唐炜臻：我是怎么“犯罪”的。
本帖最后由 唐炜臻 于 2015-12-24 12:00 编辑唐炜臻：我是怎么“犯罪”的。唐炜臻，我发现和发明了1% 的庄家思想和理论，有了连续回报的方式，我始终把投资人的利益放在首位，吸引了大量的投资人，开始成气候，我全心全意为人民服务，为社区服务，我想成为庄家为投资人谋利益，在金融市场有一席之地，说话的权利，为华人争光，阻止华尔街的欺诈与剥削，战胜邪恶的资本主义。我始终不明白我怎么犯罪的，我从不犯罪，从来没想要犯罪，后来发现我的知名度高，太出名，我没有律师，我被司法欺骗成了犯人，后来，我自己研究法律发现我变成了一个名副其实的假罪犯。
PART I : STATEMENT OF THE CASE
1. The Applicant,Weizhen Tang was charged with fraud and convicted before judge and jury on October 30th, 2012.2. The Applicant had no counsel at the preliminary hearing, trial or in the Court of Appeal, serve for Duty Counsel at the Court of Appeal on the issue ofconviction alone. - Affidavit of Applicant3. The applicant had applied for state funded counsel throughout the process but he was denied this request. - Affidavit of the Applicant.4. The transcript ofthe preliminary hearingdiscloses that the Applicant repeatedly raised the issue that he needed alawyer as he did not know how to ask questions and did not have legal knowledge. - Affidavit of Applicant5. TheApplicant was committed for trial and was from time to time assisted by AmicusCuriea at trial. - Affidavit of Applicant.6. TheApplicant alleges that Amicus Curiea was incompetent and ineffective as welland deals at length with this aspect of the case. The Amicus missed theopportunity to advise the applicant to bring a number of crucial motions andapplications; Amicus did not fully grasp the theory or evidence of the defence;the Amicus did not challenge the qualifications of the crown expert despitebeing informed by the Applicant that the expert was at best a mere accountantbut not a forensic expert, if he was a forensic expert, he was still not anfinancial investment expert; the Amicus discouraged, in fact advised theApplicant not to call character witnesses; the closing address did not fullyexplore the issue of mens rea andmany other omissions or commissions. - Affidavit of the Applicant.7. Theapplicant alleges that no one seems to have read the preliminary hearingtranscript which disclosed that he could not do the trial competently withoutthe appointment of counsel, courts above assumed he had competentlycross-examined witnesses when that was not the case or courts assumed hedeliberately did not challenge the qualifications of the expert witness. - Affidavit of the Applicant.8. TheApplicant is seeking leave to introduce new evidence on this leave application.9. TheApplicant also seeks the appointment of counsel to perfect this leaveapplication.10. The Applicant also seeks an orderfrom the court for the provision of the Court of Appeal Record in this leaveapplication. - Affidavit of Applicant.10. TheApplicant is on welfare and cannot afford to retain counsel or pay for thetranscripts. - Affidavit of Applicant.11. TheApplicant is self represented on this leave to introduce fresh evidence.
PARTII -ISSUES AND THE LAW12. Itis submitted that the Applicant was denied his right to a fair trial because hewas denied counsel, was self-represented and this self-representation wasincompetent and ineffective, resulting in a miscarriage of justice.
14. Itis submitted that further that the Amicus Curiea who assisted him from time totime during the trial, was incompetent and ineffective, leading to a furthermiscarriage of justice.
15. An accused in a complicated criminaltrial with serious consequences that has retained counsel is entitled to theeffective and competent assistance of that counsel. The standard should be no less if the accused isself-represented or is assisted by Amicus Curiea. In this case the Applicantwas self-represented. Amicus was appointed to ensure the applicant got someassistance. The conduct and assistance of Amicus should not be of a lesserstandard than that of any counsel or counsel representing the accused. Ifanything it must be more subject to scrutiny because Amicus was appointed inrecognition of the fact that the accused person has no legal representation. - R. v. Silvini(1991), 68 CCC (3d) 25116. Ineffective representation can becast as either: (i) a Charter violation pursuant to subsection 24(1) of the Charter or (ii) a miscarriage ofJustice pursuant to s. 686 of theCriminal Code.There is no need to frame the issue as aCharter issue pursuant to a breach of ss. 7 & 11(d) of the Charter.In Garofoli(1988) 41 CCC (3d) 97 at 152 Martin J. A. stated:
Ishould add that, apart altogether from constitutional considerations, if, inany case, the court considered that there was a real possibility that amiscarriage of justice had occurred due to the flagrant incompetency of counselwe would be entitled to intervene under s. 613(1)(a)(iii) of the code.
Section613 (now 686) reads as follows:
686. (1) On the hearing of an appeal against a conviction [...], thecourt of appeal
(a) may allow the appeal where it is of the opinion that...(iii) on any ground that there was a miscarriage of justice
- R. v. Garofoli (1988), 41 C.C.C. (3d) 97
17. Counsel’s performance is to bemeasured against a standard of reasonableness, assessed objectively.Strategic or tactical considerations will begiven considerable deference to trial counsel. Each case is to be decided on the facts. Here the Applicant wasself-represented and was clearly incompetent as was Amicus Curiea who wasn’this counsel but was there to assist in any case.18. In R. v. Joanisse (1995) 102 C.C.C. (3d) 35 (OCA) and R. v. White (1997) 114 CCC (3d) 225(OCA), the court decided that the steps to establish ineffectiveness of counselare:
1) The appellant must establish the factson which the claim of incompetence is based. The appellant must prove on the balance of probabilities the allegedacts or omissions of trial counsel.Whenthe claim of incompetence is first raised, appellate court will receive freshevidence supporting the factual foundation of the claim.Additional information should include (ineither affidavit or transcript of oral evidence) trial counsel’s explanationfor the alleged deficiencies.
2) The appellant must establish that therepresentation provided by trial counsel was incompetent.Appellant must show that acts/omissions oftrial counsel were unreasonable and fell below existing professional standardsof reasonable skill and judgment (see Rules of Professional Conduct)
3) The appellant must establish that theincompetent representation resulted in a miscarriage of justice.An appellant establishes prejudice by showingthat there is a reasonable probability the verdict would have been different iftrial counsel had not been incompetent.
- R. v. Joanisse (1995), 102C.C.C. (3d) 35 - R. v. White (1997), 114 C.C.C. (3d) 225
19. In Garofoli Martin J.A. said at pp. 151-2 (quoted with approval in R. v. Sauve (1997) 121 C.C.C. (3d) 225(B.C. C.A.):
“...wherethe defendant alleges that the incompetence of counsel deprived him of theeffective assistance of counsel, the defendant must show, in addition to thelack of competence on the part of defense counsel, that there is a reasonableprobability that, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of thetrial would have been different.In Stricklandv. Washington, 104 S. Ct. 2052 (1984), Justice O’Connor, delivering theopinion of the Court, said at p. 2064:
‘aconvicted defendant’s claim that counsel’s assistance was so defective as torequire reversal of a conviction or death sentence has two components.First, the defendant must show thatcounsel’s performance was deficient. This requires showing that counsel made errors so serious that counselwas not functioning as the “counsel” guaranteed the defendant by the SixthAmendment.Second, the defendant mustshow that the deficient performance prejudiced the defense.This requires showing that counsel’s errorswere so serious as to deprive the defendant of a fair trial, a trial whoseresult is reliable.Unless a defendantmakes both showings, it cannot be said that the conviction or death sentenceresults from a breakdown in the adversary process that renders the resultunreliable.’(Emphasis). . . .“Shealso said at p.2068"
‘...Thedefendant must show that there is a reasonable probability that, but forcounsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have beendifferent.A reasonable probability is aprobability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome. (Emphasis)
“Theprinciple set forth in Strickland v. Washington, supra, can usefully be appliedin this jurisdiction.”
- Garofoli supra.
20. In Joanisse, J.A. Doherty states at p.64 that “ a reasonableprobability lies somewhere between a mere possibility and a likelihood.” - Joanisse supra - R. v. Sauve(1997), 121 C.C.C. (3d) 22521. In R. v. B. (L.C.) (1996) 104 CCC (3d) 353 (O.C.A.), the court alsoquoted from Strickland above at p.2066:A convicted defendant making a claim ofineffective assistance must identify the acts or omissions of counsel that arealleged not to have been the result of reasonable professional judgment.The court must then determine whether, inlight of all the circumstances, the identified acts or omissions were outsidethe wide range of professionally competent assistance.In making that determination, the courtshould keep in mind that counsel’s function, as elaborated in prevailingprofessional norms, is to make the adversarial testing process work in theparticular case.At the same time, thecourt should recognize that counsel is strongly presumed to have renderedadequate assistance and made all significant decisions in the exercise ofreasonable professional judgment.
- R. v. B(L.C.) (1996), 104 C.C.C. (3d)353
22. The deference to be shown in anexamination of counsel’s performance referred to in R. v. Kelly (1992) 15 W.C.B. (2d) 254 (O.C.A.) where Doherty J.A.said (quoted with approval in Strauss(1995) 100 C.C.C. (3d) 303 (B.C. C.A.)):
The incompetence oftrial counsel can afford a ground of appeal. It is, however, one which should be raised only after the most carefulconsideration.There is a strongpresumption that trial counsel perform adequately and the onus rests on theappellant to demonstrate that counsel’s conduct fell below the standard ofcompetence.
- R. v. Kelly(1992), 15 W.C.B. (2d) 254
23. In R. v. Joanisse (1995) 102 CCC (3d) at62 (OCA); the court reasoned that:
Counsel’s failure to meet competence standards doesnot automatically lead to a reversal of a conviction.The ultimate purpose of the appellate inquiryis not to grade counsel’s performance, but to determine whether a miscarriageof justice occurred...If counsel’s incompetence rendered the verdict unreliableor the process unfair, then the appellant has demonstrated that he receivedineffective assistance resulting in a denial of the right to a fair trial andmiscarriage of justice.
24. Itis submitted that the Applicant’s affidavit which constitutes new evidenceclearly establishes that the self-represented applicant was incompetent, and sowas Amicus.Amicus advised and discouragedthe applicant from calling character witnesses; Amicus did not advise theapplicant who couldn’t afford expert witnesses to call such witnesses despitebeing told categorically by the applicant that the applicant needed to callexpert witnesses; the Amicus did not advise the applicant on the variousmotions that could have been brought; the Amicus did not mention in his closingaddress despite being reminded by the applicant that the applicant was facingthe current financial tsunami which affected his operations like so manysimilar financial investment operations; the Amicus did not fully bring out thedefence of lack of mens rea;Amicus’s address to the jury started outalmost like a caricature of the applicant;the Amicus did not assist the applicant in trying to have the video of February27, 2009 excluded from being admitted as it was more prejudicial thanprobative, in fact the amicus during pre-charge conference submitted that thatvideo should be entered for the truth of its contents in relation to what theapplicant was saying in the video and so many other omissions and commissions.
25. It is submitted that the combination ofboth the incompetence and ineffectiveness of the self represented applicant andAmicus, resulted in an unfair trial and therefore a miscarriage ofjustice.The Chief Justices of theSupreme Court of Canada and Ontario, as well as many other judges and formerChief Justice and Attorney General for Ontario, Honourable Roy MacMurtry havestated that self represented applicants are the face of new injustices inCanada or words to that effect that they present a new and intractable problemfor both the civil andcriminal justicesystems. The issue of self represented applicants and the specific problemsthey pose is an issue of national importance.
唐炜臻 发表于 2015-12-24 12:48
谢谢提醒，我不知道是属于发现还是发明
老唐你犯罪， 是发现；
老唐你犯罪之后又犯贱， 是发明 26. Justice Cory of the Supreme Court of Canada stated in R.v.S. (R.D) S.C.J. No. 47 at para. 91 that, “A system of justice, if it is to have the respect and confidence of its society, must ensure that trials are fair and that they appear to be fair to the informed and reasonable observer. This is a fundamental goal of the justice system in any free and democratic society”.The applicant here did not get a fair trial as a self represented applicant in a complex case, assisted by Amicus who was himself ineffective and incompetent.
27. Recognising the serious nature of the fairness issue in criminal trials, the Supreme Court of Canada has directed theCourt of Appeal to carry out its duty to ensure that the appellant had a fair trial and if not to act decisively to reverse any unfairness: R. v. Caccamo (1975) 21 C.C.C (2nd) 257 at p. 265 (Spence J); R.v. C (M.H) (1991), 63 C.C.C (3d) 385 at p. 394. (McLachlin J. as she then was).
28. An unfair trial is a miscarriage of justice.McIntrye J of the Supreme Court of Canada stated in R.v. Fanjoy (1985), 21 C.C.C (3d) 312 pp.317-18 that, “A person charged with the commission of a crime is entitled to a fair trial according to law. Any error which occurs at trial that deprives the accused of that entitlement is a miscarriage of justice”.
29. Self representation and the incompetence and ineffectiveness of both the self represented applicant and Amicus, including the omissions and commissions of Amicus alluded above and in the applicant’s affidavit in this case combined to result in the unfairness of the trial as already stated.Doherty J. of the Court of Appeal for Ontario wrote in R. v. W (W.) , (1995), 100 C.C.C (3d) 225 at pp.234-5,that “If an accused does not receive the effective assistance of counsel at trial, the adversary system cannot function properly, the appearance of fairness suffers, and the reliability of the verdict is called into question. Ineffective legal assistance at trial may result in a miscarriage of justice necessitating the quashing of the conviction”.
30. It is submitted that a self represented accused in this case, because of his incompetence and ineffectiveness was no match with an experienced crown attorney.The adversarial system was skewed.Amicus constituted “legal assistance’’ albeit of a very limited nature but that assistance was also ineffective and incompetent.
31. It is of national importance that a self represented accused be accorded a fair trial in the context of an adversarial criminal justice system which exists in a free and democratic society.
32. From the preliminary hearing where it became clear even to the judge and same crown counsel who conducted the jury trial, that the applicant was incapable of cross-examining witnesses necessitating the preliminary hearing judge to try to assist the applicant at long stretches of time by cross-examining the witnesses himself (the trial judge) tothe trial proper, it cannot be stated now that the justice system did not know that the trial would be unfair.The applicant brought several Rowbotham applications including in the Court of Appeal, all of which were denied, serve for the sentence appeal. The applicant exercised due diligence in trying to ensure that he got a fair trial by bringing Rowbotham applications throughout including to this Honourable Court.
33. The Appellant has met the procedural requirement for the receipt of new evidence. Fresh evidence in the form of an Affidavit will often be required in order to permit the court to realistically consider the competence of the self-represented Applicant and Amicus in this case.The question is can it be received?
34. S. 683(1) of the Criminal Code states that an appeal court can receive evidence if it is in the interests of justice to do so.If evidence offered is:
1. With respect to an issue relevant to a determination made at trial, the test set out in R. v. Palmer (1979) 50 C.C.C. (2d) 193 (SCC) and reiterated in Stolar v. The Queen (1988) 40 C.C.C. (3d) 1 is to be followed.
2. Fresh evidence directed to an issue not litigated at trial: The court has jurisdiction to entertain both arguments, as it is in the interests of justice that the Appellant be given an opportunity to adduce fresh evidence to support his/her claim.The use of the approach from R. v. W.(W.) (1995) 100 CCC (3d) 225 (OCA) is recommended.
- R. v. W (W) (1995), 35 OR. (3d) 782
35. However, in cases where the allegation is incompetence of counsel, and therefore a miscarriageof justice,there generally is no need for fresh evidence. AFFIDAVIT OFWEIZHEN TANG TOADDUCE FRESH EVIDENCE
Affidavit of Weizhen Tang
I, Weizhen Tang, of the city of Richmond Hill, the Province of Ontario, MAKE OATH AND SAY:
1. I am the applicant in this matter and as such, I have full knowledge of the matters sworn to in this affidavit.
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.I gave my own money to my investors, not take or defraud my investors. 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 application to adduce extra and fresh evidence which was not litigated fully or even partially at the Preliminary Hearing, Superior Court of Justice and the Court of Appeal for Ontario.
5. This affidavit also answers 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.
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. 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.
9. I sincerely believe that the testimony of the expert witness contributed to my conviction because he did not analyze my personal bank deposits which showed money going out to the investors. He only analyzed monies deposited into my personal accounts thereby concluding that it was for personal use. He also never analyzed how much of my personal money went to pay the investors.
10. That Amicus never seriously pursued the incompleteness, incompetence, deliberate omission of the data by the expert, that would have helped my case.
11. That 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.
12. 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.
13. 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.
14. 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.
15. 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.
16. 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.
17. That to qualify for welfare, I was subjected to a thorough investigation and after the financial investigation, I was qualified to be awarded welfare.
18. 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.
19. 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.
20. 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.
21. 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.
22. 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.”
23. 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...”.
24. That it was clear to me, to the Judge and to the crown that I didn’t know anything about the law.
25. 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.
26. 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.
27. The crown attorney in seeking to qualify the expert itemized 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”.
28. The Judge explained what the process involved and I knew from deepest 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.
29. 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.
30. 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?”
31. 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.
32. The Judge took over the questioning from page 35 to page 48.
33. 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.
34. 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”
35. That began a cascading route to what I believe to be a miscarriage of justice for my lack of legal representation.
36. 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.
37. 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”.
38. 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”.
39. 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.
40. 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”.
41. 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.
42. 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”.
43. 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.
44. 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”.
45. 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.
46. 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...”
47. 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?”
48. In answer to the Judge’s request for clarification, the expert witness answered at page 56: “No, I am not. I have not analyzed those amounts any further”.
49. 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.
50. The expert witness only analyzed 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.
51. 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.
52. Peter told me clearly that he was not my lawyer and had very limited jurisdiction to assist me.
53. Peter told me that as Amicus, I cannot terminate his services. He is at the disposal of the Court as a friend of the Court.
54. Peter told me that I cannot issue him any instructions at all. He was not at my service. He is merely there to assist where needed.
55. Peter also told me that he cannot accept any documents from me but that he will only accept documents from the crown.
56. That Peter did not prepare me for my trial in whatever way at all.
57. That I met Peter every day in court when the court was sitting, and at no other time. We never prepared together during the weekend or otherwise.
58. There are many things which I asked Peter to do for me which he refused to do or advised me not to do.
59. Peter never took any documents from me that I recall. For example I wanted to give a list of character witnesses that should be called to testify on my behalf.
60. Peter told me that I do not need any character witness as good character is no defence and that I would simply annoy the Judge and prolong the trial.
?
61. That as a result of Peter’s refusal of me to call character witnesses, i never called any character witnesses on the basis of Peter’s advice.
62. I had a lot of character witnesses that wanted to testify on my behalf, including about three quarters of investors. Because of Peter’s advice, they were lost.
63. The character witnesses I believe would have convinced the jury that I am not the type of person to commit the offence of fraud, that I had the support of the investors who knew clearly the financial difficulties the economies were going through and that I had the ability to pay them as we went along. These investors even wanted me to continue investing for them.
64. Peter did not take documents regarding my theory of the defence.
65. Peter’s incompetence was more displayed in two crucial areas in my belief.
66. The first area related to the crown expert witness. It was clear that Peter never read the preliminary hearing transcript relating to the qualification of the expert witness.
67. That had Peter read that transcript, he would have seen that the expert was qualified by stealth, that he could have nipped him in the bud so that he wouldn’t be qualified as an expert at the trial in Superior Court.
68. That the preliminary hearing judge left a left of areas mapped up or out from which a competent lawyer would plough through to prevent the further qualification of this expert whose testimony prejudiced and biased my case.
69. That Peter would have seen that the whole report was written in support of the OSC and crown’s theory of the case for conviction.That it was not objective.
70. That Peter could have delved into the expert’s lack of qualifications, his apparent bias which the Preliminary Inquiry Judge alluded to.
71. That I told Peter that he should challenge the expertise of the expert because in my estimation, the expert was merely an accountant as I told the judge at the preliminary hearing, but not a forensic expert, which if he was, he was certainly not an expert in financial investments. Peter did not challenge his qualifications.
72. That if Peter did not concede on his expertise, he would have severely damaged his credibility in spite of his possible eventual qualification as an expert.
73. That after the expert was qualified as an expert at trial, Peter never took time to take him through the mass of entries that the expert never took into account that would have supported my theory of the case that I didn’t intend to defraud any investor and that my companies channeled the money back to the investors and that I was trading and investing in brokerages and in currencies.
74. That Peter because he was not my lawyer was not thorough in cross-examining the expert or any expert.
75. That Peter to a great extent was more interested in not taking up any more court time, he was consumed in trying to please the judge and the crown, something that is prevalent if one reads the Pre-charge transcript or when he complimented the judge as being fair at the end of the trial or when in his closing submissions, he told the jury that the crown scored heavily as it were in his cross-examining of myself, as it were.
76. That had Peter competently shown through cross-examining the expert that the report was incomplete, incompetent, biased and misleading, I probably would have been acquitted by the jury.
77. The Court of Appeal reasoned that I chose not to challenge the expert or cross-examine the expert witness. They could only come to that conclusion because the Court of Appeal was not provided with the copy of the preliminary hearing transcript where it was clear I failed to cross-examine the expert, not because of lack of trying but because I lacked legal knowledge and had no lawyer. When Amicus helped me, he didn’t challenge the qualification because he had not read the preliminary hearing transcript and assumed that the qualification was granted after a full-some hearing. That was not the case.
78. That there are many areas that Peter could have helped me but did not.
79. That I had been complaining that the bias of the OSC in handing me over to the police was prejudicial and that had something to do with selective prosecution based on my race among others.
80. That Peter never told me that I could bring a motion for abuse of process.
81. Peter never told me that that I could bring a motion for selective prosecution since I had many cases that I pointed to him where there were no criminal charges laid.
82. Peter did not advise me that I could bring a motion for a stay of proceedings for unreasonable delay or abuse of process or selective prosecution.
83. That I was charged in November 2009 but I wasn’t taken to trial until three years later. A motion for unreasonable delay was possible.
84. Peter did not advise me that a pretrial motion to exclude the expert witness from being proffered could also have been brought at the commencement of the trial during the pretrial motion period.
85. That during the selection of the jury, Peter did not tell me that I could challenge the jurors on the basis of whether they would be impartial given my ancestry, race and the nature of the crime, since I complained to him that they targeted me because among other reasons, I was of Chinese background.
86. That during the trial, Peter never assisted me in making a motion to exclude the video of February 27, 2009 as its contents were more prejudicial than probative. Indeed Peter attributed the video to contain my inculpatory statements or confession and still he want this video with inculpatory statements to go in. That during the pre-Charge conference, as one can see when reading the transcript, Peter was more on the side of the crown than me. He was making submissions that made it worse for me despite some nuances like his statements that good character should be balanced with bad character. At some point even the Judge whom he was strenuously trying to please, disagreed with him.
87. That I told Peter that I needed a forensic accountant as well as an expert on financial investments. That did not happen.
88. That there was a question as to why the government could agree to the presence of Amicus and not counsel for me.
89. That while Peter could not do some of the things that I have listed above, he was clearly incompetent in not reading the preliminary hearing transcript, in consenting to the qualification of the so-called expert witness, in not seriously cross-examining him on his report during the trial to dent his credibility on the basis that it was biased, incompetent, incomplete and misleading, as the preliminary hearing judge had already laid the foundation for this.
90. Peter was incompetent as Amicus by not telling me what motions were open to me since he stated that he was there to help me in the interests of justice and to further the principle of a fair trial.
91. Justice Nordheimer in denying me counsel stated in his endorsement of September 23, 2011 among others that, “I am advised that Mr. Tang was able to cross-examine witnesses, including the crown’s expert. He made submissions on whether he should be committed for trial”.
92. That the Judge could only make this finding because he was not privy to the relevant transcripts where it was clear I was not able to cross-examine witnesses effectively as a competent person especially a lawyer would do. It appears that no-one read the preliminary hearing transcripts, not the trial Judge, not Amicus and not the Court of Appeal Judges. I needed a lawyer for all three levels of courts and I did not.
93. If Justice Nodheimer had read the transcript he would not have come to this conclusion that, “ Mr. Tang is not incapable of representing himself”. He however recognised that “that said, I acknowledge that Mr. Tang does not have experience with the legal system. I also acknowledge that Mr. Tang would be much better served if he had counsel. Indeed the trial process itself would be better served if Mr. Tang had counsel”. I clearly needed counsel in order to have a fair trial despite the judge’s disclaimer that :“ That is not the same thing, however, as saying that representation for Mr. Tang is ‘essential’ to a fair trial. This evaluation was made without the benefit of the preliminary hearing transcript and was given also a year before the trial, the judge not having anticipated the exigencies of the trial and not being the trial judge himself.
94. During the trial I wanted to do the opening and closing addresses but the Judge and Peter discouraged me. They knew I was incompetent.
95. But my belief is that Peter’s closing argument was very incompetent. He inflamaed the jury by highlighting my unflattering character of claiming to be the Chinese Warren Buffet instead of sticking to the issues of the incompetent, incomplete, biased, inadequate and misleading report of the expert.
96. Peter had spent any time on the mens rea of fraud, which was my central defence and if he cross-examined the expert witness competently on the incomplete report, it could have come out that I had no intention in committing the fraud.
97. That I was very frustrated during the trial, not having my own counsel and not competent myself and being directed by Amicus who was not my counsel and who was himself incompetent and being prevented from bringing character witnesses and conducting the trial in a manner that would have suited my style, albeit incompetent.I was told by Peter and the judge repeatedly that “that is irrelevant etc”.
98. That I believe that I did not get a fair trial because I was self-represented.
99. That I believe that the Amicus who was appointed to assist the court was incompetent when it came to his assisting me in those limited areas.
100. That I believe that if I was represented by a competent lawyer, I would have been acquitted of the charges.
101. That I am asking the Supreme Court of Canada to order the appointment of counsel for me.
102. That I am asking the Supreme Court of Canada, to require the Crown law office to provide all the documents that were filed at the Court of Appeal as I have no funds to retain counsel of to make copies of these voluminous documents.
103. That for the motion to adduce this fresh evidence partly contained in this affidavit, I will rely on the two factums that were filed in the Court of Appeal on both conviction and appeal.
104. The grounds for fresh evidence were not pointed out in the Court of Appeal because I was incompetent to conceive these grounds until I was finally free from custody and after the appeal was dismissed as I became less preoccupied with perfecting the appeal. I have had time to think.
105. I submit this affidavit as part of my application to adduce new evidence and for appointment of counsel to prosecute my application for leave to appeal in the Supreme Court of Canada.
SWORN AT THE CITY OF ________________ IN THE PROVINCE OF ONTARIO,
THIS Date: 24thDay ofNovember , 2015
SIGNATURE: ______________
WEIZHEN TANG
17 Silk Court
Richmond Hill, OntarioL4B 4A4
Tel: (416) 886-8715;
Email address: [email protected]
Sworn before me in in on .
(Name of city, town, etc.) (Name of province or territory) (Date)
(A Commissioner for Oaths)
(Your signature) 我们一家人在过去几年经历了生死搏斗，现在都活下来了。我儿子现在也懂得我是无辜的，怎么受迫害的，表示理解，支持并且要为我洗清罪名。
有人认为是我的错，罪该万死，其实，我一点错都没有，法庭证据都在，我会有一天洗清罪名，还我清白，人们会发现我说的，做的就是好，牛的很。
是证券会的毁誉，强迫性的流产导致了投资人损失，绝对不是我有任何欺骗，我和我的家人是最大的受害者。按照我的计划和能力，投资人不会有任何损失的。 王先生：您好！
听老唐讲了您路见不平二拔刀相助的事后，我很是感到欣慰，所以，你这朋友我是交定了：（虽然现在我们是神交而已），百年前伟大的孙中山先生就讲过我们中国人像一盘散沙一样，不团结。像老唐这样的人，他的专长是金融和投资，你（政府）赶鸭子上架“逼他”打审判和上诉，正是赶尽杀绝，幸好有你这样的正义之士站出仗义款言，雪中送炭！
中国人（华人）一般都是一听说你与法律沾上了边，立即远远地躲开在不知道哪个角落里了。
我对老唐说你真不容易啊？中国人的美好传统之一就是受人滴水之恩，比当涌泉报之！因此，当老唐洗清冤雪重新站起来时，一定要好好报答，这些当年对你和你一家人的有恩之人啊？
好，祝你一切均好！
P.S. 希望你看得懂我现在的中文字。
出来见面是再讲。
July 19， 2015
读过小学吗？发明和发现两个词语不能共用的。 8号 发表于 2015-12-24 12:47
读过小学吗？发明和发现两个词语不能共用的。
谢谢提醒，我不知道是属于发现还是发明 发现，是指已经存在的东西，你把它找到而已。
发明，就是创造。 圣诞节就要到了，我衷心祝愿唐炜臻全家人圣诞快乐、来年逐步走出困境。
老唐啊，我怎么觉得“后来发现我的知名度高，太出名，我没有律师，我被司法欺骗成了犯人，”这个逻辑思维有问题，知名度高与罪犯有啥直接联系？
“后来，我自己研究法律发现我变成了一个名副其实的假罪犯。”————如果结论准确，你应该可以胜出这场官司，至少看到希望，问题是你的研究成果达到了怎样一个水准和程度？？
一个人和一个公司的知名度是一种无形资产，一个人的正面形象和知名度需要大量的优秀事迹，好产品，服务，资金（广告），社会义务劳动和社会贡献才能得到的。
知名度具有吸引力和号召力，说话的权力和保护作用，真相难以篡改。
知名度高也有很大的危险性，人怕出名，猪怕壮就是这个道理。
唐炜臻的知名度是通过辛勤劳动和汗水得来的，没有半点掺假。近二十年的金融投资和贡献得来的，证券会想利用我的知名度，警察和法庭都感兴趣。证券会和警察的工作主要靠形象和知名度来维持的。
唐炜臻因为知名度高而为自己，家里和投资人带来了过去几年的灾难，吸引了证券会和警察，当局的兴趣和注意力，吓跑了投资人，朋友，友人和华人，让我孤立无援，被司法人员和当局任意摆布。
投资人的损失不是因为我犯罪，或者错误造成的，是市场原因（金融海啸）和政府（强制性流产，停产停业）的原因造成的，我个人无能为力。谁也没有办法。
尽管唐炜臻没有犯罪，但他们（政府当局）一不做二不休，他们刁难我，以为不让我有律师就可以生米做成熟饭，把我就做成了罪犯，我不会翻案。
我的知名度不但是我个人的财产和风险，也是我们家的财产和风险，更是投资人的财产和风险，也是社区和社会财产，大家的共同财富。知名度没有好坏，只有大小和如何使用的问题。
知名度是唐炜臻的有利工具和武器，使我能够在没有任何帮助的情况下战斗。因为唐炜臻知名度高很多人不敢帮，律师想帮帮不了。只有组织可以帮忙，可以利用我的知名度。
唐炜臻，我有信心的，一直不担心自己的前途的原因是我有知名度在，而且是与日俱增，现在已经打进上流，上层社会，到了法庭，我让律师，检控官，法官，法庭汗颜，因为我的知名度暴露了他们的目的，方式和手段， 他们从来没有遇到这种现象和人，讲道理，不怕。 唐炜臻的东山再起是指日可待的事。
唐炜臻通过过去几年的事件，司法实践现在增加一个司法的翅膀，有金融和司法的两个翅膀，是飞翔还是翱翔的问题。
很多人还以为我可怜，在挣扎,我想求他们。
其实，我是发现了一个新领域和机会，为华人又要做出一个新的贡献。不怕司法，不畏强权，坚持真理和斗争。
唐炜臻一案的核心和关键，奥秘之处全是在唐炜臻的知名度上
当局害怕唐炜臻的知名度让他们身败名裂，名声扫地。
很多人和组织也可以利用唐炜臻的知名度为自己服务。帮助唐炜臻就是帮助自己，体现自己的为人和能力。
唐炜臻因知名度高入狱，也将因知名度高得以洗清罪名，东山再起。 怪可怜的，
希望你儿子有个稳定的职业，过正常的日子。 大家的观念不是老化就是out了
律师都是什么人？是笨蛋加坏蛋! 法官也是墙头草吃屎滴!
唐先生，俺跟你一样，越来越鄙视律师们!
好在您没有被这几年的委屈打垮，并且努力在里面学习现已通晓了加拿大的法律，还请律师干嘛？请他们帮您打官司要先花大钱不说，打赢了，政府陪您一大笔还愣被律师们给生生分割走一部分，心疼啊!
既然您以前有三年融资5900万的傲人记录，又是自己操盘，又有优秀的资金操作和保护系统，现在同样也能筹款打官司! 而且大概只有您有这个体会：打官司比炒外汇更过瘾更赚钱! (您的原话是：打官司比炒外汇来劲十倍；打官司风险少,回报高,因为人们害怕)
唐先生，人就怕有梦想有胆识! 这些您以前现在都具备，预祝您打官司成功：还我老唐英雄本色
页:
[1]