From the desk of:


Captain E. G. da Costa Duarte





January 15, 2007


Honorable Judge de Couto:


Since June 8, 2006, when I sent the honorable Judge a letter outlining my concerns, five major events involving court files 63646-1, 67140 and 67891, transpired.


1.  July 4, 2006, Judge Steinberg adjourned my private prosecution against RCMP Sgt. Mark Peers, file 67891.

2. October 24, 2006, Crown Counsel Julian Greenwood issued an unconditional stay of proceedings, file 67140, clearing the forgery charge against my name.

3. November 14, 2006, the RCMP Civil Litigation Analysis Unit, acknowledged payment of my expenses. This opens negotiations for a financial settlement.

4. December 11, 2006, Cst. Valentine, RCMP West Coast Marines Services, returned all my property.

5. 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 122

Section 126

Section 137

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.


Count 5

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 Canada, while charging me with forgery, the only individual that continuously tried to stop such, subsequently embarrassing the whole nation before our USA neighbors, merits a judiciary resolution. I am sure this preceding statement is shared by most of us that care to preserve the rule of law within our Great Nation, Canada.

No official from Transport Canada, from the Minister down, ever intervened in these events, now spanning five years, with an interest to correct their wrongdoing or apologize to me and our USA neighbors. This attitude is extended to the Attorney General of BC for his flagrant impropriety behavior before Court Judges under your honor’s administrative rule and before Supreme Court Judge Pitfield.


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 October 17, 2005 included a copy of a letter originating from the United States Coast Guard (USCG), Homeland Security, signed by the Captain of the Port, thanking me for my commitment to detain the M/V El Conquistador for unseaworthy reasons. The letter also included a detail description of the vessel’s unsafe condition. These statements are fully supported by the behavior of Stan Lowe, Irene Plett and Bruce Stewart, all representatives of the Attorney General of BC. Rather than describe in detail the behavior of the Attorney General’s office, I will detail events that remain in my mind, attesting to their less-than-honorable conduct. 


Stan Lowe:

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 July 30, 2002. To date, Transport Canada, RCMP Sgt. Mark G. Peers and the Attorney General of British Columbia failed to provide an explanation for this criminal activity. The only reply regarding Mr. Shon’s ship came from Stan T. Lowe, Office of the Attorney General, Communication Counsel, Criminal Justice Branch, in a statement given to me (Capt. E. G. da Costa Duarte) on December 1, 2005 regarding IMO conventions signed by Canada.

“….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.


Irene Plett:

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.

On August 23, 2006, I arrived at the doorstep of the RCMP, West Coast Marine Services, Nanaimo, BC, to view and inspect all the evidence, specifically, evidence that was missing. After greeting the receptionist, I met Sgt. A. Brinton, who promptly advised me of a telephone call originating from Crown Counsel Irene Plett, telling him not to show me the evidence. I was only to see one forged document, one that was available since the beginning of the court file. Shocked by this request, I advised Sgt. Brinton that she was again wasting my time and that I saw no reason to waste his time either, stating that the best solution was to return to the court and inform the Judge. Without hesitation, Sgt. Brinton called the custodian of evidence and the three of us proceeded to an empty office where all the evidence was placed in front of me, to inspect and photograph. This episode is disturbing, to say the least. Why, would crown counsel Irene Plett dismiss two RCMP investigations, the initial one by Sgt. Mark G. Peers and the second one ordered by the RCMP internal affairs, both producing the same evidence? Again, I will say, the amount of evidence detail, presently available, reflects the respect and cooperation awarded to me by members of the RCMP West Coast Marine Services.


Bruce Stewart:

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 April 7, 2006, supporting the fact that the Attorney General of British Columbia was fully informed of existing evidence. Specifically, after RCMP Sgt. Kim McDonald conducted a second investigation into the overall charge of forgery against my good name and my criminal allegations against RCMP Sgt. Mark G. Peers.

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.

(1) Not a single piece of document evidence, removed from my office on September 20, 2002, indicates that I forged documents supplied to Transport Canada by Capt. B. Grabowski. All ship certificates accompanying the drawings I obtained from the M/V Gulf Ivy were originals and distinctly different from those forged. Further, during several recorded interviews with Capt. Grabowski, he specifically stated that only the forgeries were found onboard the Gulf Ivy.

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 Canada, Vancouver office, inspectors, show two distinct illegal issues contrary to the Canada Shipping Act and Canada’s commitment to IMO conventions.  


The Official Transcript of Registry states that the M/V Gulf Ivy, Official No. 170259, IMO No. 5180520 was registered on May 16, 1969 to Inter-Island Trading Ltd., until January 24, 2000 when it was sold foreign, to Shon Nickel. Before continuing, the Vancouver Office, also issue a load line certificate on July 7, 1970 under the name M/V Gulf Ivy, Official No. 120259, different from the official Transcript of Registry. The certificates found onboard the M/V Gulf Ivy and taken to my office, with Shon Nickel’s permission used the name M/V Swiftsure X, with one or two certificates from the early seventies with the name M/V Gulf Ivy. The second issue deals with the company called Inter-Island Trading, owning the M/V Gulf Ivy from 1988 to 1994, not from May 16, 1969. So, how does all this relate to the forged certificates?  


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 Vancouver Harbor, the maximum designer’s water line is 9.5 Feet not 10.76 or 11’-1”. The exact maximum water line certified by Transport Canada and used by the M/V Abitibi today is 9.5 Feet. In other words, Transport Canada officials changed the load line of the M/V Gulf Ivy without any consultation with a naval architect to produce, in the least, longitudinal strength calculations to ascertain whether or not the vessel could carry additional load, thus allowing the M/V Gulf Ivy to sail in an unsafe condition years before Shon Nickel further endangered its unseaworthy condition.


(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.


On December 11, 2006, the RCMP West Coast Marine Services returned the book to me, unglued, staples removed and the original pages replaced by copies. Today, the original pages are still missing. Only the covers are original. Within the pages, the second page of the original book is copied three times. One copy shows its original condition, no approval stamps, the second copy shows a false stamp and the third copy shows the false stamp plus a genuine Transport Canada “Red Stamp” placed besides the false stamp. In the least, placing a genuine stamp on evidence constitutes tampering with evidence. It can also show that Transport Canada was in the process of assisting Shon Nickel with false vessel certification when caught by surprise with the intervention of Capt. B. Grabowski questioning the presence of false certificates onboard the M/V Gulf Ivy/El Conquistador.


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, Vancouver office, which in turn would contact me requesting the Geometry file of the M/V El Conquistador together with all my calculations. In essence, my warning about the overall stability condition of the M/V El Conquistador, simple states that without the concrete and/or engine cooling water the vessel lost its ability to remain upright, a highly dangerous condition.  


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 Canada about the unsafe condition of the M/V El Conquistador. During interviews with witnesses, I discovered that a well known Vancouver based naval architect firm conducted an inclining experiment at the request of Shon Nickel and Transport Canada. Details about this naval architect firm are omitted at their request, with an indication that they will fully cooperate with any subpoena to provide evidence before the court. On August 21, 2002, they sent a letter to Transport Canada at the conclusion of their inclining experiment, the last paragraph of the letter states the following:


“Please note that this letter has been drafted to satisfy the explicit requirements of TCMS (Transport Canada Marine Safety). However, has we have not had an opportunity to inspect the vessel in detail this letter must in no way be construed as a testimony to the seaworthiness of  El Conquistador”.


I am sure the United States of America, Homeland Security, would find this letter interesting. No Canadian naval architect endorsed the M/V El Conquistador to have the minimum requirements of a seaworthy ship. Yet, four individuals; RCMP Sgt. Mark G. Peers, Transport Canada, James Lawson, Brian Kenefick and Colin Currivan endorsed the departure of the M/V El Conquistador to the open waters of the Pacific Ocean in an unseaworthy condition. Within the International Marine Industry this is an appalling event, for a signatory (Canada) to the IMO conventions to sanction. Further, this action is too direct, to only indicate incompetence, surely a criminal purpose is apparent.


(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 Duarte gave him Sic 17 & LL2”.


A recorded statement of Philip Arthur Nickel taken July 30, 2002, by RCMP Sgt. Mark G. Peers, contradicts the above statements and confirms that I instructed Shon Nickel to send only original certificates to Venezuela. Specifically, the originals obtained from onboard the M/V Gulf Ivy.

Shon Nickel: “Yeah because, cause, uh, Duarte told me you have to send the originals. You keep these and you, send the originals. Make a copy”.


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 Duarte call my attorney, he told the attorney that he(?) He couldn’t do it. And he had already told me when I picked up everything I had everything that I needed for my attorney in Venezuela. That’s what he told me”.


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 Canada in an unseaworthy condition and stopping Shon Nickel from prejudicing anyone with whatever forgeries he dreamed of.


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, Vancouver office, to my telephone conversations with Brian Kenefick in September 2002, guaranties a desire to have the M/V El Conquistador detained by Canadian authorities. The particulars of such behavior are described within the many applications submitted to court during my preceding ordeal before the Provincial Court Judges of New Westminster. Yet, the attitude of Brian Kenefick merits a closer look upon my return from Europe on September 2002.


On the last few days of August, 2002, I returned to Canada, when a call from one of my clients, stated that two Transport Canada, Marine Safety inspectors where talking about forgery charges involving me. Immediately, I called the Marine Office to find out what these statements meant. I talked to David Motion (604) 666-0445, Marine Safety, and told that he knew nothing about such a thing. Before the call ended, again, I advised transport Canada, via David Motion to inform the appropriate party within Transport Canada, to contact me, regarding my concerns over the safety of the M/V Gulf Ivy/El Conquistador.   


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 Canada, Marine Safety, allowing me to contacted Brian Kenefick to find his purpose. During a subsequent telephone conversation with Brian Kenefick, I received information that it related to the M/V Gulf Ivy and Transport Canada, Marine Stamps. With a meeting arranged between B. T. Kenefick and I, to take place at 800 Boyd Street, New Westminster, BC, I assured Brian Kenefick to expect all the particulars of events governing the movements of the vessel M/V Gulf Ivy O.N. 170259 and details of how Mr. Shon Nickel doctored old certificates showing the name Swiftsure X. Further, I requested the RCMP presence to deal with the criminal aspect of the events, namely falsification of documents by Shon Nickel and his modifications to the M/V Gulf Ivy’s bulkheads, producing false compartments designed to smuggle narcotics.


Hand Written Notes of Brian Kenefick, Manager Inspection Services,

Transport Canada, Marine Safety


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.


Your Letter, September 27, 2005:

Interview with Brian Kenefick of Transport Canada, with respect to my request for disclosure submitted to Court on July 25, 2005.

Your letter States: 7)  Any inspection report or documentation showing the vessel’s seaworthiness after July 30, 2002: A detention order was issued on this date. Mr. Nickel later asked if the vessel could sail, and Transport Canada’s Colin Currivan was involved in an inspection. He asked for certain conditions to be met before the vessel could sail, and they were later met. Mr. Kenefick will look for whether there is any documentation about this activity.

Reply: According to audio recorded witness statements giving to me, no list of conditions exist and none met, indicating the above-mentioned Transport Canada officials of lying. A series of images supplied by USCG clearly show an unsafe vessel arriving in US waters. Further, Canadian witnesses that inspected the vessel (M/V El Conquistador) determined the vessel to be in an unsafe condition prior to departure from North Vancouver, BC. Judge Challenger, Judge Angelomatis and Judge Steinberg refused to issue subpoenas to hear these witnesses and refused to hear evidence submitted by the USCG. Presently, two witness subpoenas received Judge’s approval yet the above-mentioned judges refuse to hear evidence.


According to the Canada Shipping Act, Contravention of Act or regulations:

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.

Jeopardizing safety

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 Canada’s Colin Currivan was involved in an inspection of Shon Nickel’s vessel. The M/V El Conquistador underwent considerable modifications under the supervision of an ignorant owner, Shon Nickel. During modifications portions of internal decks were removed, tank tops remained corroded to a rust powder condition, longitudinal tank bulkheads were removed and the main deck consisted of mainly thin metal requiring replacement. Therefore, according to these two highly incompetent marine inspectors, Colin Currivan and Brian Kenefick, the M/V El Conquistador’s hull strength is maintained through inspections when reality showed the contrary. After spending 36 years serving the marine industry, I fail to understand how my government (Canada) hired individuals possessing this high level of incompetence.


Your Letter, November 16, 2005:

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 Canada issued some type of papers indicating the vessel to be in a safe condition. These are alarming statements from individuals possessing a high level of marine experience. Capt. Grabowski performed the duties of TSB inspector for a number of years, stating that he resigned from this Canadian Government organization after witnessing several episodes displaying this type of incompetent attitude. The M/V El Conquistador is unsafe, there is no doubt about its condition before or after departing Canada. Regarding incompetents within Transport Canada, Capt. Grabowski statements echo Mr. Bud Streeter’s statement about Transport Canada:

“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 Canada with proper documentation to enter the United States. Transport Canada issued numerous requirements of the vessel to ensure it was watertight before they allowed it to sail. Mr. Kenefick has contacts in the Coast Guard who can assist in verifying Mr. Duarte’s story (or otherwise), if you wish to avail yourself of them.


Reply: Upon receiving your letter of November 16, 2005, the USCG Sector involved with past inspections conducted onboard the M/V El Conquistador confirmed that Mr. Kenefick was unknown to them. The vessel did not have proper documentation to enter the United States of America, it was initially detained and searched for illegal drugs by United States Customs, subsequently detained for unseaworthiness by USCG. You are fully aware of USCG inspectors involved with this vessel, nothing prevents you from contacting them to verify events.  


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 Canada officials, Brian Kenefick and Colin Currivan and the RCMP Marine detachment failure to enforce the Canadian Criminal Code sections dealing with criminal negligence bringing the BC Ferries bridge crew to justice. In other words, the M/V El Conquistador unseaworthiness has nothing to do with a water tightness problem, it relates to almost everything but water tightness, namely, stability, structure, longitudinal strength, corrosion, maximum water line submerged by two feet, improper loading of solid ballast, etc…..


Reply: Unfortunately, ignoring my warnings about the unseaworthiness of the M/V El Conquistador continued to Gerard McDonald, Director General, Marine Safety, Transport Canada, when on September 26, 2002, I sent a fax letter to him stating the following:


“Dear Sir:

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 Canada, Ship Registry, was well aware the vessel was without a flag (not registered).

Your cooperation-is appreciated. Awaiting your reply, sincerely,

E. G. Duarte


The incompetent Gerard McDonald reply on October 24, 2002:


“Dear Mr. Duarte


Thank you for your facsimile message dated 26 September 2002, requesting clarification of the events surrounding the movement of the captioned vessel from the Fraser River Port Authority to the Vancouver Port Authority.

For your information, Transport Canada does not monitor vessel movements within Canadian waters. The Canadian Coast Guard, Department of Fisheries and Oceans is responsible for waterways management in Canada.

As advised in your facsimile, the vessel was not registered in Canada at the time of the transit, The vessel may have been under Venezuelan registry at that time as you stated that it was flying the flag of that State. However, this information is unknown since the date of the transit is not mentioned Furthermore, there are no signs that the vessel was engaged in any commercial operation at the time o transit.

I trust the above information clarifies the situation. Please do not hesitate to contact me should you require anything further.

Yours sincerely,

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, Vancouver office, Marine Safety, Transport Canada. J. Lawson ignored the unseaworthiness of the M/V El Conquistador from 2001 to its departure to US waters. This incompetent continues to ignore Brian Kenefick and Colin Currivan incompetent behavior allowing the M/V El Conquistador to depart in an unsafe condition. 


David Collenette, Minister of Transport, statement following Gerard McDonald’s letter:



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 Port State Control initiatives is resulting in safer ships, cleaner seas and acceptable working and living conditions on board ships."


Under Canada's Port State Control Inspection Program, Transport Canada inspectors board and inspect foreign ships at Canadian ports. The international Port State Control agreements to which Canada is signatory require Transport Canada to inspect 25 per cent of all visiting vessels. Transport Canada has, over the last few years, exceeded this target by five per cent. Under Port State Control, all vessels are inspected at least once every six months by marine authorities in participating Port State Control nations. Vessels that do not meet safety standards are detained until their deficiencies have been corrected.


"Port State Control is a key element in Transport Canada's Marine Safety Program which is designed to seek, find and eradicate substandard shipping," added Mr. Collenette. "Transport Canada will continue to work with our international partners to help make the waters of the world, particularly around Canada, safer for life, property and the marine environment."


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 offices across Canada to seek, find and eradicate substandard shipping. How difficult is this to understand? Even my cat “Sing” understands that when his kitty litter stinks, it means my wife and I failed our mandate to keep his area of the house clean. Thus he tells us with a meow warning and we proceed to do our job; clean his litter.  Telling John Yeung, Brian Kenefick, RCMP Sgt. Peers and Gerard McDonald that the Vancouver waterfront stinks, resulted in an action to maintain the stink, subsequently sending it to our neighbors, the United States of America. Imagine I sent a comparable letter to a United States Coast Guard admiral, in Washington DC, would his reaction be similar to Gerard McDonald? Actually, during past times in Florida, I met several USCG Admirals, during Propeller Club meetings and Seatrade conventions. Not a single USCG Admiral showed an interest to support incompetent mariners within the USCG, this attitude became apparent during marine crisis when some USCG officials made mistakes, followed by an apology from the Admiral-in-Command, followed by immediate corrections.    


Your fax stated: Mr. Kenefick also advised the following:

- B. Grabowski initially saw the false documents on the ship and alerted Transport Canada: and – Regarding telephone calls with Mr. Duarte in September 2002. Mr. Duarte did not ask Mr. Kenefick to call the Police. There was no discussion about modifications to the ship for transporting drugs (Mr. Kenefick’s words were “absolutely not”).


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 May 5, 2006, and July 13, 2006 describing events that took place, sometime in June 2002 involving Shon’s certificates found onboard the M/V El Conquistador. Capt. Grabowski is on my witness list awaiting a hearing and he wonders why RCMP Cst. Valentine refuses to take his statement.       


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 North Vancouver. Indicating Shon’s problem with hotel management for drug dealing, subsequently, I contacted the hotel and talked to a front desk clerk that knew Shon. He confirmed the rumors, but when I called back asking for specifics, the hotel manager warned that if any employee talked to me, would be dismissed, further, he stated that I was welcome to pursue the matter, but under a court order or subpoena. This clearly states that the issue of illegal drugs involving Shon Nickel and the M/V El Conquistador was well known. Actually, it would take a complete imbecile to accept Shon Nickel as anything else, but a drug addict, Shon, not only consumed illegal drugs and alcohol on the open, he also looked the part. You should travel to Florida to visit Capt. Shon’s Restaurant as per Cst. Valentine recent discover. You should also ask - how does a person lose a million dollars, spent on modifications to the M/V El Conquistador, and then open two restaurants in Florida - one near Miami, the other on the Florida Keys? Drug money?   


Hand written notes of Brian Kenefick:

3/9/02 – Mr. Duarte called 093.. asked what I wanted to see him about, I said ship certificates. He asked if it had to do with this fellow Shon I said yes. He then said he wondered about Shon since he had been into his office and seen photocopies of drawings David Motion had let Duarte copy earlier on another vessel. He said after Shon left a copy was missing and he thought it had fallen behind his desk. He then forgot about it. We arranged to meet at his office on the 5th.

3/9/02 – Contacted Mark Peers at RCMP who is running parallel investigation. He can’t make the 5th. Agreed to reappoint with Mr. Duarte to the 20th.

5/9/02 – At 0900 called Mr. Duarte and appolozised that I could not make the appointment. He agreed to reappoint to 0900 on 20th September 2002.

5/9/02 – Continued….. Duarte asked me why we …. interested and I told him that forged 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. Duarte agreed and I said it was important to get the bottom of it and he again laid the blame on Shon.


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: “forged 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 Coos Bay, Oregan, detained by USCG, the stern markings, boldly painted, show the name of the vessel “El Conquistador” and the port of registry “Margarita Island, Venezuela”. Shon Nickel registered his vessel in Panama prior to depart to USA. This grossly incompetent Canadian Marine inspector, along with the others above-mentioned, indicates his concern for false documents while the vessel El Conquistador departs Canada with false stern markings. Further, this is a clear indication that Shon Nickel was given a clear passage out of Canada. Without doubt, failing to know the exterior of the vessel assures it never received an internal safety inspection required by Canadian Law. Specifically, after two internationally known Canadian Naval Architects refused to endorse the safety of the M/V Gulf Ivy/El Conquistador.


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 Canada, Vancouver Office, during an interview by RCMP Sgt. Mark G. Peers stated the following:

“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 the Republic of Angra, my birthplace, and the stepping stone to the Great Discoveries.


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 Canada show several Portuguese names related to my ancestral grandfather, originating from the Republic of Angra, Land of Corte Reais, Land of Cod and Land of Labrador. The Spanish invaded the Republic of Angra twice, in 1581 and 1583, causing tremendous damage to its population. My racial heritage, does not include individuals of dark skin, it consists of white Portuguese and white Flemish people.


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 Canada. Is it tolerated within the confines of the New Westminster Court?


On November 17, 2005, Colin Currivan sent a fax letter to Crown Counsel Irene Plett. This letter, dated November 16, 2005, stating the following:

“Below is Mr. Duarte’s web address.” 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 Seattle area. I identified myself and asked if Mr. Duarte was known to him.

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 official from China whether he or she (name of Canadian Judge) is a practicing judge in Canada? I am sure the answer would be similar to the US Marine Chemist reply about my status as a Canadian Marine Chemist.


My Marine Chemist career began with the creation of my company, Tedley Marine Inc. and the performance of emergency work onboard the Canadian Coast Guard icebreaker M/V Griffon, sometime in the early eighties. The work required a Marine Chemist to certify fuel tanks before the entrance of my personnel. Ignorant of my qualifications, received while a Tank Farm superintendent, certifying confined spaces, I searched for a Marine Chemist to certify the fuel tanks onboard the M/V Griffon. Following a brief search, the Canadian Coast Guard approved my qualification diploma received from the Industrial Accident Prevention Association of the Province of Ontario and experience to perform the duties of a Marine Chemist. Subsequently, the Canadian Coast Guard approval allowed a large number of Canadian Coast Guard vessels and merchant ships to receive gas free certificates under my signature. These ships ranged from tugs and barges to large cruise ships and tankers. Presently, I maintain more than a thousand copies of past certificates issued in Canada. The majority of them directly across from Transport Canada office where …… Colin Currivan is employed. During my work as a Marine Chemist, within the Vancouver waterfront, I certified confined spaces for inspection by Classification Societies, Worker’s Compensation Board of BC, United States Coast Guard, including one USCG Admiral, ship owners, etc., never for a Transport Canada Marine Safety Inspector. This comment does not apply to Ontario or other parts of Canada regarding Transport Canada.


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 Canada for Naval Architect work. This attitude had its origins, early in 2001, when James Lawson stated, in writing, that I would be treated the same as any member of the public, upon plan submittals.


In comparison, The United States Coast Guard, Marine Safety Center, Washington, DC, calls me by title: Captain Duarte and I am listed on their approval list for Naval Architects with past drawings and stability submittals. Further, I do not know anyone from Transport Canada, Marine Safety, receiving a letter of thank you, from the United States, Homeland Security.


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 exposing Transport Canada, an organization they fear and depend for approvals. In other words, if I upset the “apple cart” I risk loosing clients. Therefore, defamatory issues will be resolved using published evidence rather than witnesses. This type of behavior also reflects how the Canadian Federal Government maintains these grossly incompetent Marine inspectors in positions of authority, allowing them to conduct their duties as they please.


The list of Transport Canada incompetents, spans thirty six years of my professional maritime Career, the difference of the past, in comparison to this case, shows that some were incompetent, but they had the “guts” to face me and resolve problems face to face. And, I have to add, past Transport Canada inspectors known to me, regardless of their knowledge or lack of it, always sided with safety, never against, as evidence clearly shows James Lawson, Brian Kenefick, Colin Currivan, David Motion and Geoff Sedan, doing everything possible to endanger the safety of ship’s crew and public. Continuing the narrative over past incompetents, I was not an “angel” either, the best of us also made mistakes, with a lot of derogatory name calling, these names were told face to face, no one went to the RCMP and cowardly called someone else derogatory names. As a professional mariner, the conduct of James Lawson, Brian Kenefick, Colin Currivan, David Motion and Geoff Sedan, nauseates me.       


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 New Westminster court exhibits two apparent attitudes originating from the Judiciary; a lack of interest to rule in a timely fashion, and an apparent lack of interest to deal with anything concerning criminal behavior originating from civil servants. For example, the attitude Judge Steinberg took by adjourning my private prosecution against RCMP Sgt. Mark G. Peers, has no basis in the Rule of Law. The law specifically dictates that the job of an informant is to bring the information before a judge, when the judge is governed by the Criminal Code.

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 Canada. My charges are not a result of an act of revenge, designed to punish intelligent hard working civil servants. As this process gathers speed, numerous retired civil servants have come forward with assistance, substantiating the fact that the charges are not an act of revenge.


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 Canada, is a crime and State infringement on my rights and freedoms. Transport Canada, officials and RCMP Sergeant Peers, on their quest to find something incriminating against me, removed files from my office without knowing its origin and purpose. While in my Office the same officials ignored confidential files showing excellent work produced for State-Flags, namely, rules for hull construction, a whole set of certificates for a State-Flag and numerous other pieces of information indicating my excellent standing within the International Marine Industry. Issues of this nature will escalate this case to a detailed International case involving several nations and organizations proving my innocence and involving Canada in a negative manner. It is important to be aware that this case is no longer a Canadian issue, monitored by the United States and soon elevated to the IMO organization for misuse of signed conventions endangering life at sea.


The reality of my involvement with the modifications to the M/V Gulf Ivy produced two distinctive sides. Transport Canada, RCMP vs. United States Coast Guard and I. Transport Canada, RCMP allowed Shon Nickel to modify a vessel reaching an extreme dangerous condition, by building a superstructure on top of a vessel that was abandoned and substandard, before Nickel’s modifications. From my side, I continuously tried to prevent these modifications from happening, instructing Shon Nickel to walk away from it all, preventing possible harm to him and his workers.


The United States Coast Guard agrees with my assessment and maintains puzzlement over Transport Canada and RCMP intentions. To date, it is a miracle the M/V Gulf Ivy has not caused loss of life.


Today, Transport Canada plays a minor part on the inspection and certification of world shipping, thank God. Canada is not a shipping nation, anymore, and Transport Canada, ship safety, reflects this by its mannerisms, rules and regulations in use. I applied minor reasonable force to stop a crime initiated by Shon Nickel. Today, Shon Nickel admits he should have walked way from the project when I first told him to.  


I ask, who are the victims, of my actions? Yet, I know the victims of Transport Canada and RCMP Sgt. Mark G. Peers. Surely, the United States of America and I. The USA is now responsible for the detention and disposal of the M/V Gulf Ivy/El Conquistador, a vessel allowed to leave Canada in a dangerous condition threatening the safety of life at sea. I was robbed of one year and six months of my freedom, suffering loss of professional reputation, financial loss and stress causing health problems.   


Instructions from Supreme Court Judge Pitfield


Judge Pitfield instructions and comments. Notes take on May 16, 2006, from tape management. April 7, 2006, Court File: X067891-1. These excerpts are not included on the Ruling.

Criminal system:

“The criminal system… either have a public prosecution or a private prosecution… 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”.

Self-representing litigant:

“I should say a couple of things… 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”.

Enforcement officers:

“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”.

Self-representing litigant:

“…….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 Canada officials and RCMP Sgt. Mark G. Peers involved with M/V El Conquistador. I have no right to convict these individuals, my only responsibility is to bring them to justice, while the judiciary must examine the evidence in open court and decide whether they are criminals or not. To complete the argument Canada’s system of justice assures Canadians the following:


“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 Canada




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 Canada officials and RCMP Sgt. Mark G. Peers.


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




Click to Return; The Flag of Inconvenience Page