Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 2

December 28 2007

Andre Marin Frank Gallagher


Ontario Ombudsman Keswick, On
info@ombudsman.on.ca franklyone @hotmail.com

False Representation- consistent with Government conspiracy

For the record.

The Ombudsman is not what he is published to be yet serves a vital role in the Government conspiracy
unbeknownst or known to him which we endeavor to determine which.

See document Ombudsman Compiled September 16 2006 published on my web site


http://groups.google.com/group/guardians-of-the-canadians-charter-of-rights-and-freedoms

This document clearly proves the Ombudsman is not Ontario’s Watchdog and in fact requires the service
of a Seeing Eye dog.

The Ombudsman operates under the auspices of the Ombudsman Act obviously enacted by the
Legislature which limits authority tying his hands which could hardly be defined as independent.

He is a puppet of the Government as well as any other purported to be independent agency or department

He is appointed by the conspirators meaning he is on side with them either fully aware of the conspiracy
or completely naïve of the conspiracy but compatible with the scheme.

The excerpt from the Ombudsman web site above states his job is to ensure the accountability of
government through effective oversight of the administration of government services in the province.

You will note on page 3 of the document that Janet Ortved is either incompetent or in on the swing of
things with the conspiracy which I tend to believe because nobody can be so dumb as to state that my
complaint doesn’t appear to be with the Ontario Rental Housing Tribunal. (Blocked in yellow page 3)

On page 1 you will see my complaint starts Re: Ontario Rental Housing Tribunal and then goes on to
describe what occurred at the Tribunal which was the origin of my complaint and described the efforts I
had made to get justice which eventually brought me to the Ombudsman

After writing back to explain her err she responded on June 23 2006 now coherent to my complaint
however demonstrated an uncanny ineptness to comprehend evidence and investigate in a manner
1
consistent with competent investigative practice conducive to a conclusion based on relative facts.

I complained that the ORHT refused to commence or cause to commence proceedings against my former tenant
for filing false and misleading information with the ORHT namely his dispute which is an offense under section
206 (2) of the Tenant Protection Act, 1997 and he committed fraud regarding two agreements, attachments to
original purchase agreements of shares of my former tenant’s company which is a constitutional matter. There
were other constitutional matters which must also be addressed.

Janet phones the ORHT and is told if there was an offense they would have forwarded the complaint to the
Investigations and Enforcement Unit of the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing but there wasn’t one. (See
page 6 of aforesaid Ombudsman Compiled September 16 2006)
The ORHT never bothered to explain to me in any way why they refused to investigate and in fact I was informed
that since the ORHT had already made their Order TNL-67103 and the file was closed, they wouldn’t be
addressing the issues in the faxes I sent nor would they keep them on file. (See pages 5-7 of Lawyer File # 1).

Then Janet goes on to state that she noted I had contacted the Investigations and Enforcement Unit on my own and
appear to have received the same response. Therefore the matter is closed.

The evidence I provided clearly shows Dave Grech coordinator of the Investigations and Enforcement Unit was
incoherent to the facts and his reason for not investigating was absurd.
On my web site http://groups.google.com/group/peoples-law-society you will find document (19) Dave
Grech Compiled CorrespondenceDave Grech compiled correspondence September 1 2007.doc and on pages 1-3 I
make comments on Dave Grech’s response of September 6 2005.
He had erred and was completely incoherent to the facts so I drove down to his office to inform him but he was not
available, so I left a letter explaining his errors and another complete set of evidence along with a copy of the
recording of the hearing but he has refused to respond.

It appears to me that what appears to Janet Ortved is irrelevant because she is simply simple not competent to the
task of investigating and in fact seems to have no interest in evidence presented to her and only purpose is to back
up the government departments and agencies with no concern for the individual who comes to them looking for
help which is their purpose according to their web site.

The only way to determine if the complaint was valid is to examine the evidence which she obviously did not do
which is consistent with the Civilian Commission on Police Services and others for if they had and were
competent to assess it they would not have dismissed my complaint.

They are consistent with the mode of operandi of the Law Society of Upper Canada who do not give a damn about
the individual’s guaranteed Charter rights so much so that they don’t see what evidence has got to do with their
investigation of a complaint and demonstrate very well their only interest is to protect their members. (See
document Law Society of Upper Canada Part 1 Part 2 on web site
http://groups.google.com/group/guardians-of-the-canadians-charter-of-rights-and-freedoms

The Ombudsman has received the 15 Lawyer Files and all the evidence which irrefutably proves my former tenant
committed the crimes, the government personnel referenced in the 15 Lawyer Files refused to carry out their duties
in compliance with the Constitution in support of the individual’s guaranteed Charter rights implicating them all in
the conspiracy.

Andre Marin

I provide you one more opportunity to review the evidence and act appropriately as if you really are the person
your web site purports you are and do something to ensure the accountability of Government through effective
oversight.
The incompetence demonstrated to this point is pathetic far beyond comprehension consistent to the conspiracy.
The evidence is abundantly clear as is your duty in respect of the people. Present the evidence to the legislature
and when they refuse to cooperate take it to the media for a Public Inquiry. That will distance you from them.
Frank Gallagher
2