唐炜臻投资人想知道他们的钱怎么回来吗？

唐炜臻

8年过去真相大白于天下,唐炜臻投资人想知道他们的钱怎么回来吗？
                                        2017年8月5日 |

字体 - [url=]大[/url] [url=]中[/url] [url=]小[/url]

        法庭证据显示投资人的损失是证券会和他们的朋友造成的,应该承担一切损失和责任,跑不掉.

        投资人首先是想法正确，正确的思维方式产生能量和财富，错误的思维方式毁灭财富。

          

        现在有个俱乐部叫 丰盛的智慧收费培训，让人们树立正确的观念和思维方式，我觉得投资人需要正确的观念和正能量。

          

        第二，唐炜臻打赢司法战争，唐炜臻已经作过深入调查和研究，有必胜的信念和把握。投资人积极主动,帮忙配合司法战争,恢复名誉和声誉就是锦上添花。

          

        第三是资金方面，我只需要25 万打赢官司就能翻身，拿回来被非法抢走的200万，就会有数千万的财富和实力。

          

        目前的形势和时机对唐炜臻和投资人非常有利。

        钱从哪里回来? 证券会需要赔偿大量的资金, 投资人律师事务所是第二大赔偿资金的来源,第三是银行和投资公司. 银行和投资公司经常赔偿投资人.

          

        8月9号（银行）的几十万。 下面是我们的法律依据

          

          

        1. Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce v. Credit Valley Institute of Business and Technology, [2003] O.J. No. 40 (S.C.J.)

          

        2. Waxman v. Waxman, [2007] O.J. No. 1688 (C.A.)3. 3. 3.

        3.  R. v. Rowbotham (1985), 41 C.C.C.  (3d) (Ont.C.A.)   

        4..  R. v. Nason, 2014 ABPC 33

        The recent decision of theAlberta Provincial Court in R. v. Nason has the potential to expand theavailability of Rowbotham orders. In Nason, the defendant ischarged with provincial or regulatory Securities Act offences. Ifconvicted, he is exposed to substantial fines and the risk of incarceration. OnFebruary 14, the trial judge accepted the defendant’s argument that, in orderto obtain a fair trial, he required the assistance of a specialized securitieslawyer (just not a “criminal lawyer”) at a cost that could be $50,000. Hestayed the prosecution until state funding is paid into the securities lawyer’strust account for the defence of the defendant.

        5.  R . v.Silvini (1991), 68 C.C.C. (3d) 251 (Ont.C.A.)

        The Supreme Court of Canada has directed the Court ofAppeal to carry out its duty to ensure that the appellant had a fair trial andif 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).

          

        6. R. v. Kelly (1992)15 W.C.B. (2d) 254 (O.C.A.)

        The incompetenceof trial counsel can afford a ground of appeal. It is, however, one whichshould be raised only after the most careful consideration. 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.

        7. Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce v. Allen [2012] O.J. No. 284 2012 ONSC 588  

          

        8. Danyluk v. Ainsworth Technologies Inc., [2001] 2 S.C.R.R.  

          

        8月16号律师事务所Gowlings拿走我们 的几十万，一共要求实质金额有70万

          

        Should GowlingsAccount be taxed

        Should Gowlings Account be taxed given that they have drainedmy account over the years purporting to represent the investors whom they don’tknow and whose investments accounts they don’t know. Even the investors don’tknow that Gowlings represents them. Gowlings does not have any retainer lettersfrom any investors. They cannot show in the dockets if they even have dockets,what if any work they have done. They cannot show any interview notes with anyinvestor. Yet they have seized illegally to hundreds of thousands of my money.They ought to be taxed. They ought to be reported to the Law Society of UpperCanada, they ought to account to somebody. Most important they ought to returnmy money.

          

        Any courtappointed lawyer has to inform the client about the appointment and to workdiligently for that client. The client has to agree to be represented by thatlaw firm appointed by the judge. It is not automatic. At least the client mustknow who is representing them. The issue now is, Gowlings adjourned the case inorder to find out which are their investor clients and what investments wereinvolved. But what have they been doing all these years not knowing who theirclients are and the amount of investments each deposited. The dockets may onlydeal with the suits filed, how about work done on their clients on theirclients’ instructions. Do they even have instructions. This is Frantz Kafka.Lawyers draining money without knowing who their clients are and withoutreceiving any instructions from the purported clients. This is a miscarriage ofjustice.

        They could have made all arrangements with their clients before the Motion datewhich they knew about long before.