 |
| GREG HARNEY |
The corrupt panel of three judges at the Court of Appeal turned a blind eye to clear evidence of fraud and fabrication of evidence by Victoria lawyer Greg Harney.
Experienced lawyers say the bill should have been between $10,000 and $25,000 so why did the bitches on the bench allow this Travesty of Justice to stand especially when there was evidence of criminal activity in the proceedings by the lawyer in order to advance his case.
The Editors believe that insiders with the Government of British Columbia blackmailed or threatened the three judges, Elizabeth Bennett, Mary Saunders and Nicole Garson because that is the only plausible reason the judges would go against the law that clearly favoured Mr. English and his family companies and reject the new evidence that Mr. English had uncovered that proved that lawyer Greg Harney, or someone acting on his behalf, fabricated false evidence that he used to persuade the lower court judge, Master Peter Keighley, to grant a judgment against the English family for $220,000 in what was clearly a corrupt billing practice.
 |
| Bitch Liz Bennett |
Click here to read blog dedicated to exposing corrupt Bitch / Judge Liz Bennett
 |
| Bitch Mary Saunders |
 |
| BITCH NICOLE GARSON |
Knowing that his initial bill was "an act of obvious insanity", Harney then sent a revised bill for $550,000 and commenced a lawsuit to collect the grossly inflated bill.
The initial hearing was before Master Peter Keighley who is suspected to be part of the Freemason criminal gang that operates inside the British Columbia court system.
Keighley first came to the editors attention due to his role in the destruction of British Columbia lawyer Karl Eisbrenner where Keighley presided over a Kangaroo court that relied upon a fraudulent psychiatric report craftily devised by a fraudulent psychiatrist to label Mr. Eisbrenner as delusional and disbar him because Eisbrenner was working on a law case that might have destroyed the career of yet to be elected BC Premier Gordon Campbell. Campbell.
Click here to read more about the case of Karl Eisbrenner.
Keighley should never have presided on the Harney v English case case because he is an employee of the BC Government, he is not a judge, and he had an indirect financial interest in the outcomebecause of her pension plan investments that are managed by British Columbia Investment Management Corporation the company that profited from the crimes carried out against the English family a fact that did not become apparent to the English family until many months after the hearing but that Keighly knew about from the day he entered the courtroom.
EVIDENCE OF FABRICATION OF EVIDENCE (from the factum)
1.
After the hearing before the Registrar and the
Chambers Judge, the appellants discovered that the respondents had not
delivered and served the Appointment “with the bill attached” upon the
appellants as required by the Legal Profession Act and the respondents had
improperly entered in the court record the altered backdated bill that was
subsequently relied upon by the Registrar without proper delivery or service.
2. The admission of the new evidence of the improper
use of the altered back dated bill and the failure to comply with the mandatory
procedures of the Legal Profession Act with respect to delivery and service of
the bill satisfies tests of relevance, reliability and reasonable likelihood of
effecting the outcome of the hearings because this evidence goes directly to
jurisdiction and raises the a reasonable suspicion of fraud by the respondents
that should be addressed and responded to by the Court.
3 The
Appointment that commenced the review proceeding before the Registrar under the
Legal Profession Act named John English and three corporate entities as
respondents, but none of those corporations nor John English were identified as
persons charged in the bill that was attached to the Appointment that was used
to commence the proceeding contrary to the Legal Profession Act and the Supreme
Court Civil Rules.
Statement of Facts, paragraph 17 to
19.
Legal Profession Act, SBC 1998, c. 9,
s.69. and 70.
Supreme Court Civil Rules, Rule 14-1,
(21) and (22).
Affidavit
6 of English, CA040838, November 19, 2014, para 6, Exhibit” D”.
Affidavit 7 of English, CA040838,
February 9, 2015, para 2 to 7, Exhibits “D"
4. The
bill that was attached to the Appointment had not been previously delivered to
the appellants Angleland, Nederland, Paradise Beach Resorts Inc. or John
English contrary to s. 69 (1) of the Legal Profession Act.
Legal Profession Act, SBC, 1998, c.9, s.
69 (1).
Interpretation Act RSBC 1996,
c. 238, s. 29.
Statement of Facts, para. 17.
5. The
Appointment with the bill attached was not served upon any of the persons
charged with the bill as required by section 70 (4) of the Legal Profession Act
and the Supreme Court Civil Rules.
Legal Profession Act, SBC, 1998, c.9,
s. 70 (4).
Supreme Court Civil Rules, Rule 14-1, (21) and (22).
Statement
of Facts, para. 19.
6. The
review was carried out by the registrar was on the basis of the altered back
dated bill that had never been delivered or served to any of the appellant
Transcript, March13, 2014, p. 23,
l.40. to p. 24, l.23.
Statement
of Facts, para. 20 -23.
7. The
Registrar did not have jurisdiction to conduct a review of a bill that had not
been delivered and served upon the appellants in compliance with Part 8 of the
Legal Profession Act.
8.
As a result of the failure of the respondents
to comply with the mandatory scheme set out in the Legal Professions Act, the Registrar
lacked jurisdiction review the bill, to allow charges and disbursements for any
services provided by the respondents to the appellants and to issue the
certificates of fees against the appellants.
Legal
Profession Act, SBC [1998], c. 9,
Part 8, ss. 64-79
Kelly v McMillan, 2003 BCJ, No. 430, Goepel, J.
Tungohan v Gebara, 2011, BCJ, No. 2145,
Registrar Sainty.
No comments:
Post a Comment