TWO LADYS AND THE LEAVE BOOK

Web readers are asked to review Web segment TWO LADYS AND THE SHALL LETTER and BLACKMAILED, BULLIED OR BRIBED? noting the hellacious actions of the Saskatchewan women of Justice, originally the Court Officials, Wyona Roy, who was the Queens Bench Personal Property Registrar, a woman lawyer in Saskatchewan Justice named Nancy Drew, and now a Queens Bench Judge, the Honorable Lady Justice Janet McMurtry.

There can be no doubt whatsoever but that there is conclusive evidence that these Justice women’s hellacious actions were taken to make sure that Earle Argue carried “flowers, chocolates and perfume” (bribes) to RM of Edenwold Administrator Donna Strudwick, as ruled by the NDP Minister Responsible, Len Taylor, was the Argues only option to obtain approval for their $30,000,000.00 (thirty million dollar) residential development…..

The truly “sickening unto death” (google) aspect of the actions of Lady Justice Janet McMurtry is that her hellacious acts were taken under the leadership of the Queens Bench Court functioning under moral and ethical standards established in Canada, in part, by another dread full woman, a Manitoba Queens Bench Associate Chief Judge, the Honorable Lady Justice Lori Douglas, who moonlights from her day job administering Justice in Canada by posing in porno-bondage type pictures giving oral sex, which her lawyer husband then used as bait offering sex with her (Lady Lori) to pander to Black clients; Web readers are asked to google “public corruption evil”.

Web readers are asked to note a January 5th 2011 Globe and Mail article, google “watchdog partially clears manitoba judge caught up in sex scandal kirk makin”, where it sets out that the Judicial Council has cleared Lady Lori of a allegation that she (Lady) Lori was “fuddle-duddling” (google) a litigant in a divorce action. Lady Lori’s other transgressions are going to be the subject of a Judicial Council review; BUT not all Lady Judges are corrupt.

Google “lady with scales”. As a example of a true Justice Princess, google “ batten, mary john (1921 – )”; I (Lee) know that former Queens Bench Chief Judge, Lady Justice Mary Batten, is a Honorable woman. The Honorable Mary Batten was serving as the Queens Bench Chief Judge when then Devine Gang Attorney General, Lane (the Hon J. Gary) charged me under the Criminal code for threatening him when I (Lee) stated that he (Lane) “should be shot”, note segment LADYS, LETTERS AND SLAPP.

As advised by Melville lawyer Merv Ozirny I (Lee) had chosen trial by jury but Chief Judge Mary Batten still made sure that a Honorable Judge was assigned to oversee my trial and in his charge to the Jury the Judge remarked, “ have you never heard a Mother tell her child ‘if you don’t stop setting fire to the cat I am going to strangle you’,….. everyone knows that the Mother will never strangle her own child… but she does want her child to stop setting fire to the cat…. that may have been what Mr. Lee intended”. My jury was out 15 (fifteen) minutes before finding me not guilty; the verdict was not appealed.

Another true Princess of Justice, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada, the Honorable Beverly McLachlin, is a truly Honorable woman. The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal ruled that all zoning issues are “political” and the Courts must not interfere, and that is now the law in Saskatchewan, note paragraph 15. in the Leave Book MEMORANDUM OF FACTS following.

As a result Canada’s Chief Judge did all that she (the Chief Judge) could do by ensuring that the Supreme Court of Canada carved in stone, in the Supreme Court Summary Statement for Case 31940, the only relevant fact, to wit: the NDP Minister Responsible, Len Taylor, ruled that the only “Political” option that I (Lee) had to obtain development approval for the Argues $30,000,000.00 (thirty million dollar) residential development was to carry “flowers, chocolates and perfume” (bribes) to RM Administrator Strudwick.

Section 123 (1) MUNICIPAL CORRUPTION of the Criminal Code of Canada states that it is a contravention of the Criminal Code to provide anything to a Municipal Official to curry favor so I (Lee) could not obey the Taylor dictum, consequently the Chief Judge gave the Argues, and I (Lee) serving as the Argue representative, the only hope we had, ie: the chance to use public revulsion to give the Argues a chance to be granted development approval without bribing Donna Strudwick, which will not be done.

Web readers are asked to google “ supreme court of canada leave book” and note that the first step in asking the Supreme Court of Canada to hear a Appeal is prepare a “Leave Book” with a request that the Supreme Court of Canada Judges grant leave to appeal and much of this Web segment consists of the portion of the “Leave Book” with details of the Strudwick zoning for bribery with the NDP Minister Responsible, Len Taylor, issuing his ruling that the only option the Argue family had to be granted development approval was to carry “flowers, chocolates and perfume” (bribes) to Strudwick to obtain development approval and the Argues refusal to pay those bribes to Strudwick as ordered by the NDP Minister Responsible, Len Taylor, note the Argue affidavit in Web segment TWO LADYS AND THE SHALL LETTER.

I (Lee) prepared the “Leave Book” portion of this Web segment by moving the material straight out of my original computer containing my (Lee)s base application for the “supreme court of canada leave to appeal” (google) the fact that a Queens Bench Judge, the Honorable Lady Justice Janet McMurtry, found me (Lee) guilty of libel of RM of Edenwold Administrator Donna Strudwick for my complaint to NDP Premier, Lorne Calvert, that his Minister Responsible, Len Taylor, ruled that my only option to obtain Development approval for the Argue family of Regina was to carry “flowers, chocolates and perfume” (bribes) to his Senior Official, RM Administrator Strudwick.

The conduct of any legal action is as intricate as a First Nations Tribal War Dance but the facts are the facts are the facts, and through each stage of any legal action, in this situation starting with the Municipal Board, a quasi Judicial body, note Web segment MUNICIPAL BOARD BOUNDARY APPLICATION 0001/2004, through the Queens Bench, the Provincial Appeal Court and on to the Supreme Court, the documents and/or testimony and/or affidavits, proving the facts, remain the same, only the form used to present them to the Board or Court changes at each level but the same evidence moves from each lower Court to the higher to the Supreme Court.

The usual complete Leave Book runs to over 100 (one hundred) pages, this Leave Book was 126, (one hundred and twenty six) pages including all support documents, but that is too long for one Web segment so all that I (Lee) include here is the “MEMORANDUM OF ARGUMENT”, which is all the Supreme Court Judges look at anyway, their clerks, usually articling Law students, do all the detail and cross check/reference work for them.

All Web readers are asked that, while reviewing the “MEMORANDUM OF ARGUMENT, PART I Statement of Facts” following that they (the Web readers), view the situation as the Supreme Court Judges would with their articling law students doing the fact check for them and accept my assurances that the documents used to prove the facts state what I (Lee) claim they state.

As example, the un-contradicted affidavits used in the Leave Book to prove Strudwick’s corruption actually do exist, one example is the Lloyd Smith affidavit, the affidavit that RCMP Staff Sergeant Brent Lewis destroyed, note Web segment “Update with reply from Law Society of Saskatchewan”.

Court File 31940

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA (ON APPEAL FROM THE SASKATCHEWAN COURT OF APPEAL)

BETWEEN: Ernest Robert Lee Applicant (Appellant Defendant)

-and-

Donna L. Strudwick (Administrator, R.M. of Edenwold #158) Respondent (Respondent Plaintiff)

APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL ( Section 40 (1) of the Supreme Court Act)

Respondent:
Glen W. Dowling
Robb & Dowling
Suite 4- 2305 Victoria Avenue
Regina, Saskatchewan
S4P 0S7
Ph: (306) 522-2032 Fax: (306) 522-5929

Applicant (self represented):
Ernest Robert Lee
P.O. Box 33057
Regina Saskatchewan Regina
Saskatchewan S4T 7X2
Ph: (306) 525-9595 fax: (306) 525-9596
Email: wem@sasktel.net

MEMORANDUM OF ARGUMENT

PART 1. Statement of Facts

1. THAT on August 25th, 1997, presentation was made to R.M. of Edenwold Planner, Brad Armstrong M.C.I.P. and the R.M. of Edenwold Council regarding E. C. Argue Holdings Ltd. (hereinafter the Developer) 160 lot subdivision development to be completed in 40 lot stages (filed with the Court as Exhibit “J” on December 30th, 2005).

2. THAT on October 1st, 1997, the R.M. of Edenwold Council carried a motion granting conditional approval for the Developer’s 160 lot subdivision project (filed with the Court as Exhibit “K” on December 30th, 2005).

3. THAT on October 2nd, 1997, R.M. of Edenwold Planner, Brad Armstrong, M.C.I.P. wrote the Developer on R.M. letterhead stating that subject to conditions being met, the development quarter, the NE of 3-17-17-2, shall be zoned to accommodate the 160 lot subdivision project.

4. THAT the Developer spent $175,000 fulfilling the R.M. of Edenwold Council’s conditions, to wit; developing site plans, surveying, and drilling nineteen water wells to confirm available water and quality, and, thereby, discovering a new aquifer feeding the spring located on the Developer’s subdivision quarter.

5. THAT the Developer’s engineer, Tom Williams, P.Eng. of UMAEngineering Ltd. confirmed, in writing, on UMA letterhead, that the relevant provincial government departments had reviewed and accepted UMA’s engineering reports during the month of May, 1998, which included the discovery of a new aquifer(filed with the Court as Exhibit “N” on December 13th, 2005).

6. THAT the Developer’s subdivision project “met and exceeded the standards required by law” (filed with the court as Exhibit “H” on December 30th, 2005).

7. THAT on May 26th, 1998, the R.M. of Edenwold Council, with no warning to the Developer, carried a motion denying the Developer zoning for the 160 lot subdivision.

8. THAT on May 29th, 1998, the Respondent suppressed the truth to the Developer when, she advised in writing that zoning for his subdivision project had been denied and that he had no right of appeal.

9. THAT the Respondent’s Rural Administrators Handbook, published by the Minister Responsible, states that developers do have right of appeal to subdivision zoning refusals by rural municipal councils (filed with the Court a Exhibit “L” on December 30th, 2005).

10. THAT on May 30th, 1998, one day after writing the Developer denying zoning for his subdivision, the Respondent ran an advertisement in the Regina Leader Post stating the R.M. of Edenwold would be enacting zoning Bylaw 1998-2, which zoned the Developer’s quarter back to ‘Agriculture’ effectively closing the file.

11. THAT the Provincial Planning and Development Act requires that the Respondent, as Administrator, must have approval from the Minister Responsible to enact zoning bylaws.

12. THAT, on June 24th, 1998, the Respondent provided the Minister Responsible with a Statutory Declaration (filed with the Court as Exhibit “B” on December 30th, 2005) requesting the R.M. of Edenwold be allowed to enact zoning Bylaw 1998-2 which zoned the Developer’s quarter as Agriculture.

13. THAT the Respondent suppressed the truth by failing to provide the Minister with the following FACTS regarding the subdivision proposal; a) the R.M. Council granted conditional zoning approval, b) the R.M. Council advised the Developer in writing that the R.M. shall provide zoning once conditions were met, c) the Developer spent $175,000 meeting the R.M. conditions, d) the Developer’s engineers provided written proof that all conditions were met, and e) the Respondent, as Administrator, in contravention of her Rural Municipal Handbook published by the Minister, advised the Developer that he had no right of appeal.

14. THAT the Developer commenced legal action, Q,B.G. No. 3913, A.D. 1998, a Mandamus Motion, asking the court to either order the R.M. of Edenwold to provide zoning for the subdivision or, alternatively, compensate the Developer with an award of the $175,000 spent by the Developer fulfilling the R.M. of Edenwold Council’s conditions.

15. THAT on January 28th, 1999, Justice Barclay dismissed the Developer’s Mandamus request quoting one of the reasons for dismissal being an earlier judgment by this Honourable Court in Harker v. Regina (City), [1995] 4 W.W.R.276 (Sask. C.A.) which states; “The Court held that where questions fall nearer to the political end of the spectrum of municipal council decision making than to the judicial end, courts should respect the political process and act only where the process has descended to farce”.

16. THAT the Developer appealed the Queen’s Bench decision to the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal, 2000SKCA34 Dockett: C.A. No 3210, which Court upheld the Queen’s Bench dismissal, BUT, in doing so, noted that the only evidence available to either the Queen’s Bench Judge hearing the Developer’s Mandamus Motion or themselves at Appeal, was the affidavit of the R.M. of Edenwold Administrator, the Respondent.

17. THAT the Crown must provide all available information to the Courts. By using the same tactics that the Respondent used in suppressing the truth in her Statutory Declaration, sworn June 24th, 1998, for her Minister, the Respondent, in her affidavit, suppressed the truth by failing to provide either the Queen’s or Appeal Bench Court any facts regarding the subdivision except for the fact that her Council had denied zoning.

18. THAT the Developer, because of the ruling of the Courts that zoning issues are political and the Courts must not interfere, and because of media reports that the Applicant had personal success in achieving a political solution to an adverse court ruling, approached the Applicant for assistance and the Developer offered that if the Applicant obtained a political resolution to his zoning dispute with the Respondent the Developer would grant the Applicant one lot in his 160 lot subdivision and contract all infrastructure work to the Applicant, a total value of $236,000.

19. THAT the Applicant achieved initial success in obtaining political resolution to the Developer’s zoning dispute with the Respondent. The then Minister Responsible, the Hon. Jack Hillson, amended the Urban Municipalities Act removing the “common boundary requirement” from section 14 (1), thereby allowing an urban municipality to annex a non-contiguous subdivision development quarter out of a rural municipality.

20. THAT the Minister Responsible following the Hon. Jack Hillson, the Hon. Ron Osika, then instructed the Developer to find a village to annex his subdivision quarter out of the R.M. of Edenwold.

21. THAT the Village of Wood Mountain agreed to annex the Developer’s subdivision quarter out of the R.M. of Edenwold, but, at a meeting held in the R.M. of Edenwold municipal office in the Town of Balgonie on August 12th, 2003, the Respondent refused to agree that the Village of Wood Mountain could annex the Developer’s subdivision quarter out of the R.M. of Edenwold. The Respondent suppressed the truth by advising her Edenwold Council, His Worship Mayor Michael Klein of Wood Mountain and Wood Mountain Alderman Warren Freser that His Worship Mayor Michael Klein was not competent to administer the Village of Wood Mountain, let alone the Developer’s subdivision and that the Developer’s principals, both Earle Argue and wife Sharie, were less than honest and were trying to con the Village of Wood Mountain Mayor and Council. Notwithstanding the stance taken by the Respondent, the Village of Wood Mountain officials proceeded with the annexation as directed by the then Minister Responsible, the Hon. Ron Osika.

22. THAT at a meeting on April 29th, 2004, in the legislative office of the Minister following the Hon. Ron Osika, the Hon. Len Taylor, attended by the Minister, his ADM, his Chief of Staff, the Developer’s principals, Earle and Sharie Argue, His Worship Mayor Michael Klein of Wood Mountain Village, and the Applicant, the Minister stated that;

a) the Village of Wood Mountain should not be allowed to exist, and

b) the only option for the Developer to obtain zoning for his subdivision was to “carry more flowers, chocolates and perfume” to the R.M. of Edenwold Council and Administrator.

23. THAT Section 123(1) of Canada’s Criminal Code, MUNICIPAL CORRUPTION, prevents the Developer from providing anything to a municipal official to curry favor.

24. THAT the Respondent is the long-time Administrator of the R.M. of which the Developer has been a ratepayer for 30 years. The relationship is well established, hence, the Developer refused to “carry flowers, chocolate and perfume” to the R.M. of Edenwold Council and its’ Administrator, consequently apparently placing at risk a 30 million dollar subdivision development that would return significant dollars in profit to the Argue family and tax revenue to the R.M. of Edenwold ratepayers.

25. THAT the Village of Wood Mountain’s request to annex the subdivision quarter out of the R.M. of Edenwold was referred by the Premier to the Saskatchewan Municipal Board (SMB) who refused to consider any “civil or criminal mplications” of the respondent’s actions, but, did conduct a hearing on October 14th, 2004, where the Respondent’s submission set out the R.M. of Edenwold’s reasons for refusing to allow the Village of Wood Mountain to annex the Developer’s subdivision quarter, and, further, which submission suppressed the truth in ten material instances.

26. THAT on December 22nd, 2004, the SMB issued a ruling setting out the FACTS of the Developer’s subdivision zoning dispute with the Respondent and ruled that the Village of Wood Mountain would not be allowed to annex the Developer’s subdivision quarter out of the R.M. of Edenwold, but, also ruled that the question of zoning to accommodate the subdivision remained an unresolved issue. A Saskatchewan Municipal Board ruling has the same weight as the findings of a public inquiry.

27. THAT based on the findings of FACT in the SMB ruling, the Applicant wrote two letters, the first dated January 11th, 2005, to the Minister Responsible and the second dated February 3rd, 2005, to the Premier setting out that the Respondent suppressed the truth to both her Minister and the SMB, a contravention of section 123 (2) of Canada’s Criminal Code, and pointing out to the Premier that the Minister Responsible had directed that the only solution open to the Developer to obtain zoning for his subdivision was to pay bribes to the R.M. of Edenwold Council and Administrator, the impossibility of the Developer to follow that Ministerial directive due to Section 123 (1) of Canada’s Criminal Code, MUNICIPAL CORRUPTION, and requesting political resolution of the Developer’s subdivision zoning dispute with the Respondent.

28. THAT because of the Outlook community leaders’ involvement in and ultimate success in resolution of the SPUDCO dispute with the Government of Saskatchewan, the Applicant sought advice from the Outlook community leaders asking them to set up a focus group to determine how to achieve resolution to the Developer’s zoning dispute with the Respondent.

29. THAT Larry Hubbard, Administrator of the R.M. of Rudy, Administrator of the Town of Outlook, and Justice of the Peace, advised that under Section 19(1) of the Rural Municipal Administrators Act (filed with the Court as Exhibit “E” on December 30th, 2005), anyone who had a problem regarding a rural administrator could lodge a complaint with the Rural Municipal Administrators Association (RMAA) Executive Board,.

30. THAT on February 22nd, 2005, the Applicant, accompanied by Lloyd Smith of the Outlook group, lodged a complaint regarding the Respondent with the President of the RMAA, Kevin Ritchie, and filed with the RMAA President the two letters, to wit: the January 11th, 2005, letter to the Minister Responsible, and the February 3rd, 2005, letter to the Premier claiming that the Respondent suppressed the truth to the SMB during the hearing on October 14th, 2004.

31. THAT the RMAA Executive Board met on February 27th, 2005, considered the complaint against the Respondent, which Board meeting included the Respondent sitting in her place as one of the Executive Board members, and dismissed the complaint against the Respondent with the President of the RMAA, Kevin Ritchie, stating in affidavit that:

“ 6. THAT I did place Robert Lee’s formal complaint and correspondence before the RMAA Board at its next meeting on February 27, 2005 and the RMAA Board distributed copies of Robert Lee’s correspondence to each of the Board members present, of whom Donna L. Strudwick was one.

7. THAT the RMAA Board passed a resolution that the RMAA Disciplinary Committee, in accordance with its past policy under Section 19 of The Rural Municipal Administrators Act, to only deal with complaints from the RMAA Executive Board, or in writing from a Municipal Administrator or a Rural Municipal Council dealing with a serious breach of the RMAA Code of Conduct or any other matter involving a serious Criminal offence.”

32. THAT on March 7th, 2005, the Respondent’s solicitor, Glen Dowling, wrote the Applicant demanding an apology for his claims that the Respondent did not tell the truth on numerous occasions where she is by law required to do so and, ultimately, did suppress the truth and assuring of imminent legal action for libel and slander.

33. THAT Outlook community leader Lloyd Smith drove around the R.M. of Edenwold talking with R.M. ratepayers. He uncovered evidence that some of the area residents believed that the Argue subdivision project was being blocked by the Respondent because the R.M.of Edenwold Council wanted to obtain the Developer’s spring water flow for their own use, and others believed that it was being blocked by the Respondent because she wanted to obtain the spring water flow for her personal use to irrigate and grow hay to feed her family-owned dairy herd.

34. THAT the Outlook community leaders took all available information to the RCMP officer in charge of the Outlook Detachment, Sgt. Brent Lewis, and to retired RCMP fraud investigator Bob Laidlaw, who recommended that the Developer sign a criminal complaint and file it with RCMP head office, ie: “ F” division in Regina.

35. THAT on September 6th, 2005, the Applicant filed a Counter Claim against the Respondent for $236, 000.00 claiming that when the Applicant undertook to achieve a political solution to the Developer’s zoning dispute with the Respondent he did not know, had no way to know and could not possibly have been expected to know, that in order for the Developer to obtain subdivision zoning it was necessary to pay bribes to the Saskatchewan rural municipal administrators and their councils as set out by the Minister Responsible.

36. THAT RCMP Staff Sergeant Brent Lewis, after receiving a promotion to Staff Sergeant and a move to the Melville RCMP Detachment, and following a telephone conversation on December 14th, 2005, with the solicitor for the Respondent and also for the R.M. of Edenwold, Glen Dowling, regarding the activity of the Respondent, destroyed all material and information provided him by the Outlook community leaders.

37. THAT the Applicant suggested, in affidavit dated December 13th, 2005, that the Learned Motion Judge may wish to order an RCMP investigation into the actions of the Respondent, as recommended by two members of the RCMP.

PART 11. Questions in Issue

38. Does the Court of Appeal have jurisdiction to place as fact in their Reasons for Judgment their absentee and different interpretation of the statement of the Respondent’s Minister Responsible to “carry more flowers, chocolate and perfume” to the R. M. of Edenwold and its’ Administrator, thereby refuting the four uncontradicted affidavits citing the like interpretations of the Developer, his wife, the village mayor and the Applicant who were attendant to the occasion and who understood the Minister to be suggesting bribery and, further, to ignore the fact that one of those affidavits indicates the Minister did not deny the meaning interpreted by the four persons in attendance when directly asked by one them if he was instructing bribery. The Minister in not denying the majority interpretation of his statement by those in attendance, gave rise to the Developer becoming upset and walking out of the meeting with the other three persons following, and the consequent inclusion in the Applicant’s letter to the Premier the possibility that the Respondent did require a bribe, as suggested by the Minister, to resolve the years-long dispute over the 30 million dollar development of the Argue quarter.

39. Does the Court of Appeal have jurisdiction to deny qualified privilege to a citizen who attempts to resolve a zoning dispute through political means by communicating with the Premier, the Minister Responsible and the Premier’s Caucus Chair who was designated to assist in determining a solution when that same Court formerly ruled that zoning issues are political and the Courts must not interfere.

40. Does the Appeal Court have the jurisdiction to, in effect, rule, as regards Section 123(2) of the Criminal Code MUNICIPAL CORRUPTION which states that:

“Every one who (a) by suppression of the truth, in the case of a person who is under a duty to disclose the truth,…….” “…..is guilty of an indictable offence…. .”,

that the Applicant did not prove intent on the part of the Respondent when that Court stated “Even if Mr. Lee’s position on these various issues is correct, this would not justify or render true his statements….. .”? The Respondent is a highly trained long time Administrator for the R.M. of Edenwold having “obtained her Rural “Superior A” designation in 1997.” and who knew or ought to have known that she was not “faithfully” performing her duties for her Minister.

41. Does the Court of Appeal have jurisdiction to rule that a lawyer, possibly being paid by Saskatchewan taxpayers, acting on behalf of the Respondent, was not in contravention of Sections 118 and 120 of Canada’s Criminal Code when that lawyer contacted an RCMP Staff Sergeant during the very early days of a criminal investigation involving the Respondent with the end result that the RCMP Staff Sergeant provided a non-notarized statement that included the information that he destroyed all evidence of the Respondent’s actions supplied to him?

PART 111. Statement of Argument

42. The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal ruled in Harker v. Regina (City), [1995] 4.W.W.W. 276 (Sask. C.A.) that zoning issues are political and the Courts must not interfere. The Saskatchewan Queens and Appeal Bench then used that Saskatchewan precedent as basis to dismiss the Developer’s Mandamus Motion asking the Courts for equity regarding their 30 million dollar subdivision zoning dispute with the Respondent.

43. Cognizant of media reports setting out the political success the Applicant had personally in overturning adverse Court rulings, the Developer approached the Applicant with a request for a political attempt to obtain zoning for his 30 million dollar subdivision development, which request the Applicant agreed to undertake.

44. The political effort met with initial success. The Saskatchewan Municipal Board summary of FACTS, dated December 22nd, 2004 states that:

“* b. The Minister (Jack Hillson) amended the Urban Municipality Act, removing the “common boundary” requirement thereby allowing amalgamation for the sole purpose of enhancing urban municipalities’ revenue.

* c. At a meeting in the Minister Ron Osika’s office on March 27th, 2003, the Argue family were advised by a senior community planning official that the solution to the Spring Meadow Estates problem was to find a Village to annex the Spring Meadow Estate quarter out of the R.M. of Edenwold.

* d. At a meeting on July 18, 2003, ADM Byron Burnett, supported by community planning officials, again confirmed the Minister’s instruction to find a village to annex the Spring Meadow Estates quarter out of the R.M. of Edenwold.”

45. The historic Saskatchewan Village of Wood Mountain agreed to annex the Developer’s subdivision out of the Respondent’s rural municipality.

46. The Respondent, while advancing no evidence whatsoever, claimed to her Council that both the Developer and his wife, were “less than honest and were trying to con the village of Wood Mountain officials,” and that the Village of Wood Mountain officials were not competent to manage their own Village affairs, let alone the Developer’s 30 million dollar subdivision. The Council then refused to allow the Village of Wood Mountain to annex the Developer’s subdivision out of the R.M. of Edenwold as instructed by the then Minister Responsible, the Hon. Ron Osika.

47. At a meeting on April 29th, 2004, the newly elected Minister Responsible, the Hon. Len Taylor, supported by two senior officials being his Chief of Staff and his ADM, directed a statement to the Mayor of the Village of Wood Mountain, His Worship Mayor Michael Klein , Earle and Sharie Argue, and the Applicant that the historical Saskatchewan village of Wood Mountain, incorporated as a village in 1939, and in existence as a Saskatchewan center and crossroads for over 150 years should not be allowed to exist and that it would not be allowed to annex the Developer’s subdivision out of the R.M. of Edenwold. This statement sufficiently disturbed Sharie Argue that it prompted her to ask the Minister how he thought they could achieve their development to which he responded “carry more flowers, chocolate and perfume” to the Edenwold Council and Administrator. As indicated in the Argues’ affidavit, Earle Argue then asked the Minister if he was meaning bribes to which he did not respond. Earle Argue, outraged by this instruction, then walked out of the meeting.

48. Directed by the Premier, the Village of Wood Mountain appealed the Minister’s denial of the annexation by taking the issue to the Saskatchewan Municipal Board, which Board conducted a hearing on October 14th, 2004, at which the Respondent told ten suppressions of the truth.

49. The Saskatchewan Municipal Board issued a ruling on December 22nd, 2004, establishing the FACTS of the Village’s annexation application and refusing to allow Wood Mountain to annex the Developer’s subdivision, BUT, ruling that the question of zoning for the Developer’s 30 million dollar subdivision remained an unresolved issue and it was open to the Developer to reapply.

50. Due to the statement to him by the Minister Responsible on April 29th, 2004, that the only option to obtain zoning was to pay bribes, the Developer refused to make a new application.

51. Upon the Developer’s refusal to make a new application, the Applicant wrote two letters, one to the Minister Responsible and a second to the Premier, copying the Premier’s Caucus Chair who had been put in place by the Premier to help find a solution to the matter and who strongly urged that the Premier must be kept in the loop and apprised of the events as they took place. The Applicant drew to their attention that the Respondent was blocking Wood Mountain’s annexation application through many instances of suppression of the truth, a contravention of section 123 (2) of the Criminal Code of Canada and requested a political resolution.

52. This Honourable Supreme Court’s attention is respectfully drawn to the following publication from the Centre for Constitutional Studies, Faculty of Law, University of Alberta, which establishes that it is reasonable that the Applicant communicate with the Premier regarding the actions of the Respondent who “reports indirectly to Ministers in the Government and the Premier”:

“The Defense of Privilege

In certain situations “full and frank communication between individuals takes precedence over protecting a [persons reputation].” [9] These occasions are guarded by the defense of privilege. “The privilege attaches to certain occasions, not to particular speakers or messages.” [10] There are two types of privilege; absolute and qualified. Despite some exceptions, “absolute privilege is straightforward – it applies to coverage of courts, legislatures and public meetings.” [11]

Qualified privilege arises when one party has a moral, social, political, legal, or professional duty to communicate information to another party, who has a corresponding obligation or interest in receiving the information. [12] For instance, a reference letter from a former teacher to a potential employer is protected under qualified privilege. [13] Qualified privilege is not created lightly; there must be reason to “permit honest defamatory statements to be made at the expense of the plaintiff’s (defamed person’s) reputation.” [14] Also, there must be a reciprocal relationship between the two parties, one person with “a legitimate interest in providing” information ( e.g. a former teacher) and another person who has a legitimate “interest in receiving it ( e.g. a potential employer).” [15]”

53. The Judges of this Honourable Supreme Court are asked to recognize that the Respondent, as set out in Part I. Statement of Facts, paragraphs 1 to 37, regardless of whether her actions are deemed to be “suppressing“, “misleading”, “lying”, or failing to perform her duties “faithfully” as required by Provincial statute, has been blocking the Developer’s 30 million dollar residential subdivision since the project was granted conditional approval October 1st, 1997, as confirmed by the “shall” letter written on R.M. of Edenwold letterhead and dated October 2nd, 1997.

54. The Applicant approached the Outlook, Saskatchewan, community leaders for assistance and advice at which point Larry Hubbard, Administrator for the R.M. of Rudy, Administrator for the Town of Outlook, and Justice of the Peace, advised that anyone who has a problem with the administrator of a rural municipality may lodge a complaint with the Rural Municipal Administrators Association (RMAA) under Section 19 (1) of their Provincial Act.

55. On February 22nd, 2005, the Applicant, accompanied by Outlook community leader Lloyd Smith lodged a complaint with RMAA President Kevin Ritchie indicating that the Respondent had, in contravention of Section 123 (2) of Canada’s Criminal Code MUNICIPAL CORRUPTION ‘suppressed the truth’ regarding her zoning dispute with the Developer in five material instances prior to the Saskatchewan Municipal Board hearing and ten times during the course of the hearing. The Applicant filed with RMAA President Ritchie the letters to the Premier and the Minister Responsible that are the subject of the Respondent’s libel action.

56. The Respondent is a member of the RMAA Executive board and on February 27th, 2005, with the Respondent sitting in her place as a member of that Executive Board, the RMAA, in direct contravention of their Act, refused to accept the Applicant’s complaint and ruled that they would address only complaints lodged by other rural administrators and only complaints involving serious criminal matters.

57. Outlook community leader, Lloyd Smith, then filed all material regarding the possibility of criminal activity by the Respondent with Brent Lewis, then the head of the Outlook RCMP Detachment, and RCMP Fraud Investigator Bob Laidlaw, who both advised taking the matter to the RCMP Main Depot in Regina.

58. On April 19th, 2005, the Respondent commenced legal action for libel.

59. The Applicant, by affidavit filed with the Saskatchewan Queens Bench dated December 13th, 2005, suggested that only the judge at trial should determine if the RCMP should be asked to conduct a criminal investigation as recommended by the Outlook leaders.

60. During the Queens Bench motion hearing on December 15th, 2005, the Respondent’s solicitor introduced into evidence a non-notarized letter from RCMP Staff Sergeant, Brent Lewis, who by then had been promoted from Sergeant to Staff Sergeant and transferred from Outlook to Melville, Saskatchewan. The Staff Sergeant advised the Court in his letter that he had a discussion with the Respondent’s solicitor and that he had destroyed all evidence and material provided him regarding the Respondent’s actions.

61. The Registrar of the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal advised, in writing, on September 27th, 2006, that the Saskatchewan Queens Bench had failed to keep a transcript of the December 15th, 2005, motion hearing.

62. On January 22nd, 2007, the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal ruled in paragraph [27] of their Reasons for Judgment that “Even if Mr. Lee’s position on these various issues is correct, this would not justify or render true his statements that (a) Ms. Strudwick was involved in matters with “civil or criminal implications”…….(f) Ms. Strudwick was involved in activity which violated S.123 of the Criminal Code”, thus inferring the Applicant did not prove intent as required in a criminal charge.

63. The Applicant respectfully draws to this Honourable Court’s attention that because the Respondent is a highly trained and long-time Administrator for the R.M. of Edenwold having “obtained her Rural “Superior A” designation in 1997.”, she knew or ought to have known that she was not “faithfully” performing her duties for her Minister. The large number of violations of the truth must infer intent.

64. The Judges of this Honourable Supreme Court are respectfully asked to note paragraphs 59 and 60, preceding, and to consider how the Applicant could be expected to prove to the Saskatchewan Appeal Bench that the Respondent’s suppression of truth was in contravention of Section 123 (2) of the Criminal Code of Canada, when the Respondent’s solicitor somehow, someway, has the power to cause an RCMP Staff Sergeant to destroy all evidence provided.

65. The Judges of this Honourable Supreme Court are asked to consider this issue to be of national importance because: a) there is no doubt but that it is unreasonable to believe that a Crown Minister would counsel bribery to a developer as a solution to a zoning issue; however, the Court of Appeal should not be allowed to rewrite the evidence of four uncontradicted affidavits that establish the intent of a Crown Minister’s statement that bribes are required to obtain zoning;

b) there are occasions whereby it is reasonable for citizens to communicate with their political masters in a “full and frank” a manner.This is such an occasion where the communication must take precedence over protecting a person’s reputation in order that economic development which relies totally on zoning decisions isn’t held up for ransom by a rural municipal administrator;

c) based on the Court of Appeal ruling, municipal administrators across this country now have no cause to be concerned about possible Criminal Code and/or Provincial statute sanctions if they do not tell the truth or perform “faithfully” during zoning hearings, and

d) this Honourable Supreme Court may wish to consider the inequity of the fact that the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal has ruled in paragraphs [22], [23] and [24] of their Reason for Judgment that a Crown lawyer, acting for the Respondent, has a legal right to interfere in the very early stages of an RCMP criminal investigation. That investigation was disrupted by the Respondent’s libel action that consequently could easily be interpreted under the category of SLAPPS – “Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation”. “SLAPPS are legal actions (usually defamation actions) launched for the sole purpose of shutting down criticism, and without strong cause of action.”

The Respondent’s lawyer contacted Brent Lewis who provided the Respondent’s lawyer with a non-notarized letter indicating his recommendation that the investigation be moved to Regina and that he had destroyed all the evidence provided him. He was subsequently promoted and transferred after recommending the investigation be moved to RCMP Main Depot in Regina.

Brent Lewis was the first RCMP officer consulted by the Outlook leaders regarding the consideration of possible criminal actions by the Respondent.

PART IV. Submission Regarding Costs

66. The Saskatchewan Queens Bench and Appeal Courts awarded a total of $873.70 taxed costs. The Applicant respectfully requests that if this Honourable Supreme Court grants leave to appeal that ultimately results in the overturning of the lower court’s rulings, that those same taxed costs be awarded to the Applicant as well as the costs of this Supreme Court application and the costs of the Appeal.

PART V. Orders Sought

67. THAT this Honourable Supreme Court order that the issues contained herein are deemed to be of national importance under s. 40(1) of the Supreme Court Act and the case be heard with a view toward;

a) overturning the Court of Appeal ruling that rewrites affidavit evidence,

b) confirming the right of the ordinary citizen to qualified privilege that permits “full and frank” communication with the Political Masters regarding zoning issues leading to economic development without fear of libel action,

c) overturning the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal ruling in paragraph [26] and [27] of their Reasons for Judgment that indicate that even if the Applicant’s claims regarding the Respondent not telling the truth are correct, it does not prove that the Respondent is in contravention of Section 123(2) of the Criminal Code,

d) considering further to c), preceding, the Civil Code regarding libel which states in Brown quoting at page 364 of The Law of Defamation in Canada, Volume 1 Carswell: 1978,) from Hamett and Thorton that no matter how callous or malicious the Defendant may be in publishing the remarks, or how blameless the Plaintiff, if the remarks are true, the publication is NOT actionable, and

e) should the Judges of this Honourable Supreme Court agree with the Applicant’s position as regards a), b), c) and d) preceding and rules that it was impossible for the Applicant to obtain a political solution to the Developer’s subdivision zoning dispute with the Respondent without paying bribes to the Respondent and her Council, as instructed by the Minister Responsible, then the Judges of this Honourable Supreme Court award the Applicant’s Counterclaim of $236,000.00 plus all taxed costs and that the order regarding the Counterclaim be against the Rural Municipality of Edenwold #158. All aspects of this action and its’ response are based totally on the Respondent’s actions as the Administrator of the R.M. of Edenwold. Section 356 of the Municipalities Act establishes that municipalities must accept responsibility for the actions of their administrators.

ALL OF WHICH IS RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED

________________________APPLICANT PART V1 Table of Authorities

Atlas of Saskatchewan Blacks Law dictionary definitionof faithfull Brown: Law of Defamation in Canada 2000, SKA34 Dockett; C.A. No.3210 Section 118 Martins Criminal Code Section 123 Martins Criminal code Q.B.G. No. 3913 A.D. 1998 J.C.R. Saskatchewan Municipal Board FACTS Municipalities Act Municipal Board Act Planning and Development Act Rural Municipal Administrators Act Rural Municipalities Act

PART V11 Photocopies of Authorities…..Paragraphs where Cited

Atlas of Saskatchewan………………………………………………….45, 47
Blacks Law dictionary ………………………………………………… .53 Brown;
The Law of Defamation in Canada ……………………….67d) 2000SKA34 Dockett; C.A./ No.3210 ………………………………16
Martins Criminal Code Section 118 and 120 offences against the Administration of Law and Justice ………………………………………………………36,60,64 Section 123 MUNICIPAL CORRUPTION…………………………8, 13,17, 22, 23, 25, 34, 55
Q.B.G. No. 3913 A.D. 1998 J.C.R…………………………………..14, 15, 18
Municipal Board ruling December 22nd, 2004, …………………19,20, 26, 44, 49
Municipalities Act re: Section 356 …………………………………. 67 e)
Municipalities Act re: Section 51(1)……………………………… none
Municipalities Act re: Section 4(1) …………………………………24
Municipalities Act re: Section 111( duties of administrator)…………………….. ..24
Municipal Board Act re; same power as the Public Inquires Act…………………..26, 49
Planning and Development Act, re: Minister approves zoning……………………11
Rural Municipal Administrators Act re: “ any person” may complain………….29, 54
Rural Municipalities 1989 Act re: administrators must work “faithfully” …….63

DOCUMENTS

Google search for Respondent biography page 88 Saskatchewan Municipal Board website page 89 Respondent’s Statutory Declaration page 93 Affidavit of Earle and Sharie Argue page 96 Affidavit of his Worship Mayor Michael Klein page 97 Affidavit of Kevin Ritchie page 99 Affidavit of Lloyd Smith page 103 Affidavit of the Respondent page 106 Affidavit of the Applicant page 110 Letter dated October 2nd, 1997, from R.M. of Edenwold page 112 Letter dated September 27th, 2006, Appeal Registrar page 113 Regina Leader Post article dated September 14th, 1993 page 114 Faculty of Law, University of Alberta page 115 SLAPPs (Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participatation page 116 Letters Respondent sued for libel on page 117

Web readers are asked to note that RM Administrator Donna Strudwick is so arrogant that she refused to provide the Supreme Court with a response to my (Lee)s Leave Application. Strudwicks refusal to provide any defense was noted in the Supreme Court Case information. Web readers should note that if they have the Case number, they may use the internet to obtain the Supreme Court response to any case by taking the following search steps:

1….. google “supreme court of canada home page”

2….. note material including picture of the Chief Judge sitting before her bookcase, then note to the left of her (the Chief Judge)s picture, look down to “Cases” and click on to “cases”; you end up with a page headed “Cases” in red; look down to “SCC case information” in red and underlined in red, click on and you should have a page headed “Cases” in red and under that SCC Case Information in black and under that “Search” in black, now look down to the words “Case number” and type the number 31940 in the adjacent box, then scroll to bottom and click on “search”.

3….. the search result from 2…. above should result in a page showing the case number, 31940,(in red) with my name (Lee) and Strudwicks beside the number; now click on the red Case number and it should take you to a page showing, SCC Case Information, Docket and again the case number, 31940.

4….. note the SC of C recorded in their information each step as taken, and note the Court recorded that Dowling refused to provide a response to my Leave Application. NOW take special note along the left of the page, under the heading Docket, the word “summary” and click on that word.

5….. clicking on the word “summary” as set out in 4…. above should take you to a page headed CASES (in red) and under that the word “SUMMARY” and under that the Case number “31940” and under that the Summary.

Web readers who want to review the Summary Statement and do not want to bother with the Google search route through the Supreme Court files to the Supreme Court Summary Statement are reminded there is a reprint of the Summary Statement for Case 31940 in the very first segment of this Web site, dated July 26th 2007, ZONING PROBLEMS WITH A RURAL MUNICIPALITY?

Honest Web readers who accept that there is considerable and conclusive evidence summarized in the Supreme Court Leave Book and Summary Statement, set out preceding, that RM of Edenwold Administrator Donna Strudwick used her massive power as RM Administrator working directly for the Premier, google “strudwick reports to premier” to block development approval for the Argues $30,000,000.00 (thirty million dollar) residential development until her bribes were paid, may agree that Strudwicks actions are evil and must be dealt with.

Web readers who agree that Strudwicks Acts are a, google, “public corruption evil” and that Strudwick was able to accomplish those Acts only because of a weak or corrupt Queens Bench Judge, note Web segment BLACKMAILED BULLIED OR BRIBED? may agree the situation is google “sickening unto death”, and must be resolved,

Honest Web readers are reminded there is Saskatchewan precedents for a public inquiry as a result of the actions of corrupt Government officials and Judges causing “public corruption evil”, namely, the David Milgaard inquiry and the John Popowitch, Martinsville Nightmare, inquiry. If honest Web readers accept there is hard evidence that Strudwicks evil actions were facilitated by one of her NDP handmaidens, a tame Queens Bench Judge, the Honorable Lady Justice Janet McMurtry then that evil must be addressed through a public inquiry by a honest Judge from Alberta or the United States.

Web readers are reminded of the wise words of Edmund Burke, the 1700s British statesman who stated google, “the only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing” and I (Lee) remind all Web readers that mail to their Members of Parliament (MP)s goes postage free and Web readers are asked to write their MPs demanding a public inquiry into Rural Zoning corruption in Saskatchewan to be conducted by a honest Judge from Alberta or the United States to determine if the Earle Argue family of Regina, or I, serving as the Argue Representative suffered harm from that Rural zoning Corruption.

Buy your Apple and
Mac Magsafe Power Adapters here!

Buy your toshiba laptop and
notebook power adapters here!

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: