<![if !vml]> <![endif]>From the desk of:
Captain E. G. da Costa
January 15, 2007
Honorable Judge de Couto:
<![if !supportLists]> 1. <![endif]> July 4, 2006, Judge Steinberg adjourned my private prosecution against RCMP Sgt. Mark Peers, file 67891.
<![if !supportLists]> 2. <![endif]> October 24, 2006, Crown Counsel Julian Greenwood issued an unconditional stay of proceedings, file 67140, clearing the forgery charge against my name.
<![if !supportLists]> 3. <![endif]> November 14, 2006, the RCMP Civil Litigation Analysis Unit, acknowledged payment of my expenses. This opens negotiations for a financial settlement.
<![if !supportLists]> 4. <![endif]> December 11, 2006, Cst. Valentine, RCMP West Coast Marines Services, returned all my property.
<![if !supportLists]> 5. <![endif]> January 2, 2007, I met with Dr. Metzak, my family doctor and with Dr. Griffin, my psychiatrist, for their medical assessment. Both doctors are officially mentioned within the relevant court files.
The events, herein described, reflect approximately TWO THOUSAND pieces of paper, exhibiting; letters, faxes, documents, certificates, court applications, ship drawings, court transcripts, and stability data. In Addition, approximately TWELVE HOURS of recorded interviews with witnesses and graphic information released from United States of America, Homeland Security, all add testimony to the severity of neglect and criminal activity displayed by Canadian Government officials, namely a member of the RCMP, Sgt. Mark G. Peers and five officials of Transport Canada, James Lawson, Brian Kenefick, Colin Currivan, David Motion and Goeff Sedan.
Please note, the content of this letter reflects document and graphic evidence not included. A full description of events is reserved for future court hearings accompanied by the relevant evidence. Event descriptions herein narrated, can be confusing without a visual review of document and graphic evidence. I will respond to any request for clarification.
Whether I agree with all the rulings of the New Westminster Provincial Court Judges involved with the above-mentioned court files, or not, it is irrelevant. The end result indicate that full disclosure was my right and so it was ordered by the court and provided by the crown, much to the dissatisfaction of those within the civil service exhibiting criminal and misleading intentions. Purposely, I use the words “criminal intentions”, to reflect my allegations of criminal activity originating from government officials, above-mentioned. Thanks to full disclosure, asserted by Judges under your administrative rule, resulted on the subsequent stay of proceedings and the return of all my property, exposing additional evidence that fully support my criminal allegations against Sgt. Mark G. Peers, court file 67891, presently adjourned by Judge Steinberg’s ruling.
Acknowledging evidence, acquired via full disclosure, the charges against Sgt. Mark G. Peers must follow the appropriate judicial process, demanding additional charges against the above-named Transport Canada Officials, specifically; James Lawson, Brian Kenefick, Colin Currivan, David Motion and Goeff Sedan.
To facilitate a quick understanding of the type of criminal activity, the following sections of the Criminal Code encompass my allegations and severity of their criminal activity:
Section 78.1 (2)
Section 298 (1) (2)
Section 299 (a) (b) (c)
Section 131, 132
Section 463 (a)
Section 465 (1) (b)
Specific to Transport Canada officials:
Section 140 (1) (a) (b) (c)
Already known, that the charge of forgery against my good name was stayed, events involving my actions to stop an unseaworthy ship from departing Canada to USA waters are relevant, indicating that the M/V El Conquistador is detained in USA waters out of Canadian jurisdiction, attesting to activities of Government officials showing a determined interest to allow an unseaworthy and dangerously modified ship to depart to USA. Surely, Criminal Code Section 78.1 (2) must take precedence, acting as the lead criminal activity involving the above-mentioned civil servants. Count 5, forming part of Form 2 – Information, outlining charges against RCMP Sgt. Mark G. Peers, alleges an accessory after the fact, contrary to Section 463 (a). With additional evidence now available, this type of charge must extent to Transport Canada Officials.
Sergeant M. G. Peers, member of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, on July 30, 2002, advised Mr. Shon Nickel, owner of the M/V El Conquistador (ex-Gulf Ivy) O.N. 170259, IMO 5180520, at Allied Shipyard, located in North Vancouver, Province of British Columbia, that Mr. Nickel’s ship would be served a detention order, knowingly that Mr. Nickel’s had endangered the safety of his ship, contrary to Section 78.1 (2) of the Criminal Code. Subsequently, Sergeant M. G. Peers allowed the M/V El Conquistador to depart North Vancouver, Province of British Columbia, contributing in a secondary way to the crime of Mr. Shon Nickel, stated above. Sergeant M. G. Peers, an accessory after the fact, assisted Mr. Shon Nickel, knowing that Mr. Nickel committed an indictable offence punishable by life imprisonment. Thus, Sergeant M. G. Peers, attempt to commit indictable offence punishable by life imprisonment (principal offence other than murder), contrary to Section 463 (a) of the Criminal Code.
This event, allowing an unseaworthy and dangerously modified ship to leave port, is the focal point of all other events involving the M/V Gulf Ivy/El Conquistador and the relationship between Shon Nickel and Transport Canada/RCMP Sgt. Mark G. Peers team. Summarizing what the evidence clearly demonstrates, I will outline within paragraphs that follow, specifics of such evidence with an interest to prevent future comments from the Judiciary, under your administrative rule, showing an interest to protect civil servants from criminal prosecution. Specifically, Judge Challenger’s past conduct, also remembering and attesting to the neutrality shown by the majority of Judges. In General, it is imperative, that a ruling Judge fully comprehend the evidence before rulings or bench comments are forwarded to the participants.
The amount of evidence detail, presently available, reflects the respect and
cooperation awarded to me by members of the RCMP West Coast Marine Services. I
am sure, Your Honor will agree, that blaming the RCMP for the criminal activity
of one member and failing to praise those that cared to bring forth truth, from
within such institution, serves no purpose to the rule of law. Also, allowing an
unseaworthy ship to depart
No official from Transport
The Attorney General of BC has wide powers to intervene in a private
prosecution, choosing to ignore the evidence that was available to him from the
RCMP. Instead, he met the standard of flagrant impropriety, with proof of
misconduct bordering on corruption, violation of the law, bias against or for a
particular individual or offence. Three letters, September 23, September 26, and
October 17, 2005, were sent to this individual, mandated to prosecute criminals.
The letter sent on
From the date of detention, to ship’s departure, bound for the deep waters of
the Pacific Ocean, sometime in November 2002, the above-mentioned Canadian
officials permitted Shon Nickel, the owner of the vessel, to continue to modify
and add equipment to an unseaworthy ship. At the end of the four months, July
2002 to November 2002, they allowed the ship to depart in a worse condition than
before their detention of
“….a signatory to that agreement is not the (Canadian) justice system the justice system is not bound by that agreement (IMO Conventions)”.
This statement attests to the flagrant impropriety of the Attorney General of BC, allowing his representative, Stan T. Lowe, to maintain a state of ignorance about laws that govern all of us, Canadians.
In addition, to previously described, misleading statements originating from Crown Counsel Irene Plett, before the honorable court, I remain appalled at her dedicated interest to sabotage any chance, provided by the rule of law that I had to defend the charge of forgery against my good name. As per the honorable court, under your honor’s administrative rule, full disclosure became an issue to deal with, not to disobey an order of the court, as per Irene Plett’s intended purpose.
The mannerism, before the honorable court, of the Attorney General’s
representative, Bruce Stewart, again questions the intentions of the Ministry.
Crown Counsel Bruce Stewart intervened on behalf of the Attorney General, during
my private prosecution of RCMP Sgt. Mark G. Peers, court file 67891. Throughout
all the hearings, this individual never inspected the evidence to ascertain
truth. Several times, I advised Crown Counsel Bruce Stewart to contact the
Office of the Attorney General, both Federal or Provincial, to obtain the
exhibit report used before Supreme Court Judge Pitfield on April 7, 2006.
Further, after advising Crown counsel Bruce Stewart of the evidence, I was made
aware via Crown Counsel V. Toselli that Provincial Crown Counsel Office was
fully informed of the Supreme Court Proceedings before Judge Pitfield. Both,
Crown Counsel V. Toselli and Federal Crown Counsel L. Lachance displayed the
Exhibit Report on
Crown Counsel Bruce Stewart maintained the same tradition initiated by Crown Counsel Irene Plett, by a statement before Judge Pothecary that I was charged with falsifying a “certificate of sale of a ship”. Upon my demand for justice indicating this behavior to be of a defamatory nature, Judge Pothecary praised Crown Counsel for his honesty and knowledge. Clearly exemplified, Crown Counsel Bruce Stewart used the praise mannerism of Judge Pothecary to further destroy my good name.
A quick comparison between members of the RCMP, West Coast Marine Services, and the above-mentioned Attorney General and his representatives, clearly shows the RCMP wanting the truth to be heard, while the less-than-honorable Ministry wanting to convict an innocent man, indicating that an unseaworthy ship should be allowed to depart Canada to the open waters of the Pacific Ocean, endorsed by grossly incompetent Transport Canada Officials. Surely, a dark day in the history books of the International Maritime Organization is evident.
Concluding the flagrant impropriety behavior of the Ministry, their failure to examine the evidence at the onset of criminal proceedings against my good name, directly caused damage to my professional reputation, robbed one year and five months out from my free enjoyment of life, wasted taxpayer’s money in court costs, and achieving the ultimate; failing to follow and enforce our nation’s rule of law. Emphasizing, the evidence available to the Ministry, from the RCMP, was complete from the onset of proceedings, in comparison to what they allowed me to have.
Summarized Evidence, M/V Gulf Ivy/El Conquistador
The following narrative, describing evidence obtained from the RCMP West Coast Marine Services, and evidence obtained via court order, is presented in a summarized format.
Not a single piece of document evidence, removed from my office on
Evidence shows that Transport Canada officials were the only ones in possession of copies and originals, making it almost impossible for anyone else to create such forgeries without their assistance. This is further attested by other witnesses, indicating that these documents were never left abandoned onboard the M/V Gulf Ivy. Clearly, indicating that these certificates and copies resided in Transport Canada offices and perhaps on the hands of past owners of the M/V Gulf Ivy, unknown to me or Shon Nickel. To further complicate matters, unfortunately, nothing originating from Transport Canada makes any sense in a legal format.
A detailed review of past data, governing certificates and inspections conducted
onboard the M/V Gulf Ivy by Transport
The Official Transcript of Registry states that the M/V Gulf Ivy, Official No.
170259, IMO No. 5180520 was registered on
The earliest certificates removed from my office dated to 1980 covering an
inspection period from 1980 to 1985, just prior to the ones used on the
forgeries covering from 1985 to 1990 period. Since 1985, Transport Canada, had a
strong reason to hide certificates and memos dealing with the M/V Swiftsure X.
Transport Canada inspector, R. R. Upadhyaya issued an inspection certificate
under the name Swiftsure X while Transport Canada inspector, GEO. Kosanovich
issued an inspection certificate under the name Gulf Ivy, and Transport Canada,
Ottawa HQ, issued an International Load Line Certificate under the name
Swiftsure X. And, the evidence does not end with certificate illegal
manipulation, there is more. A memo dated November 12, 1985, from Transport
Canada, Ottawa, signed by T.G.W. Brown, instructs the Vancouver office that the
deepest loaded draft is only 10.76 ft not 11’-1” previously approved by the same
inspector. According to the original drawings of the M/V Gulf Ivy, the sister
ship to the M/V Abitibi, presently sailing the
(2) The May 2002, Stability Booklet that I prepared for Shon Nickel, following an inclining experiment onboard the M/V Gulf Ivy/El Conquistador, was purposely stapled and glued to prevent modifications by Shon Nickel or anyone else. A ship’s stability book is vital to safe operation, governed by strict regulations, both Canadian and International. Tampering with such a document is a criminal offence by Jeopardizing safety.
A secondary issue exists, with greater importance to false stamps above-mentioned, the issue of taking the book apart and ignoring the content. Obviously, a ship must be designed to remain upright when floating in the water. A naval architect conducting an inclining experiment is concerned with whether a vessel will return to an initial state of static equilibrium when disturbed by an unbalanced force or moment. The inclining experiment allows the naval architect to find the overall center of gravity of the vessel (VCG) relating to the load condition at the time of the experiment. After the VCG of the vessel is established, the naval architect is able to, via a series of mathematical calculation, produce simulated load conditions with an interest to learn the vessel’s overall stability characteristics.
The overall content of my stability book indicated the M/V Gulf Ivy ability to maintain a state of equilibrium throughout various simulated conditions. Yet, I told Shon Nickel, repeatedly since 2001, to scrap the vessel. One of the reasons was boldly written in red on the forth page of my Stability Booklet. The following is an excerpt from my stability book prepared on May 2002.
This condition has been modified to include the engine cooling liquid inside Tank (engwtrtk.c) and the concrete inside Tank (solidb01.c) and inside Tank (solidb02.c) as part of the total fixed weight of the vessel. A weight of 2.6 LTons reflects additional Galley Equipment installed after the inclining test.
The Master or Chief Engineer of the vessel must exercise extreme caution when discharging engine cooling water from Tank (engwtrtk.c). Should it become necessary to empty this tank for inspection and maintenance purposes. The Fuel Tanks (fueltk.s and fueltk.p) and Fresh Water Tank (fwtk.c) must be full.
Only, a grossly incompetent marine inspector would ignore this warning allowing
the M/V El Conquistador to sail away from its dock. The proper procedure would
involve the marine inspector alerting a Transport Canada naval architect, in
this case Mr. Jerzy Trzesicki, Transport Canada Marine,
Now arriving at a third issue, the internal structural condition of the M/V El Conquistador, displaying visually, extreme dilapidation and missing internal parts. Again, only a grossly incompetent marine inspector would miss the following: The M/V Gulf Ivy O. N. 170259, displayed a hull with its collision bulkhead severely perforated, the stern bulkhead half removed, stern ballast tanks longitudinal structure removed, forward tank tops removed, scantlings maximum water line submerged, hull showing severe corrosion within its mid body near the seachests, additions to its superstructure surpassing a safe level for the type of vessel design and approximately 100 tons of solid ballast added to prevent capsizing, clearly, endangering the safety of the M/V Gulf Ivy/El Conquistador, Criminal Code, Section 87 (1).
Concluding these three issues, it is important to mention that I was not the
only Canadian naval architect to send warnings to Transport
“Please note that this letter has been drafted to satisfy the explicit
requirements of TCMS (Transport
I am sure the
(3) Disclosure produced the hand written notes of Brian Kenefick and Colin Currivan. Brian Kenefick states the following:
“Shon got documents from Duarte and sent them to his lawyer and the lawyer sent
to Venezuela where he was told the documents were no good” …….”Duarte took
documents for the ship about the time he did the stability” ……. “ Shon confirmed
A recorded statement of Philip Arthur Nickel taken
Shon Nickel: “Yeah because, cause, uh,
The RCMP West Coast Marine Services, via Crown Counsel, released the original tape recordings of this interview. Shon Nickel, not only, relates my instructions to RCMP Sgt. Mark G. Peers but adds the following, clearing me from any involvement with forgeries:
Sgt. Mark Peers: “Okay, so uh, what you forwarded to your lawyer, um, uh, you, basically you should have been able to determine that we were short a few certificates. Believing that (a) you had a current inspection of the vessel – that’s there, you believed that you had a certificate of Tonnage but, um, no evidence in the package of a Seaworthiness Certificate?
Shon Nickel: “No, this was, um, but no inspection and I had
Pursuing the above-mentioned subject further, brings forth my recorded interview
with Shon’s attorney, Mr. Luis Cuervo, confirming my desire to stop the M/V Gulf
Ivy from departing
Available evidence, collected during tape recorded interviews with witnesses is extensive, involving more than twelve hours. Whatever method is used to analyze my behavior, dealing with Shon Nickel’s interest to find a way to depart Vancouver onboard his unseaworthy ship, the M/V El Conquistador, by using false certificates, the result negate any confusion about my participation preventing the ship from departure for unsafe conditions.
Dating back to 2001 when I contacted Transport Canada Ship Registry,
On the last few days of August, 2002, I returned to
Soon after the call to David Motion I found a business card under my office door
located at 800 Boyd Street, New Westminster, BC. The card showed the name B. T.
Kenefick (604) 666-4684, Transport
Hand Written Notes of Brian Kenefick, Manager Inspection Services,
The conduct of Brian Kenefick, during events involving Shon Nickel and his vessel the M/V Gulf Ivy/El Conquistador, merits this separate summarized account of his actions, reflecting his own hand written notes, including excerpts from my fax to Crown Counsel Irene Plett, dated July 27, 2006, reflecting her interview with Brian Kenefick on September 23, 2005. Sharing equal responsibility for action taken by Brian Kenefick, are his immediate superior James Lawson and his underling Colin Currivan, both bluntly mentioned on his notes.
Firstly, it is important to analyze what Brian Kenefick said to Crown Counsel Irene Plett. Whenever the following excerpts mention “Your Letter”, it indicates Crown Counsel Irene Plett’s letter to me on the respective date mentioned. Whenever it mentions “Reply” it indicates my reply to Crown Counsel Irene Plett.
Interview with Brian Kenefick of Transport
Your letter States: 7) Any
inspection report or documentation showing the vessel’s seaworthiness after
Reply: According to audio recorded witness statements giving to me, no list of
conditions exist and none met, indicating the above-mentioned Transport
According to the
121. (1) Every person who, or vessel that, contravenes any of the following commits an offence:
Canadian vessels and foreign vessels
105. This Part applies in respect of Canadian vessels, other than pleasure craft, everywhere and in respect of foreign vessels in Canadian waters.
118. No person shall take any action that might jeopardize the safety of a vessel or of persons on board.
Submerging load lines
(2) The master of a vessel shall ensure that the applicable load lines on the vessel are not submerged.
Your letter states: 8) Longitudinal Strength calculations to support load line modifications after or before 1979: Mr. Kenefick advises that this would not exist, The strength is never recalculated, as hull strength is maintained through inspections.
Reply: As previously stated, Transport
Your letter stated: - After the ship was detained, Mr. Nickel re-registered it as a yacht, out of the commercial category. Mr. Nickel got a Naval Architect to say it was seaworthy.
Reply: Again, another attempt to omit facts, the M/V El Conquistador is above
300 Gross tons requiring proper stability and safe structure.
The Canadian Criminal Code Section 78.1 (2) (endangered the safety of a
ship) prevents vessel owners regardless of type, commercial or pleasure, from
endangering a vessel. Presently, the Naval Architect, supposedly hired by Shon
Nickel, does not exist. Within the list of witnesses presented to the court, two
individuals; Capt. Hoddevik and Capt. Grabowski, stated during a recorded
interview, that no seaworthy papers were issued to M/V El Conquistador. Instead,
they both stated that Transport
“I don’t think it is as simple as one person being incompetent it’s a problem with the whole organization”.
Your letter stated: …I also spoke
to Mr. Kenefick about your suggestion that Mr. Duarte had the vessel detained
by American authorities because of his concerns about it being unsafe.
Mr. Kenefick expressed the view that this was unlikely, as the vessel left
Reply: Upon receiving your letter of
Reply: Regarding numerous requirements of the vessel to ensure it was watertight
before allowing it to sail, it is a grossly irresponsible attitude emerging from
individuals entrusted to safeguard ship’s crew and the public from harm.
Thirty-six years providing professional Naval Architect services to the marine
industry, seldom I heard of ships sinking due to a lack of water tightness. Most
ships sink due to stormy seas, loss of stability, flooding from structure
failure, capsizing from improper loading, structure failure from poor
construction methods, collisions, groundings and, in the case of the Canadian BC
Ferries M/V Queen of the North sinking, from an incompetent bridge crew
exercising criminal negligence. A subject of great importance relating to M/V
Queen of the North disaster involves Transport
Reply: Unfortunately, ignoring my warnings about the unseaworthiness of the M/V
El Conquistador continued to Gerard McDonald, Director General, Marine Safety,
As per our recent telephone conversation, I am requesting an explanation from you relating to the events surrounding the tug ex-Gulf Ivy (ex-Swiftsure X). The events in question concern a vessel taken out of registry and sailing from one port authority to another within Canadian ports. The vessel sailed from the Fraser River Port Authority to Vancouver Port Authority unregistered, flying the Venezuela flag, no life saving equipment, questionable stability condition, hull flooding (Hull around the seachests perforated), fire mains not working, and engine telegraph not working. The engine telegraph failure resulted in a collision with the departure dock.
Prior to the sailing Transport
Your cooperation-is appreciated. Awaiting your reply, sincerely,
The incompetent Gerard McDonald reply on October 24, 2002:
“Dear Mr. Duarte
SUBJECT: TUG EX-GULF IVY (EX SWIFTSURE XI
Thank you for your facsimile message dated
For your information, Transport
As advised in your facsimile, the vessel was not registered in
I trust the above information clarifies the situation. Please do not hesitate to contact me should you require anything further.
Gerard McDonald Director General Marine Safety
c.c. J. Lawson, TM J. Young, AJ”
Note: This letter was c.c. to J. Lawson, General Manager,
David Collenette, Minister of Transport, statement following Gerard McDonald’s letter:
“TRANSPORT MINISTER RELEASES
OTTAWA - Transport Minister David Collenette today released Transport Canada's Marine Safety Port State Control 2002 Annual Report to update Canada's efforts to eradicate substandard shipping in Canadian waters. The report publishes inspection, deficiency and detention data for visiting vessels operating in Canadian waters in 2002.
"Canada plays a leading role in international efforts to bring vessels worldwide
in line with international and Canadian standards and will continue enforcement
action against operators who fall short of these requirements," said Mr.
Collenette. "The commitment from participating countries to
Note: When will this bulshit end? Obviously, Gerard McDonald is not aware that
his job is to stop sub-standard ships. His mandate requires all safety branch
Your fax stated: Mr. Kenefick also advised the following:
- B. Grabowski initially saw the false documents on the ship and alerted
Reply: A clear pictures of events begins to unfold, if Shon Nickel had false
documents in his possession onboard his vessel, when did he submit the documents
to any authorities, including Venezuelan authorities? According to Luis Cuervo
statement, Shon Nickel did not submitting anything to authorities as per my
instructions to both Luis Cuervo and Lee Keevil, early 2002. At best, Shon
Nickel is guilty of contemplating the production of false certificates, to
register his vessel. Capt. Grabowski provided recorded statements on
Reply: Absolutely, “YES”. Incompetent Brian Kenefick received my warning about
Shon’s illegal drug activities and told to have the RCMP present when boarding
the M/V El Conquistador. You are welcome to inspect the M/V El Conquistador,
presently moored in Coos Bay, Oregon, and see Shon’s modifications to transport
illegal drugs. Obviously, someone has to show you where the hidden compartments
are located, an offer I presented to Brian Kenefick. Unfortunately, the issue of
drugs does not end here, sometime after my relationship with Shon Nickel ended,
May 2002, several ship workers told me to call the hotel where Shon Nickel
stayed, located in
Hand written notes of Brian Kenefick:
Brian Kenefick is a man that holds a manager position entrusted to safe guard
the safety of ship crews and the public. Using his own hand writing, he stated:
Canadian documents would have international consequences as we …. Duty bound to
inform the Venezuelan Authorities of the possibility that the El Conquistador ….
be entering with false documents”. Today, the M/V El Conquistador
remains docked in
Analyzing the behavior of Brian Kenefick and the other two Transport Canada Officials, James Lawson and Colin Currivan, in depth or at a glance, it is clear, nothing they did related to Marine Safety.
An Issue of Defamatory Libel
Published statements forward to the crown, without lawful justification or
excuse, indicate a desire to defame my excellent professional reputation. For
example, David Motion, Senior Marine Inspector, Transport
“he is of Spanish decent, um, he’s dark skinned and, uh, he must be about 5 foot”.
Clarifying a strong desire to insult my character and heritage in addition to other remarks implying that I do not have the knowledge to be a naval architect. Further quoting David Motion:
“He, I have to say that I did have a bit of, I did have doubt that, um, some of the questions he asked me left me with the impression that he wasn't that experienced and knowledgeable, fully experienced and knowledgeable with what we were dealing with. Um, initially when we discussed this he went off talking about second polar moments of rotation which is totally, he said to me, I said no, you're dealing completely off the wrong track and suspicious about his actual background”.
This statement indicates a desire to injure my professional reputation, yet indicating Motion’s ignorance of simple applied mathematics designed to calculate strength of materials applied to shafts. It follows; specific tables providing Section Moduli and Moments of inertia for round shafts use the term Polar Section Modulus for a shaft of a given diameter. The word, “second”, above-mentioned maintains Motion’s ignorance of the term “Polar Section Modulus” for a shaft of a given diameter. Several popular “strength of materials handbooks”, publish Information of this nature.
Perhaps, to the average Portuguese, calling them Spanish descendants would not seriously affect their mindset. Yet, hearing this type of slander from a professional individual connected with the marine industry indicates malicious intent to defame my heritage. David Motion had knowledge of my ancestry, prior to the interview above-mentioned, from articles published in my website. Past comments about my website, originating from David Motion, indicate his review of published articles about my ancestors and their connection with ocean discoveries.
My ancestral grandfather, Captain Alvaro Martins Homem, Portuguese, Honored
Knight of the Order of Christ, a Great Navigator, arriving on the shores of the
New World, today known as the continent of North America, in 1450, forty two
years before Cristovao Colon arrival in Espanhola. He laid the foundation for
Not related to the content of this letter, Your Honor’s last name, Couto, is mentioned on the archives of Angra do Heroismo as a founding name, relating to the first families that settle there under the blessing of Infante Dom Henrique (Henry the Navigator). I have copies of these archived documents should an interest arise to discover related ancestry. These archived documents are written in Old Portuguese, where a description of the origin of Couto is clearly described.
The first maps of
My professional career at sea began at an early age of sixteen. Exposure to racism has accompanied my career from the rank of deck boy to captain, where my involvement with racist conflicts always resulted in praise and thanks from co-workers and my crew. I have never been called a racist and never indicated that my skin plays a distinction in my character from others. Describing me as “dark skinned” when I am of white origin, indicates malicious intent directed at portraying my character what it is not. Issuing a description of Spanish descendant and “dark skinned” without lawful justification or excuse assures intent to injure my reputation, exposing me to ridicule, completely robbing me of my heritage and individual character.
For example, within my household, my wife, a person showing a darker skin than
mine, dislikes the idea of being introduced as a white person, it robs her of
her Asian Pacific heritage. The Canadian Criminal Code is very specific about
defamatory libel, sections 298 and 299 demonstrate that David Motion defamatory
intent is not tolerated in
“Below is Mr. Duarte’s web address. http://sealegacy.com/index.htm” On this site he declares himself to be a Marine Chemist.
I followed up on this claim and found he is unknown to the regulating body under which a Canadian Marine Chemist would be registered. I think this body is the Canadian Society of Chemists, my recollection of this may be incorrect.
He was using this qualification to issue certificates declaring compartments on marine vessels to be “Gas Free” and safe for work.
At the time I located the nearest: Marine Chemist practicing in this area. He
was located in the
He informed me that his profession was a close community where the practitioners knewn each other in any given area, however, he had never heard of Captain Duarte”.
Reading these words, originating from Colin Currivan, I can not dismiss the rage
that passes through my veins. With these few words, Colin Currivan succeeded in
injuring my excellent reputation; numerous times praised for saving shipyard
workers from blowing themselves up. Also, he made me question the rule of law
allowing this …… to “get away with it”, so far. How would any judge under your
honor’s administrative rule feel if an ….. Colin Currivan asked a judiciary
My Marine Chemist career began with the creation of my company, Tedley Marine
Inc. and the performance of emergency work onboard the
Unfortunately, targeting my professional character with intent to destroy my
reputation became the full time job of James Lawson, Brian Kenefick, Colin
Currivan, David Motion, and Geoff Sedan throughout this ordeal, now embracing
five years. Various local clients and shipyard owners warned me of continuous
comments originating from David Motion and Geoff Sedan, reflecting negatively on
my chances to receive approvals from Transport
In comparison, The United States Coast Guard,
Presenting a full account of their
defamatory behavior, against my good name, requires the cooperation of
witnesses. These witnesses are my clients, placing them in a position of
The list of Transport
Canadian Criminal Code definition:
298. (1) A defamatory libel is matter published, without lawful justification or excuse, that is likely to injure the reputation of any person by exposing him to hatred, contempt or ridicule, or that is designed to insult the person of or concerning whom it is published.
Mode of expression:
(2) A defamatory libel may be expressed directly or by insinuation or irony
(a) in words legibly marked on any substance; or
(b) by any object signifying a defamatory libel otherwise than by words.
299. A person publishes a libel when he
(a) exhibits it in public;
(b) causes it to be read or seen; or
(c) shows or delivers it, or causes it to be shown or delivered, with intent that it should be read or seen by the person whom it defames or by any other person
Justice delayed is justice denied
The fundamental issue involving time spent before the
Under s. 507(1), the justice must hear and consider, ex parte, the allegations of the informant and, if it is desirable or necessary to do so, the evidence of witnesses, thereby to determine whether or what process should issue to compel the accused appearance. Any evidence must be taken under oath and recorded in the manner described in ss. 507(3) and 540.
The purpose of filing charges against the RCMP Sergeant Peers, involve crimes
committed for the purpose of distorting evidence in the favor of incompetent
civil servants, a practice that has to be stopped. Federal case law indicates
this civil servant attitude, to be of concern to
The life of a true mariner does not represent an easy life. My life, while at sea, providing services related to naval architecture, marine chemist and inspector for two state-flags has exposed me to all sorts of individuals and events that merit a look at life asking its worth. Issuing load line certificates, ship safety certificates and manning certificates on behalf of two State-Flags has exposed me to the criminal element, when careful steps are taken at all times. It is naïve to think that the criminal element only resides outside the State, and the State is always right.
Entering my office, using fabricated statements not available from the Canada
Shipping Act, with intent to search for something that Transport Canada and RCMP
can use against me, not allowing for an explanation about confidential files,
originating from past services, far from
The reality of my involvement with the modifications to the M/V Gulf Ivy
produced two distinctive sides. Transport
The United States Coast Guard agrees with my assessment and maintains puzzlement
I ask, who are the victims, of my actions? Yet, I know the victims of Transport
Instructions from Supreme Court Judge Pitfield
Judge Pitfield instructions and comments. Notes take on
“The criminal system…..you either have a public prosecution or a private prosecution…..an offense has been committed”.
“It is open to the complainant to secure your own information. The criminal code then provides process….to monitor private prosecutions”.
“In the event that there is new evidence…. The code is silent. (refers to the hearing before Judge Pitfield, not in general terms)”.
“Judicial review, is a review of a decision and process followed by Judge Challenger”.
“I should say a couple of things…..you must…an individual….acts for themselves….as the right to do so and the courts go to great length to ensure, are afforded the protection of the law”.
“The public and the community generally respect the work that is done by the law enforcement officers in the country…..they are to be commended when it’s appropriate to commend them and they are to be reprimanded when it’s appropriate to reprimand them”.
Attitude during court proceedings:
“Ask for advice and instruction how it is that you should proceed in relation to this matter .… and when the provincial court gives you directions…..if you don’t understand then you should ask…and you should ensure that you act in the appropriate manner”.
“…….represent themselves and we have to respect that and accommodate that…..that is all I am really offering at this point”.
Concluding this letter, Your Honor noticed that throughout, I used the word
incompetent, rather than criminal, to describe Transport
“Laws help to ensure a safe and peaceful society in which people's rights are respected. The Canadian legal system respects individual rights, while at the same time ensuring that our society operates in an orderly manner. An essential principle is that the same law applies to everybody, including the police, governments and public officials, who must carry out their public duties according to the law”.
“Laws are also aimed at ensuring fairness. By recognizing and protecting basic individual rights and freedoms, such as liberty and equality, our laws ensure that stronger groups and individuals do not use their powerful positions to take unfair advantage of weaker groups or people”.
“Our legal system, based on a tradition of law and justice, gives Canadian society a valuable framework. The rule of law, freedom under the law, democratic principles, and respect for others form the foundations of this important heritage”.
Department of Justice
I request the Honorable Judge de Couto, to assure fair hearings to determine the
appropriate schedule of events satisfying Judge Pitfield’s Ruling, court file
67891. Also, I request a future fair review of events involving the criminal
allegations against the above-mentioned Transport
Further, I believe our Great Nation does not merit embarrassment of this type, being the duty of honorable citizens and judges to assure the rule of law prevails.
This letter is not confidential. Copies will be distributed to all parties connected with Court File 67891, and parties mentioned within this letter. A copy of the letter is inserted in the respective Court File 67891, thus assuring the content to be public.
My request for justice is not a reflection of a relationship between Your Honor and I, it is a reflection of how I perceive my Canadian Government, rather than individual judges serving the Provincial Courts of New Westminster.
Captain E. G. da Costa Duarte
<![if !vml]> <![endif]>
Click to Return; The Flag of Inconvenience Page