今天我在商业法庭的讲话（英文）

唐炜臻

December 15th, 2015

Your Honour, as you can see, I have no lawyer to argue thesematters but I will do my best. I hope you have had a chance to review myaffidavit and factum. I am unemployed and depend on social assistance so Icould not even afford to print and bind the case law but I did my best to atleast submit my affidavit and factum.

You have jurisdiction to grant me the orders I am requestingas indicated in paragraphs 16 and 17 of my factum.

You do not get to decide whether the fees are fair or notbecause the lawyers are not entitled to take any fees from the frozen accounts.Their fees should come from elsewhere. These monies are ordered to beinvestor’s money that must be given back on a pro rata basis as courts haveordered. The OSC claims to be acting to protect the investors. Giving money tolawyers is not protecting the investors.

But I am getting ahead of myself. I should have started bystating that all cases I am involved in, the TD case, the investors case (thisone), the criminal case are all related and arose in the following manner. Thefinancial crises of 2007 to 2009 caused the financial collapse of theinvestment industry all over the world. I was not exempt. I tried to salvagethe situation by the OSC froze my accounts and couldn’t retain a lawyer in anyof my civil or criminal matters. That cry for a lawyer resonates throughout mycivil and criminal matters as you have read from my affidavit. Further duringthe time these civil and criminal matters were going on, I was either in custodyor going through the criminal trial or not absent in court or appeared by videoor appeared here but without a lawyer. That affected everything I did.

I never got a fair hearing as a result of the above noteddisabilities. And it is one of the strongest points I have taken to the SupremeCourt of Canada—not having had a fair trial because I had no counsel. It is thecase I have adopted and am adopting here.

The fairest thing to do for your Honour is to make an ordereither asking the lawyers to return the money to the frozen account until thematters conclude after the Supreme Court of Canada has made a ruling (judgeshave stated that the money could only be released after the conclusion of thesematters. Cases are not concluded if they have been appealed to the SupremeCourt by way of leave). Alternatively some of the money could be unfrozen sothat I can hire a lawyer, a point that Justice Nordheimer had contemplated.

In this matter I have also raised the multiple conflict ofinterests that affect the Gowlings lawyers. Kelly Mckinnon was in theinvestigation and enforcement department at OSC when they were investigating mymatters. She is still attached to the OSC and also now to the law firm that hasalready taken the money. This is improper and should not be allowed. Thisconflict of interest should be litigated after the Supreme Court of Canada hasmade its ruling in my case.

The money taken by the law firms should be returned to thefrozen account or a portion given to me to retain a lawyer. However in the mainI am asking that the lawyers are not entitled to this money. If they are to bepaid, they should be paid by those who retained them, and not from theinvestors money or my money.

Thank you.

稀泥派 老刘

这个事情从头到尾对大多数人都是悲剧包括老唐，除了法庭律师赚了，，，扯这个闲蛋，，，，那些损失钱财的可怜投资人，，，，别参加什么文字投资项目，现在赚到手里的现金都未必是真的。买个股票，等你80岁涨多少钱还有什么意义，留给子孙未必就是好事情，子孙钱自己去赚。

飞鱼IT

老唐，找个律师哪怕是个学法律的学生帮你改改你的陈词。

费老

唐炜臻 发表于 2015-12-15 21:28
The lower courts are controlled by local law firms, judges come from there and when they retire, the ...

用“讲话”这个词不妥，换作陈述比较确切些。。。

唐炜臻

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.