about innocent people to leave the impression that they are guilty and discredit them in the eyes of the public. I look up the case law and no one has a name, not even the Saskatoon Police Service. People have names, not M.L.R., P.K. Sr., M.L., R., M.R. 1, M.R. 2, K.R. and B. S.

It is not just high profile cases, Quint is without question the next embarrassment for the NDP, and again, the first case of many to follow that I could find was heard by Hrabinsky. What did it take in my case for Audrey Brent to have Hrabinsky as the pre-trial judge, a call to the attorney general or a call to Justice Dovell. It is not by chance that I ended up with these two political hacks.

John Lucas has been charged again and he is under a gag order that belongs in the old communist Russia. John Diefenbaker would turn over in has grave if he knew what has happened to John Lucas and his wife. I do not care what was on his sign. I do not care about his past. The fact is that he protested peacefully to bring to the attention of the public that two 8 year old girls were being sexually assaulted. He was exercising his right to free speech. Most of the information was public at the time he protested and this has been supported by the judgement of Justice Baynton in KVELLO V. MIAZGA.

Every time he exercises his right to free speech, he has his Charter Rights stomped on, charged, and a gag order crammed down his throat. I have a right to hear what John Lucas has to say and John Lucas has a Charter Right to say it. He has a Charter Right of equally, is the court going to cram a gag order down everyone’s throat that exercises their Right to free speech. It has worked with the StarPhoenix, the protectors of freedom of speech, are silent. He has a Right not be subjected to any cruel or unusual punishment. He has his phone calls and emails monitored and other conditions ordered that any Canadian would find offensive, cruel and unusual.

I would like to know what John Lucas has been charged with. I would like to know when his case is going to be heard. I would like to know if his case is going to be heard by one of the attorney general’s puppet judges again. I would like to know if he has been charged with defamatory libel again and who he is alleged to have defamed. John Lucas can not tell me or he will be in violation of his gag order. If it is Justice Hrabinsky I am going to oil up my wheelchair and picket the court at the time of his trial. Hrabinsky and Dovell are not going to be happy about my picket sign. It will be the truth and I do not have a gag order stomping on my Rights of free speech. I did nothing in the past but write letters and email. My days of watching and doing nothing like I did when Mr Lucas and others picketed the police station to protect children are over. If he pickets again I am going to picket with him, and if anyone doesn’t like it they can blogger off.

My name is James Hunter.

Tuesday, October 12, 2004

The Cooked Up Court Order

I had to attend a pre-trial against my doctors wishes. There had been no discoveries, disclosure of documents, appraisals, medical reports or any of the court proceedings that proceed a pre-trial. Justice Hrabinsky was aware of this. Justice Hrabinsky refused my request to speak with him at the pre-trial and ordered me to pay $350.00 court costs. He asked me if I could pay it and I told him that I would have to borrow it. I think he was prepared to put me in jail if I said no. For $350.00 you would think that I would be allowed to have my say. He left the room in the manner of an angry sulking 10 year old. A trial date was set knowing that none of the normal court proceedings had taken place. This is not normal for a judge to ignore a doctors letter or to ignore the rules of court. I at first did not know what to think of this angry fool. He ignored the rules of court and he denied me due process deliberately.

I borrowed money for legal fees to have the trial postponed and discover my wife. The lawyer made an application to the court and had the trial date postponed and he discovered my wife. I was again charged court costs. He obtained undertakings to produce documents that Audrey Brent was refusing to disclose at the discovery. He withdrew before I obtained the documents, $8,000.00 I paid lawyers and there was still no documents. I signed releases giving my lawyers permission to obtain medical information and this was never done. My doctor was asking my why he was not contacted by my lawyer.

A new trial date was set and like so many others I was without a lawyer. I intended to appear and ask the court for a court appointed lawyer. I attended court for the trial on February 24th without a lawyer. I was accosted soon after my arrival by Audrey Brent, my wife’s lawyer, who again started with the threats, accept this offer or we will put your 86 year old mother out on to the street. My disability does not allow me to cope with threats. This left me blinded and falling hitting my head against an elevator door in the court.

I was beginning to wonder how many times I going to be assaulted and put in the hospital before Justice Hrabinsky and a gang of thieves realised that I will not be blackmailed by gold diggers, lawyers or Justice Hrabinsky’s dysfunction court. They could deny me legal aid, assault and threaten me, put me into the hospital, insult me, lie about me, force me to live like an animal, break me and my family and friends financially, cripple me and put me into a wheelchair, but I was not going to be blackmailed.

I received a letter from the court soon after court that says in part: "Mr. Hunter, the court understands you had a bit of a medical problem on February 24th, 2004 which prevented you attending the first day of the trial. I was on the floor in full view of the court registry for twenty minutes, a court officer was going to call an ambulance for me, this left me unable to walk, of course I could not attend on the following two days. The letter went on to say that the trial had been adjourned to May 13th and 14th and " you are required to show up at 10:00 a.m. on May 13th, 2004 to proceed with the trial. The only excuse the court will take for your non-appearance is a medical certificate by a qualified medical doctor that your health would be in jeopardy if you were to attend the trial. Otherwise, if you should choose not to attend, the trial will proceed in your absence". What is the court talking about, the court and Justice Hrabinsky ignored a letter from my doctor, what good would it do for my doctor to write another letter when the court does not understand a letter from my doctor that clearly said: "The court events before the treatment will seriously effect his health and must be delayed." The treatment was a Botox injection to relieve neck pain and muscle spasms. I did not get a Botox injection. I was at emergency getting a morphine injection for executing pain caused by the stupidly of a judge and two lawyers.

When I was on the floor of the court house flopping around like a fish out of water a security person was going to call an ambulance and I asked him not to, I cannot afford an ambulance. I asked him to bring me a chair so I could get off the floor and told him that my eyes would open and I would get limited use of my legs if I could just relax for awhile. I thank him for this. A better use of his time would have been to keep a sadistic threatening lawyer away from me so I could have asked a Judge for a lawyer. Court was postponed until May 13th because of my "bit of a medical problem". I found the letter disturbing as it said that I did not attend the trial and goes on to say that if I don‘t attend on May 13th the trial will proceed in my absence.

On May 10 I received a letter from my wife’s lawyer saying that the trial set for May 13th was adjourned. The letter said that the Registrar would be contacting me to reschedule the trial at another time. I was not told why the trial was adjourned.

I did nor receive a letter from the registrar, I received a court order delivered by my wife’s lawyer on May 26th ordered by Justice Dovell on May 13th. The order says "BEFORE THE HONOURABLE MADAM JUSTICE M.L. DOVELL AT PRE-TRIAL CONFERENCE" dated May 13th. What pre-trial conference? Is this Audrey Brent’s way of avoiding a pre-trial? The order also says: "UPON this action coming before a Trial before Madam Justice M.L. Dovell". What trial, is it the trial that my wife’s lawyer told me was adjourned? Justice Dovell ordered the following: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AND ADJUDGED AS FOLLOWS: "Trial set peremptorily for September 9th, and 10th, 2004, and the Respondent is to be personally served with the order and he is advised that Trial will proceed in his absence if he chooses not to attend".

Peremptorily means final, putting an end to all debate or action and not admitting of question. I have a lot of questions, most of them are about what happened to due process and the abuse of the process of the court?

Section 193 of the rules say: “when a trial date has been assigned to any proceedings, it shall only be adjourned on the order of a judge upon application by a party and supported by affidavit. R. 193, Gaz. Jan. 18/91.

It would seem that Audrey Brent and Justice Dovell have their own set of court rules. All it took for Audrey Brent to have the trial postponed was a phone call to her former law partner Justice Dovell. The two of them cooked up a court order to support the letter I received from the court. They were not going to take a chance on having another judge hear the trial and this is why Justice Dovell lied in her court order.

Determination by a single judge: Queen’s Bench Act section 18 (b): all proceedings in an action or matter that are subsequent to a hearing or trial, down to and including the final judgement or order, shell be heard, determined and disposed of before the judge before whom the trial or hearing took place.

Justice Dovell’s order said: "BEFORE THE HONOURABLE MADAM JUSTICE M.L. DOVELL AT PRE-TRIAL CONFERENCE" and "UPON this action coming before a Trial before Madam Justice M.L. Dovell". There was no pre-trial or trial. This was nothing more than a lawyer and a judge conspiring to keep their illegal actions from being heard by a different judge at trial.

This angry, man hating, borderline personality disorder Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde is masquerading as a judge and she assaulted me in her court room. When she looks to the right she is angry, when she looks to the left she is sweet as pie. There must be a switch in her neck that instantly turns the anger on and off. This pathetic woman along with Justice Hrabinsky and Audrey Brent are responsible for my being in a wheelchair. How did this sick woman get an appointment to the bench? Look up any case over the past 15 years that would discredit the court, Government of Saskatchewan, police, officers of the court and you will find these two robed buffoons issuing gag orders and orders to seal documents. They are NDP political hacks. In Justice Dovell’s case it is hard to tell who is pulling her strings, she seems to be anyone’s puppet.

Justice Hrabinsky, Dovell and Audrey Brent are nothing more than common thieves, they are blackmailing a disabled man and abusing their power.

There was now a letter and a court order saying that I just did not attend pre-trials or a trial and the trial set for September 9th and 10th was final. Over $8,000.00 and there was nothing before the court on my behalf and I did not have the documents required to be produced by the rules and there was no pre-trial as required by the rules.

Justice Dovell and Audrey Brent were law partners for years and the lawyer I reported to the police joined the firm in 1990. This is a nice way to get back at someone that reports lawyers to the police. This is nothing more than legal blackmail by two judges of the Court of Queen’s Bench and two sick man hating lawyers. It is nothing more than one big happy family of corruption.

Monday, October 11, 2004

The Builders Lien Act

The Builders Lien Act

By far the worst Court of Queen’s Bench scams are Acts that allow the placing of a caveat on a house or property. The Builders Lien Act is one of the worst offenders and is viciously protected by dishonest lawyers and corrupt judges of The Court of Queen’s Bench.

The court scams are easy to spot as the Act does not allow the homeowner to proceed in small claims court or under part forty of the simplified rules. Any court action must proceed under the full rules of the court of Queen’s Bench. This and the placing of a caveat on the property leaves homeowners at a disadvantage. A homeowners liability is in most cases 10% of the cost of the building materials. It can cost the homeowner up to $15,000.00 in lawyer fees to proceed to court.

There are many scams that rely on the high cost of lawyer fees. It is not just the poor, middle class people are also being blackmailed. Who can afford to spend $15,000.00 in lawyers fees to save an amount that is within the provisions of the Small Claims Court.

All it takes is a dishonest building contractor and an employee of a building supplier who has access to charge sales invoices. In most cases where there is fraud involved the contractor will not finish the work and will abandon the building site before the work is completed. This leaves the homeowner looking for a new contractor. If the homeowner has taken out a mortgage to pay for the construction, the mortgage money will be in their lawyers trust account where the money will stay until the lien is vacated. This leaves the homeowner unable to borrow money to finish the construction and if there is no saving or RRSP and credit cards the only other option is to pay off the lien. If the lien is not paid out a Statement of Claim will be served on the homeowner claiming the full amount of the building materials and unjust enrichment.

The homeowner has thirty days to file a Statement of Defence. A Notice of Motion to vacate the lien can be filed at the same time. A lawyerless litigant has the advantage of having no lawyer fees. It is the building supplier that is going to be paying a lawyer $15,000.00 to recover 10% of the cost of the building materials. For about $100.00 the homeowner can have a lawyer review the pleading before they are filed.

I can help anyone in Saskatoon to prepare, serve, obtain and file documents. The price is right, free.

The incompetent James Rugg.

I asked a friend to lend me $1000.00 to retain Mr Rugg to represent me in divorce proceedings. My medical condition prevented me from attending at Mr Rugg’s office. I was unable to walk that day. With no input from me, Mr Rugg prepared documents based on the false assumption that I have a mental illness. Mr Rugg told me that my medical condition was all in my head and that "there is no shame in admitting that you have a mental illness." I asked Mr Rugg if he was prepared to testify to his medical diagnosis in court. I asked Mr Rugg on two occasions to draw up a letter authorizing my doctors to disclose my medical records to him. Mr Rugg neglected to obtain any medical records.

Mr Rugg received documents that showed that my wife had withdrawn over $24,000.00 from our RRSP accounts. I spent over 2 hours reviewing the documents with Mr Rugg. It was agreed that Mr Rugg would obtain bank statements and CCRA income tax records of declared income. Mr Rugg called me 3 months later asking me for information regarding the $24,000.00. Mr Rugg claimed that he did not have any of this information. Mr Rugg did nothing for over 3 months. I talked to attorney Ben Mah and asked his advice. When I told him that I had Mr Rugg for an lawyer he said " O no, he is known for not doing the work". He went on to say that Audrey Brent is known for her unfair tactics and suggested it was not Mr Rugg who was responsible for my severely degenerated health but Audrey Brent.

Mr Rugg complained to me that he had never encountered a case where the opposing lawyer was refusing to disclose documents. Mr Rugg told me that he obtained advice from the law society mentor and was told by the mentor that Audrey Brent could not do this. Mr Rugg continued to complain to me saying that Audrey Brent had been disciplined by the law society in the past for using similar tactics and had been sanctioned by not being allowed to work on weekends. Mr Rugg told me that he had asked his colleagues about Audrey Brent’s tactics and they told him that they knew of this, and that she was disciplined, but she just continues. On more than one occasion I asked Mr Rugg to ask the court or the law society for their help. It was clear that Mr Rugg was unable to cope with the situation.

After Mr Rugg doing nothing for over 3 months he demonstrated to me how in anger he tossed aside a Joint Request for a pre-trial conference he received from Audrey Brent. Mr Rugg continued complaining that he could not prepare for a pre-trial without a disclosure of documents and discoveries. Mr Rugg then told me that he received a call from the registrar setting a date for a pre-trial conference against his objections as there had not been a disclosure of documents or discoveries conducted. Mr Rugg was blaming the registrar for setting the date for a pre-trial and continued to complain to me that he did not know how he was going to prepare a pre-trial brief without a disclosure of documents or discoveries being conducted.
I was upset that the $2,000.00 I borrowed to pay Mr Rugg’s fees was being spent on a pre-trial instead of being spent to obtain documents and discoveries. I told Mr Rugg that I did not believe him and that the registrar would not set a date against his wishes. Mr Rugg then claimed that it was normal procedure in the court for the registrar to set a date for pre-trial conference in this manner. I asked Mr Rugg to stop complaining to me that he was required to prepare a pre-trial brief directly from the filing of pleadings to a pre-trial conference as I could do nothing about it.

Mr Rugg told me that he had examined the court file and he found a certificate filed by Audrey Brent and that this was the reason the registrar set the date for the pre-trial. He told me that he had never heard of or had any knowledge of this certificate. I told Mr Rugg that the certificate is in the Rules of Court. He responded by laughing. I did not find Mr Rugg’s sick sense of humour funny. He did nothing for 3 months, tossed a joint request for a pre-trial conference, did nothing for a further 2 months and deliberately and knowingly lied to me. Mr Rugg blamed his incompetence on the court registrar and Audrey Brent. He is solely responsible for his own incompetence.

Mr Rugg received a document from Audrey Brent that authorized CCRA to send him income tax records of declared income and this document was sent to CCRA by Audrey Brent. After two months he had not received the CCRA tax records. I asked him to make some attempt at obtaining the CCRA tax records before the pre-trial. Mr Rugg refused, saying that the request had been sent to CCRA by Audrey Brent and he had to wait for a response from them. I told Mr Rugg that he could not be naive enough to believe that Audrey Brent had sent the request to CCRA or that it would take CCRA over two months to respond. Mr Rugg said "I cannot deal with this any longer" and hung up the phone on me. I contacted CCRA and was told it takes about 6 or 7 days to receive tax records from the time the request is received. I called and left a message with this information for Mr Rugg because he would not answer his phone. He called me back saying that he contacted CCRA and no request was received by them from Audrey Brent. He told me that Audrey Brent had lied to him and he was going to write a strongly worded letter to her. He received a letter in response that left no doubt that Audrey Brent never had any intention of disclosing the CCRA tax records required by the Rules to him. Mr Rugg was now blaming Audrey Brent and the employees of the Government of Canada for his naive incompetence.

My doctor wrote a letter for Mr Rugg saying "The pain and stress is increased due to the anxiety of the up-coming court proceedings. The court events before the treatments will seriously affect his health and must be delayed." I was waiting for Botox injections into my neck muscles as my head was severely tilted to the right because of muscle seizures. I took the letter to Mr Rugg. I was unable to sit in a chair and had to stand. Mr Rugg told me that there was no reason that I could not attend the pre-trial as I "only had a little numbness and your head is tilted." My head pain increased on hearing this and I bent over holding my head in pain so intense that I was close to passing out. I asked Mr Rugg "what part of seriously affect his health" do you not understand? Mr Rugg then lost control of himself and in a rage started cursing Audrey Brent calling her a f---- bitch for not disclosing the documents. This was the second time that Mr Rugg did that. When I arrived home I had a paralysis of the mouth on the right side. I was experiencing severe head and back pain and my lower back seized up leaving me in pain so intense that I was not only unable to walk, I was unable to move.

Audrey Brent played a $2,800.00 game of hide the documents with Mr Rugg for 10 months. Mr Rugg’s incompetence and his playing at being a doctor left me crippled and open to the scorn of the court. Audrey Brent and her tactics have forced me to live like an animal for over two years. She will continue to do this because disabled people do not have the money to proceed to trial or to hire a lawyer.

Mr Rugg continued to complain to me by saying that he was having trouble with the pre-trial brief and he did not know what to include in it. He filed the pre-trial brief without any input from me and did not let me read it before he filed it. I asked if he included information about the $24,000.00 removed from the RRSP funds. He knowingly lied to me when he told me that he did not include this information in the brief as he knew nothing about it. I asked him if he included information regarding tax documents disclosed that were cooked-up to hide the fact that my wife had defrauded revenue Canada out of thousands of dollars by declaring me as a dependant. Mr Rugg has filed a pre-trial brief that is void of the facts of the matter. He included in his brief medical information without my knowledge that is false, inaccurate and misleading. Mr Rugg is incompetent, this could be the result of a mental defect, he thinks he is a doctor.

I fired Mr Rugg. He is responsible along with Audrey Brent, Justice Hrabinsky and Justice Dovell for my being in a wheelchair.

Saskatoon Builders Lien Scam

When I helped anyone prepare a document for court I insisted that they take it to a lawyer before filing it. For under $100.00 the lawyer could advise them. One man told me that the lawyer he showed it to said it was the best non-lawyer court document he has seen. This was nice, but I had many documents prepared by lawyers that asked judges to violate Charter Rights, ask for interest in a manner that was illegal, and others that were out right trash.

A home owner asked me to look at contracts he signed to add a second story to his house. He was a resent newly wed and a student studying for his masters degree in English. I told him that he needed to take the contracts to the Saskatoon Police. The police turned him away at the front desk.

The court scams are easy to spot as the act does not allow the home owner to proceed in small claims court or under part forty of the rules and he must proceed with any court action under the full rules of the court of Queen’s Bench.

The Statement of Claim will ask for the full amount of the building materials and his mortgage lawyer held the mortgage money in his trust account. The caveat prevented him from borrowing money to complete his house and with no roof on the house two major thunder storms flooded his home. I advise him that he needed to find a lawyer and all the lawyers he contacted refer him to the same $300.00 per hour lawyer. I went with him to see this lawyer. He was told that his liability was only 10% of the cost of the building materials but it would cost him $15,000.00 in lawyer fees to proceed to court.

This is where the blackmail ends for most home owners and they borrow money from friends and family and pay up as this is the only way to have the caveat removed. The home owner pays the contractor and is blackmailed into paying the building supplier plus all court costs, interest and pre-trial interest. The homeowner is scammed by the lawyers. When all is said and done it is the Court Of Queen‘s Bench that blackmails the home owners by allowing a caveat on the house and stomping on the home owners Charter Rights of equality by denying them due process and access to the court.

The home owner did not have any money. I explained that I was not a lawyer and that my life time interest in one very small part of law was because I did not have a hockey or baseball player as an idol when I was young, my idol was John Diefenbaker. He knew that I was disabled and that I may not be able to walk and attend court with him and that I was unable to spell or pronounce words properly so he would have to do it himself. He had a degree in English and this would be no problem and he was capable of public speaking that would benefit him well in court.

I offered to help him prepare, serve, obtain and file documents so he could continue with his school studies. He had to have a Statement of Defence prepared and filed within seven days.
When I looked at the Statement of Claim it was not the usual Builders Lien Act scam, it had a third party twist to it. He was being set up for a default judgement and after he was defrauded out of his money and the lien taken off he was going to be served with another action, the lien placed back on his house, and scammed again. I asked him who the third party could be and he had no idea. I found a Garnishee Summons he had forgot about that answered that question.

He drove me around and I talked to the third party and others. I talked to other home owners who received building materials from the building supplier that were included in the Statement of Claim. I discovered that there were 8 cash sales slips for the building materials and the information was copied from the cash slips on to consecutively numbered charge sales invoices. All attempts to obtain accounts receivable records were not successful as they did not exist. The materials were paid for with cash. Attempts to obtain the cash sales slips were not successful. The home owner had paid the contractor for the first phrase of construction and materials and a post dated cheque for the second phrase. He received a call from the city planning department and learned that the contractor was in default of the contract and was known for defrauding home owners. He stopped payment on his post dated cheque just as the first phrase was nearing completion.

All three parties were involved, the contractor, building supplier and the third party and there was no proof with out the documents. The contractor spent the home owners deposit money and had no money to buy the building materials. This would have been the last the home owner saw of him but the contractor wanted the sizable post dated cheque. If the contractor did not start the first phrase of construction the home owner would have stopped payment on the cheque. The contractor who had been scamming home owners for years did not have any credit with the suppliers and he takes the post dated cheque to the third party who has a judgment against him. The third party agrees to pay for the materials and holds the cheque. The third party pays cash for the materials at a building supplier the contractor owes money to and the materials are delivered. The contractor takes his time as he intends to split when the post dated cheque is cashed. This is when the home owner receives the call from the city and stops payment. The third party paid for the materials and with a stop payment he was out his money. The contractor had a history with the building supplier who was cashing cheques for him and obtaining materials for him. The contractor is arrested by the Saskatoon police and charged with other frauds. This was all speculation with out the documents. It is possible that the building supplier realised he was not going to recover the money the contractor owed him if the contractor was in jail and copied the sales slips on to charge invoices adding a few for good measure and was off to his lawyer. I believe that the three con men were a little upset with the home owner stopping payment on the cheque. The garnishee summons was served on the home owner, sales slips were copied on to charge invoices, caveat placed on his house and the Statement of Claim was filed that opened the door for the third party.

A professor at UBC warned his students saying it was very difficult for a lawyer to have his licence to practice law revoked but it was gone if number one, improprieties with respect to the trust account and right up there at number two, file a false caveat.

I helped the home owner with a Notice of Motion to obtain the documents. A lengthy time was given to be near the top of the Chambers list. He received a response to the Motion just within the three day allowed by the rules. At the same time he received the charge invoices and a few other documents and two affidavits, one from the building supplier manager, and one of the lawyers handling his case.

The Chambers judge was Madam Justice ------ and the home owner’s case was the last case to be heard. I stated my name as requested and that I was helping the home owner with the documents. The home owner had no defence to the lies contained it the affidavits and from the lawyer in court. Madam justice -------- and the lawyer started in on him and he looked at me for help and when I started to speak Justice -------- told me to be quite. When the lawyer started telling lies about his wife he became upset and again looked for help from me and I was again told to be quite. The home owner by this time did not know if he should be sitting or standing and asked Justice -------- if he should be standing, she responded in a teasing voice that, yes he should be standing. The home owner was in serious trouble. He was looking at me for help and I was afraid I would be removed from the room if I opened my mouth to help him and he would be in Justice --------s Chamber of horrors by himself. I again tried to interrupt, not to help him but to stop it, Justice -------- could see that he was in serious trouble and I was told to be quite and it continued. Never in my wildest dreams did I ever think that I would witnesses anything like what took place in Justice --------s Chambers. I witnessed an assault on a home owner by a judge and a lawyer in the Chambers of The Court of Queen’s Bench. What I witnessed was sickening. It was done to send me a message, this is what is going to happen if you help anyone else in this court. The home owner did not understand what happened to him or why. He was rushed to the hospital in serious condition 3 hours later and he was in the hospital for three weeks.

I did not understand why this was done until after. I did not know that my turn was coming. I received the same treatment in my case in Justice Hrabinsky’s pre-trial court and Justice Dovell’s court. (See The Cooked up Court Order.) and (Justice Hrabinsky’s Pre-trial).

The following morning at the hospital he did not have anything good to say about Justice --------. I met with his wife at the hospital. She only had one concern. She did not care about Justice --------, her house, money, scams, lawyers or courts. The only thing that concerned her was her husband was in the hospital and she wanted him home and well again. She contacted a lawyer and I went with her to see him. When we got to his office he directed her to another lawyer. She was directed to the same $300.00 per hour lawyer that the other lawyers referred her husband to.

The home owner had at some time prior gotten by the front desk of the police station and I called the police officer he had talked to in the past. I explained the situation to him and he kept insisting that it was not a criminal matter. I persisted telling him that a false claim of lien was placed on his house and he was being blackmailed. He called me back and told me he talked to the lawyer. The lawyer told him that the home owner was not in the hospital, I told the officer that I had a letter I obtained from his doctor and that I had filed and served it on the lawyer to stop all court proceedings as the home owner was in the hospital. The lawyer told the officer that he had never seen any cash sales slips, I told him that I had a document with the lawyers signature on it that listed 7 of the 8 cash sales slips and that the document was a Statement as to Documents. The officer asked me why the lawyer would do that and I answered with, because he does not have the mental capacity required to balance a bicycle. This got a chuckle from the officer and this opened the door. He had listened to the lawyer and it was only fair that he listen to the home owner and look at the evidence. It was agreed that we would meet after the home owner was out of the hospital.

The morning we were to meet with the police officer I was waiting for the home owner to pick me up as I am unable to drive . His wife called before he arrived and was very concerned about her husband. I left a message on the officers answering machine postponing our meeting. After he arrived he said he was fine and was begging me to go with him to see the officer. I told him that I could not talk to the officer for him and he needed to do this as the officer needed to see that he was capable of doing this and testifying in court. I asked him to drive us to emergency where he spent the day and I promised to call the officer when he was better.

When we met with the police officer he asked me if I was James Hunter that had been talking to him on the phone. I get this a lot as I do not look like I sound. I have a dystonic tremor, my face is paralysed and at times I am twisted up looking like a dog screwing a football. I got the impression that he thought I was the one that needed help, not the homeowner. The police officer had a copy of The Builders Lien Act and was prepared to show us why the building supplier had a legal right to blackmail the home owner. After looking at the documents and talking to the home owner and seeing that he was more that capable of testifying, he asked if he could make copies of the file. In the following days he asked the home owner for more information and documents. He said that the building supplier manager would just “lawyer up” if he arrested him. The officer called the lawyer who lied to him and they got into a heated argument. The officer was prevented from obtaining a search warrant as the law prevented him from searching a lawyers office for the cash sales slips. The cash sales slips ended up in the hand of the $300.00 an hour lawyer after the police became involved, he claimed he did not know where they came from. The officer sent the file to the prosecutors office with a recommendation to lay charges. This police officer did what the people of Saskatoon paid him to do. He did it at a time when he was being demoralized by editorials and citizens shouting outrages accusations at police officers marching in a parade in downtown Saskatoon. I would not have been surprised to read in the paper one day that one of the many good officers like him had bent one of the editors over, and crammed that discussing newspaper up where the sun doesn’t shine.

The $300.00 an hour lawyer did nothing but take the home owners money. He would not answer letters or phone calls, the prosecutors did nothing. The home owner paid up just like so many other home owners before him blackmailed by The Builders Lien Act and the Court of Queen’s Bench. To this day he has been unable to return to his university studies. He has been left with that bad taste in his mouth like so many others victims of a dysfunctional administration of Justice. The Builders Lien Act was not written by the law makers in Regina. It was written by the $300.00 an hour lawyer’s NDP law firm that the home owner kept being referred to. It is a sad day indeed when police officers are unable to protect home owners from a corrupt administration of justice. It is also a sad day when lawyers are unable to protect their clients for fear of reprisals from their peers and the Justices of the Court.

The lawyers who referred the home owner to the $300.00 per hour lawyer had no choice. Homeowners need to represent themselves or quite likely they will be scammed by their lawyer. It is not that hard to represent oneself. A little help from friends is all that is needed. If it is a clear scam then it is easier as the lawyers are gangsters and not that smart.

The problem is that the Court of Queens Bench has been under attack from the days of Milgaard. Anything that even remotely looks like the court or the administration of justice will be discredited the old "It doesn't matter if Milgaard is innocent... The whole judicial system is at issue- -it's worth more than one person." will be the only consideration of the court. Home owners needs to take witness with them to any chambers application. If the application is left to last in chambers, run like hell or the “it's worth more than one person” attitude of Justice -------- could put them in the hospital for three weeks.

Before her appointment to the bench Justice -------- worked for a lawyer that I opposed being appointed to the bench. Justice ------ was appointed to the bench the same day as Justice --------. It is not a court of law, it is a family of corruption, fraud and deliberate deception where the rule of law is a measurement of ones political affiliation. I have not included the names to protect the homeowner.

Saskatchewan Justice?

My first time in a Saskatchewan court a young man was charged with letting his dog run at large in a park. The judge asked him how he pleaded and the young man said “not guilty”. The young man told the judge that he did not own a dog and it was discovered that he was given a ticket because he was the only child in the park that was old enough to be issued a ticket. The judge and the prosecutor then started in on the kid telling him if he pleaded not guilty that he would have to hire a lawyer and the fine imposed could be hirer. The kid was bullied into pleading guilty and was fined. The court was not concerned with justice, the court just wanted to get their hands into the kids pocket and take his money. A Childs first time in court should not leave a bad taste in his mouth for the rest of his life. I wrote to the Attorney General detailing what happened in court and received letters from the city solicitors office and the attorneys generals office saying that they appreciated input from the public. The next time I attended court the accused were asked into a closed door room to enter their plea. My next parking ticket I was looking forward to seeing what went on behind that closed door. There was a glass window opening into the registry with a small round hole in it. I was asked how I pleaded and then what my grounds were. The person in the registry became angry and demanding when I asked for a trial date over and over. At one point he said “this is legal” and after a half hour of the same threats of a higher fine and having to hire a lawyer that the kid endured he set a trial date. This was my first experience with a Charter Right violation and the Saskatchewan Justice way of hiding a problem with the court behind closed doors.

The Court of Appeal for Saskatchewan has rules written by the Chief Justice by way of a Practice Directive. I asked a lawyer about the rules and clear Charter Rights violations and he said that they had one propose, and that was to keep lawyerless litigants like me out of court. I filed a Section 52 Challenge on the Rules like the requirement of an address for service in the City of Regina and others that violated the Charter. In a conference call the Chief Justice told me that if not for his practise directives there would be a flood of lawyerless litigants wanting into his court. He said he did not have the financial resources or enough judges to handle the increased cases. The lawyer was right, the Chief Justice was denying access to the court to the very people that needed access the most. The poor and the disadvantaged. In doing this he was allowing the Government of Saskatchewan to continue to scam and defraud the people of Saskatchewan with Acts like the Automobile Accident Insurance Act.

“It is not only the rich who need the law. Poor people need it to” - Beverley McLachlin, chief justice of the Supreme Court of Canada.

In the eight’s a truck hit one of my old motor bikes and the Government insurance offered me a pittance of the value of the bike. I had a Statement of Claim in their hands shortly after and filed a section 52 on many sections of the Automobile Accident Insurance Act that infringed on my Charter Rights. I received a call from a lawyer with the Government of Saskatchewan’s constitutional Law Section and explained the Charter infringements to him. He said he did not want to have to attend to court in Saskatoon when it was a clear violation of my Charter Rights. He called me back saying that he talked to SGI and it was like talking to people from another country. He ran into that bureaucratic brick wall of to hell with his Charter Rights and we are going to do as we please that is so well protected by the Chief Justice. I received a offer to settle from SGI a week later on the condition that I withdrew my Section 52 and I accepted. The Government of Saskatchewan Constitution Branch has knowledge of Charter Right infringements in the Automobile Accident Insurance Act and yet SGI continues to scam and defraud the people of Saskatchewan to this day. It is only in Saskatchewan that Charter Rights are openly infringed and where the courts openly protect the Government of Saskatchewan at the expense of the Charter and Human Rights of the people of Saskatchewan.

I asked a lawyer about a judge that was in trouble because he removed door knobs from the court house in Prince Albert. The lawyer told me that it had nothing to do with the door knobs and he was in trouble because he was not “toeing the line”. This was the first time that I heard that there was no independence for a judge in the Court Of Queen’s Bench in Saskatoon. This was common knowledge within the legal community. This was a strong message to the Judges of the Court, “toe the line” or else. This raised a serious question, were the orders of the judges based on the evidence heard in court or their requirement to “toe the line”. That question has been answered many times by the orders of Justice Hrabinsky and Justice Dovell.

In the nineties I opposed the appointment of two Saskatchewan judges to the court by way of an affidavit Notice of Motion in Chambers. The appointment of judges to the court should not be based on what the lawyers have done for the government appointing them, it should be based on the qualifications of the lawyers. An independent judiciary is essential to confidence in the integrity of our justice system. Judicial independence protects the public, democratic process and the Charter Rights of Canadians. The nomination process has to be free of patronage and political manipulation. The end result of the NDP practice of appointments to the bench over an extended time is a morass of corruption and incompetence judges who are required to “toe the line”.

Uranium Oxide Spill - Rabbit Lake Mine

In the eighties I was involved with the court when a uranium oxide spill was encapsulated by a mine partly owned by the Government of Saskatchewan. Between November 1985 and May 1986 Cameco had a yellowcake spill at the Rabbit Lake Mine that contaminated the mill leach, CCD tanks, mill circuits, organic solvent in the solvent extraction building, Rabbit Lake tailings pit and surface tailings. Cameco took their full inventory of contaminated kerosene from the solvent extraction building to the surface tailings area and burned it. Cameco drained their contaminated mill leach and CCD tanks into the Rabbit Lake pit. Between May 1986 and September 1986 Cameco ordered over eight times the normal mill requirements of lime, sodium chlorate, barium chlorate, ferric sulphate and soda ash. These reagents were used to make a lime mortar in the mill. This mortar was then mixed with tons of sand in the Rabbit Lake Pit to encapsulate the uranium oxide in a type of cement mortar at a cost of three million dollars.

This mine had a history of spills, unsafe working conditions and accidents. I started a news letter with the information regarding the spills. I distributed it by hand during the election in Mr Romano’s riding in Saskatoon. I asked people to think twice about voting for the NDP. At this same time I was shown a paper a student at the U of S had written titled “Between a Rock and a Poor Place”. He was critical of the Governments treatment of a Native Band that lived on a reserve across the lake from the mine. I included his paper in my summations to the court.

I was offered cash in my pocket by the mine if I withdrew my application and I refused, telling them that the spill needed to be cleaned up. I stopped going to court because of my disability and when I started to have costs ordered to be paid before the court would allow me to continue. The two NDP lawyers that I apposed their appointments to the bench did an excellent job along with the Atomic Energy Control Board in covering up for the NDP. The following is what Justice Wright had to say after looking at the evidence. The responsibility to clean this spill up lies with Cameco, not the tax payers of Canada or Saskatchewan.

August 12, 1994
Wright J. stated in his analysis: “He (Plaintiff) has gone to considerable effort to set out specific events and connect them with information he has gathered about the conduct of Cameco, Siemens and the applicants. It is not appropriate for me to express any opinion as to the charges save to note that they are very serious, and if true, could have enormous environmental, health and safety consequences. The financial consequences might be incalculable."

I was going to wait until the mine was decommissioned before continuing. In light of the success of I will be posting the information on the internet. The levels of uranium in the water downstream from the mine has been increasing over the past few years. The spill is a time capsule of death and destruction.