On Fri, 29 Apr 2005 18:23:04 GMT, email@example.com (Keith Henson) wrote:
>As I was driving to work this morning, I stopped to pick up a
>co-worker who was walking.
>A sliver Grand Caravan, license# ATCR 068 (Ontario) pulled in behind
>me. My friend looked back and asked why the driver was video taping
>The police got his name, and though they would not give it to me, they
>did give me the name and phone number of the company he said he was
>Solutions Security & Investigations
>119-2550 Argentia Rd.
>Executive Director: David L Brewer
The police don't like to charge PIs, perhaps because the PIs are mostly ex cops. In this case they didn't even write an incident report.
In Canada there are provisions for people other than the police and the Crown Attorney to lay charges.
So last week I obtained the package for doing so. (Can post if you want to see it.)
I am going before a local Justice of the Peace this week and laying criminal harassment charges against David L. Brewer, his agent who was here in Brantford, and whoever hired him. (Does anyone doubt who that was?)
I am laying assault charges against the agent since he hit me when he tried to push me out of his way with the minivan.
In addition, I am charging them all with criminal conspiracy. There is no way this blatant behavior could be considered a legitimate investigation.
I have a witness to being hit and if the agent's tape has not been destroyed, it will show me bending forward over the hood as he drove the car into me while trying to escape when I blocked him for the police.
Incidentally, a friend looked up the registration of the minivan. It was owned by Enterprise Rent-a-Car. So if the only thing I had was the license, I would have been unable to find out who was harassing me. (Enterprise will not tell me who rented the van citing the privacy laws.)
There are innocent reasons for renting a car, but I really doubt they apply here. This was done with intent to harass me and make it hard to prove who did it.
There is no doubt I have reason to charge under criminal harassment
A REVIEW OF SECTION 264 (CRIMINAL HARASSMENT) OF THE CRIMINAL CODE OF CANADA . . .
The criminal harassment provisions of the Criminal Code of Canada came into force on August 1, 1993. The main intention of the new section 264 was to help protect women in Canada from physical attacks and harassment. . . . The legislation is also available as a potential tool against . . . *harassment practiced by some members of politically motivated groups* . . . .
There is no doubt scientology is a "politically motivated group."
(Where is that Hubbard quote about the orgs making the law?)
The problem, and where I am looking for help, is that anything involving the cult sounds absolutely unbelievable when you first come across it.
(In fact LRH wrote about *that*.)
If you have suggestions about what I should provide as background to this business please let me know.