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 not know 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 has frozen 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, I don’t say this critically of Mr. Tang, but in support of the need for 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 him and 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 following on 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. That to 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 to use 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 affidavit 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.
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 by my 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 |
狗仔卡
发表于 2015-12-8 08:54:13
收藏
顶
踩
提升卡
置顶卡
沉默卡
喧嚣卡
变色卡
显身卡
楼主
