November 28, 2002 – Notice of Appointment for Assessment of Costs

November 22, 2002

Superior Court of Justice
Notice of Appointment for Assessment of Costs
File #27720 Extended Date November 28, 2002

ATTENTION: Assessment Officer Mr. Thomas

Dear Sir:

This letter shall clarify our Company’s position in respect to this Notice of Appointment to Assessment of Costs as filed by lawyers Peter Haney and Thomas Cline in the total amount of $57,314.31.

Our Company emphatically objects to this claim or any consideration or award granted for the following reasons:

1. Since the trial in May 1996, we have researched and confirmed conspiracy, perjury and falsified documents provided to the courts and to Justice Carvarzan by defendants of the Township of Delhi, David Anderson and Frank Gelinas. Justice Carvarzan dismissed our case and all claims based on this evidence.

2. Our Company’s right to due process of law was denied by the Ontario Provincial Police and Crown Attorneys Aicken and Swanson 1997 in response to our request for investigation and criminal charges, to Mr. Anderson and Mr. Gelinas while our Company continued to appeal Justice Carvarzan’s decision.

3. We have further confirmed a mistrial with our appeal on 2 counts Firstly the courts approved by Justice Osborne at the request of Mr. Haney the transfer of our appeal from the Ontario Court of Appeal where it had been properly filed, to a court without Jurisdiction, the Divisional Court in Hamilton. Secondly Justices H.J. Keenan, P.A. Cuming and W.P. Somers confirmed at the beginning of the appeal that they did not receive, and therefore review the transcripts of sworn evidence from the trial, prior to the appeal hearing, and then instructed my lawyer to proceed, and after a short hearing, whereby the defence was not required to speak or provide any evidence, and then after a short recess returned and dismissed our appeal without authority or lawful administration of prescribed court procedure quoting Justice Carvarzan’s decision almost word for word.

4. Most recently justice was again denied when Justice of the Peace Mitchel Baker declined to proceed with process with 16 private information filed May 30, 2002 for criminal charges to various individuals.

In respect to all of this information, we can now confirm that the administration of Justice ? that our Company received was in fact a complete farce, and what we in fact received instead was the administration of injustice.

Relative to all of this information which we are prepared to confirm, we respectfully request no consideration of this cost assessment, and hereby request under the Solicitors Act Section R.S.O. 1990, c. S. 15, s 10 under Special Circumstances that the previous Assessment of Cost of June 5, 1998 File # 1511194 be reassessed for consideration and dismissal of Judgment. It should also be noted that Mr. Haney contrary to the Solicitors Act did not provide an itemized statement for disbursements in the amount of $23,735.70 as required by law or an itemized statement of hours and related work on the case comparable to Mr. Cline’s account as rendered.

No this company and this family is not prepared to accept the approximately $360,000.00 loss as well as 8 years of aggravation, confrontation and discrimination in respect to this miscarriages of justice without recourse.

Since this corrupted merry go round started 8 years ago, we have not on one occasion received what we consider to be fair and just treatment or equality before the law, so that at this point we are proceeding as we previously stated, to expose the manipulation of the administration of justice. You may reference this horror story on our Internet Web site at www.injusticecanada.com

For your reference, please find:

1. September 20, 1995 Amended Statement of Claim Township of Delhi.
2. June 5, 1998 Mr. Canning Assessment Award of $97,470.20.
3. August 5, 1999 Paul Amy letter of explanation as to what transpired.
4. August 25, 2000 Notice of Garnishment to all Nichols Gravel Limited municipal customers.

Thank you for your consideration in this matter.

Yours sincerely,

Gary Nichols

c.c. Mr. Peter Haney
c.c. Mr. Thomas Cline

Go back.

Leave a Reply