Apparently, Happy Drunk, from his own testimonial evidence through shared conveyances,has proclaimed that in the past, he has cashed many cheques for Lori and possibly Jeff. It is my understanding that Lori would give Happy a SLI cheque, written out to Happy, to go to a bank, get it cashed, and bring the cash back to Lori. This type of transactions usually causes problems with accounting in a company as well as for the individual. In Happy,s case, it is quite possible that he would get dinged by the CRA for a tax bill on money he never received, whereas he cashed the cheque in his name and gave ALL the money back to Lori. On the fraud perspective of things, if ALL the cash that amounted to the full cheque was backed with reasonable receipts, then perhaps it is ok and legal. Where the question of legality enters the picture is when one asks "why" a proceedure as such? Isn,t it the secretaries responsibility of the company to assure that cheques are cashed in a legal way? Isn,t it the CFO,s responsibility to ask and offer comment on the proper proceedure for executing a companies business, not to mention a public trading companies business? Isn,t it the Audit committee and the accounting departments responsibility to ASSURE proper business operations in respect to monetary transactions?

I may add the rumour here that a large envelope of cash was handed to occupants of a motel room in Europe by Lori, a few years ago. Whats with all the cash transactions?

I will also add that perhaps "Coersion" has been exercised on part of at least one of Lori,s lawyers in attempts at trying to secure an affidavit. Coersion is illegal as identified by law, and is even more indictable when a professional lawyer may be involved. I consider a coersion a very desperate attempt by a member of any legal profeesion that very well knows the possible consequences. For any one to jeopardize their career over any such act leads me to believe the rewards may outweigh any damages, in any such case.

I further entertain the fact that I have been denied due process when an injunction against me was put in force by a B.C. Magistrate. To be denied due process along with other interventions, it renders any injunction invalid and questions the integrity of any acts exercised by anyone trying to impose an illegal contract upon another. Rights are protected by law, when rights are ignored, it is illegal. Harper Gray may have many future problems coming at them as well as the B.C. Judicial system.

Yet again I further, Justice Steves decision on the Hastman case where it is stated in an article and may be a quote by Justice Steves himself, leaves the reader with the interpretation that Justice Steves applied the only remedy possible in our case. This is a misconception and actually, Justice Steves had many sources of remedies and was not soley confined to one remedy, it is soley by his choice that he chose to favour on the side of the corporation in this matter and ignored individual rights.

For assurance, all of the above are by no means unfounded allegations by me, they are presented as factual and can be easily backed up within a court of law, or without.

The old adage comes to mind here, "if it walks like a duck, if it talks like a duck, it is most likely a duck". I am not sure if I worded the adage correctly.

Thank you

Rick