无忧论坛

标题: 唐炜臻正在进行激烈的战斗 [打印本页]

作者: 唐炜臻 时间: 2015-12-14 21:37
标题: 唐炜臻正在进行激烈的战斗

明天是商业法庭，星期五上午是证券会，下午是旧市政厅的交通告票。明年一月排满了法庭。

1. This affidavit further raises some new issues which had not been litigated before.

2. That all the issues previously raised had never been fully litigated; for example during any of my appearances, I was never represented by counsel.

3. The issue of representation by counsel while raised before, had never been fully adjudicated on in terms of judicial assessment after evidence had been called on my legal incapacity and a judge making a reasoned decision, with rational as to why I needed or did not need counsel. The issue of counsel is outstanding.

4. That the issue of the frozen funds and how that affected my ability to defend the legal suits and motions brought by the applicants was never fully adjudicated.

5. The issue of why investors’ money that was ordered to be returned to the investors on a pro rata format but now the law firms are claiming it for themselves without reference to the interests of the investors, has never been adjudicated.

6. The issue of why the law firm’s legal fees must come from the frozen funds ( and not from those who hired or appointed the law firm )which I need for counsel, has never been adjudicated.

7. The issue of lack of counsel is a constitutional issue as it raises issues of fair hearing or trial on these complicated legal issues and requiring a section 24(1) remedy under the Canadian Charter of rights and freedoms.

8. That while these proceedings were taking place, I was incarcerated and it is difficult if not impossible to mount a successful response to completed motions or applications, therefore raising the common law issues of principles of natural justice, fairness, procedural fairness and section 7 of the charter because at the time my life, liberty and security of the person were at stake and constrained because I was in jail and that issue had never been litigated on.

9. That a totally new issue has arisen and that is, when I appeared before the various judges, I had no interpreter and everyone knows that my English is not perfect, that my pleadings are not perfect and I have been told severally that my pleadings don’t make sense and they are so confused that it is easier to just dismiss them out of hand and that is why during the criminal trial, there was an interpreter because it was obvious I needed one just as I needed one during the various appearances in civil court.

10. The issue of proceeding without any interpreter raises a new constitutional issue which has never been adjudicated on.

11. That anybody who appeared or was present during those proceedings or has a copy of the transcripts and further, has a copy of my pleadings so far, will tell that my English language skills leave a lot to be desired.

12. That the issue of interpretation raises the issue of fair hearing and the ability to follow and understand the proceedings.

13. That the combination of lack of counsel and lack of interpretation affected my ability to properly prosecute the case.

14. The lack of counsel was caused by the freezing of my accounts by the OSC.

15. The lack of funds because they were frozen by the OSC also disabled me from hiring a court qualified interpreter as the courts and tribunals never hired one for me despite the obvious evidence from my participation and pleadings that I had a severe disability in the English language.

16. That in fact there is a comment in the factum of the applicant counsel that I told the court that “I know the facts. I don’t need to perfect anything”

17. That I didn’t know what perfection means as I thought it simply means t facts.

18. There is another issue that is totally new that has never been litigated on.

19. The issue is that counsel for the applicants, Kelly Mckinnon is in a serious conflict of interest, in fact the law firm as a whole is in a serious conflict of interest.

20. That Kelly McKinnon was Deputy Director of Enforcement at the Ontario Securities Commission during my litigation dispute with them, in fact during their investigation of my companies and is currently a member of the Ontario Securities Enforcement Advisory Committee.

21. That Kelly McKinnon was working with or knew Matthew Boswell who also worked at the OSC and was responsible for laying the OSC charges that had been investigated by the Enforcement branch when Kelly McKinnon was working there.

22. That the OSC claimed that they were protecting the interests of the investors while in fact the very firm Kelly is working for is only interested in taking the money that is supposed to go to me and the investors on a pro rata basis.

23. That Kelly is still associated actively with the OSC that is supposed to protect the interests of the investors but she and her law firm have taken the investors’ and my money.

24. That Kelly McKinnon and her law firm should have recused or excluded their law firm from being appointed class representatives because of the above-noted conflict of interest.

25. That it is possible that Kelly McKinnon knew that her law firm will be appointed and stood to benefit from the freezing of my accounts and further that those frozen accounts would be claimed by her law firm as legal fees.

26. That it is possible that Kelly McKinnon worked hand in hand with Matthew Boswell in the case at hand.

27. That I am told that this conflict of interests where McKinnon and her law firm stand to benefit raises a reasonable apprehension of bias that the process was rigged so that Kelly McKinnon and her law firm could benefit this way and may be benefitting from numerous other similar or like cases.

28. That I am told that reasonable apprehension of bias need not be made out in actually, it merely needs to be shown to be a possibility, a strong one in this case.

29. That it is the same with conflict of interest. Here, McKinnon was working in the investigation and enforcement unit when my companies and I were being inverstigated and shortly my accounts were frozen and I was charged, further McKinnon still works partly for OSC, the very agency that froze my accounts and charged me and Mckinnon is representing the class of investors whose money she and her law firm have claimed.

30. That the issue of conflict of interest and reasonable apprehension of bias issues have never been raised and adjudicated.

31. There is even another new issue with respect to the law firm representing the class of investors, it is the same law firm that is taking my money as legal and other fess from the TD Canada Trust case ( Court File no. 453/13).

32. That this law firm is involved in a cesspool of conflict of interests, double dealing and is out to destroy me financially and in every way.

33. That this last issue has never been adjudicated.

34. The rest of the affidavit shows a connection to all civil cases and criminal proceedings and how the freezing of my accounts by OSC at which McKinnon worked and still works in addition to Gowlings started it all and have destroyed my life.

35. 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.

36. 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 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.

作者: 唐炜臻 时间: 2015-12-15 16:19
December 15th, 2015

Your Honour, as you can see, I have no lawyer to argue these matters but I will do my best. I hope you have had a chance to review my affidavit and factum. I am unemployed and depend on social assistance so I could not even afford to print and bind the case law but I did my best to at least submit my affidavit and factum.
You have jurisdiction to grant me the orders I am requesting as indicated in paragraphs 16 and 17 of my factum.
You do not get to decide whether the fees are fair or not because the lawyers are not entitled to take any fees from the frozen accounts. Their fees should come from elsewhere. These monies are ordered to be investor’s money that must be given back on a pro rata basis as courts have ordered. The OSC claims to be acting to protect the investors. Giving money to lawyers is not protecting the investors.
But I am getting ahead of myself. I should have started by stating that all cases I am involved in, the TD case, the investors case (this one), the criminal case are all related and arose in the following manner. The financial crises of 2007 to 2009 caused the financial collapse of the investment industry all over the world. I was not exempt. I tried to salvage the situation by the OSC froze my accounts and couldn’t retain a lawyer in any of my civil or criminal matters. That cry for a lawyer resonates throughout my civil and criminal matters as you have read from my affidavit. Further during the time these civil and criminal matters were going on, I was either in custody or going through the criminal trial or not absent in court or appeared by video or appeared here but without a lawyer. That affected everything I did.
I never got a fair hearing as a result of the above noted disabilities. And it is one of the strongest points I have taken to the Supreme Court of Canada—not having had a fair trial because I had no counsel. It is the case I have adopted and am adopting here.
The fairest thing to do for your Honour is to make an order either asking the lawyers to return the money to the frozen account until the matters conclude after the Supreme Court of Canada has made a ruling (judges have stated that the money could only be released after the conclusion of these matters. Cases are not concluded if they have been appealed to the Supreme Court by way of leave). Alternatively some of the money could be unfrozen so that I can hire a lawyer, a point that Justice Nordheimer had contemplated.
In this matter I have also raised the multiple conflict of interests that affect the Gowlings lawyers. Kelly Mckinnon was in the investigation and enforcement department at OSC when they were investigating my matters. She is still attached to the OSC and also now to the law firm that has already taken the money. This is improper and should not be allowed. This conflict of interest should be litigated after the Supreme Court of Canada has made its ruling in my case.
The money taken by the law firms should be returned to the frozen account or a portion given to me to retain a lawyer. However in the main I am asking that the lawyers are not entitled to this money. If they are to be paid, they should be paid by those who retained them, and not from the investors money or my money.
Thank you.

作者: 唐炜臻 时间: 2015-12-16 09:27
昨天我们一家三口，朋友四个到商业法庭，唐炜臻虎口拔牙要法庭把钱还给我们和投资人，未成，唐炜臻虎口拔牙给大律师吓一跳。

我给了法庭一个信息，他们知法犯法，伤害无辜，已经记录在法庭，永远抹不掉的。
[size=14.6667px]No matter what, my message to the court will resonate forever. No matter what happened or happens. It will continue ringing in their ears forever. An injustice has been committed.
[size=14.6667px]

加拿大的商业法庭说律师行控制的，所以，怎么打也赢不了。法官都是大律师行的人，律师行要他们做什么他们就做什么，法官就是一个傀儡，橡皮图章。法官最后到了律师行领奖和报酬。
[size=14.6667px]

The lower courts are controlled by local law firms, judges come from there and when they retire, they go back there. Supreme Court judges are more independent and are not beholden to law firms. Further, the Supreme Court sits in panels of nine and therefore difficult to scare them and they don't look for jobs when they retire but superior court justices sit alone and are intimidated by big firms. And they come from these same law firms and go back there when they retire。
[size=14.6667px]

[size=14.6667px]我现在只能依赖最高法院，他们必须执行宪法。

欢迎光临无忧论坛 (https://bbs.51.ca/)