Kevin Bradley GERMAN

10116 105 Ave

Edmonton, Alberta
T5H 0K2

January 13, 2007

Cst BAIRD
c/o St. Albert Royal Canadian Mounted Police
96 Bellerose drive
St. Albert, Ab
T8N 7A6

Re: Object Models – The “Classroom Bubbles” Exhibit

Dear Cst Baird:

I think I’ve made the point that the core of the issue has been, for years, the
imposition of dysfunctional dynamics based on incomplete or biased information.

There’s a panel called the “Paradigm Conflict” exhibit, on the CD-ROM in the
“CAT Appeal” page, and this is what the legals at Bennett Jones have now.
(What it boils down to, is that the kids have a problem because the ‘ex has a
problem, and my problem is that it’s my job to take control of how the case
progressed, and now that’s the “Details for Damages” under Master Wacowich.)

I’d lost my right of self-direction to the “therapy” I never said I needed in the fist
place, but that’s the chance to drag the issues before Queen’s Bench on the
medical track (asserting “negligence”) instead of the criminal track (asserting
“public mischief” against FACS’s assessment skills).

The “Classroom Bubbles” exhibit is the real opportunity I’m trying to leverage and
I wouldn’t have the paper I need to launch the lawsuits if Dr. Bland would actually
have asked me what was on that CD back in ‘04.

The “Classroom Bubbles” Structure

The exhibit shows a total of five entities which can be thought of as the current
thought process and the information on which it is based.

The teacher has his own bank of knowledge, with a typical High School Algebra
textbook “Teachers Edition” being an ideal example.

The student each have their own textbooks (minus the notes) and it’s the job of
the teacher to get the information from the pages in the book into the mind of the
students, delivery the Course Training Plan, assist where necessary, and at the
 -2-

end of the semester the students get graded on how well they can exercise their
new skills.
Whether or not the can actually remember the calculus or chemistry 20 years
later is a different issue, but for the sake of the show, if you can pass High School
with honours you can probably to a lot of other things down the line.

In any event, the “data store” can also represent a movie, web page, dictionary
definition, witness statement or any other concrete exhibit.

For the sake of the Courts, it’s interesting to note that the legals and their clients
make their case in Court and it feeds to the judge, and he then makes his
decision and passes it back to the Courtroom.

So, whatever comes out of Court becomes the record for all the right-hand
bubbles. (The Goss decision for the “EPO Stunt” is legally highly suspect
because of the testimony it was based on, so I wasn’t too concerned about the
resulting “breaches” because they then wouldn’t stand at trial.)

Object Models and the Paradigm Conflict Exhibit

Modern software architecture is based on the concept that the universe is made
up of “objects” and these represent people, places, animals, documents or
whatever can be through of as a discrete “unit”.

The object themselves have some capabilities (such as to calculate a tax return)
and they communicate with other objects (such as being fed the gross income for
the client, his life status, deductions and whatnot and passing back the numbers).

“Properties” are specific bits of information that describe the object (such as
colour, weight, name, date, location)… “Methods” are what the object can do
(such as “shoot”, “recalculate”, “file claim”, “diagnose”)… and “events” are
actions triggered by the application (such as “have child”, “sneeze”, and “fire
bullet”).

Example A: Both parents can have a child, but only one can get pregnant.

Example B: In some places, people can get legally married but not if they’re the
same gender (i.e. “Same Sex Marriage”). In other jurisdictions, they can… and
this issue is a social more that Cpl. POPIK loosely referred to as “the rules of
society”.

Example C: If you believe there is only one God, and he disapproved of same-
sex marriages, then that’s a universal truth (but the debate over religious
interpretations then becomes the issue.)
 -3-

In the case of “German vs. CHA”, the Charter’s guarantees are considered “the
highest law in the land” and supersede Family Law, Military Law, and certainly,
FACS’ “Mental Health Act” (as I’m going against the “diagnosis” with the
“Aeronautics Act” issue; the fulcrums for the case being Dr. Singh’s forensic
mandate and the issue of “Delegated Authority” in the field of aeronautics… with
neither Dr. Woods, Cst POIRIER, Dr. Bland or the Barrs actually have.)

The QB Action Object Model

The decision of Master Wacosich, for the Plaintiff to file a “Demand for
Particulars”, effectively put the judiciary back in the driver’s seat and took control
of the case progression back from the medical types.

The contested “diagnosis” is the

paper needed to file the libel suit
claiming “Damages” suffered by
the “battery”.

The three co-Defendant

physicians then filed their
Statement of Defence (pleading
“denials”) and this then becomes
the “data store” for their shot at
the case.

In my opinion, they each essentially pleaded that they needn’t be competent

physicians as they don’t feel it’s worth the bother of doing their jobs. (This
apparently “meets the generally accepted standards of practice” for “forensic
assessment” and “psychiatric care” in Alberta; go figger that one out for me.)

In any event, the Air Combat metaphor is ideal for the civics issues as the
AWACS, “Blue Force”, “Red Force”, “bombs”, “M*A*S*H* Units” and all the other
aspects of the battle are pretty much understood by everybody.

So, the “Classroom Bubbles” exhibit allows for the “Strike Hornet” applet to draw
the pilot and his crew into the show, and the CDIs each have their own
presentation (mapped to discrete URLs, which can then be a .pdf file, web page,
tune, or even streaming media like a webcam conversation).

To close the note: I see now where the St Albert Courtroom has a video feed to
the ERC, and this is essentially a WebCam with a REALLY big monitor.

You could think of the presiding Judge as in the AWACS (mapping to the
Carrier’s captain from “Top Gun” who’s running the show from the Ops Room);
the video feed is the Defendant’s appearance and the lawyer would be his
“GIB”… he’d normally be wise to take legal advice from the lawyer bit it’s his
 -4-

right to retain and instruct counsel (which I actually did, at numerous points, but
to no avail). Anyways, three web browsers on a laptop could run the hearing
from anywhere on the globe.

To close: QB Action is post-discoveries but the final decision on the Details for
Damages is, at the time of this writing, still outstanding. (Ergo the assertion of
“Abuse of Process” for the Goss Hearing and EPO “breaches”, and “Notification
of Infringement of Charter Rights” for the attempt to subvert the CAT Appeal.)

You likely know the “Access Report” that Crown Counsel Kennedy dismissed as
“Non-Court Papers” was the forensic audit presented by the Plaintiff to cover the
issue of “the tort of malpractice” for the QB Action.

The “one page covering letter” is another dysfunctional dynamic that allows the
Barrs to control the Plaintiff’s assertions (as they’re able to trash the facts they
want to bury, insert their opinions over my own, and then have me arrested on
conditions that aren’t event legally supportable in the name of “justice”; “ie.
“conditions placed against him by the legal system” and “health care of good
quality”).

The “Alberta Rules of Court “, the Statement of Defence for the JAG (which sould
have been addressed in Dec ’05), and Master Wacowich’ “Demand for
Particulars” would then be “conditions placed against the Barrs by the legal
system” for my side of the fence.

Sincerely,

Kevin B. German, Plaintiff

*****
CDI Mapping for Forensic Assessment and the CDI Presentation

The “MediaScan” Applet maps the exhibits (FACSWeb URLs) to the CDIs.