Joining by two other "bitches on the bench" at the British Columbia Court of Appeal Elizabeth Bennett soiled the reputation Court, again, by finding in favour of lawyer Greg Harney in his million dollar fee dispute fee with the English family and their holding companies that he briefly represented when the Government of British Columbia and its agents used terrorism and other crimes to loot the English family property at fire sale prices after agents of the Government started the fires and used other criminal tactics to cheat the English family and steal their property.
Elizabeth and the other two judges at the Court of Appeal turned a blind eye to clear evidence of fraud and fabrication of evidence by Victoria lawyer Greg Harney.l
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|
It is believed that Bennett will profit from the decision because 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.
|Bitch Mary Saunders|
Harney initially sent Mr. English a $1million dollar bill for a couple of days of court work and, according to English, pretending to look for alternate financing.
Harney then used threats of legal proceedings if English did not immediately approve the bill which is a form of extortion and a criminal offence in Canada but the bitches n the court, Mary Liz and Nicole, felt that was just fine which means that other lawyers can rely on this ugly precedent to act in a similar manner against unsuspecting citizens and get away with it. Welcome to British Columbia and its ridiculously crooked court system.
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 second 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 and that was part of the crimes carried out against the English family.
|Bitch Niki Garson|
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 , 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.
A Bad Place To Invest or Seek Justice