After a whole year had passed and I'd heard nothing else about the disgusting automobile insurance
fraud scam that Erle Stanley Graham (a.k.a. Earl Graham) and his devious Powell River, BC legal
counsel and the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia and its double-dealing legal counsel were
perpetrating against my ICBC car insurance policy, I realized I had no choice but to take action on
my own to close the door on the criminally illegal misuse of my identity by all of these BC
government rats once and for all.
ICBC's lawyers were crouching and hiding. This is something lawyers do when they get caught
breaking the law -- they crouch and they hide. Lawyers guilty of misconduct will hide away in their
bunkers like cowards, sometimes for years, and then when they feel threatened they'll suddenly
reappear out of the blue and strike at you with an unprovoked libel or theft attack.
No new information had arrived from the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia since I'd
received a June 11, 2008 hate mail letter in which a Vancouver, BC ICBC lawyer had bragged that
his law firm had committed criminal perjury by illegally misfiling a false May 28, 2008 Statement of
Defence in my name at the Supreme Court of British Columbia without my knowledge. It was
obvious that ICBC's lawyers had absolutely no intention of decisively concluding the sham Erle
Stanley Graham v. Callum Houston civil lawsuit. I could see that instead of walking away from the
sham Erle Stanley Graham v. Callum Houston civil lawsuit, ICBC's lawyers were going to leave the
phony civil lawsuit hanging in a state of indefinite limbo so they could steal as much cash from the
Insurance Corporation of British Columbia in the form of ripped-off legal fees as they possibly could.
However, I wasn't going to just sit back complacently and hope that ICBC was going to slither away
on its own, thus taking a chance that ICBC might come after me for a payment in the future simply
because Erle Stanley Graham had made up a phony story about being victimized by me in a car
accident.
So, in this next phase of my battle with the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia my strategy
was to use cold hard facts as a blunt weapon to repel ICBC and its militant lawyers. In his June 11,
2008 hate mail letter, ICBC's Vancouver, BC lawyer had asked me to disclose to him any
documents that are relevant to the sham Erle Stanley Graham v. Callum Houston civil lawsuit. I
did indeed have one document that was very relevant to the sham Erle Stanley Graham v. Callum
Houston civil lawsuit -- a legally-binding August 5, 2005 Supreme Court of British Columbia
judgment that had been adjudicated in another civil court proceeding which placed a blanket
restriction on all future applications for relief of any nature from me after the date of September 30,
2005. Term 14 in the August 5, 2005 judgment states: “All other relief is to be adjourned generally
for a further full day's hearing and is to be heard no later than September 30, 2005.”
As such, I started this next component of my defense against ICBC by sending an August 14, 2009
complaint to ICBC's Vancouver, BC lawyer in which I informed ICBC's Vancouver, BC lawyer of
the BC Supreme Court judgment.
I explained to the Vancouver, BC ICBC lawyer how this August 5, 2005 judgment strictly prohibits
all future applications for relief of any kind from me after the date of September 30, 2005. The
judgment of Justice Grant D. Burnyeat of the Supreme Court of British Columbia placed no limit on
the nature of relief I am exempt from after the date of September 30, 2005. The judgment is a
general Government of British Columbia term that applies to any and all civil court relief other than
the relief specifically addressed by the court in the various other judgments in the August 5, 2005
BC Supreme Court order.
I explained how, according to Term 14 in the August 5, 2005 court order, I cannot be sued by
anyone for anything after the date of September 30, 2005. The court judgment acts as a restraining
order that completely restricts any and all further civil court action against me of any nature,
including the sham Erle Stanley Graham v. Callum Houston civil lawsuit.
I explained how the sham Erle Stanley Graham v. Callum Houston Supreme Court of British
Columbia civil lawsuit quite obviously asks the court for relief and that this relief qualifies as “all
other relief” as opposed to the relief the BC Supreme Court addressed in its August 5, 2005
judgment. Term 14 in the August 5, 2005 judgment states very plainly the court's instructions for
how any other relief not already addressed in the order must be dealt with. Other relief must be
adjourned for a hearing that must take place before the date of September 30, 2005. If the
application for other relief cannot comply with these instructions then it cannot be heard by the
court. Obviously the relief Erle Stanley Graham has asked the court for in the sham Erle Stanley
Graham v. Callum Houston civil lawsuit cannot lawfully comply with these instructions since it's
impossible for the relief to be heard before the date of September 30, 2005. And Term 14 in the
August 5, 2005 judgment is not governed by a time restriction. In other words, the Term 14 expiry
date judgment for all other relief is a hot judgment that's still in effect and always will be in effect.
I explained to the Vancouver, BC ICBC lawyer how the Term 14 judgment in the August 5, 2005
court order strictly prohibits the sham Erle Stanley Graham v. Callum Houston civil lawsuit. The
sham Erle Stanley Graham v. Callum Houston civil lawsuit is prohibited by law. The sham Erle
Stanley Graham v. Callum Houston civil lawsuit is both contempt of and breach of Term 14 of the
August 5, 2005 order of the Supreme Court of British Columbia. And ICBC's clear participation in
the sham Erle Stanley Graham v. Callum Houston civil lawsuit is also both contempt of and breach
of Term 14 of the August 5, 2005 order of the Supreme Court of British Columbia.
I explained that since the August 5, 2005 judgment was rendered by the Government of British
Columbia, the Crown is explicitly aware of the judgment. As such, the Insurance Corporation of
British Columbia, a Crown corporation, has knowledge of, or ought to have knowledge of, the
legally-binding restriction the Crown imposed on all civil litigation brought against me after the date
of September 30, 2005. Where the civil litigation involves “all other relief” it cannot proceed.
I also informed the Vancouver, BC ICBC lawyer that I would be sending a complaint to the Powell
River Registry of the Supreme Court of British Columbia to remind the BC Supreme Court of the
legally-binding expiration date judgment the BC Supreme Court placed on all further applications for
relief from me after the date of September 30, 2005.
To conclude my August 14, 2009 complaint, I demanded that ICBC and its lawyers immediately
withdraw from the sham Erle Stanley Graham v. Callum Houston civil lawsuit and cease all further
contact with me. Attached to my August 14, 2009 complaint was a copy of the BC Supreme
Court's August 5, 2005 judgment that strictly prohibits the pursuit of any and all civil court relief
from me after the date of September 30, 2005.
Then in an August 20, 2009 complaint sent to the Courtenay, BC lawyer who had claimed in a
December 21, 2007 hate mail letter to have been appointed by ICBC to represent me (without my
prior knowledge or consent), I complained about the illegal misconduct of ICBC's Vancouver, BC
legal counsel. I explained to ICBC's Courtenay, BC lawyer that ICBC had no lawful authority to
leak private information about me such as my confidential mailing address and private information
about my confidential ICBC automobile insurance policy to any third parties, including to the
Vancouver, BC law firm that had unlawfully misused my confidential mailing address to make illegal
contact with me through the mail. I explained that I have disputes with several law firms and
lawyers in British Columbia so ICBC can't appoint an independent lawyer or an independent law
firm to act as my counsel without my prior approval.
Most particularly, though, I complained to the Courtenay, BC ICBC lawyer about the unlawful
misuse of my personal identity by ICBC's Vancouver, BC legal counsel to illegally misfile a
completely false May 28, 2008 State of Defence in my name pursuant to the sham Erle Stanley
Graham v. Callum Houston civil lawsuit at the Powell River Registry of the Supreme Court of
British Columbia on the date of May 30, 2008. I attempted to detail every instance of a false
statement that had been untruthfully attributed to me in ICBC's perjurious four-page May 28, 2008
Statement of Defence but there were just so many instances of false statements in the extremely
libelous ICBC court document it would have taken way too much ink, way too much paper and
way too much of my time to list all of them. Every single point of defense in ICBC's perjurious
May 28, 2008 Statement of Defence was loaded with multiple lies and untruths and embedded
within those multiple lies and untruths were even more lies and untruths.
In the August 20, 2009 complaint I brought the legally-binding expiration date judgment the BC
Supreme Court placed on all further applications for relief from me after the date of September 30,
2005 to the attention of the Courtenay, BC ICBC lawyer. I explained that since the August 5, 2005
judgment was rendered by the Government of British Columbia, the Crown is explicitly aware of
the judgment. As such, the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia, a Crown corporation, has
explicit knowledge of, or ought to have explicit knowledge of, this legally-binding restriction the
Crown imposed on all civil litigation brought against me after the date of September 30, 2005.
Where the civil litigation involves “all other relief” it cannot lawfully proceed. I also informed
ICBC's Courtenay, BC lawyer that I would be sending a complaint to the Powell River Registry of
the Supreme Court of British Columbia to remind the BC Supreme Court of the legally-binding
expiration date judgment the BC Supreme Court placed on all further applications for relief from me
after the date of September 30, 2005.
I demanded that ICBC immediately desist from participating in the sham Erle Stanley Graham v.
Callum Houston civil lawsuit and that ICBC immediately stop criminally harassing me with all of the
libelous documentation that ICBC and its lawyers had been stalking me with through the mail since
the year 2006. And I demanded that ICBC immediately stop leaking my personal, private and
confidential information to third parties like ICBC's crooked legal counsel in Vancouver, BC.
I explained to ICBC that the Crown company is guilty of partaking in organized crime and,
accordingly, ICBC's criminal activity will be reported to the authorities, including to the police.
To conclude my August 20, 2009 complaint to the Courtenay, BC ICBC lawyer I demanded that
ICBC immediately inform the Powell River Registry of the Supreme Court of British Columbia that
the perjurious May 28, 2008 Erle Stanley Graham v. Callum Houston Statement of Defence
ICBC's Vancouver, BC legal counsel illegally misfiled at the courthouse is invalid and null and void
and I demanded that ICBC issue an immediate retraction of the falsified civil court document. And
I also demanded that ICBC immediately desist from uttering my name in any context whatsoever
and cease all further contact with me.
The information I'd provided to the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia, in particular the
August 5, 2005 Supreme Court of British Columbia judgment that prohibited the pursuit of any and
all civil court relief from me, gave ICBC and its Vancouver, BC legal counsel the perfect
opportunity to walk away from me and from the brazen criminal automobile insurance fraud scam
that Erle Stanley Graham's Powell River, BC legal counsel was asking ICBC to perpetrate against
me. But, as expected, ICBC and its angry lawyers had an extremely hostile reaction to this airtight
defense I'd presented to fight the criminal automobile insurance fraud scam that ICBC and its
gangster attorneys were committing against my car insurance policy.
ICBC'S AUGUST 20, 2009 STATEMENT:
ICBC's Vancouver, BC lawyer made unlawful contact with me once again with a vindictive August
20, 2009 hate mail letter in which the ICBC lawyer uttered a number of extremely disturbing and
extremely intimidating threats in retaliation for exposing the criminal automobile insurance fraud
swindle ICBC and its scamming lawyers were perpetrating against me.
In his menacing August 20, 2009 hate mail letter, the lying Vancouver, BC ICBC lawyer claimed
that he had composed the Government of British Columbia document to tell me that his law firm
was going to inform the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia that it was withdrawing as my
counsel in the sham Erle Stanley Graham v. Callum Houston civil lawsuit. The Vancouver, BC
ICBC lawyer claimed that his law firm didn't have the legal authority to tell ICBC exactly why it
was withdrawing as my counsel but he would tell me why ICBC's Vancouver, BC legal counsel was
withdrawing as my counsel.
This nonsense from ICBC's Vancouver, BC legal counsel was completely false. ICBC's
Vancouver, BC legal counsel wasn't my counsel in any legal matter at all, including in the sham Erle
Stanley Graham v. Callum Houston civil lawsuit. I didn't retain this Vancouver, BC law firm to
represent me. The Vancouver, BC ICBC law firm was appointed by and retained by the Insurance
Corporation of British Columbia and the Vancouver, BC law firm acted for the Insurance
Corporation of British Columbia. The Vancouver, BC law firm had taken its direction only from
ICBC pursuant to the sham Erle Stanley Graham v. Callum Houston civil lawsuit, not from me.
The Vancouver, BC law firm's client was the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia and the
Vancouver, BC law firm acted for the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia. ICBC's
Vancouver, BC legal counsel didn't act for me. And since this Vancouver, BC law firm had been
appointed by ICBC and was ICBC's counsel, in actual fact what the law firm disclosed or did not
disclose to its client, the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia, was a private matter between
the Vancouver, BC law firm and ICBC and not any business of mine.
Then the out-of-control lying by the Vancouver, BC ICBC lawyer became even more absurd. The
Vancouver, BC ICBC lawyer wrote in his August 20, 2009 hate mail letter that he had visited my
personal Internet website and he had read the article I had posted about the Erle Stanley Graham v.
Callum Houston automobile insurance fraud scam that ICBC was perpetrating against me called
“ICBC-RCMP-ATTORNEY GENERAL CONSPIRACY EXPOSED.” According to the
Vancouver, BC ICBC lawyer, it was perfectly normal and not inappropriate at all for a Crown
attorney to reveal his personal and private Internet activity to me.
ICBC's Vancouver, BC lawyer claimed that I had made accusations against the law firm he worked
at and against himself in the article, accusations that indicated to him that I had no confidence in the
ability of his law firm to represent my interests in the sham Erle Stanley Graham v. Callum
Houston civil lawsuit. As well, the Vancouver, BC ICBC lawyer claimed that my “conduct to
date” in addition to unspecified “allegations” I've written on my personal website constituted
grounds for ICBC to refuse to provide me with a defense in the sham Erle Stanley Graham v.
Callum Houston civil lawsuit and it also constituted grounds for ICBC to refuse to indemnify me for
the Plaintiff's damages which had been assessed against me.
I couldn't believe what I was reading. I was being bombarded with yet more completely unfounded
false accusations being leveled against me by the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia. Not
only had ICBC falsely accused me of perpetrating two car accidents, one involving an unidentified
motorist and another involving a pedestrian named Erle Stanley Graham in its abusive hate mail
correspondence, now ICBC was actually saying that I was guilty of perpetrating some kind of
personal misconduct against ICBC as well. I had no idea what “conduct to date” and
“allegations” the Vancouver, BC ICBC lawyer was referring to. I didn't know the Vancouver, BC
ICBC lawyer who wrote the hate mail letter. I had never met this ICBC lawyer and my interaction
with him had been limited only to two letters I'd sent him, one dated July 4, 2008 and another dated
August 14, 2009, in response to the lawyer's illegal mishandling of the sham Erle Stanley Graham v.
Callum Houston criminal insurance fraud matter. The reasons given by the Vancouver, BC ICBC
lawyer for canceling my automobile insurance policy were not legal. The delusional views of a
crooked ICBC lawyer about my “conduct to date” and what the lawyer called “allegations” didn't
constitute legal and valid grounds for ICBC to retroactively nullify my ICBC automobile insurance
coverage.
Further, the sham Erle Stanley Graham v. Callum Houston civil lawsuit wasn't about a website.
The sham Erle Stanley Graham v. Callum Houston civil lawsuit concerned a false allegation of a
fictitious motor-vehicle accident fabricated by a bunch of scheming British Columbia lawyers on the
ICBC dole. And the terms of the ICBC automobile insurance policy I had on the date the lawyers
were using for the date when the staged hit-and-run car accident supposedly took place didn't
stipulate that I can't post material on the Internet. My ICBC automobile insurance coverage and the
indemnification it provided couldn't be legally invalidated simply because I had an Internet website.
Many people with Internet websites hold ICBC automobile insurance coverage policies. The
existence of a website cannot lawfully invalidate a car insurance policy.
And I explicitly informed ICBC in a February 4, 2008 letter that the details of this matter were
already public and that an account of my criminal harassment problems with Erle Stanley Graham
and my horrid experience with ICBC was being posted on the Internet. No objections were raised
by ICBC when ICBC was informed of the Internet website in 2008.
My website was such a problem for this Vancouver, BC ICBC lawyer that the lawyer then came
out with an overt threat of taking legal action against me for having a website in his August 20, 2009
hate mail letter. The Vancouver, BC ICBC lawyer wrote that the material I've posted on my
website about ICBC's criminally illegal mishandling of the sham Erle Stanley Graham v. Callum
Houston civil lawsuit is defamatory and he threatened that I should prepare to be sued by both
ICBC and by ICBC's Vancouver, BC legal counsel for defamation.
What a crock! The article I wrote about the sham Erle Stanley Graham v. Callum Houston civil
lawsuit isn't defamatory. The article doesn't attack the good reputation (good reputation -- what a
joke!) of ICBC and its Vancouver, BC legal counsel. The article isn't an act of defamation against
ICBC and its Vancouver, BC lawyers. What the article is is a first-person account of my experience
of trying to repel a malicious conspiracy by the Crown in British Columbia to frame me with a false
criminal charge of dangerous operation of a motor vehicle and my experience of trying to repel a
criminal insurance fraud scam being perpetrated against my ICBC car insurance policy.
The information I compiled in the article I posted on my website about the Crown's vindictive
attempts to falsely convict me and to defraud me is truthful and the information is supported by
tangible evidence that can be easily reviewed by the reader. I wrote an accurate account of the
details of the harassment I've had to deal with by the Canadian government, both federally and
provincially, for doing nothing more than driving a vehicle in the province of British Columbia. The
information I compiled is a factual account of the abuse I've been subjected to by the government
since the year 2006 for doing nothing more than driving a car in BC in compliance with the law,
abuse which includes a libelous hate mail campaign being perpetrated by the Insurance Corporation
of British Columbia and its shady lawyers. I am disgusted and appalled with ICBC's mishandling of
this criminal automobile insurance fraud matter and I have every right to disclose my horrendous
ICBC experience to anyone I choose to disclose it to. If I want to scream about ICBC's fraud from
the rooftops at the top of my lungs or talk about it on the Internet I have every right to do so.
The Vancouver, BC ICBC lawyer didn't specify which information on my website in particular he
believed amounted to defamation of his law firm and ICBC. That's because my truthful, accurate
and factual information about ICBC isn't defamatory. My solid information about ICBC's criminal
harassment campaign against me is the honest truth.
Moreover, ICBC's Vancouver, BC legal counsel had no grounds whatsoever to target me with a
defamation lawsuit since ICBC's Vancouver, BC legal counsel was not named by me in any of the
material I've written on my website concerning ICBC's atrocious criminal misbehavior pursuant to
this matter. ICBC's Vancouver, BC legal counsel is not once identified by me in any of the material
I've written on my website.
And which assessed damages was the Vancouver, BC ICBC lawyer talking about? ICBC had
forwarded no information to me of an assessment of any damages I was expected to pay pursuant
to the sham Erle Stanley Graham v. Callum Houston civil lawsuit.
Ultimately, my website was just a red herring that ICBC's Vancouver, BC legal counsel was using to
falsely accuse me of something I didn't do in order to shift attention away from the Vancouver, BC
law firm's own very serious criminal misconduct, criminal misconduct which included, but which
was by no means limited to, criminal perjury by illegal misfiling a false Statement of Defence in my
name at the Supreme Court of British Columbia without my knowledge.
The threat of an impending joint civil lawsuit brought against me by ICBC's Vancouver, BC legal
counsel in conjunction with ICBC in order to stop me from writing material on my personal Internet
website about ICBC's criminal fraud and criminal harassment proved conclusively that ICBC's
Vancouver, BC legal counsel didn't represent me as my legal counsel and wasn't appointed by ICBC
to represent my interests at all. The Vancouver, BC law firm had been brought into the Erle
Stanley Graham v. Callum Houston criminal insurance fraud matter by ICBC for the purpose of
criminally harassing me.
In his August 20, 2009 hate mail letter the Vancouver, BC ICBC lawyer claimed that the terms of
my insurance policy with ICBC obligated me by law to cooperate with ICBC's legal counsel in the
defense of the sham Erle Stanley Graham v. Callum Houston civil lawsuit and my failure to
cooperate with ICBC's legal counsel was a breach of my ICBC automobile insurance policy. All
very false. As much as the legal profession of Canada might wish that such legislation existed, there
is no law that can force anyone to cooperate with a lawyer (an ICBC lawyer or otherwise) against
their will. On the other hand, if an ICBC lawyer is breaking the law then an individual does have a
lawful obligation NOT TO COOPERATE with the crooked ICBC lawyer. Nobody is obligated by
law to participate in criminal lawyer fraud schemes. And my failure to cooperate with a law-
breaking ICBC attorney who's lying about everything in sight doesn't amount to a breach of my
ICBC automobile insurance policy. My failure to cooperate with a law-breaking ICBC lawyer
who's lying about everything in sight has nothing to do with my ICBC automobile insurance policy
at all.
The Vancouver, BC ICBC lawyer claimed in his August 20, 2009 hate mail letter that if ICBC
determined that a breach of my automobile insurance policy has occurred then ICBC will not
challenge the sham Erle Stanley Graham v. Callum Houston civil lawsuit on my behalf and I'll have
to oppose the sham Erle Stanley Graham v. Callum Houston criminal insurance fraud scam on my
own.
The Vancouver, BC ICBC lawyer was lying about me having to fight the sham Erle Stanley
Graham v. Callum Houston civil lawsuit on my own. I wouldn't have to personally fight the sham
Erle Stanley Graham v. Callum Houston civil lawsuit on my own just because ICBC walked away
from it. In fact, the sham Erle Stanley Graham v. Callum Houston civil lawsuit had been deviously
planned out in such a way by Erle Stanley Graham's Powell River, BC legal counsel that it was
impossible for me to oppose it in conventional terms. Why was it impossible for me to oppose the
sham Erle Stanley Graham v. Callum Houston civil lawsuit conventionally? It was impossible for
me to oppose the sham Erle Stanley Graham v. Callum Houston civil lawsuit conventionally
because the sham Erle Stanley Graham v. Callum Houston civil lawsuit wasn't a bona fide civil
court action that had been filed and processed at the Supreme Court of British Columbia in
compliance with the law. Since the sham Erle Stanley Graham v. Callum Houston civil lawsuit
wasn't a genuine civil lawsuit, I couldn't have fought the bogus civil court action conventionally even
if I'd wanted to.
Even though I was named as the sole Defendant in the sham Erle Stanley Graham v. Callum
Houston civil lawsuit, I had not been served with the Plaintiff's Writ of Summons and the Plaintiff's
Statement of Claim pursuant to the fraudulent civil court matter. I had not been apprised of the
allegations made against me by the Plaintiff pursuant to the sham Erle Stanley Graham v. Callum
Houston civil lawsuit. As such, there was no Erle Stanley Graham v. Callum Houston civil lawsuit
for me to personally fight. The sham Erle Stanley Graham v. Callum Houston civil lawsuit had not
been brought against me, it had been brought against ICBC.
Instead of serving me with the Erle Stanley Graham v. Callum Houston Writ of Summons and the
Erle Stanley Graham v. Callum Houston Statement of Claim, Erle Stanley Graham's legal counsel
served the Writ of Summons and the Statement of Claim on the Insurance Corporation of British
Columbia, a third party which hadn't been named in the sham civil lawsuit. It's illegal for a
Plaintiff's lawyer to bypass a Defendant in order to serve crucial court materials such as a Writ of
Summons and a Statement of Claim on a third party who hasn't even been named in the civil
lawsuit without the knowledge and consent of the named Defendant. Erle Stanley Graham and his
Powell River, BC legal counsel unlawfully misused my name for their sham Erle Stanley Graham v.
Callum Houston civil lawsuit for the purpose of asking ICBC to participate in a criminal insurance
fraud scam against my ICBC car insurance policy, not for the purpose of suing me in civil court.
My name was illegally misused by the Plaintiff's legal counsel and by ICBC and its lawyers for the
purpose of committing a criminal automobile insurance fraud scheme against my ICBC car
insurance policy. My name was illegally misused by the Plaintiff's legal counsel and by ICBC and
its lawyers for the purpose of committing legal suicide.
And instead of sharing the false accusations supposedly made by a Plaintiff in the sham Erle Stanley
Graham v. Callum Houston civil lawsuit with me, the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia
deliberately concealed the Plaintiff's false accusations from me. Neither Erle Stanley Graham's
Powell River, BC legal counsel nor the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia had any intention
of ever disclosing the bogus Erle Stanley Graham v. Callum Houston Writ of Summons and the
bogus Erle Stanley Graham v. Callum Houston Statement of Claim to me, the individual named as
the only Defendant in the sham Erle Stanley Graham v. Callum Houston civil lawsuit. Both Erle
Stanley Graham's Powell River, BC legal counsel and the Insurance Corporation of British
Columbia intended to unlawfully withhold the bogus Erle Stanley Graham v. Callum Houston Writ
of Summons and the bogus Erle Stanley Graham v. Callum Houston Statement of Claim from me.
I suppose it's true that since ICBC wasn't Erle Stanley Graham's legal counsel, ICBC had no lawful
obligation to serve me with the bogus Erle Stanley Graham v. Callum Houston Writ of Summons
and the bogus Erle Stanley Graham v. Callum Houston Statement of Claim. If the Writ of
Summons and the Statement of Claim haven't been served on the Defendant by the Plaintiff or by
the Plaintiff's legal counsel it's not the responsibility of a third party to serve the documents on the
Defendant. But ICBC did have one very important lawful obligation though. Since ICBC wasn't
named as a party in the sham Erle Stanley Graham v. Callum Houston civil lawsuit, ICBC had a
lawful obligation to take no action pursuant to the phony civil lawsuit whatsoever. Instead of going
along with a distasteful criminal insurance fraud scheme against one of its clients, ICBC had a lawful
obligation to refuse to take part in the criminal insurance fraud scam that Erle Stanley Graham's
Powell River, BC legal counsel was asking it to take part in against me and against my ICBC car
insurance policy.
And of course if need be I would use the August 5, 2005 Supreme Court of British Columbia
judgment that completely restricts the pursuit of any and all civil court relief sought from me after
the date of September 30, 2005 to stun any foolish lawyer who might dare to oppose me with
unlawful civil court action. According to the August 5, 2005 BC Supreme Court judgment, the
sham Erle Stanley Graham v. Callum Houston civil lawsuit was strictly prohibited by law and, as
such, I couldn't be held liable for any judgments pronounced against me in the action. Nor could I
be held liable for any judgments pronounced against me in favor of the Insurance Corporation of
British Columbia either.
The Vancouver, BC ICBC lawyer then wrote in his August 20, 2009 hate mail letter that because
I've stated on my website that I haven't been apprised of the accusations made against me in the
sham Erle Stanley Graham v. Callum Houston civil lawsuit, he had attached a copy of the bogus
Erle Stanley Graham v. Callum Houston Writ of Summons and a copy of the bogus Erle Stanley
Graham v. Callum Houston Statement of Claim that Erle Stanley Graham himself had personally
misfiled at the Supreme Court of British Columbia.
Oh boy. So here I had the Vancouver, BC ICBC law firm that had illegally misfiled a perjurious
May 28, 2008 Statement of Defence falsely attributed to me at the Supreme Court of British
Columbia openly admitting that it was fully aware that it knew that I had neither seen nor read Erle
Stanley Graham's bogus Statement of Claim in the sham Erle Stanley Graham v. Callum Houston
civil lawsuit.
And the Vancouver, BC ICBC lawyer was even lying about the criminally illegal misfiling of the
sham Erle Stanley Graham v. Callum Houston civil lawsuit at the Supreme Court of British
Columbia. According to the Vancouver, BC ICBC lawyer, it was Erle Stanley Graham himself who
illegally misfiled the bogus Erle Stanley Graham v. Callum Houston Writ of Summons and the
bogus Erle Stanley Graham v. Callum Houston Statement of Claim at the BC Supreme Court. This
was another big ICBC lie that could easily be disproved.
According to the bogus October 8, 2007 Erle Stanley Graham v. Callum Houston Writ of
Summons and the bogus October 9, 2007 Erle Stanley Graham v. Callum Houston Statement of
Claim which were both illegally misfiled and illegally stamped at the Powell River Registry of the
Supreme Court of British Columbia on the date of October 9, 2009, both phony civil court
documents were actually illegally misfiled at the courthouse by the Powell River, BC law firm that
claimed to represent Erle Stanley Graham in the sham civil court lawsuit. There is no evidence to
suggest that Erle Stanley Graham himself took any part in the criminally illegal misfiling of the sham
Erle Stanley Graham v. Callum Houston civil lawsuit at the Supreme Court of British Columbia.
Other than the use of his name as the Plaintiff on the fraudulent civil court documents, it doesn't
look as though Erle Stanley Graham had anything to do with the bogus Erle Stanley Graham v.
Callum Houston Writ of Summons and the bogus Erle Stanley Graham v. Callum Houston
Statement of Claim at all. Erle Stanley Graham hasn't signed either of the fraudulent civil court
documents so there's no proof or reason to believe that the false testimony attributed to Erle Stanley
Graham on the two invalid civil court documents actually originated from him. The only signature
to be found on both of the fraudulent civil court documents isn't Erle Stanley Graham's signature
but rather the signature of Erle Stanley Graham's scheming Powell River, BC attorney.
While Erle Stanley Graham (a.k.a. Earl Graham) is guilty of a lot of atrocious criminal misconduct,
he is quite obviously not guilty of illegally misfiling the bogus Erle Stanley Graham v. Callum
Houston Writ of Summons and the bogus Erle Stanley Graham v. Callum Houston Statement of
Claim at the Powell River Registry of the Supreme Court of British Columbia in 2007. The Powell
River, BC law firm that claimed to represent Erle Stanley Graham in the sham Erle Stanley Graham
v. Callum Houston civil lawsuit is clearly the party that is guilty of illegally misfiling the bogus Erle
Stanley Graham v. Callum Houston Writ of Summons and the bogus Erle Stanley Graham v.
Callum Houston Statement of Claim at the Powell River Registry of the Supreme Court of British
Columbia. ICBC had illegally diverted the blame for very serious acts of criminal perjury away
from the law firm that was actually guilty of the criminal perjury and had instead laid the blame for
criminal perjury on a third party who was not at all guilty of the criminal wrongdoing.
This is an excellent example of how lawyers absolutely refuse to take any responsibility for their
own misconduct and/or the misconduct of their associates and will always point the finger away
from themselves and at someone else. Contrary to what ICBC had stated in its August 20, 2009
hate mail letter, Erle Stanley Graham is not guilty of illegally misfiling the bogus Erle Stanley
Graham v. Callum Houston Writ of Summons and the bogus Erle Stanley Graham v. Callum
Houston Statement of Claim at the Powell River Registry of the Supreme Court of British
Columbia. In actual fact, Erle Stanley Graham's Powell River, BC legal counsel is the party guilty
of illegally misfiling the bogus Erle Stanley Graham v. Callum Houston Writ of Summons and the
bogus Erle Stanley Graham v. Callum Houston Statement of Claim at the Powell River Registry of
the Supreme Court of British Columbia
Then the lying Vancouver, BC ICBC lawyer ended his August 20, 2009 hate mail letter with more
lies in which he stated that ICBC was going to appoint yet another law-breaking British Columbia
Crown attorney to represent me without my consent or approval (another lawyer!) and that I can
expect to be contacted by this unidentified ICBC lawyer sometime in the future. Not only was this
not the truth, it was the exact opposite of the truth. What actually did happen is ICBC contacted me
a few months later to tell me it had retroactively canceled my automobile insurance policy (!) as
retaliation for me not going along with the recklessly criminal fraud-games that its Vancouver, BC
legal counsel was playing with my name and with my identity. The Vancouver, BC ICBC law firm
ratted me out to its client, the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia, and told ICBC to tear up
the automobile insurance policy I purchased from ICBC that was in effect on the date that Erle
Stanley Graham's Powell River, BC legal counsel and ICBC were using as the date for their fake hit-
and-run car accident.
Also, at the bottom of the first page of all of the letters I've received from ICBC's Vancouver, BC
legal counsel, the law firm has stated that it's a member of an international network of independent
law firms. Independent of what? The government? This simply isn't true. The law firm isn't
independent at all and this is just yet another blatant BC government lie. As a member of a
worldwide law firm chain the law firm can't be called independent. And the law firm certainly isn't
independent of the government, it's a Crown law firm that represents the government of British
Columbia for goodness sake.
See ICBC's August 20, 2009 statement HERE.
fraud scam that Erle Stanley Graham (a.k.a. Earl Graham) and his devious Powell River, BC legal
counsel and the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia and its double-dealing legal counsel were
perpetrating against my ICBC car insurance policy, I realized I had no choice but to take action on
my own to close the door on the criminally illegal misuse of my identity by all of these BC
government rats once and for all.
ICBC's lawyers were crouching and hiding. This is something lawyers do when they get caught
breaking the law -- they crouch and they hide. Lawyers guilty of misconduct will hide away in their
bunkers like cowards, sometimes for years, and then when they feel threatened they'll suddenly
reappear out of the blue and strike at you with an unprovoked libel or theft attack.
No new information had arrived from the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia since I'd
received a June 11, 2008 hate mail letter in which a Vancouver, BC ICBC lawyer had bragged that
his law firm had committed criminal perjury by illegally misfiling a false May 28, 2008 Statement of
Defence in my name at the Supreme Court of British Columbia without my knowledge. It was
obvious that ICBC's lawyers had absolutely no intention of decisively concluding the sham Erle
Stanley Graham v. Callum Houston civil lawsuit. I could see that instead of walking away from the
sham Erle Stanley Graham v. Callum Houston civil lawsuit, ICBC's lawyers were going to leave the
phony civil lawsuit hanging in a state of indefinite limbo so they could steal as much cash from the
Insurance Corporation of British Columbia in the form of ripped-off legal fees as they possibly could.
However, I wasn't going to just sit back complacently and hope that ICBC was going to slither away
on its own, thus taking a chance that ICBC might come after me for a payment in the future simply
because Erle Stanley Graham had made up a phony story about being victimized by me in a car
accident.
So, in this next phase of my battle with the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia my strategy
was to use cold hard facts as a blunt weapon to repel ICBC and its militant lawyers. In his June 11,
2008 hate mail letter, ICBC's Vancouver, BC lawyer had asked me to disclose to him any
documents that are relevant to the sham Erle Stanley Graham v. Callum Houston civil lawsuit. I
did indeed have one document that was very relevant to the sham Erle Stanley Graham v. Callum
Houston civil lawsuit -- a legally-binding August 5, 2005 Supreme Court of British Columbia
judgment that had been adjudicated in another civil court proceeding which placed a blanket
restriction on all future applications for relief of any nature from me after the date of September 30,
2005. Term 14 in the August 5, 2005 judgment states: “All other relief is to be adjourned generally
for a further full day's hearing and is to be heard no later than September 30, 2005.”
As such, I started this next component of my defense against ICBC by sending an August 14, 2009
complaint to ICBC's Vancouver, BC lawyer in which I informed ICBC's Vancouver, BC lawyer of
the BC Supreme Court judgment.
I explained to the Vancouver, BC ICBC lawyer how this August 5, 2005 judgment strictly prohibits
all future applications for relief of any kind from me after the date of September 30, 2005. The
judgment of Justice Grant D. Burnyeat of the Supreme Court of British Columbia placed no limit on
the nature of relief I am exempt from after the date of September 30, 2005. The judgment is a
general Government of British Columbia term that applies to any and all civil court relief other than
the relief specifically addressed by the court in the various other judgments in the August 5, 2005
BC Supreme Court order.
I explained how, according to Term 14 in the August 5, 2005 court order, I cannot be sued by
anyone for anything after the date of September 30, 2005. The court judgment acts as a restraining
order that completely restricts any and all further civil court action against me of any nature,
including the sham Erle Stanley Graham v. Callum Houston civil lawsuit.
I explained how the sham Erle Stanley Graham v. Callum Houston Supreme Court of British
Columbia civil lawsuit quite obviously asks the court for relief and that this relief qualifies as “all
other relief” as opposed to the relief the BC Supreme Court addressed in its August 5, 2005
judgment. Term 14 in the August 5, 2005 judgment states very plainly the court's instructions for
how any other relief not already addressed in the order must be dealt with. Other relief must be
adjourned for a hearing that must take place before the date of September 30, 2005. If the
application for other relief cannot comply with these instructions then it cannot be heard by the
court. Obviously the relief Erle Stanley Graham has asked the court for in the sham Erle Stanley
Graham v. Callum Houston civil lawsuit cannot lawfully comply with these instructions since it's
impossible for the relief to be heard before the date of September 30, 2005. And Term 14 in the
August 5, 2005 judgment is not governed by a time restriction. In other words, the Term 14 expiry
date judgment for all other relief is a hot judgment that's still in effect and always will be in effect.
I explained to the Vancouver, BC ICBC lawyer how the Term 14 judgment in the August 5, 2005
court order strictly prohibits the sham Erle Stanley Graham v. Callum Houston civil lawsuit. The
sham Erle Stanley Graham v. Callum Houston civil lawsuit is prohibited by law. The sham Erle
Stanley Graham v. Callum Houston civil lawsuit is both contempt of and breach of Term 14 of the
August 5, 2005 order of the Supreme Court of British Columbia. And ICBC's clear participation in
the sham Erle Stanley Graham v. Callum Houston civil lawsuit is also both contempt of and breach
of Term 14 of the August 5, 2005 order of the Supreme Court of British Columbia.
I explained that since the August 5, 2005 judgment was rendered by the Government of British
Columbia, the Crown is explicitly aware of the judgment. As such, the Insurance Corporation of
British Columbia, a Crown corporation, has knowledge of, or ought to have knowledge of, the
legally-binding restriction the Crown imposed on all civil litigation brought against me after the date
of September 30, 2005. Where the civil litigation involves “all other relief” it cannot proceed.
I also informed the Vancouver, BC ICBC lawyer that I would be sending a complaint to the Powell
River Registry of the Supreme Court of British Columbia to remind the BC Supreme Court of the
legally-binding expiration date judgment the BC Supreme Court placed on all further applications for
relief from me after the date of September 30, 2005.
To conclude my August 14, 2009 complaint, I demanded that ICBC and its lawyers immediately
withdraw from the sham Erle Stanley Graham v. Callum Houston civil lawsuit and cease all further
contact with me. Attached to my August 14, 2009 complaint was a copy of the BC Supreme
Court's August 5, 2005 judgment that strictly prohibits the pursuit of any and all civil court relief
from me after the date of September 30, 2005.
Then in an August 20, 2009 complaint sent to the Courtenay, BC lawyer who had claimed in a
December 21, 2007 hate mail letter to have been appointed by ICBC to represent me (without my
prior knowledge or consent), I complained about the illegal misconduct of ICBC's Vancouver, BC
legal counsel. I explained to ICBC's Courtenay, BC lawyer that ICBC had no lawful authority to
leak private information about me such as my confidential mailing address and private information
about my confidential ICBC automobile insurance policy to any third parties, including to the
Vancouver, BC law firm that had unlawfully misused my confidential mailing address to make illegal
contact with me through the mail. I explained that I have disputes with several law firms and
lawyers in British Columbia so ICBC can't appoint an independent lawyer or an independent law
firm to act as my counsel without my prior approval.
Most particularly, though, I complained to the Courtenay, BC ICBC lawyer about the unlawful
misuse of my personal identity by ICBC's Vancouver, BC legal counsel to illegally misfile a
completely false May 28, 2008 State of Defence in my name pursuant to the sham Erle Stanley
Graham v. Callum Houston civil lawsuit at the Powell River Registry of the Supreme Court of
British Columbia on the date of May 30, 2008. I attempted to detail every instance of a false
statement that had been untruthfully attributed to me in ICBC's perjurious four-page May 28, 2008
Statement of Defence but there were just so many instances of false statements in the extremely
libelous ICBC court document it would have taken way too much ink, way too much paper and
way too much of my time to list all of them. Every single point of defense in ICBC's perjurious
May 28, 2008 Statement of Defence was loaded with multiple lies and untruths and embedded
within those multiple lies and untruths were even more lies and untruths.
In the August 20, 2009 complaint I brought the legally-binding expiration date judgment the BC
Supreme Court placed on all further applications for relief from me after the date of September 30,
2005 to the attention of the Courtenay, BC ICBC lawyer. I explained that since the August 5, 2005
judgment was rendered by the Government of British Columbia, the Crown is explicitly aware of
the judgment. As such, the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia, a Crown corporation, has
explicit knowledge of, or ought to have explicit knowledge of, this legally-binding restriction the
Crown imposed on all civil litigation brought against me after the date of September 30, 2005.
Where the civil litigation involves “all other relief” it cannot lawfully proceed. I also informed
ICBC's Courtenay, BC lawyer that I would be sending a complaint to the Powell River Registry of
the Supreme Court of British Columbia to remind the BC Supreme Court of the legally-binding
expiration date judgment the BC Supreme Court placed on all further applications for relief from me
after the date of September 30, 2005.
I demanded that ICBC immediately desist from participating in the sham Erle Stanley Graham v.
Callum Houston civil lawsuit and that ICBC immediately stop criminally harassing me with all of the
libelous documentation that ICBC and its lawyers had been stalking me with through the mail since
the year 2006. And I demanded that ICBC immediately stop leaking my personal, private and
confidential information to third parties like ICBC's crooked legal counsel in Vancouver, BC.
I explained to ICBC that the Crown company is guilty of partaking in organized crime and,
accordingly, ICBC's criminal activity will be reported to the authorities, including to the police.
To conclude my August 20, 2009 complaint to the Courtenay, BC ICBC lawyer I demanded that
ICBC immediately inform the Powell River Registry of the Supreme Court of British Columbia that
the perjurious May 28, 2008 Erle Stanley Graham v. Callum Houston Statement of Defence
ICBC's Vancouver, BC legal counsel illegally misfiled at the courthouse is invalid and null and void
and I demanded that ICBC issue an immediate retraction of the falsified civil court document. And
I also demanded that ICBC immediately desist from uttering my name in any context whatsoever
and cease all further contact with me.
The information I'd provided to the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia, in particular the
August 5, 2005 Supreme Court of British Columbia judgment that prohibited the pursuit of any and
all civil court relief from me, gave ICBC and its Vancouver, BC legal counsel the perfect
opportunity to walk away from me and from the brazen criminal automobile insurance fraud scam
that Erle Stanley Graham's Powell River, BC legal counsel was asking ICBC to perpetrate against
me. But, as expected, ICBC and its angry lawyers had an extremely hostile reaction to this airtight
defense I'd presented to fight the criminal automobile insurance fraud scam that ICBC and its
gangster attorneys were committing against my car insurance policy.
ICBC'S AUGUST 20, 2009 STATEMENT:
ICBC's Vancouver, BC lawyer made unlawful contact with me once again with a vindictive August
20, 2009 hate mail letter in which the ICBC lawyer uttered a number of extremely disturbing and
extremely intimidating threats in retaliation for exposing the criminal automobile insurance fraud
swindle ICBC and its scamming lawyers were perpetrating against me.
In his menacing August 20, 2009 hate mail letter, the lying Vancouver, BC ICBC lawyer claimed
that he had composed the Government of British Columbia document to tell me that his law firm
was going to inform the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia that it was withdrawing as my
counsel in the sham Erle Stanley Graham v. Callum Houston civil lawsuit. The Vancouver, BC
ICBC lawyer claimed that his law firm didn't have the legal authority to tell ICBC exactly why it
was withdrawing as my counsel but he would tell me why ICBC's Vancouver, BC legal counsel was
withdrawing as my counsel.
This nonsense from ICBC's Vancouver, BC legal counsel was completely false. ICBC's
Vancouver, BC legal counsel wasn't my counsel in any legal matter at all, including in the sham Erle
Stanley Graham v. Callum Houston civil lawsuit. I didn't retain this Vancouver, BC law firm to
represent me. The Vancouver, BC ICBC law firm was appointed by and retained by the Insurance
Corporation of British Columbia and the Vancouver, BC law firm acted for the Insurance
Corporation of British Columbia. The Vancouver, BC law firm had taken its direction only from
ICBC pursuant to the sham Erle Stanley Graham v. Callum Houston civil lawsuit, not from me.
The Vancouver, BC law firm's client was the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia and the
Vancouver, BC law firm acted for the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia. ICBC's
Vancouver, BC legal counsel didn't act for me. And since this Vancouver, BC law firm had been
appointed by ICBC and was ICBC's counsel, in actual fact what the law firm disclosed or did not
disclose to its client, the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia, was a private matter between
the Vancouver, BC law firm and ICBC and not any business of mine.
Then the out-of-control lying by the Vancouver, BC ICBC lawyer became even more absurd. The
Vancouver, BC ICBC lawyer wrote in his August 20, 2009 hate mail letter that he had visited my
personal Internet website and he had read the article I had posted about the Erle Stanley Graham v.
Callum Houston automobile insurance fraud scam that ICBC was perpetrating against me called
“ICBC-RCMP-ATTORNEY GENERAL CONSPIRACY EXPOSED.” According to the
Vancouver, BC ICBC lawyer, it was perfectly normal and not inappropriate at all for a Crown
attorney to reveal his personal and private Internet activity to me.
ICBC's Vancouver, BC lawyer claimed that I had made accusations against the law firm he worked
at and against himself in the article, accusations that indicated to him that I had no confidence in the
ability of his law firm to represent my interests in the sham Erle Stanley Graham v. Callum
Houston civil lawsuit. As well, the Vancouver, BC ICBC lawyer claimed that my “conduct to
date” in addition to unspecified “allegations” I've written on my personal website constituted
grounds for ICBC to refuse to provide me with a defense in the sham Erle Stanley Graham v.
Callum Houston civil lawsuit and it also constituted grounds for ICBC to refuse to indemnify me for
the Plaintiff's damages which had been assessed against me.
I couldn't believe what I was reading. I was being bombarded with yet more completely unfounded
false accusations being leveled against me by the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia. Not
only had ICBC falsely accused me of perpetrating two car accidents, one involving an unidentified
motorist and another involving a pedestrian named Erle Stanley Graham in its abusive hate mail
correspondence, now ICBC was actually saying that I was guilty of perpetrating some kind of
personal misconduct against ICBC as well. I had no idea what “conduct to date” and
“allegations” the Vancouver, BC ICBC lawyer was referring to. I didn't know the Vancouver, BC
ICBC lawyer who wrote the hate mail letter. I had never met this ICBC lawyer and my interaction
with him had been limited only to two letters I'd sent him, one dated July 4, 2008 and another dated
August 14, 2009, in response to the lawyer's illegal mishandling of the sham Erle Stanley Graham v.
Callum Houston criminal insurance fraud matter. The reasons given by the Vancouver, BC ICBC
lawyer for canceling my automobile insurance policy were not legal. The delusional views of a
crooked ICBC lawyer about my “conduct to date” and what the lawyer called “allegations” didn't
constitute legal and valid grounds for ICBC to retroactively nullify my ICBC automobile insurance
coverage.
Further, the sham Erle Stanley Graham v. Callum Houston civil lawsuit wasn't about a website.
The sham Erle Stanley Graham v. Callum Houston civil lawsuit concerned a false allegation of a
fictitious motor-vehicle accident fabricated by a bunch of scheming British Columbia lawyers on the
ICBC dole. And the terms of the ICBC automobile insurance policy I had on the date the lawyers
were using for the date when the staged hit-and-run car accident supposedly took place didn't
stipulate that I can't post material on the Internet. My ICBC automobile insurance coverage and the
indemnification it provided couldn't be legally invalidated simply because I had an Internet website.
Many people with Internet websites hold ICBC automobile insurance coverage policies. The
existence of a website cannot lawfully invalidate a car insurance policy.
And I explicitly informed ICBC in a February 4, 2008 letter that the details of this matter were
already public and that an account of my criminal harassment problems with Erle Stanley Graham
and my horrid experience with ICBC was being posted on the Internet. No objections were raised
by ICBC when ICBC was informed of the Internet website in 2008.
My website was such a problem for this Vancouver, BC ICBC lawyer that the lawyer then came
out with an overt threat of taking legal action against me for having a website in his August 20, 2009
hate mail letter. The Vancouver, BC ICBC lawyer wrote that the material I've posted on my
website about ICBC's criminally illegal mishandling of the sham Erle Stanley Graham v. Callum
Houston civil lawsuit is defamatory and he threatened that I should prepare to be sued by both
ICBC and by ICBC's Vancouver, BC legal counsel for defamation.
What a crock! The article I wrote about the sham Erle Stanley Graham v. Callum Houston civil
lawsuit isn't defamatory. The article doesn't attack the good reputation (good reputation -- what a
joke!) of ICBC and its Vancouver, BC legal counsel. The article isn't an act of defamation against
ICBC and its Vancouver, BC lawyers. What the article is is a first-person account of my experience
of trying to repel a malicious conspiracy by the Crown in British Columbia to frame me with a false
criminal charge of dangerous operation of a motor vehicle and my experience of trying to repel a
criminal insurance fraud scam being perpetrated against my ICBC car insurance policy.
The information I compiled in the article I posted on my website about the Crown's vindictive
attempts to falsely convict me and to defraud me is truthful and the information is supported by
tangible evidence that can be easily reviewed by the reader. I wrote an accurate account of the
details of the harassment I've had to deal with by the Canadian government, both federally and
provincially, for doing nothing more than driving a vehicle in the province of British Columbia. The
information I compiled is a factual account of the abuse I've been subjected to by the government
since the year 2006 for doing nothing more than driving a car in BC in compliance with the law,
abuse which includes a libelous hate mail campaign being perpetrated by the Insurance Corporation
of British Columbia and its shady lawyers. I am disgusted and appalled with ICBC's mishandling of
this criminal automobile insurance fraud matter and I have every right to disclose my horrendous
ICBC experience to anyone I choose to disclose it to. If I want to scream about ICBC's fraud from
the rooftops at the top of my lungs or talk about it on the Internet I have every right to do so.
The Vancouver, BC ICBC lawyer didn't specify which information on my website in particular he
believed amounted to defamation of his law firm and ICBC. That's because my truthful, accurate
and factual information about ICBC isn't defamatory. My solid information about ICBC's criminal
harassment campaign against me is the honest truth.
Moreover, ICBC's Vancouver, BC legal counsel had no grounds whatsoever to target me with a
defamation lawsuit since ICBC's Vancouver, BC legal counsel was not named by me in any of the
material I've written on my website concerning ICBC's atrocious criminal misbehavior pursuant to
this matter. ICBC's Vancouver, BC legal counsel is not once identified by me in any of the material
I've written on my website.
And which assessed damages was the Vancouver, BC ICBC lawyer talking about? ICBC had
forwarded no information to me of an assessment of any damages I was expected to pay pursuant
to the sham Erle Stanley Graham v. Callum Houston civil lawsuit.
Ultimately, my website was just a red herring that ICBC's Vancouver, BC legal counsel was using to
falsely accuse me of something I didn't do in order to shift attention away from the Vancouver, BC
law firm's own very serious criminal misconduct, criminal misconduct which included, but which
was by no means limited to, criminal perjury by illegal misfiling a false Statement of Defence in my
name at the Supreme Court of British Columbia without my knowledge.
The threat of an impending joint civil lawsuit brought against me by ICBC's Vancouver, BC legal
counsel in conjunction with ICBC in order to stop me from writing material on my personal Internet
website about ICBC's criminal fraud and criminal harassment proved conclusively that ICBC's
Vancouver, BC legal counsel didn't represent me as my legal counsel and wasn't appointed by ICBC
to represent my interests at all. The Vancouver, BC law firm had been brought into the Erle
Stanley Graham v. Callum Houston criminal insurance fraud matter by ICBC for the purpose of
criminally harassing me.
In his August 20, 2009 hate mail letter the Vancouver, BC ICBC lawyer claimed that the terms of
my insurance policy with ICBC obligated me by law to cooperate with ICBC's legal counsel in the
defense of the sham Erle Stanley Graham v. Callum Houston civil lawsuit and my failure to
cooperate with ICBC's legal counsel was a breach of my ICBC automobile insurance policy. All
very false. As much as the legal profession of Canada might wish that such legislation existed, there
is no law that can force anyone to cooperate with a lawyer (an ICBC lawyer or otherwise) against
their will. On the other hand, if an ICBC lawyer is breaking the law then an individual does have a
lawful obligation NOT TO COOPERATE with the crooked ICBC lawyer. Nobody is obligated by
law to participate in criminal lawyer fraud schemes. And my failure to cooperate with a law-
breaking ICBC attorney who's lying about everything in sight doesn't amount to a breach of my
ICBC automobile insurance policy. My failure to cooperate with a law-breaking ICBC lawyer
who's lying about everything in sight has nothing to do with my ICBC automobile insurance policy
at all.
The Vancouver, BC ICBC lawyer claimed in his August 20, 2009 hate mail letter that if ICBC
determined that a breach of my automobile insurance policy has occurred then ICBC will not
challenge the sham Erle Stanley Graham v. Callum Houston civil lawsuit on my behalf and I'll have
to oppose the sham Erle Stanley Graham v. Callum Houston criminal insurance fraud scam on my
own.
The Vancouver, BC ICBC lawyer was lying about me having to fight the sham Erle Stanley
Graham v. Callum Houston civil lawsuit on my own. I wouldn't have to personally fight the sham
Erle Stanley Graham v. Callum Houston civil lawsuit on my own just because ICBC walked away
from it. In fact, the sham Erle Stanley Graham v. Callum Houston civil lawsuit had been deviously
planned out in such a way by Erle Stanley Graham's Powell River, BC legal counsel that it was
impossible for me to oppose it in conventional terms. Why was it impossible for me to oppose the
sham Erle Stanley Graham v. Callum Houston civil lawsuit conventionally? It was impossible for
me to oppose the sham Erle Stanley Graham v. Callum Houston civil lawsuit conventionally
because the sham Erle Stanley Graham v. Callum Houston civil lawsuit wasn't a bona fide civil
court action that had been filed and processed at the Supreme Court of British Columbia in
compliance with the law. Since the sham Erle Stanley Graham v. Callum Houston civil lawsuit
wasn't a genuine civil lawsuit, I couldn't have fought the bogus civil court action conventionally even
if I'd wanted to.
Even though I was named as the sole Defendant in the sham Erle Stanley Graham v. Callum
Houston civil lawsuit, I had not been served with the Plaintiff's Writ of Summons and the Plaintiff's
Statement of Claim pursuant to the fraudulent civil court matter. I had not been apprised of the
allegations made against me by the Plaintiff pursuant to the sham Erle Stanley Graham v. Callum
Houston civil lawsuit. As such, there was no Erle Stanley Graham v. Callum Houston civil lawsuit
for me to personally fight. The sham Erle Stanley Graham v. Callum Houston civil lawsuit had not
been brought against me, it had been brought against ICBC.
Instead of serving me with the Erle Stanley Graham v. Callum Houston Writ of Summons and the
Erle Stanley Graham v. Callum Houston Statement of Claim, Erle Stanley Graham's legal counsel
served the Writ of Summons and the Statement of Claim on the Insurance Corporation of British
Columbia, a third party which hadn't been named in the sham civil lawsuit. It's illegal for a
Plaintiff's lawyer to bypass a Defendant in order to serve crucial court materials such as a Writ of
Summons and a Statement of Claim on a third party who hasn't even been named in the civil
lawsuit without the knowledge and consent of the named Defendant. Erle Stanley Graham and his
Powell River, BC legal counsel unlawfully misused my name for their sham Erle Stanley Graham v.
Callum Houston civil lawsuit for the purpose of asking ICBC to participate in a criminal insurance
fraud scam against my ICBC car insurance policy, not for the purpose of suing me in civil court.
My name was illegally misused by the Plaintiff's legal counsel and by ICBC and its lawyers for the
purpose of committing a criminal automobile insurance fraud scheme against my ICBC car
insurance policy. My name was illegally misused by the Plaintiff's legal counsel and by ICBC and
its lawyers for the purpose of committing legal suicide.
And instead of sharing the false accusations supposedly made by a Plaintiff in the sham Erle Stanley
Graham v. Callum Houston civil lawsuit with me, the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia
deliberately concealed the Plaintiff's false accusations from me. Neither Erle Stanley Graham's
Powell River, BC legal counsel nor the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia had any intention
of ever disclosing the bogus Erle Stanley Graham v. Callum Houston Writ of Summons and the
bogus Erle Stanley Graham v. Callum Houston Statement of Claim to me, the individual named as
the only Defendant in the sham Erle Stanley Graham v. Callum Houston civil lawsuit. Both Erle
Stanley Graham's Powell River, BC legal counsel and the Insurance Corporation of British
Columbia intended to unlawfully withhold the bogus Erle Stanley Graham v. Callum Houston Writ
of Summons and the bogus Erle Stanley Graham v. Callum Houston Statement of Claim from me.
I suppose it's true that since ICBC wasn't Erle Stanley Graham's legal counsel, ICBC had no lawful
obligation to serve me with the bogus Erle Stanley Graham v. Callum Houston Writ of Summons
and the bogus Erle Stanley Graham v. Callum Houston Statement of Claim. If the Writ of
Summons and the Statement of Claim haven't been served on the Defendant by the Plaintiff or by
the Plaintiff's legal counsel it's not the responsibility of a third party to serve the documents on the
Defendant. But ICBC did have one very important lawful obligation though. Since ICBC wasn't
named as a party in the sham Erle Stanley Graham v. Callum Houston civil lawsuit, ICBC had a
lawful obligation to take no action pursuant to the phony civil lawsuit whatsoever. Instead of going
along with a distasteful criminal insurance fraud scheme against one of its clients, ICBC had a lawful
obligation to refuse to take part in the criminal insurance fraud scam that Erle Stanley Graham's
Powell River, BC legal counsel was asking it to take part in against me and against my ICBC car
insurance policy.
And of course if need be I would use the August 5, 2005 Supreme Court of British Columbia
judgment that completely restricts the pursuit of any and all civil court relief sought from me after
the date of September 30, 2005 to stun any foolish lawyer who might dare to oppose me with
unlawful civil court action. According to the August 5, 2005 BC Supreme Court judgment, the
sham Erle Stanley Graham v. Callum Houston civil lawsuit was strictly prohibited by law and, as
such, I couldn't be held liable for any judgments pronounced against me in the action. Nor could I
be held liable for any judgments pronounced against me in favor of the Insurance Corporation of
British Columbia either.
The Vancouver, BC ICBC lawyer then wrote in his August 20, 2009 hate mail letter that because
I've stated on my website that I haven't been apprised of the accusations made against me in the
sham Erle Stanley Graham v. Callum Houston civil lawsuit, he had attached a copy of the bogus
Erle Stanley Graham v. Callum Houston Writ of Summons and a copy of the bogus Erle Stanley
Graham v. Callum Houston Statement of Claim that Erle Stanley Graham himself had personally
misfiled at the Supreme Court of British Columbia.
Oh boy. So here I had the Vancouver, BC ICBC law firm that had illegally misfiled a perjurious
May 28, 2008 Statement of Defence falsely attributed to me at the Supreme Court of British
Columbia openly admitting that it was fully aware that it knew that I had neither seen nor read Erle
Stanley Graham's bogus Statement of Claim in the sham Erle Stanley Graham v. Callum Houston
civil lawsuit.
And the Vancouver, BC ICBC lawyer was even lying about the criminally illegal misfiling of the
sham Erle Stanley Graham v. Callum Houston civil lawsuit at the Supreme Court of British
Columbia. According to the Vancouver, BC ICBC lawyer, it was Erle Stanley Graham himself who
illegally misfiled the bogus Erle Stanley Graham v. Callum Houston Writ of Summons and the
bogus Erle Stanley Graham v. Callum Houston Statement of Claim at the BC Supreme Court. This
was another big ICBC lie that could easily be disproved.
According to the bogus October 8, 2007 Erle Stanley Graham v. Callum Houston Writ of
Summons and the bogus October 9, 2007 Erle Stanley Graham v. Callum Houston Statement of
Claim which were both illegally misfiled and illegally stamped at the Powell River Registry of the
Supreme Court of British Columbia on the date of October 9, 2009, both phony civil court
documents were actually illegally misfiled at the courthouse by the Powell River, BC law firm that
claimed to represent Erle Stanley Graham in the sham civil court lawsuit. There is no evidence to
suggest that Erle Stanley Graham himself took any part in the criminally illegal misfiling of the sham
Erle Stanley Graham v. Callum Houston civil lawsuit at the Supreme Court of British Columbia.
Other than the use of his name as the Plaintiff on the fraudulent civil court documents, it doesn't
look as though Erle Stanley Graham had anything to do with the bogus Erle Stanley Graham v.
Callum Houston Writ of Summons and the bogus Erle Stanley Graham v. Callum Houston
Statement of Claim at all. Erle Stanley Graham hasn't signed either of the fraudulent civil court
documents so there's no proof or reason to believe that the false testimony attributed to Erle Stanley
Graham on the two invalid civil court documents actually originated from him. The only signature
to be found on both of the fraudulent civil court documents isn't Erle Stanley Graham's signature
but rather the signature of Erle Stanley Graham's scheming Powell River, BC attorney.
While Erle Stanley Graham (a.k.a. Earl Graham) is guilty of a lot of atrocious criminal misconduct,
he is quite obviously not guilty of illegally misfiling the bogus Erle Stanley Graham v. Callum
Houston Writ of Summons and the bogus Erle Stanley Graham v. Callum Houston Statement of
Claim at the Powell River Registry of the Supreme Court of British Columbia in 2007. The Powell
River, BC law firm that claimed to represent Erle Stanley Graham in the sham Erle Stanley Graham
v. Callum Houston civil lawsuit is clearly the party that is guilty of illegally misfiling the bogus Erle
Stanley Graham v. Callum Houston Writ of Summons and the bogus Erle Stanley Graham v.
Callum Houston Statement of Claim at the Powell River Registry of the Supreme Court of British
Columbia. ICBC had illegally diverted the blame for very serious acts of criminal perjury away
from the law firm that was actually guilty of the criminal perjury and had instead laid the blame for
criminal perjury on a third party who was not at all guilty of the criminal wrongdoing.
This is an excellent example of how lawyers absolutely refuse to take any responsibility for their
own misconduct and/or the misconduct of their associates and will always point the finger away
from themselves and at someone else. Contrary to what ICBC had stated in its August 20, 2009
hate mail letter, Erle Stanley Graham is not guilty of illegally misfiling the bogus Erle Stanley
Graham v. Callum Houston Writ of Summons and the bogus Erle Stanley Graham v. Callum
Houston Statement of Claim at the Powell River Registry of the Supreme Court of British
Columbia. In actual fact, Erle Stanley Graham's Powell River, BC legal counsel is the party guilty
of illegally misfiling the bogus Erle Stanley Graham v. Callum Houston Writ of Summons and the
bogus Erle Stanley Graham v. Callum Houston Statement of Claim at the Powell River Registry of
the Supreme Court of British Columbia
Then the lying Vancouver, BC ICBC lawyer ended his August 20, 2009 hate mail letter with more
lies in which he stated that ICBC was going to appoint yet another law-breaking British Columbia
Crown attorney to represent me without my consent or approval (another lawyer!) and that I can
expect to be contacted by this unidentified ICBC lawyer sometime in the future. Not only was this
not the truth, it was the exact opposite of the truth. What actually did happen is ICBC contacted me
a few months later to tell me it had retroactively canceled my automobile insurance policy (!) as
retaliation for me not going along with the recklessly criminal fraud-games that its Vancouver, BC
legal counsel was playing with my name and with my identity. The Vancouver, BC ICBC law firm
ratted me out to its client, the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia, and told ICBC to tear up
the automobile insurance policy I purchased from ICBC that was in effect on the date that Erle
Stanley Graham's Powell River, BC legal counsel and ICBC were using as the date for their fake hit-
and-run car accident.
Also, at the bottom of the first page of all of the letters I've received from ICBC's Vancouver, BC
legal counsel, the law firm has stated that it's a member of an international network of independent
law firms. Independent of what? The government? This simply isn't true. The law firm isn't
independent at all and this is just yet another blatant BC government lie. As a member of a
worldwide law firm chain the law firm can't be called independent. And the law firm certainly isn't
independent of the government, it's a Crown law firm that represents the government of British
Columbia for goodness sake.
See ICBC's August 20, 2009 statement HERE.
The rotten lawyers of the Canadian province of
British Columbia have devised a million ways of
ripping off their victims. The following article
explains how an army of cutthroat British Columbia
lawyers used a phony civil lawsuit with my name on
it to plunder a fortune in stolen cash from the
Insurance Corporation of British Columbia (ICBC),
a BC government car insurance monopoly. This
article is a follow-up to the first article I wrote on this
offensive BC government corruption matter which
can be read here: “ICBC-RCMP-ATTORNEY
GENERAL CONSPIRACY EXPOSED.”
British Columbia have devised a million ways of
ripping off their victims. The following article
explains how an army of cutthroat British Columbia
lawyers used a phony civil lawsuit with my name on
it to plunder a fortune in stolen cash from the
Insurance Corporation of British Columbia (ICBC),
a BC government car insurance monopoly. This
article is a follow-up to the first article I wrote on this
offensive BC government corruption matter which
can be read here: “ICBC-RCMP-ATTORNEY
GENERAL CONSPIRACY EXPOSED.”
| "ICBC-RCMP-ATTORNEY GENERAL CONSPIRACY EXPOSED PART 2" BY CALLUM HOUSTON |
LINKS TO DOCUMENTS:
ICBC Statement August 20, 2009
ICBC Letter August 20, 2009
Erle Stanley Graham Writ of Summons
October 8, 2007
Erle Stanley Graham Statement of Claim
October 9, 2007
ICBC Statement December 3, 2009
ICBC Statement February 10, 2010
The Law Society of British Columbia
Misconduct Review March 23, 2010
ICBC Statement August 20, 2009
ICBC Letter August 20, 2009
Erle Stanley Graham Writ of Summons
October 8, 2007
Erle Stanley Graham Statement of Claim
October 9, 2007
ICBC Statement December 3, 2009
ICBC Statement February 10, 2010
The Law Society of British Columbia
Misconduct Review March 23, 2010
1 / 7