Related links 

AD Murder 

https://bit.ly/ADmurder 

Healthcare Needs    

NO2banking  http://bit.ly/NO2banking

Faxes to Bretell    

Glasgow Emails

The 8 August 2022 Document  @ https://bit.ly/8Aug2022Doc  

1. COVID 19 Killers PGT

& VCH *. Evidentiary Underpinning of Homicide through slashing of 60 years off the life reviewable online @ http://bit.ly/Covid19Kill

2.

Criminal trespass and Forgery https://bit.ly/FrasersForgery

3. Certificate of incapacity of healthcare consent of

Pradeep Verma to be signed by Ms. Jetha on 2 August 2021 @ https://bit.ly/healthconsentincapacity

4. Entitlement to Personal Support Worker CLAIRE-9 @

https://bit.ly/PersonalSupportWorkerCLAIRE

5. The 7-Eleven Document - Criminality of failure to secure

ample income to meet basic life needs

6. Marilee Garner Assessment Report @ https://bit.ly/GarnerReport1998

7. Dr. Stephen Hucker Report @ bit.ly/HuckerReport

8. TELUS package for PKV

@https://bit.ly/TELUS5PKV

9. Deaf Blind Well-being Program Crimes as enabled by Peck and

Company

http://bit.ly/DWBP20200928

10. Tort of Active Creation of Unacceptable Risk . (TACUR)

11. Remembrance Thanksgiving day document

12. Criminality of SSIPS Inflicted Charter s. 7

Breach “Serious State-imposed Psychological Stress” https://bit.ly/SSIPSx7

14. DRAFT PROPOSAL RE : PKV -(On advancing $2000 per month for him and $200 for errands running payment) @https://bit.ly/DRAFTPROPOSALPKV

15. Offer for a Mediated Settlement

Pradeep Verma M.B.B.S. Sheltering @ Union Gospel Mission

601 East Hastings Street Vancouver, BC V6A 1J7

Ph: 604.253.3323 (reception - to leave message) Email PKV@LIVE.CA

This document is accessible to PGT-VCH allies - https://bit.ly/Fiduciary _Frauds-

To: Ms. Trudie Manoloudis Executive Director Services to Adults Public Guardian and Trustee of B. C. 700 – 808 W. Hastings Street Vancouver BC TManoloudis@Trustee.bc.ca> Date: 1 June 2023

Cc: Ms. Carmelita Brancati Case Manager Services to Adults Public Guardian and Trustee of B. C. 700 – 808 West Hastings Street Vancouver BC V6C 3L3 Ph: 604.775.0208 eMail: CBrancati@Trustee.bc.ca

Cc: Ms. Jennifer Glasgow & Dr. Tristin Wayte, PhD, EMBA Director, Client Relations and Risk Management Patient Care Quality Office, Vancouver Coastal Health #200-520 West 6th Ave 604-730-7654 Tristin.Wayte@vch.ca

Cc: Joey Umali & Demetrius Schwab Supervisor Case Manager, Hastings Chaplaincy & Outreach 601 East Hastings Street. Vancouver eMail dschwab@ugm.ca

Cc: Mr. Dan Russell Director Of Men’s Programs & Outreach Mr. Jim Barkman Board Chairperson & Mr. Dean Kurpjuweit The president of the Union Gospel Mission

 Cc: Cst. Adib Jaber Operations Div. District 3 Team 103585 Gravely Street Vancouver BC V5K5J5

Cc: Dr. Pretty Jyoti Verma OB and gynecology 2775 Laurel St, Vancouver, BC, Phone:604-875-2424

RE: Need to terminate the criminal trespass of estate and trespass to the person false imprisonment upon admitting the abusive nature and illegality of the committeeship and appointment of lawyer.

RE: Fiduciary Duty Breach & Public Office Misfeasance via contempt to beneficiary best interest protection via contempt of the law that Court's and Crown's jurisdiction limited to promote welfare or best interests of the beneficiary Patient or Ward of the State who can’t be rendered pauper lunatic.

RE: Plotting of death of Pradeep by VCH PGT WCC by chronic sleep deprivation by exploiting the fact that Insufficient sleep is linked to increased risk of a condition that may lead to stroke

RE: Need to terminate the unlawful confinement forthwith upon admitting the abusive nature and illegality of the committeeship rendering it Criminal Trespass dictating recusal forthwith on own motion of the Public Guardian and Trustee of B. C. to protect the best interests of Vermas.

RE: Demand for a written confirmation of agenda to murder Pradeep Verma

“In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.” — George Orwel

I.  Take notice that legislators did not enact Patients Property Act to empower the callous shrewd and superbly clever cheats at the office of Public Guardian and Trustee of British Columbia (PGT) to concoct and fabricated falsified explanation and justifications why their murderous acts are in the best interest of the patient and that death therapy as prescribed in What about Bob is the primary approach that ought to be taken by the statutory actors respecting the mentally disabled. The primary purpose of the Patients Property Act to empower is related to care, supervision and control for his protection and the protection of his property not its dissipation.

II.   Take notice that the actions of a committee, guardian or trustee would constitute Fiduciary Duty Breach & Public Office Misfeasance through offence to the trite law that Courts and Crowns jurisdiction limited to promote welfare or best interests of the beneficiary patient or ward of the State. Court and Crown must exercise their powers in the best interests of all beneficiaries only and the rights of the legally disabled or mentally incapable subject to Certificate of Incapability are paramount and must prevail over those of others even if they suffer modest degree of prejudice or inconveniences. Given that protection of the best interests of the patient is paramount. This is in breach of obligation on the Court to deem the protection of the rights of the legally disabled as paramount giving right to an entitlement of indulgences of the court and waivers of all rules if necessary to accomplish that goal, at the expense of and possible prejudice to the rights of all other parties whose rights may be permitted to be denied by the court in order to protect the vulnerable to whom the court owes a duty of care: see Nova Scotia (Minister of Health) v. J.J., [2005] 1 S.C.R. 177, 2005 SCC 12 ). The well accepted legal principle has been canvassed through two dozen citations in the enclosed 6-page brief entitled Court's and Crown's jurisdiction limited to promote welfare or best interests of the beneficiary Patient or Ward of the State

III. Take notice that duty to act in the best interests of the beneficiary and without conflict of interest is absolutely and extremely strict upon a trustee as emphasized by Kelen J., at paras 28-29 in Annapolis Valley First Nations Band v. Toney, 2004 FC 1728 (CanLII), @http://canlii.ca/t/1jm8r

[28] The concept of fiduciary duty has its roots in the law of trusts. Its purpose was to ensure that a trustee with control of a beneficiary's property placed the interests of the beneficiary ahead of his or her own interests. While fiduciary obligations have now expanded beyond the law of trusts, the basic principles remain the same. A fiduciary relationship is one in which the fiduciary has the power to make choices which unilaterally affect the interests of a beneficiary and the beneficiary is particularly vulnerable to the fiduciary. See Frame v. Smith, 1987 CanLII 74 (SCC), [1987] 2 S.C.R. 99. It is as a result of this vulnerability, and the corresponding power of the fiduciary, that the fiduciary has a duty of utmost good faith to act in the best interests of the beneficiary and to avoid a conflict of interest.

[29] When considering whether a fiduciary has breached his obligations, the central inquiry is not whether the fiduciary has been dishonest or acted in a fraudulent manner, but whether he has acted in the best interests of the beneficiary and without conflict of interest. In Canadian Aero Service Ltd. v. O'Malley (1973), 40 D.L.R. (3d) 371, the Supreme Court of Canada adopted the following passage from the House of Lords at paragraph 28:

In my view, the respondents were in a fiduciary position and their liability to account does not depend upon proof of mala fides. The general rule of equity is that no one who has duties of a fiduciary nature to perform is allowed to enter into engagements in which he has or can have a personal interest conflicting with the interests of those to whom he is bound to protect.

[33] Procedural safeguards, such as the one relied on by the respondent, are established to ensure that fiduciaries are not involved in decisions in which they have a personal interest. The rationale is that if the fiduciary is removed from the decision-making process, then the remaining "unbiased" fiduciaries will be able to make a decision that accords with the best interest of the beneficiary. The difficulty in the present case is that all the fiduciaries (the respondent, Mr. Copage and Ms. Toney) had an interest in the contracts.

IV. Take notice that there exists inherent jurisdiction to facilitate access to justice by providing legal counsel as canvassed by Associate Chief Justice Neil Wittmann of Albert Queen's Bench in Morrow v. Zhang, (8 Feb 2008) ABQB 98 (CanLII) CFN- 0401 17808 @ http://canlii.ca/t/1vns3 has outlined the obligation on State to provide counsel in exercise of parens patriae jurisdiction as follows at para [125] I acknowledge that in some instances, state intervention will be necessary to facilitate access to justice by providing legal counsel to individuals who cannot afford to retain legal counsel and who would be deprived of a fair hearing considering the seriousness of the interests at stake, the level of complexity of the proceedings and the capacities of the person: New Brunswick (Minister of Health and Community Services v. G. (J.), 1999 CanLII 653 (S.C.C.), [1999] 3 S.C.R. 46 at para. 75.

V. Take notice that the flakey explanations habitually offered by the staff of PGT to the effect of lack of merits wherein the issues are well known tort species and due to the quasi-onus reversing rule of res ipsa loquitur where the defendants hold the information and has the burden to offer a cogent explanation for the losses suffered when the plaintiff was in the control and custody of the defendant there is no authority with the case assessment lawyer or the judge in the chambers hearing the motion to deny the remitting of the case to trial given that the evidence to determine the merits can come only on trial and the related shoddy explanation of paucity of funds in the trust account (which was the result of the dissipation inflicted by the PGT) the Canadian courts hold a view that all meritorious claims be sent to trial and that paucity of funds must never frustrate Charter based torts at least such that blocking dozens of claims by the PGT is an egregious dereliction of duty of PGT who is bound to bring the actions to trial by securing advanced costs as canvassed by LeBel J., at para 31 in British Columbia (Minister of Forests) v. Okanagan Indian Band,[2003] 3 SCR 371 by writing An award of costs of this nature forestalls the danger that a meritorious legal argument will be prevented from going forward merely because a party lacks the financial resources to proceed and goes on to identified the criteria that must be present (and are clearly present in the case of Verma) to justify an award of costs at paragraph 40:

“1. The party seeking interim costs genuinely cannot afford to pay for the litigation, and no other realistic option exists for bringing the issues to trial - in short, the litigation would be unable to proceed if the order were not made.

2. The claim to be adjudicated is prima facie meritorious; that is, the claim is at least of sufficient merit that it is contrary to the interests of justice for the opportunity to pursue the case to be forfeited just because the litigant lacks financial means.

3. The issues raised transcend the individual interests of the particular litigant, are of public importance, and have not been resolved in previous cases.”

VI. Take notice that Justice Penny J. Jones in that Catholic Children's Aid society of Toronto v. T. K., 2004 CanLII 16117 (ONCJ) (9 Jan 2004),50 R.F.L. 5th)285 CFN- C-1167/02 Toronto Reg. No. C-1167/02 @http://canlii.ca/t/1h4vb admitted to the existence of that power as follows at para [40]. A court mandated to perform a task does not need “inherent powers” to perform its duty. (NB: this conclusion of law is stated as “implied jurisdiction” pursuant to [Federal] Interpretation Act. R. S., c. I-23, speaks of Ancillary powers as follows in s. 31. (2) Where power is given to a person, officer or functionary to do or enforce the doing of any act or thing, all such powers as are necessary to enable the person, officer or functionary to do or enforce the doing of the act or thing are deemed to be also given.). Furthermore, it is helpful also to consider the provisions of s. 12 of the Interpretation Act R.S., c. I-23, s. 1. [12. Every enactment is deemed remedial, and shall be given such fair, large and liberal construction and interpretation as best ensures the attainment of its objects.] The British Columbia Interpretation Act echoes the same principle as follows at Section 8 of the Interpretation Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 238 a read: Every enactment must be construed as being remedial, and must be given such fair, large and liberal construction and interpretation as best ensures the attainment of its objects. Please note that deliberate frustration of legislative intent is an offence contrary to s.126 of the Criminal Code.

VII.   Take notice that in dismissing the application after finding that it was “not in her best interests to change her location” Sinclair Prowse, J., in Marsh v. Public Trustee, (17 May 1999) 5587 (BC S.C.) CFN- C983396 @https://canlii.ca/t/1d2f9 gave the necessary priority to the best interests of the patient not those of the son who was to eventually inherit the estate of the mother in any event. His rights were allowed to be prejudiced by the court in order to not inconvenience the mother under disability. Excessive relocations are incompatible with mental health recovery therefore admonished by the court.

VIII. Take notice that PGT has engaged in criminal acts from criminal trespass, criminal negligence to criminal harassment and the last offence is evident from a perpetual silence over close to a thousand ignored communications thus committing the offence of fraudulent misrepresentations and fraudulent concealment ( contrary to s.341 of Criminal Code); in flagrant violation of duty of candor and committed elder abuse through wrongful deprivation of access to lawyer or legal advocate and withholding personal possessions, denial of items prescribed by Amber Reynolds in September 2022 and the TEN medical assistive devices and compelled the chosen victim of their conspiracy to accelerate death contrary to Criminal Code s. 226 by compelling the victim Pradeep Verma to repeatedly engage in self extraction of teeth without anesthetic and without the help of a dental health professional. These items having been wrongfully deprived since 2008 by the misconduct of the Deaf Blind Welfare Program of VCH which has been contacted on multiple occasions and a recent detailed note respecting that having been sent on 28 September 2020 to Ms. Kristen Pranzl that was not acknowledged or replied (enclosed)

IX.      Take notice that PGT has engaged in criminal violation of Charter ss. 7, 12, 15(1) through failure to take steps to become appointed committee of person and circumscribing its role limited only to committee of estate in an arbitrary, capricious, self-serving and injuries to Pradeep Verma through egregiously bad faith conduct starting with the opposition of the granting of the relief of appointing a committee of person before Downs J., in petition Brown v. British Columbia (Public Guardian and Trustee), (24July 2002) BCSC 1111 @ http://canlii.ca/t/5kwr given that deprivation of psychiatric recovery access to healthcare for over two decades that was critical to the patient with major depression required secure supervised housing as prescribed and

d. Apply to become a committee of person or arrange someone else for Pradeep Kumar Verma and meet the needs of the patient Pradeep Kumar Verma accordingly.

X. Take notice that additional support for this view is found in the reasons of Master Joyce in Senft v. Moricz, (5 May 1994) 2605 (BCSC) CFN S014454 at (best interests of the patient served by stable fixed residence); Registrar Wellburn in Alexander Holburn Beaudin & Lang v. Coutu, (8 May 1995) 1112 (BC S.C.) CFN J940613 at (best interests of the patient served by stable fixed residence); Kirkpatrick J., in Chamberlain v. Mackay, (15 June 1999) 6759 (BCSC) Vancouver Reg. CFN D106928 (best interests of the patient served not served by divorce); Lamperson J., Re Dorothy Newton, (6 May 2005) (BCSC) 677 CFN – 36842 "best to preserve the status quo" ;; Levine J.A., for the unanimous court in Stubban v. Stubban, (21 June 2002) BCCA 398 CFN - CA028953 (best interests of the patient served by stable fixed residence may best be served with multiple co-attorneys), O'Hagan v. O'Hagan, [1991] B.C.J. No. 431 (Q.L.) (S.C.).; Hood J., in Lee (Re), (7 June 2002) Vancouver Reg. BCSC 838  CFN L011639 at; Re: Bradley, [1991] B.C.J. No. 123 (Q.L.) (S.C.) ; Low J., in Finlay v. Finlay, (18 Feb 1997) 2313 (BCSC) Vancouver Reg. FCN A962600 ; Ehrcke J., in M.K.O. (by his Litigation Guardian) v. M.E.C., 2005 BCSC 1051 CFN E019518;Calvert (Litigation Guardian of) v. Calvert (1997), 27 R.F.L. (4th) 394 (Ont Gen. Div), aff’d 36 R.F.L. (4th) 169 (Ont C.A.). [committee to be guided by the pre-incapacity intentions of the patient]; B.C. (The Public Trustee For The Province of) v. Pollen, ( 2 Dec 1996) 1587 (BCSC) CFN – A942855 ; Prowse J. A., for the court in D.J.N. v. Canada (Solicitor General), (11 June 1996) 3083 (BCCA);(1996), 25 B.C.L.R. (3d) 389 CFN – CA018242; CA019595; CA019596 ; Williamson J., in Bizovie v. Cornish et al, (27 Apr 2004) Vancouver Reg. BCSC 553 CFN C996324 ;(2004), 238 D.L.R. (4th) 527; (2004), 29 B.C.L.R. (4th) 191 at Macaulay J., in Strachan et al v. Winder et al,(19 Jan 2005) BCSC 59 01-4093 at Ryan-Froslie J., in R.T., Re, (10 Dec 2004) SKQB 503 CFN - QB04495, FSM 46-97 JCPA; Wedge J., in E.(D.) v. R. (HMTQ-BC), (27 June 2003) BCSC 1013  CFN-S10341 Sterilization of mentally ill was deemed unlawful.; Marshall J.A., for the court in Cox v. Brady, (23 Apr 2002) NFCA 27 ;[2002] 212 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 1; (2002), 28 R.F.L. (5th) 274 CFN 00-104 or; Osborne J. A. for united court in Official Guardian v. Strobridge, ( 9 June 1994) 875 (ONCA) CFN-C13125 at; Kaiser J., in K. A., Re, ( 15 Mar 2005) SKPC 24 CFN PC05017  And further take notice that this twenty-four (24) page document is being served and is drafted in a would-be Notice to Admit per Rule 31 Rule 31 of Supreme Court of British Columbia Civil Procedures such that your silence past 4:00 pm on Friday 16 June 2023 deadline would permit inference that unless you take remedial steps about them your actions are in the nature of homicide and in support of your being convinced for conspiring to inflict premature you are being required to admit or acquiesce via silence to the following eighty (80) additional offences by you out of previous hundreds of such statements or concealments of highly pertinent truths:

1.     That the evil trio of PGT-VCH-WCC anti-Verma homicide crusaders is engaged in fraudulent concealment ( contrary to s.341 of Criminal Code); that it is not in the best interests of Pradeep Verma through their misconduct of failing with a deposit the damages of pain and suffering in the amount of $22 million Canadian dollars being made by the government of British Columbia via PGT office for the suffering inflicted on me and the Charter torts or tort of Misfeasance in Public Office inflicted upon me. Damages for the pain and suffering from the Human Rights Abuses (violating British Columbia Human Rights Code) and Charter torts ( criminal violation of Charter ss 6, 7, 8, 9, 10(b), 11(d), 12, 15 and 24) or tort of Misfeasance in Public Office with elements of fiduciary duty breach inflicted since August 2000 when initial contact in person with Kimberly Azyan was made and there is a clear abuse of authority of denial of the above cited damage award that is owed for :

1. Delay of over two decades in provision of secure and mental health recovery compatible housing which was prescribed to be a supervised apartment or medically needed housing.

2. Delay of over two decades in provision of secure and physical health recovery compatible prescribed meals or medically needed nutrition prescribed as DASH and MIND diets.

3. Delay of over two decades in provision of secure and mental health recovery and general health recovery compatible administration of medication under supervision of a personal care attendant.

4. Delay of over two decades in provision of a personal care attendant general-dental-mental health coordinator, companion, CLAIRE9 or RICHO.

5. Delay of over two decades in provision of ten medical assistive devices as prescribed from time to time by various clinicians.

NB: The evil members of PGT-VCH anti-Verma homicide allegiance are engaged in fraudulent concealment ( contrary to s.341 of Criminal Code); of deliberate, vindictive, malicious and unconscionable failure of delivery from between one and two decades in total about 25 years (quarter century) deprivation of healthcare in generally and specifically The TEN Medical assistive devices and The FIVE key services for Pradeep Verma as follows:

1. Prescription vision and reading glasses.(this alone does not count as a service if only one is to be done)

2. Prescription medication for the incapacitating migraine bouts.

3. Dental prosthesis or dentures. (After completion of the dental surgery) IT IS AN EMERGENCY

4. TTY 911 telephone access for medical emergency

5. Hi Speed Wi Fi and a Zoom based healthcare access that accommodates for the hearing and speech disability.

6. MedicAlert Bracelet setting out the information needed by EMTs (with name of emergency contacts – The next of kin and the name of the Primary Care/family physician or G. P.)

7. B. C .ID (with picture) and TELUS Health Mobile Medical Alert with GPS & Fall Detection system  personal monitoring for prompt identification in case of medical emergency.

8. HandiDART pass to accommodate the distressing overactive bladder problem. (needs GP to fill out form AND a lawyer is needed to get an order against VCH/Minister of Health to appoint a GP )

9. Prescription medication for prompt control of severe hypertension (with admission for observation for hypertensive crises) and related mental duress or major depression. and arthritis of knees.

10. Foot arch supports and attention to painful foot conditions like nail fungus, ingrown toe

[NOTE :If upon my daughter consenting to surgery dental work is not done by 13 Apr 2023 I will DIY it – as informed the tooth was extracted on 17 April 2023 and shown to Mr. Umali]

2.     That the posture of the evil trio a personal care attendant apprehension of the extreme neglect by the staffers of Public Guardian and Trustee of British Columbia (PGT) [Carmelita Brancati] and Vancouver Coastal Health Authority (VCHA) [Jennifer Glasgow] is not in the best interest of Pradeep Verma whereas the appointment of such a companion/attendant has been medically prescribed and legally mandated for the purposes of:

1. Substitute Unrestricted Consent for Healthcare Access Provider (SUCHAP) duties, communication with heathcare providers and supervise medication intake as recommended by 6 physicians

2. Rights Invigilator Corroborating Human Observer (RICHO) to assist with observing and enforcement of Charter and human rights enforcements as provided under British Columbia Human Rights Code. Deprivation of such a corroborator referred hereto as RICHO amounts to a prospective human rights infringement and a prospective Charter violation in need of remediation due to the duty of the court to grant prophylactic Charter remedies to prevent likely future Charter right violations.

3. Provision of personal social support companionship to remedy the extreme social isolation due to the deaf-mute status and the hurdles with the Public Guardian and Trustee of British Columbia (PGT) given that every friend abandons me because he or she gets scared away by the PGT which aligns with the sought out appointment of a CLAIRE9 services providers under the Better at Home program of government of British Columbia for reduction of expenses of institutionalization of the mentally disabled seniors.

4. Confusional bout monitor fall prevention and post falling assistance that has developed through recklessly managed severe hypertension with ensuing hypertensive otopathy that complicates tinnitus.

5. Banking, shopping and legal advocacy assistant for making funds accessible through doing banking shopping etc., and removal of the PGT as the false fraudulent, fictitious, fatal (fake), committee of Pradeep Verma to withdraw and undertaking purchases etc., and to take steps for the removal of the PGT as the committee of Pradeep Verma given PGT stands like a wall in access to necessaries of life and healthcare. Additional duties can involve locating and retaining of a solicitor and trial lawyer to prosecute the pending over four dozen torts deprivation of which amounts to divestments from the trust account or forfeiture/trespass of potential estate tantamount to theft from estate of Pradeep Verma

3.     That the evil trio of PGT-VCH-WCC anti-Verma homicide crusaders is engaged in fraudulent concealment that it is not in the best interests of Pradeep Verma through failing to acknowledge and promptly respond to the 40-page 13 Mar 2023 document entitled Estate Trespass expropriation, divestments, dishonest deprivation (fraud) constructive theft use of extreme poverty with intent to murder Pradeep Verma alleging that in order to inflict death through extreme poverty and deprivations a conversion or theft of sum of about forty million dollars ($40,000,000) was perpetrated by the evil trio of PGT-VCH-WCC anti-Verma homicide coalition taking every illegal, abusive and criminal step to kill him.

NB: The introductory paragraph of this document reviewable online was as follows.

Take notice that serious injury to the interest of the patient were inflicted through expropriation, divestments, constructive thefts, unauthorized economic rights abrogation, by the recklessness of Madam Justice Downs who failed to make the order against the Health Minister based on the law stated by Abella J., at paras 18-21 in in these words at paras 18-21 of Nova Scotia (Minister of Health) v. J.J., 2005 1 S.C.R. 177, @ http://canlii.ca/t/1jz6j; as applied in Nova Scotia (Community Services) v. T.H., 2010 NSCA 63 @ http://canlii.ca/t/2btgp 1. Ongoing Charter ss. 7, 12, 15(1) violations through deliberate infliction of extreme poverty for several years via zero income sustenance and negligent, fraudulent or malicious deprivation of damage awards for about fifty (50) tort actions thus wrongfully depriving me (trespassing) of about $40 million dollars in court ordered awards and interests through various fraudulent misrepresentations unmeritorious nature while entitlement to them accrues to me almost ex debito justitiae as in the circumstances of the cases nearly all of them are indefensible actions with reverse onus burdens etc.

4.     That the returning of the material back to Tripta Verma in Kitchener Ontario in 2000 in relation to her request that Public Guardian and Trustee of British Columbia (PGT) contact the Ontario Public Guardian and Trustee (OPGT) for an inter-provincial committee transfer that allowed Pradeep Verma to remain abandoned and without a committee of estate and of person from January 2000 to November 2001 with neither province appointing one for him was act of PGT not in the best interest of Pradeep Verma

5.     That the abuse of process of court to secure orders from Halfyard J, , Lander J. Butler J., Brenner CJSC and Finch CJBC to impeded this access to justice to put and end to the tyranny of the PGT was not in the best interest of Pradeep Verma. All orders obtained against Dr. Carole Ann Brown, Tripta Verma and Pradeep Verma are acts of abuse of process, adjudicative fraud, abuse of judicial authority and steps condoned or abetted by the members of B. C. Judiciary to allow PGT-VCH anti-Verma homicide crusaders to proceed with the homicide of Tripta and Pradeep Verma- and manifestly not in the best interest of Pradeep Verma which is a flagrant breach of duty of court.

6.     That the failure to defend and allow the abuse of process of court to have Tripta Verma who was attempting to protect the court access rights of her son declared a vexatious litigant was not in the best interest of Pradeep Verma

Trudie Manoloudis 2021 11 11 Need for lawyer to appeal before SCC the threat conviction in R. v. Verma, 2019 BCCA 313 Docket CA45742

7.     That the failure to prosecute the five appeals that ought to have been dealt with in a timely manner in relation to Tripta Verma litigant was not in the best interest of Pradeep Verma

8.     That the abuse of process of court to secure dismissal orders in Ontario and the orders secured against Tripta Verma and Pradeep Verma in the Federal court and not in the best interest of Pradeep Verma

9.     That the abuse of process of court, condoning of fraud on the part of Petitioner Poonam Verma in D109598 where Mr. Croll allegedly representing Pradeep Verma while injuring his interest to the maximum ability thus effectively colluding with the opposing counsel Ms. Megin to help her prevail and assist with securing of a divorce decree that could not be granted due to at least half a dozen legal obstacles and that malicious and clandestine and extremely shady act of PGT of supressing of the evidence in the affidavit of Dr. Carole Ann Brown (and conducting the divorce proceeding without any notice of allowing of the participation of Dr. Brown Tripta Verma -+and Dr. Verma )was manifestly not in the best interest of Pradeep Verma (see Chamberlain v. Mackay , (15 June 1999) BCSC ,Vanc. Reg., No. D106928  @ https://canlii.ca/t/1d253 per Kirkpatrick J.

[27] Pursuant to R. 18A (13), I order a trial of the proceeding generally in order for the committee to positively establish that a grant of divorce would be in the interests of the patient; to permit the wife to establish any prejudice that she may incur as a result of the divorce being granted; and to permit an order to be fashioned, if deserved, that will preserve Mrs. MacKay's interests as set forth in the separation agreement.

10.  That the abuse of process of court to secure imprisonments, convictions and probation orders from the criminal court on multiple occasions by the PGT were aimed at injuring or killing him and not in the best interest of Pradeep Verma.

11.  That the abuse of statutory powers which was relied heavily in failing to retain counsel to obtain merits on the fifty outstanding torts or human rights complaints from which damage awards could be secured in favour of him and wrongfully frustrating them and committing unjust enrichment or diversion of a sizable sum of wealth away from him is not in the best interest of Pradeep Verma ( see: a 9-page 1 June 2020 document sent to Anna Cooper and others and was entitled - Lawyer is mandatory for security of Pradeep Verma and Restoration of goodwill 50 items) In criminally impeding the prosecution of these torts the evil trio is engaged in fraudulent concealment of law that, “A Public Trustee is bound by statute to initiate a suit whereas a Guardian Ad Litem brings an action voluntarily” as noted by Sigurdson J., at para 9 in McIlvenna v. Viebig 2012 BCSC 1371 (CanLII), M032644;65 Docket M032644 Vancouver Registry @http://canlii.ca/t/fsrt8 upon citing Braidwood J., as he then was, in Plumb (Guardian ad litem of) v. Cowichan School District No. 65 (1992), 1992 CanLII 994 (BC SC), 76 B.C.L.R. (2d) 118 (S.C.), thus inflicting grave injustice, discrimination and criminal offence to the Charter s. 15(1) that prohibits discrimination.

12. That the decision of PGT to not seek merits in the potential liability in civil action has perpetually malicious, abusively and vindictively adopted a position that is manifestly illegal and not in the best interest of Pradeep Verma , and offends the applicable law stated by Thomas J.C.Q.B.A. at para 29 C.H.S. v. Alberta (Director of Child Welfare), 2008 ABQB 620 @http://canlii.ca/t/2179h

[29] The parens patriae power gives this Court the jurisdiction to protect the interests of those who cannot protect themselves. Given the failure by the counsel for the Plaintiffs to provide complete and up-to-date information about the Action to the Office of the Public Trustee, I invoke that power to require Mr. Robert Lee and C.H.S. to provide forthwith and in no event later than October 31, 2008, all information in Mr. Lee’s possession about the claims of the remaining Plaintiffs to the Office of the Public Trustee such that the Public Trustee can determine in a timely way whether there is a valid claim on the part of the remaining Plaintiffs and, if there is, to refer that claim, if any, to some independent counsel for further review and action.

13.  That the decision of PGT to not seek merits not in the best interest of Pradeep Verma in assessing the potential liability in civil action which would lie against VPD (per Cst. Adib Jaber and Cst. Rodriguez ) and vicariously against the Attorney General as Minister of the Crown for failing to make the arrests of the Ms. Trudie Manoloudis and others pursuant to multiple recent complaints filed in October 2022 in relation to the eviction and deprivation of necessaries of life, criminal negligence and conspiracy to inflict premature death etc.

14.  That the decision of PGT to not seek merits in the potential liability in civil action not in the best interest of Pradeep Verma which would lie against jurists who have blatantly abused their judicial office or committed torts of administrative adjudicative fraud and abuse of judicial authority in entering convictions against him by Cowling PCJ., Howard PCJ, Bahen PCJ., when no offence had taken place where the circumstances are such that the judicial immunity can/must be lifted and the accused enjoyed immunity from being prosecuted and the trial ought to have been stayed based on the Rowbotham rule given there was no defence lawyer made available and the accused was unfit to conduct the trial due to mental and physical disability but in their crusades of cruelty the judges compelled him to not only conduct his own trails but also conduct their apples while the PGT took it upon herself to deny counsel.

15.  That the evil trio of PGT-VCH-WCC anti-Verma homicide crusaders has habitually conducted in a manner that is not in the best interest of Tripta Verma and Pradeep Verma and of Verma family.(here it is noteworthy that the committee is requires to actin the best interests of the members of the family of the patient and the neglect of Tripta Verma took place when she was a client of the PGT.,)

16.  That the failure to bring negligent care of prisoner tort action against Ontario by rendering fraudulent misrepresentations to the effect of lack or merits in the personal injury claim was not in the best interest of Pradeep Verma

17.  That the malicious action of Kimberly Azyan and Sara Campbell of PGT on 14 November 2001 upon receipt of the documentation of divorce from Dr. Carole Ann Brown-to draft a forgery Certificate of Incapability and get Margaret Fraser R. N. outlined as false document in 24 page document sent to Leslie Mills in June 2020 entitled request to end with abetting with criminal trespass via Fraser’s Forgery (see enclosed) in the to sign it with the intent to inflict death through extreme poverty and a wide range of deprivations was not in the best interest of Pradeep Verma

18.  That the act Mr. Lindsay to retract the granted consent to Dr. Carole Ann Brown to be properly appointed the committee of estate and of person as per the recommendations of Dr. Michel Dunn and Mr. Seamus McGlynn in their evaluations of Pradeep Verma in September 2000 after committing breach of trust, contract retraction and breach of promissory estoppel after Dr. Brown had paid $1000 to Mr. Lindsay to make the application of the consented transfer of committeeship from PGT to her was done by the PGT with the most sinister and malicious of intentions to inflict death upon Verma through infliction of extreme poverty for as long as it takes (and has been continued now for over 22 years) was not in the best interest of Pradeep Verma

19.   That the act Mr. Lindsay to retract the granted consent to conceal the truth of Fraser’s Forgery and Criminally Wrongful Displacement as Guardian of Dr. Carole Ann Brown [CWDGCAB] as outlined in a 12-page document, was not in the best interest of Pradeep Verma, which constitutes a most egregious fraud on the court and a conspiracy to inflict death via poverty on own beneficiary.

20.  That the act sum total of the six major delicts/sins/crimes/fiduciary breaches/abuses of power as set out in the 18 Dec 2022 document entitled Theft of my personal effect Old Age Support by Trudie Manoloudis Director adult services at PGT of BC office and Homicide aimed Healthcare deprivation part 2 and the commission of these major sins are listed in the X-mas 2022 document at page 4 under para 4 as follows was and is not in the best interest of Pradeep Verma and these delicts are :

[4[ That trio of PGT-VCH-WCC are engaged in series of fraudulent concealments with the ulterior objective of infliction of fiscal ruin and devastation, dissipation and destruction of Verma estate as has been accomplished and rely on denial of necessaries of life, denial of healthcare, infliction of intolerable physical and psychological abuse, extreme cruelty, Criminality of “Serious State-imposed Psychological Stress” Inflicted Charter s. 7 breach as outlined online @https://bit.ly/SSIPSx7 specifically through failing to make submissions that would help protect the interests of Pradeep Verma while engaged in the heinous delict of Criminally Wrongful Displacement as Guardian of Dr. Carole Ann Brown (CWDGCAB) given that the fraud of PGT before Madam Justice Downs in Brown v. British Columbia (Public Guardian and Trustee), (24July 2002) BCSC 1111 @ http://canlii.ca/t/5kwa behaviour of the solicitor of PGT that is in direct contravention of the legal principles of protection of rights not only on the parties, but on those not before the court.as emphasized by Chief Justice Hinkson at para 13 sub (12) citing the panel of Ontario Divisional Court in Single Mothers’ Alliance of BC Society v British Columbia (A. G.), 2022 BCSC 1328 S173843@https://canlii.ca/t/jr8kx

[13] Insofar as the ability of EVA and ALL to offer a useful and distinct contribution to these proceedings, the comments of Justice Thorburn in Elementary Teachers’ Federation of Ontario et al v. Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario, 2018 ONSC 6318 are instructive. At paras.10-13, Thorburn J. described the concept of a useful and distinct contribution:

(12) The Ontario Court of Appeal has recognized the desirability of having “all of the relevant possibilities brought to its attention, including submissions on the impact of its judgment, not only on the parties, but on those not before the court.” This is true even where only certain aspects of the ultimate decision may bear on the rights at issue and where the intervener may bring only a slightly different perspective to be considered. (Childs et al v. Desormeaux, [2003] O.J. No 3800 (QL), 2003 CanLII 47870 (OCA) at para 15.)

· Main delict no. (1).Fraser’s Forgery due to the unlawfulness as outlined in the 24-page document posted online @ https://bit.ly/FrasersForgery driven by the seditious illegality of January 6 style overturning of the legal views of the public or experts as perpetrated by previous U. S. President Donald Trump thus engaged in the offence of Criminal Trespass through illegally controlling the estate and legal affairs of Verma and actually grotesquely and maliciously mismanaged them to inflict extreme damage. Behind this delict are sub-delicts of criminally impeding with granting of an affidavit by Dr. Dunn as requested by Dr. Brown to make the court application and the wrongful interference with the proceeding with the second assessment given that statute requires two medical affidavits.

· Main delict no. (2)..CWDGCAB Criminally Wrongful Displacement as Guardian of Dr. Carole Ann Brown (CWDGCAB)which was done with the intent to commit in the offence of Criminal Trespass thus successfully maliciously mismanage the estate and legal rights of Pradeep Verma to inflict extreme harm. The offence of CWDGCAB is akin to the unsuccessful attempt by Donald Trump to overthrow the Biden presidency but herein the PGT was successful after breaching the promissory estoppel, recanting the promise and deceit.

· Main delict no. (3).. Malicious and tyrannical oppressive deprivation of benefits of committee of person to Pradeep Verma upon fraudulent concealment ( contrary to s.341 of Criminal Code); of the Marilee Garner Assessment report reviewable online @https://bit.ly/GarnerReport1998 the sole legally valid and proper capacity assessment on Pradeep Verma’s capacity commissioned by Ontario Public Guardian and Trustee (OPGT). While on multiple occasions benefits were denied using the lame excuse or façade that PGT is not the committee of person therefore no responsible for housing, healthcare and meeting the personal care needs, there has been a perpetual concealment of the truth that there is no committee of person for Pradeep Verma because there was a deceitful conduct of PGT in deprivation of that via resort to an offence contrary to s. 139 of Criminal Code called obstruction of justice.

· Main delict no. (4). .Reckless and wanton disregard for the lives of Vermas contrary to Criminal Code s. 219, 221, 228 thus committing Criminal Negligence to effect a serious and material exposed to premature death i.e. conspired for a constructive homicide has taken elaborate steps to wrongfully and maliciously deny through inordinate delay of access to healthcare for over two decades through deprivation of “Substitute Unrestricted Consent for Healthcare Access Provider” (SUCHAP) such that a court ruling on the need for SUCHAP is critically relevant and this dispute would persist until ruled upon by Court. Through the deprivation of medically prescribed substitute healthcare consent provider SUCHAP, medically prescribed monitoring healthcare professional for medication ingestion and the medically prescribed supervised apartment there has been a reckless endangerment of life of Pradeep Verma via denial of medical care for over two decades by the wrongful and criminally negligent conduct of the PGT and VCH.

· Main delict no. (5).. Targeted endangerment of personal security and reckless and wanton disregard for the lives of Verma and deliberate infliction of psychological and economical injury through willful infliction of extreme poverty through reckless and criminal mismanagement of the divorce D109598 thus infliction of the maximum possible harm that could be inflicted upon Tripta Verma and Pradeep Verma by instructing Mr. Andrew Croll the purported counsel opposing the divorce to collude with the wife’s lawyer Ms. Megin Ellis thus allowing the grant of impermissible divorce decree, failing to secure spousal support and later adult physician children’s support and failing to insure the comparable standards of living of the spouses post-separation.

· Main delict no. (6). Maliciously evil deliberate impelling of and reckless and wanton disregard for the lives of Vermas and wilful infliction of psychological injury through infliction of extreme and potentially legal grade stress as is being inflicted via the following three main routes

A Criminality of “Serious State-imposed Psychological Stress” inflicted Charter s. 7 breach as detailed online@ https://bit.ly/SSIPSx7

B. Wilful infliction of extreme cruelty or egregious level of physical and psychological abuse or “intolerable physical and psychological abuse” ( a fact that could not be established before Madam Justice Fisher on 8 March 2013 in R. v. Verma, 2013 BCSC 782 Docket no. 26179 @https://canlii.ca/t/fxbr5 (where PGT deprived appellant of legal assistance and coerced personal conduct of the appeal as was the case with vast majority of criminal defence) and later Mr. Justice Smith in further threat conviction appeals when no offence had been committed due to wrongful deprivation of criminal defence lawyer by the trespassers PGT staffers ) as constituted basis for acquittal in R. v. Bellusci, [2012] 2 SCR 509, @https://canlii.ca/t/fs7kv and in R. v. Ryan [2013] 1 SCR 14, @https://canlii.ca/t/fvp4h denial by physician to prepare the required medical documentation would be a criminal act as is being counselled by the VCH.

C. Wilful infliction of intolerable physical and psychological abuse via deliberate deprivation of healthcare as details at healthcare needs of Pradeep Verma are now available online as Urgent Healthcare Needs of Pradeep Verma @https://bit.ly/PKVhealthneeds despite being aware or and in fact exploiting the vulnerable health status from the multiple strokes and MIs and uncontrolled hypertension such that the actions can reasonably be seen as attempting to inflict death upon a psychologically vulnerable mentally disabled lonely senior known to have a high risk of Sudden Cardiac Arrest (see enclosed the document presented to Dr. Nayar on 12 Dec 2007 entitled Stress Sparked Sudden Cardiac Death risk of Pradeep Verma as HIGH) thus attempting to inflict death via influence on mind contrary to Criminal Code s. 228.

21.  That the act of this evil trio of failing to supply the self-quarantine supplies during the COVID-19 pandemic during 2020-21 and forcing their target victim to be exposed to risk of death was not in the best interest of Pradeep Verma such that application of exposure to the SARS cov2 virus as lethal weapon was injurious to his best interests as resorted to by COVID 19 Killers PGT & VCH aiming for his homicide as is reviewable online @ http://bit.ly/Covid19Kill

[ NB: In doing that PGT-VCH did not hesitate to even place public safety at risk and ignored the extensive communication sent to them on some fifty occasions and is summarized online as COVID 19 Killers PGT & VCH and the recklessness exhibited about public safety communicated to Ms. Anna Cooper R N. on 1 June 2020 in document entitled Notice of common mischief against public safety s. 180 CCC charges with about ten further reminders to cease and desist all of which were ignored.]

22.  That the act of this evil trio of failing to provide a Substitute Unlimited Consent for Healthcare Access Provider (SUCHAP) to enable their target for homicide obtain the vaccination (which has still not been administered nor have the vaccination for flu etc.) in a timely fashion to lower the death risk from this lethal virus and exposing their target victim to be exposed to risk of death was not in the best interest of Pradeep Verma.

23.  That the attitude of the evil trio of foreclosure of access to Charter s. 24(1) rights is an act calculated to impede and in fact deny all access to justice to him is note in the best interests of Pradeep Verma, as it contradicts the law stated by Chief Justice of British Columbia at page 11 in Government Employees' Union, Re, 1985 BCCA 143;20 D.L.R. (4th) 399 ; 64 B.C.L.R. 113 @ https://bit.ly/BCGEURE noted “In our opinion, no limit on a Charter right could be more demonstrably justified than one which preserves the public's unfettered right to access to the Courts of Justice. It is implicit in the very scheme of the Charter where any citizen may apply to the courts to' redress infringements of the rights enumerated. Without preservation of the public.”

24.  That the attitude of the evil trio of foreclosure of access to Charter s. 24(1) rights is an act calculated to impede and in fact deny all access to justice to him is note in the best interests of Pradeep Verma, as it contradicts the law stated by Chief Justice of British Columbia at page 11 in Government Employees' Union, Re, 1985 BCCA 143;20 D.L.R. (4th) 399 ; 64 B.C.L.R. 113 @ https://bit.ly/BCGEURE noted “In our opinion, no limit on a Charter right could be more demonstrably justified than one which preserves the public's unfettered right to access to the Courts of Justice. It is implicit in the very scheme of the Charter where any citizen may apply to the courts to' redress infringements of the rights enumerated. Without preservation of the public.”

25.    That the attitude of the evil trio an act calculated to impede and in fact deny all access to justice to him is note in the best interests of Pradeep Verma, given that this evil trio has precluded him to have a day in the court which is impelling their lives and are counter to the legal doctrine explained by Thomas J., who noted this at para 102 in C.H.S. v. Alberta (Director of Child Welfare), (15 Aug 2008) ABQB 513 (CanLII)Edmonton Reg. CFN 0503 12123 @ http://canlii.ca/t/20bk6

[102] There is one additional ground upon which I would refuse to allow the Defendant’s application. Proceedings in which the plaintiffs are infants should rarely be dismissed for delay: Enlow v. Dembicki, (1995), 124 D.L.R. (4th) 1, 165 A.R. 366 (C.A.), at para. 18. As stated by Master Quinn, “... infants with a bona fide cause of action are privileged suitors who should not be visited with the sins of parties acting as their next friends”: Wittig (Next Friend of) v. Westfair Foods Ltd., (1995), 31 Alta L.R. (3d) 348 (Master) at 352. In exercising my discretion not to dismiss this action for want of prosecution, I am mindful of the increased vulnerability of children who are taken into the protective custody of the state, as they often come from circumstances where it is difficult to find a responsible adult who is willing or capable of advancing the child’s legal interests. These children already face great obstacles in their young lives and in this specific case, I am reluctant to take away from them an opportunity, as limited as it may be, to have their day in court.

26. That the attitude of the evil trio an act calculated to impede and in fact deny all access to justice to him is note in the best interests of Pradeep Verma, and it prevents him from escaping and be protected against commission of crimes against him and this unlawful feat has been accomplished through illegal interfering with access to criminal justice in direct contempt of law through offending s. 504 of Criminal Code given the quasi-criminal nature of the fraud being alleged herein, particularly in light of the clear statement of law by Supreme Court of Canada - “Section 455 (now s. 504) of the Criminal Code permits members of the public to lay an information before a judge if they believe that a person has committed an indictable offence” (R. v. Shubley, 1990 CanLII 149 (S.C.C.) [1990] 1 S.C.R. 3 ; (1990), 65 D.L.R. (4th) 193 per McLachlin J. (as of then)).

27.  That the action of PGT to supress the fact that Cowling PCJ had issued process against Poonam Jhingan(Verma) to answer to the theft, child abduction and abandonment charges during the divorce hearing in D109598 before Mr. justice Sigurdson to allow her case to be advantaged and the case of Pradeep Verma prejudice and seriously disadvantaged was not in the best interest of Pradeep Verma

28.   That the egregious inaction of PGT to fail to adhere to the recommendation of the 1 September 2009 psychiatric assessment conducted with the participation of a CART interpreter to accommodate the communication disability of Dr. Verma, a Consulting Forensic Psychologist of Forensic Psychiatric Institute Port Coquitlam B. C. Dr. Lindsay Jack Ph.D., (full neuropsychological assessment that ought to be reviewed to give effect is available online as report of Dr. Lindsay Jack @https://bit.ly/DrJackReport )commissioned by BCMHAS to undertake that for the reoffence risk of issuance of threats against the PGT, which confirmed the diagnosis of depression and inferred the mutism and adopted the prior court findings of Madam Justice Downs and of the British Columbia Court of Appeal and noted at para 70 of the psychological rehabilitation assessment emphasized the need for his placement (about which no steps were taken by mental health staff or his probation officer) as follows:

[70] Finally Mr. Verma stated he is open to attending the Vancouver Clinic for treatment, but requested a regular appointment time, as he has trouble recalling appointment times / dates when they vary from week to week. In my view his concerns about housing are a primary issue, and that might be a practical issue he could focus on with members of his Treatment Team, as this is clearly a stressor for him

29.  That the action of PGT to suppress the fact of incapacity assessment via unfitness to stand trial by Mr. Justice R. D. Reilly in R. v. Verma (6 May 1997) Kitchener Registry OCJ (gen) CAJ 411 who had found his severe concussion sustained on the night of 30 November 1996 had inflicted serious enough cognitive impairing to instruct counsel ( as later confirmed by Madam Justice Levine of British Columbia Court of Appeal in R. v. Verma 2014 BCCA 157 @http://canlii.ca/t/g6kg5 by writing at para 4 - it became apparent Mr. Verma could not properly instruct counsel.) disability stemming from the head injury and possible severe concussion on the night of November 30, 1996 such that he incapable of instructing counsel and that disability was authentic but PGT disseminating rumors and falsehood to the effect that he has no legitimate disability and is mentally capable as per the report of Dr. Irvine thus discrediting him was not in the best interest of Pradeep Verma, given that the same post concussion syndrome is the real basis for the appointment of guardian in Ontario and in British Columbia that renders him subject to certificate of incapability.

30.  That the action of PGT to suppress the truth of legitimate or authentic severe cognitive impairment of Pradeep Verma and spreading rumors to the effect of he being a malingerer and to allow the trial judge Mr. Sigurdson and other judges health care providers and to members of public or agencies to hold that flawed view including letting the false pre-sentencing report of Dr. Levy submitted before Howard PCJ, to stand is an act of contempt of court and not in the best interest of Pradeep Verma when Mr. Justice R. D. Reilly in R. v. Verma has stated on the court record that:

51. I do not find, perhaps just touching briefly on the strongest evidence supporting Ms. Dwyer's submissions, that his demonstrated ability to manipulate his environment to obtain what he wants, to have his needs tended to by non-verbal communication, is evidence of either his feigning Ganser's Syndrome, or as any demonstration of his cognitive ability to, in any meaningful way, understand the nature or object of criminal proceedings or to meaningfully instruct counsel.

52. For these reasons I find that Dr. Verma is unfit to stand trial at this time.

31.  That the action of PGT to suppress the incapacity findings rendered after a thorough interview as contained in Marilee Garner Assessment Report @ https://bit.ly/GarnerReport1998 who had found him incapable of managing both the estate and person and lacking in capacity to grant or revoke Power of Attorney and that act of fraud by PGT VCH & WCC is not in the best interest of Pradeep Verma.

32.   That the attitude of PGT to suppress and ignore the recommendations in her 22 November 2007 certificate of unfitness to consent to treatment Dr. Shirley Rushton issued incapacity certificate to the effect :

“Upon reviewing the report of Dr. Menuck of Penetanguishene Psychiatric Hospital, Ms. Marilee Garner appointed as an assessor by the Public Guardian and Trustee of Ontario, a recent report by Dr. Brink of Forensic Psychiatric Institute, communication between Pradeep and Dr. Lohrasbe of VIRCC, other coaugmentation relevant to this and the communication with the mother of Pradeep Kumar Verma and with him, an undertaking a limited clinical evaluation that is permitted under the circumstances which is clearly sufficient, it is my clinical impression that Pradeep Kumar Verma who has been deemed incapable on several occasions for legal purposes, should also be deemed incapable of signing a consent for treatment partly because the communication hurdles, his inability to sign consistently and “. "I approve of that arrangement for the implementation of rather complicated treatment regimen hat would be necessary to deal with the host of medical conditions for which a number of drugs need to be prescribed and closely monitored by trained medical personnel on an ongoing basis."

29 That the action of PGT to suppress and ignore the recommendations in the January 2008 letter of Dr. Kaiyo Nedd of West End Medical Center Inc. was not in the best interest of Pradeep Verma Dr. Need had reviewed the draft presented to Dr. Cynthia Chan and that issued by Dr. Shirley Rushton, prepared and had delivered to prepared Mr. Chris Brettell at Public Guardian and Trustee of B.C. (PGT) a Certification of Unfitness to Consent to Treatment entitled RE: Guardianship of Pradeep K. Verma that advised:

In light of the fact that I have recommended that I have I concluded that “Dr. Pradeep Kumar Verma should have an alternative/substitute consent provider appointed for instituting his medical care plan, it is helpful that his mother who is going to take that responsibility be also appointed the committee of his estate given that it appears that she is consenting to and is in the best position to discharge both those roles as well as the fact that your office has been asking her to manage his disability check and provide his day to day needs and that he is his surety in the bail order. “ . . "I would be agreeable to depose an affidavit to the effect of above if so requested and financially reimbursed."

33.  That the action of PGT to suppress and recklessly ignore and disregard the medical recommendations was not in the best interest of Pradeep Verma given that these reports contained in the Among the five single sheet notes issues by him in his 7 January 2013 note Dr. Kwang Yang MD CCFP FCFP of Gateway Medical Centre Phone: (604) 581-2611 or (604) 588-5988 who re-affirmed and advised the Public Guardian and Trustee PGT to take steps respecting the substitute consent provider by noting this at paras 2 and the concluding fifth paragraph of his 5 notes annexed as Five pages of reports of 7 Jan 2013 Gateway Medical Center Notes of Dr. Yang 2013-14

As previously indicated his request that his medication administration be closely supervised by a family physician and a registered nurse and that to put his anxieties at rest a substitute consent provider be appointed by the court appear legitimate and steps must be taken to arrange those so that he can fill and start the intake of the prescription medication. Providing the assistance of an ASL or RTC (or CART) interpreter to meet the communication needs of Pradeep Verma is also going to assist with his rehabilitation and generation of trust in the care provider which becomes seriously undermined when his communicates remain un-responded. It is critical that he get his answers.

In sum, it appears that to accomplish the above including his willingness to fill treatment and begin to trust healthcare provider, he be placed in a nursing home or retirement home with around the clock nurse availability and where there is a physician who makes regular visits. Additionally, a person he is able to trust must be assigned to provide the substitute consent for treatment, even if he is capable of consenting himself, there is a clear need to cover the periods of confusion and total non-communication and for alleviation of his tremendous stress that he is being forced to consent when he is not provided with all the pertinent information and steps taken to ensure that the medication side effects will be monitored closely. Please do not hesitate to contact me if there is anything in this report that needs clarification. Gateway Medical Centre undertakes to issue prescriptions if a nurse supervises. These arrangements must be made preferably before end of January 2013.

34.  That the action of Trudie Manoloudis at the office of PGT to was not in the best interest of Pradeep Verma whereby she has inserted a 3 year delay with the pending five (5) matters that require a Decision Review and has also denied an APPEAL that decision of Carmalita Brancati made on her behalf by the Deputy Public Trustee and this self-insulating behaviour of Trudie Manoloudis by blocking due process constitution is a crime contrary to s. 139 referred to as Obstruction of Justice and contempt of court and that is not in the best interest of Pradeep Verma

35.  That the action of Trudie Manoloudis Executive Director, Services to Adults Public Guardian and Trustee who impeded a decision review thus resort to contempt of court and an offence contrary to s. 139 of Criminal Code called obstruction of justice by denial of decision review for the implicit refusal of lawyer for three novel Charter claims against B C Govt mandates a full and proper response prior to the deadline of 31 Aug 2022

 I. Tripta Verma & Pradeep Verma v. Her Majesty the Queen as represented by Attorney General of British Columbia (failure to ensure security of life from wide range of acts of crimes – Charter s. 7)

II. Tripta Verma & Pradeep Verma v. Her Majesty the Queen as represented by Health Minister of British Columbia (failure to deliver satisfactory healthcare or over two-decade delay in access to healthcare)

III. Tripta Verma & Pradeep Verma v. Her Majesty the Queen as represented by Housing Minister of British Columbia (failure to provide satisfactory health compatible secure shelter care or over two decade and exposure to extreme poverty or economic security per Charter s. 7)

(See: 12 paged 22 August 2022 document entitled - Urgent need to seek Decision review for the implicit refusal of lawyer for three novel Charter claims against B C Govt.)

36.  That the attitude of oversight and neglecting to acknowledge and respond in a timely manner to the 7-paged 11 July 2022 document constituted of 20 paragraphs outlining the delicts of PGT and others of fraudulent concealment ( contrary to s.341 of Criminal Code); was not in the best interest of Pradeep Verma and malicious behaviour intended to be referred to as in the legal proceedings as 7elevenDoc @ reviewable online @ https://bit.ly/7elevenDoc That the attitude of the evil trio of criminality negligent failure to secure ample income to meet basic life needs is not in the best interest Pradeep Verma that bears the subject paragraph as follows:

RE: Criminality of failure to secure ample income to meet basic life needs plus urgent need to terminate the unlawful confinement in unsafe or dangerous housing forthwith upon admitting the abusive nature and illegality of the committeeship rendering it Criminal Trespass dictating recusal forthwith on own motion of the Public Guardian and Trustee of B. C. to protect the best interests of Verma children and Verma grandchildren (son and daughter of Dr. Pamela Liao Norah Alexandra Liao age 7 and Mackenzie James Liao age 4.) and resignation of PGT to help with restoration of Verma family to end the genocide crusade launched some 30 years prior.

Note also needs to be taken of the enclosures to this document that were as follows:

1. Faxes sent to Chris Bretell in summer of 2012

2. Jurisdiction of the court crown exists only for the best interests of the patient or beneficiary.

3. Herb-Kelly 2017 12 19 Notice to Admit fraud – 144 paras 44-page document before Butler J.

4. Jennifer Glasgow, 2022 04 22 VCH update forwarded to Frank Lin RE 15 items being denied for 15 yrs.

5. Jennifer Glasgow 2022 05 16 Repeat request to guide us on steps for SUCHAP and COMMITTEE appointment

6. COVID 19 Killers PGT & VCH @ http://bit.ly/Covid19Kill

7. Criminal trespass and Forgery @https://bit.ly/FrasersForgery

8. Certificate of incapacity of healthcare consent of Pradeep Verma drafted to be signed by Yasmin Jetha on 2 August 2021 @https://bit.ly/healthconsentincapacity

37.  That the concerted action of PGT and allies through unlawful and cruel posture to fail to protect the best interests of Verma children and Verma grandchildren (son and daughter of Dr. Pamela Liao Norah Alexandra Liao age 7 and Mackenzie James Liao age 4.) and the daughter of Dr. Pretty Verma which conflicts with the duty of the committee to protect the best interests of the family of both the patients his Tripta Verma and his interests to visit the grandchildren (great grandchildren) was not in the best interest of Pradeep Verma and of Tripta Verma .

38.  That the concerted action of PGT and allies to inflict lethal grade extreme poverty whereby even the social assistance or disability benefits referred to as Persons With Disability (PWD) were withheld from 2008 thru 2012 and then from 2015 thru 2022 and now the Old Age Supplement (OAS) benefits too are not being applies to supply the daily personal needs like meals, clothing, medication etc., which was the primary driving force behind the misconduct of PGT of securing the forged Certificate of Incapability and later displacement of Dr. Carole Ann Brown as the committee through fraud on the court by rendering a series of fraudulent misrepresentations and engaging in series of fraudulent concealments and this flagrant breach of duty by a committee is was not in the best interest of Pradeep Verma

39.  That the action of PGT to was not in the best interest of Pradeep Verma when elaborate ongoing steps were taken to preclude his access to any healthcare anywhere in the province of British Columbia, like having physicians close his file and eject him from their practices and preventing the making of or cancellation of the specialist appointments the most recent example of which is the illegal interference with the setting up these follow up to the stroke of 28 October 2022 given that while discharging him from VGH careplan of Dr. Plecash Dr John Gorman Dr Thomas Winter intendeds to do the following tests that should now be undertaken within a reasonable timeframe to avoid delay linked changes:

1. MRI Brain stroke protocol and follow up in office for MoCA

2. Internist referral for hypertension and potential anticoagulation in the future for the high-risk situation.

3. Neuro-ophthalmology referral for visual field loss – to be set up with Dr. Kowal at the earliest

4. Audiology referral –for the intermittently worsening tinnitus and hypertensive otopathy triggering balance problem rendering me susceptible to unpredictable falls.

5. Psych & Neuro-psych referral to evaluate and manage depression a major risk factor for Alzheimer’s Disease besides worsening hypertension and loneliness Will assist with the self-referral through the Access and Assessment Centre with help from Jen Glasgow of South Mental. In light of the past failures assistance of healthcare coordinator is needed.

NB: Dr Cosic and Dr. Malig of Seymour Health of VCH during the 28 Oct 2022 and 28 Feb 2023 update :noted that the effect of stress of being evicted had led Pradeep Verma to suffer a stroke in progress (or hot stroke) for which he was sent to VGH on Friday 28 Oct 2022 was in the opinion of stroke research fellow at UBC Dr. Alyson Plecash a bout of extreme anxiety neurosis with residual conversion state through writing apraxia which led to an initial speculation of very early symptoms of Alzheimer’s Disease in light of the six risk factors including a strong family history whereby grandmother died of it and the mother is now admitted at Dogwood Home being incapacitated with this condition. It is only reasonable to assume such bouts of anxiety nervous breakdowns would prove deleterious to me mental via anxiety worsening and dementia needing personal care (see https://bit.ly/PersonalSupportWorkerCLAIRE)

40.  That the action of PGT of failing to take steps for rehabilitation after the second stroke of 28 October 2022 by not delivering the items requested to accommodate the additional disability that ensued was not in the best interest of Pradeep Verma

41.  That the action of PGT to not send him for a further capacity assessment after the 28 October 2022 stroke was not in the best interest of Pradeep Verma

42.  That the action of PGT to fail to respond to the communications respecting take steps about the special housing needs and appealing the decisions or the Residential Tenancy Board was not in the best interest of Pradeep Verma

43.  That the routine approach of the thugs of the evil trio who approach him as a mentally capable adult and decline to grant the privileges enure to him as a mentally incapable adult and conceal the law of privileged status of the mentally disabled deemed infants or minors before the law was stated by Major J, for the unanimous Supreme Court of Canada in Murphy v. Welsh [1993] 2 S.C.R.1069. at paras 71-73 and there are key pertinent obiters to the effect “A person of unsound mind is given the same statutory protection under law as is a minor” and “The prejudice to plaintiffs under legal disability outweighs the benefits of providing a procedural defence to liability.” such that denial of benefits of law and Charter ss. 7, 12, 15(1) offensive conduct of these offenders is not in the best interest of Pradeep Verma

44.  That the action of PGT to fail to have a lawyer attend before Mr. Wilson of Residential Tenancy Board on 21 October 2022 after having orchestrates his criminal and human rights abusive eviction and homelessness was not in the best interest of Pradeep Verma.

45.  That the action of PGT to fail to have a lawyer evaluate the legal merits of the medical malpractice action against Dr. Poornima Senra as request in July and August 2022 to allow access to health care was not in the best interest of Pradeep Verma.

46.  That the action of PGT to fail to have a lawyer evaluate the legal merits of the proposed tort against Spragg’s law who mismanaged the reconsideration requests while abusing the powers as officer of the court @ https://bit.ly/SpraggsLawRequest

47.  That the action of PGT to fail denial of items prescribed by Amber Reynolds on 5 Sep 2022 was denied these items was not in the best interest of Pradeep Verma given the dire urgency of these essential life saving items as follows:

1. Dental assessment and likely dentures -his missing teeth are affecting his ability to chew

2. Optometrist appointment for his vision

3. TTY 911 telephone access for emergency

4. Medic alert bracelet

5. Orthotics for foot pain

6. Internet access

7. Payment for his prescription medications

8. Compression stockings for leg swelling

9. Exercise bike to help his leg swelling.

48.  That the action of PGT to fail seek a review of the wrongful, criminal and human rights abusive repossession (eviction) order of Mr. Wilson of Residential Tenancy Board of 21 October 2022 after having orchestrates his criminal and human rights abusive eviction and homelessness was not in the best interest of Pradeep Verma

49.  That the state of vulnerable housing or absolute denial of housing since October 2022 to date based on the criminality of officials (Mr. Wilson and Mr. Fox) of Residential Tenancy Board, the complainant landlady Surjit Gidda that is an offence contrary to s. 215 of Criminal Code, a serious Charter s. 7 breach and violation of human rights and conflicts with the obiter of Laforest J., that crown must find placement for the mentally disabled such that state of homelessness that has been established to expose him to at least five categories of threats or risks is not in the best interest of Pradeep Verma

50.  That the action of PGT to fail to find placement arrangements in a Vancouver Hotel on 24 October 2022 after having orchestrates his criminal and human rights abusive eviction and homelessness was not in the best interest of Pradeep Verma

51.  That the action of PGT to have the petition of Dr. Carole Ann Brown deceitfully dismissed by Madam Justice Downs in in Brown v. B. C. ( Public Guardian and Trustee of British Columbia ) 2002 BCSC 1111 @https://canlii.ca/t/5kwr “THE ORIGINAL SIN” to imperil his life through infliction of extreme poverty and a whole slew of deprivations for over two decades was not in the best interest of Pradeep Verma

52.  That the monster or Demon like actions of PGT aiming to remove any benefit he can obtain from any source are not merely despicably reprehensible but also not in the best interest of Pradeep Verma which is evident from the failure on the part of the evil trio to respond to the 7-page document of 9 March 2023 that remains to be acknowledged let alone responded which was entitled PGT VCH actions mimic R. v. J.A.R. Abandonment section 215 failure to provide the necessaries of life

53.  That the monster or Demon like actions of PGT in the court proceedings in Nanaimo are acts of fraudulent concealment whereby PGT withheld the truth of incapacity to apply the income of beneficiary for his benefit and that continuation of PGT and ejection of Dr. Carole Ann Brown was not in the best interest of Pradeep Verma as misapprehended and grossly misjudged by Downs J., as it runs counter to the law of suitability of committee canvassed by Harris J. A., for Court of Appeal at para in Mok v. Wong 2022 BCCA 418 dockets: ca48159; ca48160 has made an attempt to craft a quasi-test for determination of the suitability of the committee of a patient, which if applied to the Public Guardian and Trustee of British Columbia (PGT) in the case of Pradeep K. Verma would leave little room to doubt that in disposition of in Brown v. B. C. ( Public Guardian and Trustee of British Columbia ) 2002 BCSC 1111 @https://canlii.ca/t/5kwr “THE ORIGINAL SIN” that is the essence of The Nuclear Issue of Vermas 2002 SCBC an act of egregious illegality and deception and malice whereby the PGT was not acting in the best interest of Pradeep Verma but out of vendetta and malice.

54.  That the act of this evil trio of wrongfully evading the compensation for the egregious damage inflicted through ejection of Dr. Carole Ann Brown is not in the best interest of Pradeep Verma where there is a moral and legal obligation on the British Columbia government to comply with the law stated in in Fidler v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Canada, [2006] 2 SCR 3, @http://canlii.ca/t/1npv6 Because the PGT VCH RTB WCC conspired to inflict death upon Verma through this latest gimmick and relied on at least dozen acts of fraud by the adjudicator Mr. Wilson and Mr. Cox but for their crimes Verma would not be in the perils of homelessness therefore to do justice Vermas must be "put in the position it would have been in had the contract been performed as agreed.” (see: BG Checo International Ltd. v. British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority [1993] 1 SCR 12, https://canlii.ca/t/1fs5q ) And by complying with the sentiment of legal axiom nemo dat quod non habet (or full restitution rule) which translates to recover any loss suffered from the miscreant who put the possessor in that position that “injured party is to be restored to the position prior to injury/fraud” even for the psychological injury where “a breach in certain circumstances would cause a plaintiff mental distress. . . an independent actionable wrong” stated in Vorvis v. Insurance Corp. of British Columbia, [1989] 1 S.C.R. 1085, @ https://canlii.ca/t/1ft6t cited at paras 42 in Fidler v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Canada, [2006] 2 SCR 3, @http://canlii.ca/t/1npv6.

55.  That the attitude of PGT of decline to close the file upon following the test for self-removal of committee/trustee and transfer it to Dr. Pretty Verma as per the law canvassed by Belobaba J., at para 10 in Borisko and Muyleart v Borisko and Borisko Estate, (5 May 2010) ONSC 2670 (CanLII) CFN 07-001116 where he stated “This is a case where the estate trustee should have stepped aside as soon as he lost the trust and confidence of the beneficiaries. Instead, the trustee prolonged the dispute and caused needless and costly litigation.” in failing to do which .PGT is driven by self interest protection and not acting in the best interest of Pradeep Verma but out of vendetta and retaliation about unwillingness to accept the authenticity of the unfitness assessment of Ms. Garner and of Dr. Michel Dunn that the PGT had anticipated would find Pradeep Verma fit and malingering the disability etc.

56.  That the attitude of PGT of deliberately failing to secure support from adult Verma physician children is not in the best interest of Pradeep Verma whereas based on the Family Relations Act direly needed support from three adult Verma children can be in the vicinity of between $6 and $9 thousand dollars a month that is being wrongfully deprived to him with the objective of infliction of fatal poverty. Additionally, there was a deliberate misconduct and extreme fatal grade injustice was inflicted during the egregiously misconducted divorce trial by failing to respect the principle of comparable post separation standard of living given that the plot for murdering Pradeep Verma of PGT was grounded through deprivations therefore every principle of Divorce Act and Family Relations Act was ignored.

NB: Hon Judge Frame of B. C Provincial Court Judge in F. et al. v. G. et al., 2013 BCPC 56 File # 7841 In the Matter of The Family Relations Act, R.S.B.C. 1996 c. 128 @http://canlii.ca/t/fwksv sets out this common-sense doctrine of maintaining the status quo of the lifestyle of spouse’s post-separation as follows at para 5 of his reasons:

[5] The law respecting a claim for undue hardship is set out in Section of 10 of the Annotated Federal Child Support Guidelines. Assuming Mr. G. can establish that he falls under one of the criteria set out in Section 10(2), then the standards of living in both households must be considered. In other words, the standard of living of the household in which Mr. F. resides must be assessed in comparison to the standard of living of the household in which Mr. G. resides. In comparing those standards of living, the income of all persons who share living expenses who contribute to the economic benefit of the Applicant or Respondent should be taken into consideration if the court considers it reasonable that the person be considered part of the household

57.  That the act of PGT of resort to infliction of death upon Verma through extreme poverty and attempting to rendering him his own committee after infliction of financial ruin upon him was not in the best interest of Pradeep Verma

NB: Details of the infliction of economic ruin and the conspiracy to convert the patient Pradeep Verma his own committee by setting up a false bank account with Pigeon Park Savings and handing him a debit card to manage his own financial and legal affairs is outlined in th e 8-page document entitled :

Dozen legal grounds for just and fair position of Pradeep Verma behind defying the orders, direction or instruction of PGT VCH to do own banking and litigation etc.(appointing Verma his own committee). Illegal dumping or illicit delegation of impossible financial and legal burdens upon Verma .This document is reviewable online at will be referred to as in the legal proceedings as 8Aug2022Doc

58.  That the act of PGT to deprive the benefit of damage awards form these torts that ought to be prosecuted against Ontario and was attempted in Sudbury but are stalled for want of a lawyer that needs to be proceeded with promptly. Following items were set out by Dr. Carole Ann Brown in her document NOTICE (Request) to admit 13 facts regarding the torts against Ontario and CPSO a 4-page document dated 8 November 2004 annexed as Exhibit # 465 to the Affidavit of Dr. Carole Ann Brown of 4 Feb 2004 outlining this list of torts on the part of Ontario Crown failing in which is not in the best interest of Pradeep Verma. Those potential torts that were initiated in Ontario Superior Court of Justice Court file no. C9044/05 (Sudbury Registry) are:

1. Negligent care of prisoner resulting in brain trauma and serious psychological injury (between November 27, 1996 and May 15, 2000).

2. Denial of medical care to inmate aggravating the brain trauma and the psychological injury

3. Unlawful detention in the context of overzealous prosecution (between 1994 and 2000)

4. Abuse and assaults by the servants of the Crown in the psychiatric detention facilities (Peeters v. Canada ( C.A. ), [1994] 1 F.C. 562)

5. Unlawful segregations while in pre-trial detentions, most of which were unlawful ab initio.

6. Systemic Negligence rendering prisons of Ontario ill-suited for detention of individuals with problems with effective verbal communications.

7. Systemic Negligence rendering prisons of Ontario ill-suited for detention of non-smokers who suffer from second hand smoke.

8. Unreasonable arrests and detentions while under probation (April 14, 2000 to June 9, 2000)

9. Negligent investigation, negligent or fraudulent misrepresentation and actionable non-disclosures.

10.   Perversion of justice through tainting of court proceedings through fraud contrary to s. 7 of Charter (including the misconduct of the registry officials and Assistant Deputy Attorney General of British Columbia introducing unauthorized prejudicial delays in the adjudication of the matters)

11.   Negligent supervision of person on probation by the Probation officer.

12.   Breach of fiduciary duty by the Police and Crown during the probation period.(May 1998-May 2000)

13.  Overzealous prosecution and prosecutorial misconduct by CPSO and OMAG acting in concert.

And Dr. Carole Ann Brown proposed the following itemized list of damages owed

1. General Damages (for diminution of quality of life from physical and psychological injury): $500,000.00

2. Special Damages (loss of future earning capacity (or future income loss): $7.500,000.00.

3. Loss of Guidance, Care, and Companionship: under Family Law Act damages at $50,000.00 x 5 (for each child and each of the dependent parents).

4. Aggravated/punitive damages (including breach of fiduciary duty): $1,000,000.00

5. Court ordered interest: (at 9% for 9 years) $5,000,000.00 (approx.)

6. Cost of these applications and court proceedings: (avoidable by settling) $2,500,000.00

59.  That the act of PGT to unlawfully deprive the damage awards sought in the unjustly stalled action filed by him in Kitchener Registry with Court File no. 34/99 failing to prosecute which Jetha is not in the best interest of Pradeep Verma

60.  That the unconscionable posture of PGT to repent and exhibit contrition for having blundered at several points and most importantly through the life destroying for Pradeep Verma step of ejection of Dr. Carole Ann Brown from whom he was receiving approximately $4000 a month worth of services gratuitously that were unlawfully stolen by PGT, and deserve to be fully compensated by advancing an income of $6000 a moth to meet his needs and to grant him standard of living at par with this physician children and estranged spouse who is not lawfully divorced and is still his wife as the divorce decree is a nullity, which ought to be done through making an urgent application to secure that compensatory funding from the British Columbia Crown based on the law stated by Abella J., at paras 18-21 in in these words at paras 18-21 of Nova Scotia (Minister of Health) v. J.J., 2005 1 S.C.R. 177, @ http://canlii.ca/t/1jz6j resisting which is not in the best interest of Pradeep Verma, as it wrongfully deprives him of his lawfully entitlement to be placed in the position he was when residing with Dr. Brown and in receipt of the gratuitous services as per the law canvassed by Supreme Court of Canada on restitutionary law in among others, Fidler v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Canada, [2006] 2 SCR 3, @http://canlii.ca/t/1npv6

61.   That the act of PGT to unlawfully deprive healthcare access for the past two decades for want of a “Substitute Unrestricted Consent for Healthcare Access Provider” (SUCHAP) that is required as per the 24-page August 2021 summary entitled “Certificate of incapacity of healthcare consent of Pradeep Verma 2 August 2021 for Ms. Yasmin Jetha – DRAFT” (reviewable online as Certificate of incapacity of healthcare consent of Pradeep Verma @ https://bit.ly/healthconsentincapacity and insertion of over 3 year delay in having the medical and legal evidence in support of SUCHAP appointment to be reviewed and signed by Yasmin Jetha is not in the best interest of Pradeep Verma

62.  That the habitual infliction by the PGT-VCH anti-Verma homicide coalition Tort of Active Creation of Unacceptable Risk . (TACUR) is not in the best interest of Pradeep Verma as canvassed 28 Nov 2021 document Dire need to active creation of unacceptable risks TACUR annexed to 29 Nov 2021 with the following subject line:

RE: Dire need to terminate the criminal negligence and aggravated assault via commission of tort of active creation of unacceptable/unreasonable/unjustifiable/unbearable risks (TACUR) tainted with elder abuse, mentally disabled abuse, racism, genocidal intent (digging a hidden ditch to make someone fall in)

63.  That the act of PGT to fail to seek merits of the potential tort of prosecuting a civil action for negligent investigation of criminal complaints made with VPD on 11 October 2022 and on 24 October 2022 was not in the best interest of Pradeep Verma. These complaints name three accused and alleging as follows below the named crime perpetrators/offenders:

[Three leads accused among several others actively or passively via inaction plotting my murder for the past 2 decades – dozens of those working under them have collaborated in this conspiracy]

1. Ms. Trudie Manoloudis Executive Director, Services to Adults Public Guardian and Trustee of B. C. 700 – 808 West Hastings Street Vancouver BC V6C 3L3 phone (604) 660-4444

2.     Vivian Eliopoulos President and Chief Executive Officer Vancouver Coastal Health Authority Vancouver Coastal Health #200-520 West 6th Ave 604-730-7654 Tristin.Wayte@vch.ca.

3.     Dr. Ruth Warick, PhD Director, Programs and Services Wavefront Communication Centre; 2005 Quebec Street Vancouver, BC, V5T 2Z6Phone: 604-736-7391

B. OFFENCES ALLEGED (this only a partial list and additional offences may be added by lawyer)

ESSENCE OF THE OFFENCE SET: Conspiracy to commit a homicide by influence on mind (s. 228) through these sub-offences of wide variety of neglect, senior abuse, torture etc.

1. Abandonment – denial of necessaries of life (s. 215)

2. Criminal neglect causing bodily harm (s. 219, 221)

3. Criminal trespass on my estate -constructive theft

(Theft of my four full paid-up houses and rendering me homeless for the past 22 years exposing me to high risk of death via becoming random violence victim on the street without the protection of shelter)

4. Criminal harassment (oppression and silent treatment of failing to respond to emails etc.)

5. Deprivation of every necessity of life (these have gone on for 10, 15 up to 22 years)

6. Multiple human rights violations (contrary to British Columbia Human Rights Code)

7. Fraud and obstruction of justice – via lawyer denial (ss. 341, 380, 139 and others)

[Fraud is being perpetrated via fraudulent concealment (s.341) and misrepresentations (s.380) such that A mentally competent member of the society alone can file complaints of crime with police or justice of the peace which needs remediation through appointing a lawyer to help make complaint Upon admitting that PGT engaged in criminal trespass and consenting to transfer committeeship to my daughter there would emerge a serious consideration being given to abandoning this criminal complaint]

64.  That the act of this evil trio outlined in the 4 paged 24 April 2023 document entitled Conduct calculated to inflict death through dementia or Alzheimer’s disease on Pradeep Verma by malicious targeting of denial of access to healthcare are not in the best interest of Pradeep Verma

65.  That the act of this evil trio of Conduct calculated to inflict death through dementia or Alzheimer’s disease on Pradeep Verma by malicious targeting of denial of access to healthcare as outlined in the 4 paged 24 May 2023 document, are not in the best interest of Pradeep Verma

66.  That the act of this evil trio of to deliberately engage in steps to shorten his life as set out in the 20-paged 4 November 2021 document entitled The 66 item Evidentiary underpinning of homicide through slashing of 60 years off my life (thus effecting homicide of a senior citizen years with the possible maximal life expectancy of 125 years known to man.) such that wrongful deprivation of access to healthcare to a mentally and physically crippled senior with mental incapacity who suffers from some dozen health conditions and the added shortening of life span from them is about 60 years is behaviour of this evil trio not in the best interest of Pradeep Verma

67.  That the attitude of the evil trio of inaction and failure to act amounts to reckless and wanton disregard for the life of a vulnerable mentally incapable senior such that it is permissible to infer that as an intent to further a homicide plot including the attempted Sudden Cardiac Death at the following webpage accessible from the shortlink http://bit.ly/ADmurder , not in the best interest of Pradeep Verma

1.     A Systematic & calculated to inflict death deprivation of urgently needed healthcare.

2.     Extreme healthcare deprivation via delay through legal assistance deprivation

3.     Extreme healthcare deprivation via extreme lethal level poverty and depraved indifference about financial security

4.     Infliction of death via crime of an extreme delay in access to healthcare

5.     Infliction of death via dismal quality healthcare through deprivation of a primary care physician

6.     Extreme delay in access to healthcare access via deprivation of committee of person and of SUCHAP and CLAIRE-9 ( a personal care attendant)

7.     Illegal deprivation of Certificate of incapacity of healthcare consent of Pradeep Verma

8.     Extreme delay in access to healthcare via criminal trespass through relying on the fraud of Fraser's Forgery.

9.     Attempted homicide through careplan denial

10.  Attempted homicide through cruelty of imposing impossible and cruel burden on Pradeep Verma to do own banking while financially incompetent.

11.  Relying on medical malpractice by insisting on medication only without the supportive lifestyle-based approach as presented to Amber Reynolds in Sept 2022 as a request for 911 TTY access cable TV via TELUS package and one month lifestyle transition for hypertension control of Pradeep Verma

12.  Attempted murder through egregious breach of statutory duties.

13.  Attempted homicide through infliction of psychological shock of maliciously rendering the victim homeless via conspiring to secure an illegal eviction order.

14.  Attempted homicide via egregious dereliction and illegal dumping of housing burden by turning a right of choice or discretion to a burden or duty.

15.  Attempted murder through failing to give effect to Dr. Jack Report and ignoring other medical reports and recommendations.

16.  Attempted murder as outlined in Exhibit M.

17.  Attempted murder as outlined in 8 August 2022 Documents

18.  Intent to injure as outlined in Herb-Kelly Dec 2017 document

19.  Intent to injure as per Remembrance Thanksgiving Day document

20.  Attempted homicide via resort to Criminality of SSIPS Inflicted Charter s.7 violations “Serious State-imposed Psychological Stress” https://bit.ly/SSIPSx7

68.  That acts of this evil trio outlined on a summary webpage are not in the best interest of Pradeep Verma setting out the various strategies that have been innovated and pursued by them posted at the link https://bit.ly/ADmurder

69.  That the delicts of PGT to deprive him of secure placement and allowing him to be abandoned after his eviction had been orchestrated by this evil trio from even the unsatisfactory residential unit since 24 October 2022 and there is no plan to place him in a secure housing in the next couple of decades and he has no funds on him. PGT has deliberately detained him against his wishes to permit the landlady to commit proxy crimes of abuse neglect and quasi-torture via harassment on behalf of the PGT-VCH anti-Verma homicide crusaders as they further their agenda to harm him in every way that is possible to inflict the maximal amount of stress. The numerous concerns of the state of disrepair of the place, being too hot in summer and too cold in the winter etc., were ignored as also the complaint of abuse submitted on his behalf by a witness Mr. Volodymyr Bortnik. Instead PGT relied on that fact to victimize Pradeep Verma and asked the perpetrator landlady to report that interaction as an assault on her and have him evicted during which the PGT failed to provide lawyer and also took steps that he would not be able to attend the hearing on 21 October 2022 to help the landlady succeed with the eviction which is among the various steps of PGT-VCH to injure his economic and personal security interests given the two-decade long animus-acrimony. Compelling him to defend eviction proceeding in person was not in the best interest of Pradeep Verma

70.  That the action of PGT to not reimburse Mr. Volodymyr Bortnik as was done to Dr. Carole Ann Brown and Tripta Verma for the services he rendered to their client thus dissuading them from continuing with the delivery of laundry, supervision, meal access etc. was not in the best interest of Pradeep Verma

71.  That the action of PGT to not assist Walid elKhair, Enedina Trejo, Mr. Pall Beesla, Mr. Sam Gill, Mr. Volodymyr Bortnik and others to not permit to become the private committee (by intimidating them with legal costs) to protect the best interest of Pradeep Verma was not in the best interest of Pradeep Verma

72.  That the delicts of PGT to deprive the access to telephone access esp. 911 TTY in the event of chest pain or early stroke symptoms to summon paramedics given the need of such help is anticipated from the medical status and his safety plan to be prepared by a physician as set out in 11-paged 8 January 2023 document entitled Urgent need for obtaining a medical opinion on safety status to establish .intent to inflict death upon Pradeep Verma with repeat request made in a 4-paged ,4 April 2023 document entitled Trudie Manoloudis 2023 04 04 URGENT need for obtaining a medical opinion on safety status security plan to establish PGT VCH intent to inflict death upon Pradeep Verma. This document intended that a physician commissioned for this purpose be sent the following question to provide his expert medical opinion on.

Dear Dr. x . Kindly provide a health risk or mortality risk of a 66-year-old hypertensive deaf with CAPD, aphasia man alone and abandoned male without housing, nutritional supply, protection from the adverse environmental elements of cold, rain snow etc., who reports falling propensity at an increasing frequency from cochlear imbalance producing hypertensive otopathy, painful osteoarthritis of the knee lately compounded by the cramping and painful spasming of right calf from ruptured Baker’s cyst and a generalized propensity for muscle cramps and spasms of recent origin.

73.  That the act of PGT to deprive the access to healthcare consent provider which is not in the best interest of Pradeep Verma as that has inflicted severe suffering as this mischief of PGT has prevented access to general healthcare for migraine, seizures, stroke, hypertension, cardiac issues, fainting, respiratory hypersensitivity and tremendous suffering dental pain without being able to get a dentist to remove his four abscessed teeth such that he was compelled to do the self-extraction of those painful teeth himself using carpentry tool and the urgently needed dentures have now been delayed for some two years as suggested by Dr. Melineh Stepanian Zadeh Salm of Reach dental clinic. Visit date 21 May 2021 who was persuaded to not see him again and that Dr. Jason Choi of OMS group Burnaby who has booked him for dental surgery on 30 June 2021 @ 3:30pm was persuaded to cancel the appointment and refer him to VGH dentistry and the VGH dentistry was persuaded to make his referral vanish and pretend and advised him that there was no referral made by Dr. Melineh Salm which was clearly done by the Reach dental Clinic reception coordinator and is well documented. Later Dr. Alavian has also been frustrated with the proceeding of the dental appointment and that has been done through withholding of the treatment of severe hypertension in the range of 240/120 which must be controlled prior to dental surgery for the safety of the surgery and reduction of risk of complications Surgery cannot proceed without good B. P. control.

74.  That the conduct of this evil trio of to repeatedly, mercilessly and reckless exposing him to extreme level of anxiety or stress, the Criminality of SSIPS Inflicted Charter s. 7 Breach or “Serious State-imposed Psychological Stress” @https://bit.ly/SSIPSx7 that exhibits their reckless and wanton disregard for his life given that every single decision of these thugs is such that they have been clearly and repeatedly made aware of that this level of Charter s. 12 offending mental cruelty exposes Pradeep Verma to risk of the Sudden Cardiac Death risk or a premature death risk and constitutes the offence of acceleration of death ( The risk of Sudden Cardiac Death from extreme distress has been outlined in the Dr. Nayar note of 12 Dec 2017 : Dr Anuradha Nayar 2017 12 12 Stress Sparked Sudden Cardiac Death risk of Pradeep Verma as HIGH) of a medically vulnerable adult that is contrary to s. 228 of the Criminal Code, their cruelty crusade continues without any pause and every single request and need gets dismissed at the hands of these ruthless monsters who gloat when they inflict a further deprivation of necessity of life and this exposure of anxiety, stress and duress when he has ten health conditions and major depression is not in the best interest of Pradeep Verma

75.  That the attitude of the evil trio of PGT-VCH-WCC who are concealing the truth of real reasons for persuading to commit fraud and issue a false document relied upon by PGT referred to as Fraser’s Forgery is not in the best interest of Pradeep Verma due to the unlawfulness as outlined in the 24-page document posted online @ https://bit.ly/FrasersForgery As brought to your attention in the 8 page 8 December 2020 document named Duty on Govt of BC of full restitutionary justice Restitutionary fairness Obligations the 10-page 31 Aug 2021 document entitled Notice of impending fraud suit and impeachment proceedings against PGT-VCH anti-Verma homicidal coalition and the 7 page 11 July 2022 document 11 Criminality of failure to secure ample income to meet basic life needs [see all three documents enclosed] and some hundred other similar documents that you failed to rebut by the deadline and ignored the alleged tort and offence of fraudulent concealment ( contrary to s.341 of Criminal Code); wherein silence is not a proper defenc3e, you are now deemed to have admitted to the torts allege via acquiesce via silence to the allegations via your silence and inaction past the deadlines of a dozen offences including violation of s. 341 of Criminal Code via adoption of absolute silence amounting to offence of unconscionable non-disclosure while being under a moral obligation and fiduciary duty a positive duty to speak (while ignoring five dozen reminders), amounting to tort of fraudulent concealment by failing to admit acknowledge and address the fact (fraudulent concealment of the existence of a cause of action the test for fraudulent concealment as stated in Kitchen v. Royal Air Force Ass'n et al., [1958] 1 W.L.R. 563 at p. 573, and adopted in Guerin v. The Queen [1984] 2 S.C.R. 335; @http://canlii.ca/t/1lpfn at page 390 and canvassed by Bauman CJSC at para 31 in Kennedy v. Beckmann, 2008 BCSC 323 Docket: S060723 @http://canlii.ca/t/1w4fz and by Mr. Justice Zinn at para 457 in Jim Shot Both Sides v. Canada, T-238-80 [2019] FCJ No 892 (QL) 2019 FC 789 @http://canlii.ca/t/j0zqn ) that in furtherance of PGT&VCHA homicide agenda against Tripta Verma and against Pradeep K. Verma

76.  That the attitude of the evil trio of routinely declining to assign a lawyer for the protection of the Charter, British Columbia Human Rights Code (which there are Ontario and Canadian Human Rights code complaints as well) and his other statutory property rights not in the best interest of Pradeep Verma

77.  That the attitude of the evil trio of rejecting multiple requests for a dispute settlement conference with the presence of a neutral mediator like Neutral Zone is not in the best interest of Pradeep Verma

78.  That the attitude of the evil trio of failing to engage in effective communication extreme cruelty contrary to Charter 12 via intolerable physical and psychological abuse” as held in R. v. Bellusci, 2012 SCC 44 @http://canlii.ca/t/fs7kv which is an offence because “Serious State-imposed Psychological Stress” [SSIPS] @ https://bit.ly/SSIPSx7 via the offence of wilful deprivation of constitutional rights [WDCR] and Sudden Death risk. The term SSIPSx7 was canvassed in detail in the five-page 18 July 2022 document under the heading Heinously oppressive tyrannical conduct over two decades of relentlessly & pervasively repetitive homicide intended “Intentional Infliction of Mental Distress” or “Intolerable Physical and Psychological Abuse”-

79.  That the attitude of the evil trio of failing to engage in effective communication not in the best interest of Pradeep Verma an act of Fiduciary Duty Breach & Public Office Misfeasance engaged in fraudulent concealment (cf. s 341 of Criminal Code) of the truth that the evil PGT VCH WCC trio is persisting with the ongoing infliction of Intentional Infliction of Mental Suffering via insuring non-delivery of “necessaries of life” topped up only by a near-absolute evasive and arrogant tyrannically oppressive (to the constitutionally protected rights) silence and addressing fraudulent concealment allegations with further fraudulent concealment about their own offence of fraudulent concealment in flagrant contempt of duty of candor, duty to not adopt adversarial posture and duty to make full disclosures. Persistence of this behaviour is particularly troublesome when it is has been continued for over two decades despite multiple reminders to refrain from actions that oppressive to the rights of the beneficiary and have been sanctions by Quijano J., in Longley v. Canada (Minister of National Revenue) 1999 CanLII 5750 (BC S.C.), cited approvingly by that Bauman J., at para 49-50 in Davis et al. v. Abbott et al., 2000) BCSC 1210 Docket: S047791 @ http://canlii.ca/t/1fmsd has noted the following about the tort of Misfeasance in Public Office as has been presented among several other times again as presented at para 33 in the 12 page 22 August 2022 document entitled Urgent need to seek Decision review for the implicit refusal of lawyer for three novel Charter claims against B C Govt.

80.  That the attitude of the evil trio of inaction and failure to acknowledge the receipt of any of the communication served upon them with a deadline generally and in particular the 22-para communication of five-page of 28 May 2023 , entitled Legal and pragmatic impossibility of delivery of any service to Pradeep Verma without PGT ejection was not in the best interest of Pradeep Verma

XI. Take notice that silence, evasiveness, inaction and deprivation of remedies past the two-week deadline would permit adverse inference drawing when fraudulent concealment ( contrary to s.341 of Criminal Code); - is being resorted to in relation to the above eighty (80) statements alleging concealments where there is a strict duty of candor and a positive duty to speak in the high fiduciary committee context.

Yours Truly _____________ Pradeep Verma

Enclosures:

1.     Court's and Crown's jurisdiction limited to promote welfare or best interests of the beneficiary Patient or Ward of the State

2.     Leslie Mills 2020 06 16 request to end with abetting with criminal trespass via Fraser’s Forgery

3.     Letter sent to Deaf Blind Well-being Program Crimes @http://bit.ly/DWBP20200928

4.     Certificate of incapacity of healthcare consent of Pradeep Verma 2 August 2021 for Ms. Yasmin Jetha – DRAFT (reviewable online as Certificate of incapacity of healthcare consent of Pradeep Verma @ https://bit.ly/healthconsentincapacity -

5.     Guardianship and Committeeship in BC (15:VII) Source https://bit.ly/GuardianshipinBC)

[ Published in the Law Students' Legal Advice Program (LSLAP) Manual.]