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.
|
狗仔卡
发表于 2015-12-13 19:40:39
收藏
顶
踩
提升卡
置顶卡
沉默卡
喧嚣卡
变色卡
显身卡
发表于 2015-12-14 11:27:05
楼主