唐炜臻的司法胜利在望
本帖最后由 唐炜臻 于 2015-12-8 11:54 编辑我昨天，12月7日一天办了很多事，在几个法庭和律师楼跑来跑去。一早起来，跑到律师宣誓，扫描文件，就地自己装订，我的装订机带在车上，送文件到检控官办公楼，然后，金融街市中心两个大律师楼，我的对手。然后，到法庭交文件。再到staple 传真到最高法院补交一个文件。又到上诉法庭要法庭记录，订录音材料。
大功告成，只等12月15日商业法庭的辩论和最高的通知。
你这是一切就绪，离成功还有距离。
祝你好运！ Affidavit of Weizhen Tang
I, Weizhen Tang, of the city of Richmond Hill, the Province of Ontario, MAKE OATH AND SAY:
1. I am one of the respondents in this matter and as such, I have full knowledge of the matters sworn to in this affidavit and where I have no direct knowledge I state so and so verily believe what is stated is the truth.
2. I am currently 57 years old. I was born on September 2, 1958. I am a Canadian citizen. I have been a Canadian Citizen for the past 18 years and I have called Canada my home for 23 years, started my own business since 1995.
3. I am a self-taught businessman and working for the public and public interest, no harm to the public, I became a public figure and one of the most well known Chinese community leaders because of my hard working, leadership and good character.Until the conviction for one count of fraud on October 30th, 2012, I had no prior criminal record.
4. This affidavit is in support of my response to the applicants’ motions as well as to adduce extra and fresh evidence which was not litigated at or fully or even partially at the various courts and before different judges, though some issues were mentioned throughout the process.
5. That the overriding and consistent issue that I raised both before the Ontario Securities Commission and the Criminal Courts (Preliminary Hearing at Provincial Court, various Motions and Applications in Superior Court of Justice on the Rowbotham issue, at the Trial proper in Superior Court of Justice, in the Court of Appeal for Ontario and now in the Supreme Court of Canada) is that I needed counsel to represent me as I was not a lawyer and had no legal knowledge.
6. That for example in the Motion Record of the Gowlings lawyers, they attach at Tab “J” my Statement of Claim where at Paragraph 5 I state “The plaintiff is not a lawyer and do notknow the law the counsel talk about and the process, how can the plaintiff abuse the process”...
7. That in Tab “K” which is in the Motion Record of Gowlings, they attach a copy of my letter to Crown Attorney John Pearson where at paragraph 2, I state clearly that “I did not have a lawyer as you know because the authorities or malicious institutions such as OSC, police, and the crown made it. I had money legal, nothing is illegal or commingle, but I could not use it for my defence. It either hasfrozen by OSC or taken by lawyers whom I do not know and who do not work for me because of the abuse of the courts in Canada or USA, those are legal robbery”.
8. That it can even be seen when you read these two documents that I don’t have the lawyer’s language or civility or politeness as I read it now, the pleading is not effective.
9. That in my Motion Record responding to this Motion, at Tab 6, I attach some transcripts, including the one produced for the August 15th, 2011 before Justice Nordheimer where the OSC counsel realises that I was not an effective self represented person when he told the judge that “Because in the context of an application like this, where people come to court, the issues are ill-defined, --- again, Idon’tsay this critically of Mr. Tang, but in supportof the needfor fairness to everybody. The issues are ill-defined”. (p16 of the transcript but p. 126 of Tab 6)
10. That despite my insistence on my need to have counsel as Justice Nordheimer understood and quoted me as saying at page 13 of said transcript and page 123 of Tab 6 that ‘ And when my first inquiry at the pretrial of Mr. Tang is, “Do you intend to continue to represent yourself in these proceedings?”’ ‘I am told immediately that he is desirous of having counsel with respect to this matter, but that legal Aid has denied his application for a certificate and he has exhausted his appeal routes with respect to Legal Aid, but that he has $200,000 of his own money, which he could use to fund his defence, but he can’t access that money because another agency has frozen it.
11. That at the OSC hearings on any given issue except when I thought the merits of the OSC charges would be litigated, I had no lawyer because the money for such was frozen, even before the charges were laid and the lawyer who would have defended me on the merits of the charges left after I had already paid himand the case was transferred by the OSC to the criminal courts.
12. That I had no lawyer to prevent the hiring of counsel from Gowlings who would represent investors when investors themselves never hired this law firm.
13. That when the proceeding to freeze my account took place, I had no lawyer and no understanding of the implications of what was going on except to state that I needed a lawyer.
14. That of all the orders that were initially issued, including the freezing of the funds and the assignment of the case to Gowlings, I didn’t even know one could appeal or where to appeal but I stated all the way that I needed counsel.
15. That I knew one fact and that fact was that on February 27th, 2009, an investors ‘ meeting was held where I informed everybody that there was only $1400.00 in the account and the investors understood that there was no more investors’ money remaining and later I raised my own money of $200,000 from my line of credit and two other people raised some money to continue trading.
16. Thus when the OSC froze my account, they knew the money was my money.
17. That counsel for the OSC despite knowing that that was my own money, insisted on it being frozen and not given to me to retain counsel both at the OSC or at the criminal trial.
18. That the crown joined the OSC lawyer in making submissions that I was not entitled to that money and opposed the Rowbotham application along with Legal Aid Ontario.
19. That in fact, I was fighting alone to get money for OSC and criminal cases against the joint opposition of the OSC, the crown and Legal Aid Ontario.
20. That in the criminal case, Justice Nordheimer found as a fact the followingon Tab 6 page 12 (page 121 of Tab) “I am faced with an unrepresented accused facing serious criminal charges in a fairly complicated proceeding...” the rest has been quoted above.
21. That I never had counsel at any time either at the OSC or criminal trial and I believe that if I had counsel I would have faired better in both tribunals.
22. That the reason I did not have counsel in both tribunals is because the OSC froze my money.
23. Thatto show that I had no understanding of the legal process at I refer you to factum of Gowlings on appeal file No. C58107 (M43810) where counsel quotes me at paragraph 22 as saying, “I know all the facts. I can argue in court without perfecting”.
24. That at that time, I had no idea that facts and perfecting were different, that I really need counsel and the lawyers, the judges and other players knew I had no clue about law and the legal process.
25. That however, I knew the facts which were, (1) the investors money as of February 27th, 2009 was only $1400.00, and (2) I had gotten $200,000 from my line of credit and I wanted touse this money for legal defence but it was frozen.
26. That Justice Pepall issued an order that the frozen money should be given back to the investors on a pro rata basis after the criminal trial.
27. That however, technically, the criminal case is not over because the case has been appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada, one of the grounds as this affidavit discusses in paragraphs below and one of the grounds for seeking leave in the Supreme Court is on the issue of denial of counsel.
28. That however, before the criminal trial was over, lawyers started applying to get at the money which purportedly was for the investors .
29. That allegedly section 126(1) of the securities Act was invoked to safeguard the investors money but that is not what this application is all about, it is for the lawyers from Gowling and Bennett Jones to take away all the money for themselves, including my own money.
30. That Gowlings has already taken over $200,000 and now they want $80,000.
31. That Bennett Jones has already also taken over $200,000 from my US investments.
32. That not one penny has been or will be reserved for the investors.
33. That the actions of the law firms involved here is contrary to the order of Justice Pepall.
34. That I still have no lawyer to help me recoup the money these law firms have taken, which is my money and rightfully belongs to me.
35. That the law firms should be paid by the people who hired them, if any and must not go after my own money which I had needed in any case for my OSC and criminal charges, which monies they blocked me from accessing.
36. That it appears now that they had an eye to keep this money for themselves and not for the investors.
37. That all the pleadings now before this court is for lawyers fees from my money and it is no longer litigated to benefit the investors as had been the spirit of the Pepall judgment which in case was issued without me being represented.
38. That I am now asking the Honourable Court to exercise its discretion to restart the case over.
39. That in the alternative in the interests of justice, the money should all be given back to me and the law firms should get their money from whomever hired them.
40. That if my appeal at the Supreme Court of Canada fails, there is a sentence that I have to fulfill which is a fine in lieu of forfeiture and in that case the investors are being looked after.
41. The lawyers have not looked after the interests of the investors at all.
42. The OSC and criminal cases were connected and they are connected.
43. That the running thread is the freezing of my account which disabled me from retaining counsel and to make full answer and defence.
44. That it is the OSC in essence that by freezing my account and disabling me from retaining counsel, caused me to be convicted as I had no counsel.
45. That the fact that the monies are being claimed by law firms rather than by the investors was caused by the OSC.
46. That because of the freezing of my account by OSC, and the refusal of Legal Aid to fund counsel, I ended up being incompetently and ineffectually represented by an Amicus Curiea.
47. That because of the connection between the OSC and criminal cases, the rest of the affidavit deals with the grounds for appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada and to show that the case is not over and the issue of legal representation is the running thread, a thread which started at the OSC.
48. That the balance of the affidavitanswers some of the statements made by the Justices in the Superior Court of Justice and in the Court of Appeal which have so far not be answered or explained.
49. The core or essence of my conviction I believe related to my being self represented and without much or any legal knowledge at all and the courts have down played this reality and I am hoping the Supreme Court of Canada Justices will take a fresh look at this critical area of national importance, how a self represented applicant without any legal knowledge as the Judges at the Preliminary Hearing and Trial clearly and repeatedly stated, a self represented in a complex area of law involving fraud in a financial investment field during the most extensive collapse of the financial service and trading industry since the great depression of the late 1920s and early thirties.
50. This affidavit also deals with the incompetence of the Amicus Curiea who was assigned to help me during the course of the trial. I will specify the areas where he was clearly incompetent and his incompetence contributed to my conviction.
51. The affidavit also deals with my belief that the crown’s expert witness was qualified as an expert by stealth because I was self represented without legal knowledge to challenge his qualification at the Preliminary Hearing and at the Trial, the Amicus because of incompetence conceded that he should be qualified when if the Amicus had read the Preliminary hearing transcript, he could have discovered that the Expert had never been qualified to testify as an expert in this area and that the Preliminary Hearing Judge expressed reservations about qualifying him, entrusting the correction to be made bymy cross-examination even though the Judge knew and expressed that I had no legal knowledge and did not know how to cross-examine let alone challenge the incompetence and lack of qualification of the tendered expert. The Transcript of the Preliminary Hearing transcript on this point should be made available.
52. I sincerely believe that the testimony of the expert witness contributed to my conviction because he did not analyse my personal bank deposits which showed money going out to the investors. He only analysed monies deposited into my personal accounts thereby concluding that it was for personal use. He also never analysed how much of my personal money went to pay the investors.
53. That Amicus never seriously pursued the incompleteness, incompetence, deliberate omission of the data by the expert, that would have helped my case.
54. The I believe that Amicus also did or did not do many things that a competent lawyer fully applying himself would have perceived and attempted or would have done.
55. The Ontario Securities Commission charged me with securities charges in July 2009 before they even finished their investigation or without having issued any report at all. The report was only completed in July of 2010. The issuer of the report was both an investigator and an expert at the trial and that aspect has already been dealt with in the factum of Duty Counsel at the Court of Appeal and I will rely on that Factum as well in this court.
56. That a big issue arose that I had money to retain counsel from time to time and therefore the courts stated I still had money to retain counsel for the trial.
57. That the fact of the matter is that at the time that the OSC laid charges against me, I still could access some money but once the OSC froze all my money, I no longer had access to any money at all.
58. The OSC then passed the buck to the police to charge me which happened in October 2009 and by that time I was short of money if not without money at all.
59. That I was arrested in January 2010 and was bailed out in April 2010. After I was bailed out, I no longer had any money and therefore qualified to go on welfare.
60. That to qualify for welfare, I was subjected to a thorough investigation and after the financial investigation, I was qualified to be awarded welfare.
61. That I have not worked since 2009. My field was financial investment and I was ordered not to trade or contact my previous investors, further because I was so known in my community, once I was convicted, I cannot get a job.
62. My various applications for stated funded assistance was dismissed throughout on the basis that I was not truthful in relation to my financial affairs, but the truth is that I couldn’t access my money because the money was frozen, the funds I paid lawyers to represent me before the OSC was exhausted and I had to go on welfare. There was no other source of funding that I had.
63. That because I was denied state funded counsel, I was forced to be self represented and I believe that my lack of legal knowledge and my inability to effectively cross-examine and knock-out the tendered expert witness, partly contributed to my conviction.
64. My lack of legal knowledge and or lack of ability to cross-examine is displayed throughout the preliminary hearing transcript and trial. The examples follow.
65. On March 15, 2011 at page 14, Judge Libman warned me: “I am going to interject here. Mr. Tang, I Have been extending you some latitude appreciating that you are here on your own...”. “While I am mindful of the challenges that you to frame proper questions to him, I cannot at the same time allow you to convert the Preliminary Inquiry into argument with one of the investors.”
66. The Judge took over asking the witness the questions for several pages and when the table was turned to me, I only asked one question before the crown counsel Mr. Gattrell intervened and remarked at Page 17, on my lack of representation: “Okay. You know I haven’t objected because Mr. Tang is not represented and I didn’t want to curtail but...”.
67. That it was clear to me, to the Judge and to the crown that I didn’t know anything about the law.
68. The very next page, Page 18, when I was cross-examining the witness, the Judge cut me off: “I think thatI am not going to permit that. You ask relevant and proper questions. You have not heard a word I have told you...”. I then asked one question and the Judge on page 19, further cut in: “Mr. Tang, I am not permitting this. He is called about turning over the documents. I have told you three times...”. I had to abandon the cross-examination in frustration.
69. The above witness was only an ordinary witness. The heavy gun of the expert witness Mr. DeVerteuil was yet to be called and I had no lawyer and I didn’t know what qualifying an expert witness meant or even what questions to ask him. I needed a lawyer.
70. The crown attorney in seeking to qualify the expert itemised the areas he wanted him qualified but recognized my limitations by his stating the following on page 30: “So those are my questions with respect to his knowledge, background, and experience. I know we don’t have counsel on this side but I am going to stop there in case Mr. Tang has any questions on the issue of expertise”.
71. The Judge explained what the process involved and I knew from deepst in my heart that I did not know what the judge was talking about and I told him at page 32: “Thank you Your Honour, for asking me {if I understood} but as you can see that I do not really know how to ask questions in court. I cannot really do anything else. I don’t what is proper to ask. I am just afraid that I might ask the wrong question”. The Judge attempted further explanations and directed me to the areas I could ask.
72. I knew that his expert was claiming to be a forensic expert but I doubted that he was conversant in the areas of financial investments.
73. I told the Judge at page 33: “I was going to retain a forensic accountant for myself but I do not have the money to do so. This person’s name is Larry Lansfield”. I turned to the accountant: “Do you know this person?”
74. The Judge could tell that I had no clue about the process and he took over questioning the so-called expert. I didn’t know how to disqualify him and I simply told the judge at page 35, “We will let him testify first then”. That was putting the cart before the horse. An experienced lawyer would have disqualified him at the time.
75. The Judge took over the questioning from page 35 to page 48.
76. I believe that the judge established that the expert had never been qualified as an expert either at the OSC or any court of law, that he only testified once in a court of law as an investigator, that his institute doesn’t even allow for him to called a senior forensic accountant and he was equivocal about his real qualifications especially pertaining to continuing education. He had in fact testified in a court of law or OSC more than twenty years previously. He had merely prepared reports in the interim.
77. I told the Judge at page 50: “I feel that this particular gentleman might be just an accountant but not a forensic accountant”. I had no idea how to ask questions about his expertise. I needed counsel. In frustration without asking about qualifications and expertise, I simply stated: “That is all my questions”
78. That began a cascading route to what I believe to be a miscarriage of justice for my lack of legal representation.
79. After the crown had already led extensive evidence through the Expert, the Jdge told me and I think the Judge indulged the crown too much: At page 57 he stated “Mr. Tang, I gave the crown the opportunity to ask those additional questions because the witness was called by the crown. Some of the questions did not arise during the initial examination of the witness and they were in fact about the report...” I didn’t know I could object to the questions by the crown that did not arise from earlier testimony and the Judge did not stop the crown from asking improper questions knowing I was not represented and qualifying an expert witness was pivotal to the case.
80. I told the court at page 59 again, “ I don’t know how to ask this witness questions. I just wanted to bring out that the other forensic accountant I mentioned earlier, after examin this report, he said this report is a joke because if you are talking about tens of millions of dollars but then over here the result is that it is just that Mr. Tang has no money. There is no money found in him, so it’s a joke he said”.
81. Although the judge qualified the expert and I believe this was because I didn’t have counsel and legal know-how to knock him off, the Judge had misgivings as he stated at pages 64-65, “ I have been particularly mindful of the fact that one who is an employee of the commission, writes a document for the commission and does not attend programs on an ongoing basis that are put on by third parties may well be susceptible to tunnel vision and lack the needed objectivity in preparing the report before the court”.
82. It must be noted that this powerful obiter and or finding was not recognized by the Court of Appeal. In the Supreme Court of Canada, this must raise an issue of national importance whether such witnesses must be permitted to testify as expert witnesses.
83. The Judge allowed this witness to be qualified on the premise thatas he stated at page 65: “ However, on further reflection I am confident that these issues can be dealt with by means of subjecting the witness to cross-examination on the basis of his opinion evidence and, indeed Mr. Tang has adverted to this fact in comments that he has made in expressing his concerns about the witness testifying before me”.
84. The Judge knew my lack of knowledge in legal matters, he knew I had no or limited ability to cross-examination. He knew this would be a jury trial. So the judge let me to den of lions, as it were. The stage for a conviction was set in my belief.
85. On March 21, 2011 at page 48, in my utter confusion about what line to take in cross-examining the expert on his report, I told the Judge once again: “And since I have no lawyer I am not familiar with the court”.
86. That I made this statement after the Judge had angrily told me: “Would you stop making speeches to me and to the witness. And I am directing you again to ask him proper questions about the evidence...”.The Judge knew I couldn’t ask proper questions. I had no legal knowledge. I am a lay person who is a businessman.
87. When I told the Judge that I have no lawyer, he went into a tirade at page 48: “All right Mr. Tang, I am going to tell you this again. I have heard enough from you about being without a lawyer and the position that you are in. You have just made a statement about his report being incomplete and you feel misleading. These are issues that you understand I would think better than anyone in the court given your familiarity with these documents. Ask him questions to help identify where you say his report is incomplete or misleading and stop giving us a lecture about your being here without a lawyerand this dragging on and being hurt. You are in a court of law”.
88. I discovered that being knowledgeable in the investment field is not the same as having legal knowledge to ask questions about financial documents and their legal implications.
89. The Judge even proved that I couldn’t ask questions to the so-called expert even if I had knowledge in the investment field because at page 56, the Judge intervened: “Mr. Tang, let me see if I can help you put this in a form of a question...”
90. That down the same page, the judge states, “I think what Mr. Tang may be getting at is that ...”. Still further down the page the Judge states, “ I think the question may relate to the following, would you be able to show what the 515 plus amount and the $157,000 amount, what the money is actually used for and where it goes?”
91. In answer to the Judge’s request for clarification, the expert witness answered at page 56: “No, I am not. I have not analysed those amounts any further”.
92. That this answer was one of my contentions that the report was incomplete, misleading, biased and incompetent because had it been complete, it would have shown that I had no intention of committing fraud, that the monies were rerouted back to the investors.
93. The expert witness only analysed and entered data that was prejudicial to my case and defences but because I had no lawyer and had no legal knowledge and I still have no legal knowledge, I could not disqualify the expert.
94. When Peter Boushy was appointed as Amicus in August 2012, less than a month before the trial was to start, he only met me once before the trial started.
老唐精神可嘉, 英语乱七八糟，老外能看懂？
老唐，是不是改忽悠歪果仁了。 对华人失去信心了？ 不要扮律师。 法律真不容易，不是你等智能学懂。
页:
[1]