August 28 2007

Lawyer Frank Gallagher

34 Riverglen Drive
Keswick. On
L4P 2P8
Fax/ Phone 905-476-8959
Cell: 905-716-4927
franklyone @hotmail.com

Dear Lawyer

The following is a preamble leading up to the government obstruction of justice for which I am
seeking a lawyer to litigate.

On June 10 2005 my former tenant Don Wilson filed false and misleading information (See pages
18-19) with the Ontario Housing Rental Tribunal to dispute my application to evict him dated June
6 2005 for arrears of rent and refusing to vacate my premises on May 31 2005 as he had agreed to
in writing in an agreement dated May 6 2005 which I attached a copy to my application.(See pages
8-11)
Don Wilson is the owner, president, director, treasurer and c.e.o. of a company called Bio Safe
Natural Technoligies Inc. which I originally invested $15,000 in January of 2004 under a different
name Bio Safe Natural Products Inc.

I was quite enthused with the technology and knew I was going to invest more in the company so I
suggested Don move into my basement free for six months so he could put his full time into
research, marketing and advancing the company.

Don moved in on February 1 2004 and on February 11 2004 I purchased, in all a total of
30,000,000 shares for $66,500 which included my previous investment. (See pages 20-22)

See page 23 for a copy of the $30,000 transfer slip from my account to Don Wilson (Bio Safe)
dated February 11 2004 and a copy of the cancelled cheque for $10,000 to Don Wilson dated
February 12 2004.

These fulfilled my obligations as per the above mentioned February 11 2004 purchase agreement

I convinced many of my friends and acquaintances to invest and their purchase agreements all
showed the company name to be Bio Safe Natural Technologies Inc.

I didn’t give it too much thought at the time but eventually due to some irregularities in the
purchase agreements he was providing my friends such as attempting to increase his number of
shares he owned and the number of authorized shares I had him sign other agreements to ensure
the quality of our investments.

I found out from a lawyer that the certificates he had provided us were not the proper ones and
were not signed so eventually Don signed an April 13 2005 document (See page 12-17) where he
agreed to reissue the proper documents for our investments and a friend of mine Dave Kirby
witnessed it.

The April 13 2005 agreement was replaced with the aforesaid May 6 2005 agreement attached to
my application to evict Don Wilson which amended a few items such as commission percentages
which my mother witnessed.
1
In the May 6 2005 agreement Don Wilson agrees:

- To leave on May 31 2005 (page 8).

- Issue proper documents and issue Midge Ingham 2,800,000 shares for the $7000 she gave me to
invest in Bio Safe for her.(page 9)
- Break down of money Don Owes me after I applied Midge’s $7000 (page 10)
- Don agrees he owes me rent money $8414.55 plus misc. (page 11)
On June 10 2005 Don Wilson e-mailed the ORHT a copy of his dispute. ( See pages 18-19)
You will note he has concocted a story about shares of Bio Safe in lieu of rent being prepaid up
until February 2009

Further down the page under the heading Investment in Bio Safe Don writes that I was in
possession of $7000 which was given to me by a potential investor (Midge, see above) which is
true and that I was applying it to the rent which is not true because I applied it to other money he
owed me on page 3 of the agreement.
Don goes on to write that I asked him to issue 2,800,000 shares to the investor (Midge) which is
true and I was going to apply the $7,000 to the rent which is not true as per above.

Don further writes the above transaction has never been approved by Bio Safe Technologies at this
time.

The obvious question is what rent money would he be referring to that Bio Safe has not approved
at this time if he has already prepaid to February 2009?

On March 5 2005 Don Wilson issued Midge Ingham a certificate for 2,800,000 shares of Bio Safe.
(See page 24)

This certificate was at least signed by Don whereas he has not signed the rest of ours but on ours
he assigned certificate #s but he did not provide one for Midge’s certificate.
You will note on page 2 of the May 6 2005 agreement Don agrees to issue proper documents
to Midge and on page 3 I deducted the $7,000 from that which he owed me in respect of Midge’s
investment.

The astute will note that I paid $66,500 for 30,000,000 shares of Bio Safe which works out to
0.022 cents per share.

Midge paid $7,000 for 2,800,000 shares which works out to 0.025 cents.

I sold shares to all my friends at 0.025 cents which of course Don agreed to.

In Don’s dispute he claims that I was issued 12,000,000 for the $30,000 which works out to 0.025
cents a share and according to his figures of 18,000,000 shares for 56 months rent at $800.00 that
works out to 0.24888889 cents close enough to 0.025 cents for this purpose.

The problem with this is my purchase agreement clearly states I paid Don a total of $66,500 for
30,000,000 shares of Bio Safe and if you were to take the 18,000,000 shares away for the rent as
Don states then I would have paid $66,500 for 12,000,000 shares I would have paid 0.0554 cents
per share.

2
One has to ask why would I pay a little more than ½ a cent per share and sell all my friends shares
at ¼ cent per share especially considering I was buying the greater quantity.

His story doesn’t make sense any way you care to look at it and the evidence I provided proves
irrefutably that my version is the truth.

In Don’s opening statement at the hearing he reiterated that which he had written on his dispute
which he had filed with the ORHT and he went on to state he had documents to prove it.
Don Wilson did not provide one piece of evidence to support his story although his dispute infers
there was supposed to be an agreement attached.

He is guilty of filing false and misleading information which is an offense under s. 206 (2)
of the Tenant Protection Act, 1997 (Monetary value $43,000)

Criminal Act of Fraud over $100,000 ( 2counts)

During the course of the hearing Don denied having ever seen the May 6 2005 agreement which I
had attached to support my application to evict him for arrears of rent and failing to vacate my
premises as he had agreed to on May 31 2005.
Not only had he denied ever seeing it but he denied ever signing it.
When Nancy Fahlgren asked if he is stating that his signature is forged he said no that all he was
stating is that is not his signature.

I then showed Don a copy of the April 13 2005 agreement which he denied having ever seen it and
stated that the signature was not his.

I then introduced Dave Kirby to the judicator identifying him as the person who witnessed the
April 13 2005 agreement who attested to the fact that Don Wilson did sign each and every page of
the agreement.

You will note Don’s signature on both the April 13 2005 and May 6 2005 agreements appear
identical but they are not the same that he used on his dispute, my purchase agreement or the
Midge certificate and other purchase agreements.

His first name “Don” is basically the same on all the documents as is the first letter of his last
name “W” but on the agreements which he has denied ever seeing the rest of his last name is a
squiggle.

On the other documents his last name is legibly “Wilson”.

I reiterate that my mother witnessed Don Wilson sign the May 6 2005 agreement but she was not
present at the hearing but will be available to attest to the fact that Don Wilson did indeed sign the
agreement.

Pages 1 and 4 of the May 6 2005 agreement supported my application to evict and pages 2 and 3
were entered to refute the fabrications of Don’s dispute.

3
It was Don who introduced the company’s shares involvement with the rent which validates the
reason for dealing with the issues of the shares even though the purpose of the hearing was to deal
with rent concerns.

If I had not been able to prove the agreements were valid Don Wilson would have beaten me for
about $43,000 worth of rent and he would still be in my basement to February 2009.

Obstruction of justice by ORHT and the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing

When judicator Nancy Fahlgren realized what was going on I said “There ought to be a law” and
she quickly responded “There is” and went on for a couple of minutes articulating how she has the
authority to forward the evidence on to the Investigations and Enforcement Unit of the Ministry of
Municipal Affairs and Housing for them to commence or cause to commence proceedings.

At the end of the first day of the Tribunal hearing June 30 2005 I asked Nancy “Is that a re…”
when she interrupted with “Yes it is a recorder”

I asked if I would be able to get a copy of the recording after the hearing was over and she said yes
that I could get a copy from the ORHT office.

I asked her a couple of times if she would be commencing proceedings against Don but I could not
get an answer from her other than she did have the authority and could do it.

I also mentioned to her that in my line of work I often take the work home to peruse the evidence
so I wouldn’t waste the people’s time who worked with me while I tried to sort things out and
asked if she does. She responded “Yes”

I couldn’t help but notice how unprepared she was with my case and that she wasn’t aware that a
copy of the May 6 2005 agreement was attached to my application.

At first she couldn’t find Don Wilson’s dispute when I was trying to explain to her that his dispute
which he signed was a completely different story than the May 6 2005 agreement which Don had
signed.

A lot of time was wasted until she finally realized that all we had to do was prove which of Don’s
2 stories was true which led us quickly to the criminal act of fraud perpetrated by him.

At the beginning of the second day of the Tribunal hearing July 28 2005 Nancy stated there would
not be a recorder.
I didn’t give it much thought at the time but it has become a significant factor which I will explain.

Neither Don Wilson nor I had further evidence to add July 28 2005 and we were dismissed
knowing we would receive her decision in the mail.

4
August 10 2005 Order # TNL-67103 dated August 8 2005 came by mail ordering Don Wilson to
vacate my premises on or before August 18 2005 and he was ordered to pay me the arrears I
claimed he owed me.

There was no mention of the filing of false and misleading information and the fraud committed
by Don so I immediately set out to find out what was going on.

That was 2 years ago today and I still do not know for fact what is going on.

I have my suspicions and a prodigious amount of evidence to support them but it is now my
endeavor to prove them to be fact which is where you the lawyer is necessary to that end.

Personnel of various departments at various levels of government have deliberately obstructed

justice for obvious reasons immediately apparent from the evidence I have accumulated over the
passed 2 years.

Government Corruption and Conspiracy

It begins with obstruction of justice for no immediate apparent reason which is the reason that my
investigation for the reason revealed the enormity of the conspiracy which can result in nothing
but corruption.

It requires only common sense to sort it out which the majority of people will be immediately
coherent and responsive to.

Reality itself attests to my suspicions and the pertinent realities are widely known and published.

It’s just a matter of going through the motions now to bare the truth to the world.

One step at a time until things systematically unfold with a Domino affect.

Phase 1
The Key (Just turn it)

Prove in court that Don Wilson did commit the criminal act of fraud over $100,000 and did file a
false and misleading information over $43,000 which is an offense under s. 206 (2) of the Tenant
Protection Act, 1997.
The evidence is irrefutable to that endeavor as stated above.

Step # 1

File charges of obstruction of justice against Minister Hon. John Garretsen of the Ministry of
Municipal Affairs and Housing for refusing to deal with the issues detailed in Lawyer Files #s 1-3
and the evidence will fall into place. (See pages 27-28)

5
 Step 2

Investigate and or subpoena ORHT personnel Nancy Fahlgren judicator, Rick Hennessey ORHT
Region Manager and who ever else may help in determining what went on at the ORHT and why
they refused to commence or cause to commence proceedings against Don Wilson for the crimes
he committed in a public building financed by the people to administer justice to and for the
people of Ontario.

Find out why and who made the decision to tamper with the evidence namely remove
conversation from the copy of the Tribunal recording regarding the part about “There ought to be a
law” and Nancy’s comment that “There is” and her following 2 minute articulation.
Also the part where I asked if it was a recorder and her abrupt response and the part about me
getting a copy of the recording.

Why was the second day of the hearing July 28 2005 not recorded?
Who was consulted and who made the final decisions?

Why did it take 3 weeks to give me a copy of the recording?

Find out if the rest of the hearings on July 28 2005 were recorded.
Follow up on everything.

That should be interesting!!

Step 3.

Subpoena Coordinator of Investigations and Enforcement of the Ministry of Municipal affairs and
Housing, Dave Grech and question as to why it took him 1 month to respond in writing as to why
he would not commence or cause to commence proceedings against Don Wilson.

Find out why Dave wrote such a ridiculous reason not to commence proceedings. (See pages 25-
26)
Find out if he consulted with anyone as to how to respond and did that person consult with anyone
and so on like that.

Find out what Roal Pascual knows about the incident because when I received Dave’s ridiculous
written response dated September 6 2005 I drove down to his office where he was away for the
day so I gave Roal all the evidence for Dave.
I wonder if he really was away or just didn’t want to see me.

Find out why Dave remained steadfast in his refusal to commence proceedings after I showed him
the errors of his response.

That should be interesting!!

Step 4

Query Hon. John Garretsen as to why he refused to deal with these issues claiming he trusted
Dave Grech (See pages 27-28) and did he consult with Dave before he fired off his ridiculous
response? Did he consult with Dave after I corrected him on his response?
Did he consult with the Attorney General Michael Bryant at any time and so on?
6
 Phase 2

Sue At Will

York Regional Police

RCMP
OPP
Ontario Police Commission on Police Services
Ombudsman
Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing
Legislature
Attorney General
Lieutenant Governor
etal

I became a victim due to their incompetence to protect me as guaranteed by the Charter.

15. (1) Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal
protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without
discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or
physical disability.

They have all declined to commence proceedings and provided evidence which proves they do not
have a modus operandi in place capable of backing my Charter rights as defined in 15. (1) above.

That is to state they will not be able to demonstrate they have applied due diligence to their modus
operandi to be reasonably confident that my safety was being protected.

They have demonstrated no effort to remove the criminal element from the streets and in fact by
their non action allow the criminal element to flourish as they spread the word that there is no time
for doing such crimes.
It is absolutely pathetic that the administrators and enforcers of the legal system condone such
criminal actions in the peoples buildings financed to administer justice to and for the people.

Phase 3

Sue at Will

The Federal Government

Prime Minister
DOJ
MPP Peter Van Loan
Governor General
Senators
It would be quicker for me to list the government personnel who I did not write to address my
concerns.

7
 1 of 4
May 6 2005
Agreement

8
 2 of 4
May 6 2005
Agreement

9
 3 of 4
May 6 2005
Agreement

10
May 6
Agree

11
12
13
 A p r il
A g re

14
A p r il 1 3
A g ree m

15
16
A p r il 1
A g ree

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
14 Page Chronicle

See letter to Toronto Sun dated October 8 2006 (pages 46-59)

I should note that near the end of the 1st day of the hearing June 30 2006 I submitted a 14 page
chronicle to the judicator, Nancy Fahlgren which Don Wilson was asked to take with him for
review and send his response to it to the ORHT by July 21 2005 and provide me a copy if he had
any dispute with it.
He did not dispute it.

In particular I draw your attention to page 50 Document K

I unfortunately only had one copy of this document and it was submitted to the ORHT

It is a memorandum on Bio Safe letter head dated October 27 2004 stating the Board had approved
the leasing of space at $800 a month at my place..

This is quite contradictory to Don Wilson’s dispute which he had filed with the ORHT dated June
10 2005 where he states he had paid up rent to February 2009.

29