Crown Counsel James McKeachie is very annoyed with the Montague family for making public the letter he wrote to them where he spelled out his intention to take their family home using Ontario’s Civil Remedies Act.

They posted his letter on the website about their legal challenge to Canada’s Firearms Act, www.BruceMontague.ca.

McKeachie’s letter, dated the day the Supreme Court of Canada announced they would not hear the Montagues’ appeal, was posted on BruceMontague.ca in late September.

In 2005 McKeachie applied for and was granted a Preservation Order that placed a lien against the Montague family home and 160 acre property.  This was to prevent them from selling their home or using the equity in their home to help finance their constitutional challenge of Canada’s Firearms Act.  That was the first step in a civil proceeding that McKeachie said he would proceed with “regardless of the outcome” of the Montagues’ criminal and constitutional cases.

No doubt out of the kindness of his heart, McKeachie said he would allow the Montagues to live in their home until the two cases were finished, and he placed the civil forfeiture proceeding on hold.  Now that the Supreme Court had refused to hear the Montagues’ case, McKeachie was moving forward with his forfeiture plan immediately.

“That letter was written ages ago.  The only thing he [McKeachie] was waiting for was the Supreme Court decision not to hear my case so he could fill in the right date,” said Bruce Montague.

Bruce Montague is upset about this, and with good reason.

“They’ve won already.  I’m in jail, my wife is alone, and they want to kick her out on the street and leave her homeless.  It’s vindictive,” Montague said from the Thunder Bay prison where he is serving his 18-month sentence.

When notified that lawyer Doug Christie would be representing the Montagues in the civil proceeding, McKeachie sent Mr. Christie a letter that made his displeasure clear.

“The Minister has already received correspondence from a third party about the impending reopening of the case.  The correspondence from me is now on the internet.”

“Given that the only two people were notified, both of whom are your clients’, one must conclude that your clients are making public correspondence meant to be confidential between two parties.  This is not conducive to the free flow of communication between the parties.”

McKeachie, and through him the Attorney General’s office as a whole, was being forced to answer for his actions to the public.  He doesn’t like that at all.  Why should the Ontario Attorney General’s office or McKeachie personally be upset about public scrutiny of this case?

Part 2 will be posted here tomorrow.

If you can spare it, the Montague family can really use your financial support! The government is attempting to steal everything they own. Please help them to save their family home from the Ontario government’s confiscation attempt!

http://www.brucemontague.ca/html/0006.html#donate