There are two genesis rationales for the Institute.  One involves seeking to procure a new capability viz. the reform and accountability agenda through an international publicity campaign and commencing litigation in U.S. courts against the governments of and colluding private sector partners in China and Canada for a twenty-year violation of Article 7.  The other is remedial – holding coalition partners to account for breaching the agency agreement with its founder that assured him various benefits for risking his life and committing years to protect their individual and collective national and economic security interests.  The subject-matter herein relates to the latter.

Addressing the Coalition's Credibility Deficit posted in the A7AI e-mail account* contains a chronology of submissions to the coalition over the years documenting the Canadian lawyer’s concerns and efforts at having contractual obligations not fulfilled by his international clients.  When its terms and a multitude of guarantees and assurances were made and by December 2010 there was nothing but an unacceptable relationship status quo, he moved to address them. 

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/implied+contract      

A contract which is implied in law is also called a quasi-contract, because it is not in fact a contract; rather, it is a means for the courts to remedy situations in which one party would be unjustly enriched were he or she not required to compensate the other.  

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contract    

Quantum meruit is a Latin phrase meaning "what one has earned". In the context of contract law, it means something along the lines of "reasonable value of services". 

In the United States, the elements of quantum meruit are determined by state common law. For example, to state a claim for unjust enrichment in New York, a plaintiff must allege that (1) defendant was enriched; (2) the enrichment was at plaintiff's expense; and (3) the circumstances were such that equity and good conscience require defendants to make restitution.    

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_meruit    

Quantum meruit is a separate and distinct cause of action from contract.  It is founded upon an obligation imposed by law when there would otherwise be an unjust enrichment of one party at the expense of the other. 

In a contractual setting, remuneration is said to be paid on a quantum meruit basis when, although a valid contract is found to exist in fact and law, there is no clause spelling out in express terms the consideration for the contract. In such circumstances, the courts award reasonable remuneration to the person who has rendered the services. 

In a quasi-contractual setting, an action for quantum meruit is based, in general, upon the rendering of services by one person to another who has requested such services be rendered or freely accepted them with the knowledge that they are not rendered gratuitously... A person should only be called upon to pay for benefits, in general, where he has requested or freely accepted such services with the opportunity to reject. It is not sufficient that the plaintiffs have rendered the services under a mistake. He must go further and show that the services were requested or freely accepted by the defendant.   

That technically there is no ‘express’ or ‘verbal’ agreement between the Canadian lawyer and each coalition partner is not fatal, as a jury fully edified as to the content of the research treatise and diplomacy archive will conclude an 'implied contract' exists.  

One of the terms that is easily made out is that for assisting the coalition in the reform and accountability initiative involving China and Canada the partners would seize assets of malfeasant public and private sector parties, who are jointly and severally liable, and deliver to him $5 billion representing in part his quantum for the economic loss of his CGI opportunity – sabotaged to turn him into a perpetually enslaved and tortured human experimentation victim; in part for being covertly recruited and enslaved into a militarized human experimentation program and tortured incessantly with its results over a twenty plus year period; and in part as punitive and compensatory damages for non-stop breaching what he requested and received mid-summer 2006 -- an Injunction preventing further human rights malfeasance, the quantum of which doubled every week the criminality continued.*   

* For more read Quantum Introduction

There are various remedies for breach of contract.  In this case what is being sought is specific performance, compelling coalition partners to effect seizure and transfer this sum to him, and failing which they are liable for that amount.

Justice Foti of the Appellate Court of Connecticut in Hill v Ratone 930 A. 2d 788 (2007), wrote: 

"Specific performance is an equitable remedy permitting courts to compel the performance of contracts … pursuant to the principles of equity." 

Source: http://www.duhaime.org/LegalDictionary/S/SpecificPerformance.aspx  

Partners from every category of membership were so enthusiastic about securing this extraordinary amount they flooded the back-channel for years with assurances: Archive #1 ‘Plaintiff’s Damages’ heading.  There are 524 links to supplementals with an estimated 700-800 communiqués for the years 2009 - 2010. There are hundreds more during the period 2004 to the end of 2008.  (See ‘Plaintiff's Damages’ heading in Archive #1)

In the United States and every Commonwealth country contract law involves certain basic principles. For example to prove a contract there must be an ‘offer’, an ‘acceptance' of the terms of the offer, ‘consideration’ and both sides of one mind as to all three.  ‘Consideration’ is a benefit each party agrees to exchange with the other.  Because these jurisdictions are free market systems courts absolutely refuse to question the nature of this bargain.  As long as both parties are acting freely, i.e., there is no duress or other forms of undue influence, then judges won’t interfere. 

Consideration is described as "real" or "sufficient" as long as it is recognized by law as having some value.  As long as the consideration has some value the courts will not investigate the adequacy of consideration: Chappell & Co. Ltd. v. Nestle Co. Ltd. [1959] 2 All ER 701

Source: http://www.lawnotes.co.cc/sufficient-consideration 

The Texas Court of Appeals in the 1949 case Batsakis v. Demotsis, 226 S.W.2d 673: 

…found the consideration legally sufficient and went on to state that the adequacy or inadequacy of the consideration did not bear on the enforceability, since mere inadequacy of consideration will not void a contract. The appellate court noted that, in common law systems including the American system, courts generally review the legal sufficiency of the consideration in a contract but have historically refused ordinarily to inquire into the adequacy of the consideration, whether the transaction was generally a fair or equivalent exchange.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Batsakis_v._Demotsis   

(c)        maintain a daily diary of criminal and tortious conduct and human rights violations against him personally (documented in the Fiefdom treatise [and] in some supplementals); 

In Article 7 of the International Covenant on Civil & Political Rights: Svengali in the Extreme, he states of his operational importance to the coalition:   

The value the Canadian lawyer had to the international community in 2004 and thereafter to the present was:  

(i)        his ability to understand and articulate what was done to him through the hypnosis experimentation process over twenty years; 

(ii)       with his academic skills and methodologies describe what the ramifications were to military security protocols and the integrity and autonomy of governments, national and regional economies, corporations and accountability institutions;  

(iii)       foresee the wider threat posed by Beijing’s foreign policy in terms of seeking what the Soviets failed to achieve; 

(iv)       after the federal lawsuit was torpedoed by malicious judicial bias give indigenous reform dynamics he was spearheading a chance to either work or prove there were no accountability mechanisms in the country and thus demonstrating international assistance was needed; 

(v)       keeping the malfeasors occupied while the coalition of reforming countries increased its membership and located plundered wealth for repatriation purposes;  

(vi)       remain an ongoing victim so the Pentagon could use its resources to understand everything there was to know that was researched, developed, refined and operationalized by the China-Canada military alliance in violation of Article 7; and 

(iv)      remain an ongoing victim so the CIA could discover the identify of and human, capital and other resources used by everyone directly and indirectly linked to the criminality in Canada and elsewhere.  

The Beijing leadership wanted to discover the weaknesses and vulnerabilities in modern democracy and capitalism to dominos-style include more and more countries in its sphere of control and influence on its imperialistic road to global domination.  He knew exactly what they wanted to accomplish from the R&D process, what breakthroughs they had and how those results would be applied. 

As he concludes in Prelude to Global Hegemony: Domination and Control of Every Conceivable Process, Mechanism, Event and Circumstances in the Last Democratic Fiefdom: 

The Chinese [wanted] to learn how to dominate the general population, institutions and systems of government and the modes and relations of production. 

[…] 

The Chinese in 2006 know every technology, methodology, strategy and tactic to subjugate every western nation from the top down, bottom up, from the outside in and the inside out. The Canadian lawyer knows this because he both experienced it and used his academic knowledge and talent to infer it. 

[…]  

His coalition partners have been and continue to be totally appreciative he’s consented to be an on-going enslaved human experimentation and torture victim to achieve stated objectives.  What does he get in return for this commitment?  He already has an enviable international reputation – with clients, colleagues, associates and friends comprised of a global who’s who of the early 21st century.  He already has prospects for romance and a family of his own that will quickly make up for twenty lost years.  And one of the many reasons why his quantum has been repeatedly ratified is to regularly remind him his pain, suffering, losses and privacy invasions will be fully compensated.  He can expect wealth almost beyond measure. 

Why this oppressive, ubiquitous and non-stop state illegality is bearable is not only because he’s used to it by now – having been forced to experience it in ever-increasing amounts since the early 1990s led to cognitive defenses – but also because every hypno-itch, bathroom and bedroom noise disruption, dream state manipulation, forced awake experience, street stalking and television-sourced death threat is being recorded [by the coalition] and added to the diplomatic evidence record – each requiring an electronic signal to produce; and justice is in the process of being served.  This reality is something the Canadian qua lawyer is able to generate enormous amounts of comfort in and resilience from.

Jurors will readily accept the proposition he was callously left to languish so dozens of public sector partners could obtain a much greater stealth cognition technology capability for their respective military industrial complexes and intelligence and law enforcement communities.  The U.S. government will be evidentiarily observed to have obtained indirectly what President Ford’s 1976 Executive Order prohibited directly. 

Feeling appalled at the overall circumstance will be augmented when discovering even the whimsical suggestion of withdrawing from the international reform and accountability initiative by entertaining a June 2009 settlement offer by Canada’s Prime Minister immediately triggered a carrot & stick reaction – threatening to “shoot” him and sabotage what appeared to be budding romance with a coalition partner.

They’ll view the following month’s revoked representation he’d be emancipated in a week as callous in the circumstances.  And the invitation to the White House that followed shortly thereafter (and the many corroborations from the U.S. President and others that sought to mitigate that blunder and show a resolve to address the geo-political threat) will be seen as disgustingly disingenuous, serving interests contrary to that of the experimentation victim and coalition contributor. 

What’s described in the archive as the ‘organic checks and balances’ constituent of the coalition, where private sector partners repeatedly over the course of a year put the ‘leadership’ on notice more must be done to address systemic dysfunctionalities, will be perceived as just as suspect, since there was no follow-through on the implied representation that continued failures would lead to them taking matters into their own hands to further the reform and accountability agenda and address what the agency contract stipulated. 

How will the jury see the plaintiff?  Upon a full review of his work and everything he said and did he’ll be perceived as having completely fulfilled his obligations.  His contributions will be portrayed as flawlessly competent; having not just achieved but repeatedly surpassed expectations.  How his clients viewed him will be drawn from all the international persona communiqués; which characterize him as totally trustworthy, completely reliable, and someone to be respected and admired.  He always operated in a manner that was fully transparent, predictable and delivered the kind of certainty necessary to advance the coalition agenda. 

The evidence is that beginning in around March 2006 with diplomatic communiqués arriving early morning til late at night from an ever-increasing number of sources he was working 14 – 18 hours every day, including weekends.  His dedication to fulfilling the goal of recording, transcribing and documenting every single Triple “E” initiative never faltered – remaining engaged measured in weeks until he literally collapsed from exhaustion.  At which time he would suffer intense headaches and severe body fatigue, rest for 12 – 24 hours and then pick up where he left off until collapsing again six to eight weeks later.  This was a repeated schedule through to mid-2009. 

Because the coalition chose systems of mass media through which to deliver its back-channel diplomacy, watching American and international television and other types of media was absolutely critical -- a duty he fully complied with over the years; and he never cut corners.  Viewing programs listed in Archive #1 was a required daily and weekly routine, as was watching from beginning to end every televised presidential appearance like press conferences and briefings and town hall meetings.  Same went for every American cabinet official like secretaries of defense, state, commerce and treasury and other top echelon officials and their international counterparts who’d signaled they’d joined the coalition.  And two world leaders together was especially a must-watch.  Working out of a home-office and keeping his own hours, if he was up as was occasionally the case during the night and early morning he’d observe partners in Asia and Europe engaging in diplomacy live, which was recorded, then transcribed and a computer file created.   Where events containing diplomacy were not observed live, then website were accessed, like Britain’s House of Commons, to document and archive what was geo-politically relevant.

There are some 6,900 original computer files in the combined treatise-archive folder and an additional 1,660 in the form of ‘New Supplementals’ posted on the coalition website, authored beginning in December 2008. 

It’s a reasonable estimate that from February 2006 to mid-December 2010 over 20,000 hours was expended pursuant to the contract in pursuit of coalition objectives (calculated at 360 days x 5 years x 13hrs/day). 

To demonstrate pecuniary reciprocity for Canada’s liberation and his emancipation and quantum possession, he contractually agreed when asked in the autumn of 2006 to a compensation, reward and benefits package for those who contributed the most.   Further, admiration for the lengths clients went to to produce non-stop diplomatic initiatives and keep it all intriguing led him to launching the ‘Geo Awards’ in 2007 – a system of what became a coveted honor (and accompanied by a financial reward) for going beyond the call and expending capital to generate a genius Triple “E” production.  

Jurors will learn he was successfully juggling several responsibilities concomitantly.  Beginning in August 2007 in addition to keeping up with his archiving duties he commenced the edification of Canada’s public sector – lasting until July 2009; and shortly thereafter began triggering every accountability mechanism in the country; for example filing some 70 Law Society disciplinary complaints against lawyers in legal profession societies and associations who abdicated their public interest responsibility and all politicians in high office who were lawyers. 

It will be argued that success is not to be measured and contractual responsibility is not gauged in terms of having achieved reform and accountability breakthroughs, but in what was done to make them more likely.  After conducting the original research from March 2004 until May 2007, he continued to investigate and publish his findings.  In December 2008 he designed, constructed and maintained the coalition website on which was posted his original and subsequent research and the diplomacy archive (updating it weekly to the present). 

He blanketed three levels of government – federal, provincial and municipal – with the treatise results and diplomacy archive.  He contacted and edified every major institution in the administration of justice (judiciary, attorneys general, legal profession and law enforcement).  He contacted over 120 academics who headed institutes and think tanks between December 2008 and February 2009.  And from November 2009 to January 2010 he spoke to counsel at most of the top 50 largest companies in the country and the half dozen biggest banks and close to a hundred investment firms.   Then in March 2010 he founded the Reform Coalition of Canada and until August contacted and followed-up with over 300 organizations, associations and groups.  He designed, constructed and maintained the RCC website, which included an up-to-date ‘Recent News’ section and in July solicited the views of a half dozen academics who specialize in wealth distribution for the authored ‘prosperity theft’ analysis. 

And finally the evidence will prove interaction with his clients was always throughout the years professional and respectful.  In the face of reform and accountability failures and disappointments, patience-testing slowness and incrementalism of international affairs and the increasing perception they were violating the terms of the contract he remained polite, understanding and thoroughly committed.  Never was he derogatory, demeaning or vitriolic.

Update: Encouraging is what is documented in How the Coalition Reacted to the Launch of the Article 7 Accountability Institute: Acknowledging Contract Breached and Undertaking to Remedy Expeditiously.