All lawyers now refuse to respond to me. I am untouchable.
Charles Painter had me ordered to contact him only by email, so he is in contempt of his own order.
Anway, if you’re a lawyer acting to defend my suit, here is what I know about lawyers assigned as at a September 8, 2020
Aurora – Charles Painter twice called police to arrest me, one failed and one worked. I’ve declared this a conflict of interest and I ask him to be replaced. He had me ordered not to contact Lloyd’s of London, so I can’t say if someone new has been assigned yet.
Region of York, police and their board – Barry Stork also had me arrested so I have asked he be noted in a conflict of interest as well.
Lady A – used Charles Painter so the status is the same as Aurora
All My “Convictions” are breaches. Save one which was an email to police asking for help with a dog attack. Am I TOO breachy?
Breach´y
a.
1.
Apt to break fences or to break out of pasture; unruly; as, breachy cattle.
Too funny… breaking fences in spite of myself
Webster’s Revised Unabridged Dictionary, published 1913 by G. & C. Merriam Co.
“APT TO BREAK FENCES” is just TOO funny.
In the past five months less than 12 people Average per day read my blog.
Three are alleged victims
Three more are me and my family, one more friend
at least three must be lawyers
my probation offocer, that’s 11.
some of 37 cops assigned
And your Attorney General has spent $250,000 conservatively since 2017. Ten trial days. Four inquiry days. A Hundred appearances. Waste.
For one ex cop. And only because of the “Thin Blue Line”.
I spent over $44,000 on lawyers and courts.
For 12 people a day. Ontario paid $228 per viewer per day
I paid another $40 a day per viewer
$268 a day we paid.
Is that “in the public interest?”
$268 a day.. over $10 an hour per person?
Discuss among yourselves.
I’m thinking ex cops are expensive to protect from public opinion. If they don’t want people blogging about them…. stop assaulting me and lying again and again. Two arrests, three charges all withdrawn as false.
When I went to Toronto police the first thing thing they asked ME for was photo ID. “Standard procedure” he said.
Why is it not STANDARD with York Regional Police?
Why can I not be shown PROOF of the name of the person who arrested me twice falsely? 3 charges. All withdrawn. Why can I not be told the legal name of such a person?
Since there was no name change between June 3, 2017 and January 30, 2018 when a married name was renewed as a POA officer in council minutes, she lied about her name in every charge and every lawsuit. Neither of her two lawyers have responded to a legal request to know my accuser’s legal name.
When after 5 days Toronto police called … they IMMEDIATELY opened with..” Why did you try to arrest in Toronto, you’re in Aurora?”
Second thing? She wanted my bank account number.
She’s not even planning to get the “legally executed garnishment from CIBC” to get the account number. She wants it from me?
Nope. I do not Gove my SON or bank account to anyone. Common sense.
If CIBC was legally freezing my account, she can now garnish RBC the same way. If she stole no account number for CIBC she should be able to repeat the process at RBC WITHOUT an account number. I’ve put my cash in the account. Go garnish it without an account number to prove your innocence.
If they give you my money they broke the law in s. 462. I’ve sued two banks already for breaking the Bank Act s.462 and eliminating my account, so to sue a third is easy.
I ask that you take archive copies of every soft copy you have sent me. I ask that the metadata for all Word documents be safeguarded. Or, if you do NOT use MS Office, save every file and tell me what software you used to create them.
Crown Westagte was quite offended II suggested Mr. Elder, Giordano and himself had supplied “DRAFT orders” to Justice Harpur and Justice Cameron for their decisions.
Word metadata
Most Word documents contain hidden metadata that shows the history of the document. Metadata is data about the document or file that is embedded within the file’s details. That data shows when the document was first created, who authored the document, total editing time, and the last time the document was modified.
Microsoft Word’s metadata, or document properties, stores details about files. Common metadata entries include the document’s author, company, title and subject. Each time someone edits and saves a file, Word updates the document’s metadata. Comments and revisions logged in the metadata are helpful when several people are collaborating on a document. Reviewing the document’s properties or using the Document Inspector to see if metadata is present and will help you verify what information Word has recorded; remember, though, that the Document Inspector locates the types of metadata recorded in the document but does not reveal what that data contains.
For PDF files..
For PDF files..
View document properties
When you view a PDF, you can get information about it, such as the title, the fonts used, and security settings. Some of this information is set by the person who created the document, and some is generated automatically.
In Acrobat, you can change any information that can be set by the document creator, unless the file has been saved with security settings that prevent changes.
Choose File > Properties.
Click a tab in the Document Properties dialog box.
Document Properties
Description
Shows basic information about the document. The title, author, subject, and keywords may have been set by the person who created the document in he source application, such as Word or InDesign, or by the person who created the PDF. You can search for these description items to find particular documents. The Keywords section can be particularly useful for narrowing searches.
Note that many search engines use the title to describe the document in their search results list. If a PDF does not have a title, the filename appears in the results list instead. A file’s title is not necessarily the same as its filename.
The Advanced area shows the PDF version, the page size, number of pages, whether the document is tagged, and if it’s enabled for Fast Web View. (The size of the first page is reported in PDFs or PDF Portfolios that contain multiple page sizes.) This information is generated automatically and cannot be modified.
I would like all of that for every decision published by the various justices.
In particular:
J. Harpur
Findings and assessment of my guilt
Sentencing July 17, 2020
J, Cameron
Decision on my motion to suspend sentence awaiting appeal
J Rose
Decision and sentence
Probation Order
Here Mr. Elder , or “elder02” created the PDF in MS Word.
By ElderBy a court reporter
So, the evidence of who wrote these documents is recorded in the soft copy file itself.
I ask for a copy of each Word document so I can see who wrote it.
The Whitehouse today issued a press release bragging that “Trump builds a “‘New” protective wall, on the very land owned by its neighbour even, that no U.S. cash was spent, and only Mexicans had to pay for it!”
One has to dig deep into the narrative to discover that The New Wall is:
Not an international border
Not 30 feet high, just four feet High
Not black, it’s orange
Not in Mexico, it’s in Canada 50 km NORTH of the border
For certain p, it was paid for ONLY by Mexicans
Announcing: “The Wall” at Hay Caramba, Bradford, Ontario… a brand new patio safely surrounded by towering (to children) walls in safety orange.
The “Mexicans” are owners Noe Martinez and Melissa Marques. They paid 100% of the costs.
Trump is now looking into the miles of canal walls built by the large numbers of annual farm workers brought to the Holland Marsh area from Mexico because Canadians do not want to grow food. I’d have thought a pandemic might convince a few people to learn the skills… Just in case. Apparently everyone trusts McDonalds burgers WILL have adequate hormones in the beef to kill COVID-19.
So, each mile of canal is two miles of wall because Mexicans built the canals.
In Toronto, Secret Service suits were seen Laser measuring the Mexican embassy so a space contractor computer simulation could prove the length of all interior walls as well. Dubbed “Trump Mex US Some More Wall”, the app is being deployed to all countries with Mexican embassies and to all border states with Mexican immigrant owned bodegas… each store’s walls will be counted.
Following will be inclusion of all Wahlburgers, Walmart’s, ANYTHING Sam Walton OWN’s, all WonderWalls. All walls in Cornwall, all previously owned furniture of Humpty Dumpty and his progeny, all buildings built by any company trading on Wall Street,
Then, usually dim witted Eric came up with more opportunities when he asked, “What is a wall?” And Dad said.. “ Look it up you you dumb f&*k!” And he found…
All U.S. embassies in the following countries will be asked to donate one city each:
If I had it wrong with Adrian, will CIBC take the blame?
Because, it COULD also have been CIBC lying that they did nothing wrong.
IN FACT, that MAY be a high possibility.
Will I now be arrested for Public Mischief?
A;; I did was report Gwendolyn ADMITTED it was “none of my business” who stole my account number for her.
Have faith Gwendolyn, you have a female officer investigating, and. I am sure you can talk yourself out of it.
Maybe, Gwendolyn is gonna take one for the team, maybe she’ll allow her OWN arrest rather than cost the banking industry a fortune.
If it was Gwendolyn… she gets a knuckle rap.
BUT, if it was CIBC… the resultant CLASS ACTIONS will cost a bundle.
Note: To lawyers reading this… DIBS! on the class actions… I demand a piece!
Read on. Maybe we can pin this on the CIBC acting alone.
Needed: Just get Camilla Latronico (CIBC) and Michael Hamilton (OBSI) to admit they were wrong… that CIBC made a mistake. Again.
And here’s what I base that on. More evidence that CIBC simply cannot properly handle garnish orders. They evolved (see my Darwin posts) into treating them ALL as “child support orders“. By letting ALL LAWYERS fax garnish orders for family support, CIBC let lawyers sneak in the odd shady court order and if needed deny it as a one-off mistake.
Remember… the POSITIVELY shady $18,000 court order the banks are waiting for was fraudulently awarded. Ms Adrian asked for and got it claiming a motion NEVER heard. $1,800 ALONE was claimed by Gwendolyn for PHOTOCOPIES NEVER SEEN.
That is (in my opinion, see: Rights, Charter Of) fraud.
Anyway, it SHOULD be.
SNIFF- SNIFF!
Let’s Make Like A Canary and Take a Sniff! If we die, we die.
OK, let’s see if my CIBC account is still frozen by an order sent by Gwendolyn Adrian March 4, just about 20 hours after I opened it…
Spoiler alert! It was!
I tried a large Interac from my pension fund account atRBC Aurora
I then switched Apps and tried to deposit it at CIBC Aurora….. NOPE.
Because all of my accounts at CIBC are frozen, I cannot transfer IN any money, I cannot pay my bills.
So, the banks DEFEATED the whole intent of a garnish…. they really just get ONE grab, and if the balance is less than demanded… then the account is useless forever. Forever frozen. It cannot get more money put in.
BUT CPP And OAS will arrive… AND BE SEIZED.
See, there is no capability in this cold banking computer systems IBM sold them in the 70’s to exempt social benefits from being seized. I proved that too, by asking them!
CIBC Refuses To Upgrade Computer Systems
With the BILLIONS taken from the Canadian taxpayer… they will now claim it to have been and TO BE NOW too expensive to change their mainframes to permit meeting REQUIREMENTS clearly define in the Bank ct at s. 462,
I CANNOT be the first to be abused… CLASS ACTION GOLD MINE AHEAD!
Imagine how many people were robbed of their pensions which were then sent to the sheriff!
How long will it take CIBC to just figure out HOW MUCH they OWE these people?
After all if CIBC accepted a $5,000 COURT ORDER (NOT family support related) and then took $1,000 of the last CPP or OAS payments… THEY STOLE them to give the sheriff.
CIBC will have to pay them back once my class action gets rolling.
Oh, BTW, even when frozen.. the $4.95 charge is applied.
YES, I also get a credit of the $4.95 Old Fart Rebate
BUT, if this were a “reglular for fee” account, they would be charging for a withdrawn service. They must pay it back.
THAT’S MORE TO PAY BACK!
I believe CIBC has an expensive problem.
And, once they admit THAT to keep Gwendolyn Adrian from being arrested, they “freeze and seize and never releaze”… I go to TD, RBC, BMO, Tangerine, …. ALL of them will have to take a look whether they seized pension funds in every garnish order EVER! OR charged fees while the account was made useless.
The lawyers will be lining up.
To get me to shut up!
Now, what are the bets I can go in and change my account to a high end, all bells and half whistles version with the highest fee and then watch that accumulate? Think I can do it by Monday morning? I have 1-4 pm out today, I will try.
Alert! Bob Lepp is coming to CIBC to catfish them into charging fees for a frozen account. I’ll send my OAS there Direct Deposit, and keep CPP as a paper check I can tender at RBC. THEn, I have it all. End to end.
Since I just published the BUGS in CIBC systems, and emailed the Ombudsman, and if they STILL ignore me, and STILL LET me upgrade the account to a high fee… is THAT fraud as well?
Knowingly charging a monthly fee for a completely disabled account…
I’ll check with a lawyer.
Gwendolyn? Any time on your hands? Or are you NOT doing time yet?
I love the idea that in the end RBC is my safe place to bank.
and they are the key to how I avoid Ms Adrian until my appeal can be perfected.
Ms Buckles’ neighbour, and she has two, worked at RBC for forty years and now they will keep her talons off my money.
A wonderful young man there tied it all up with a bow.
He asked head office how they garnish an account. Simple. Direct.
I had no idea to ASK TD before they took our $4,500. Poof! It was gone.
And CIBC shut me down in half a day.
So, I assume those two would say the same as RBC…
The bank gets garnished by fax…. because child support garnishments CAN be faxed to head office. Since they can’t tell the REASON for the garnish… or at least will claim they can’t .. they accept court orders too.
Head office then FREEZES the accounts of the named person BECAUSE a deadbeat Dad or Mom will NOT be providing a bank account number.
The “freeze” is due to systems so old it has no OTHER way to keep you from your money. The old mainframe COBOL programs are simply ALSO frozen since all of us COBOL programmers retired. Only the glitzy PC-based front ends get modifications now.
So, the overall freeze takes away your pension payments. After all, deadbeat Dads are scum.
If you happen to read this post you will now know that to get your CPP released … visit the branch and ask them to release your CPP.
They give you the cash IF it has not been given to
Your account is still frozen but you have cash.
Mail cash to pay your cable bill.
So, if I MUST go to my bank to argue for my CPP…
I may as well get a paper check and cash it and save the argument. BUT will they SEIZE it instead, put it in my account anyway…THEN, I get to argue for it.
WOW, so many options to mess me up.
Thus, a false garnish ALWAYS stops me getting my pension.
Banks are permitting lawyers to circumvent the Bank Act.
To collect debts, they can “garnish” the debtor’s bank account. The Bank Act S. 462 tells them how.
They need your name, account number, branch number and branch address. Then they courier the order to the branch. And the bank branch is supposed to do the rest. They compare the account and name to the name and account on your signature card, then take your cash. If you still owe money, they take any cash you are silly enough to deposit.
Until recently….
Today, Lawyers now ignore all that and just fax the debtor name to every bank head office and they do the rest, Each head office finds and freezes the account and sends the cash to the sheriff,
Until all the debt is paid, you CANNOT use your account.
So, you lose your money AND the ability to day your bills.
And nome of that is legal.
Call YOUR bank and ask their routines. You will be amazed,
Banks are permitting lawyers to circumvent the Bank Act.
To collect debts, they can “garnish” the debtor’s bank account. The Bank Act S. 462 tells them how.
They need your name, account number, branch number and branch address. Then they courier the order to the branch. And the bank branch is supposed to do the rest. They compare the account and name to the name and account on your signature card, then take your cash. If you still owe money, they take any cash you are silly enough to deposit.
Until recently….
Today, Lawyers now ignore all that and just fax the debtor name to every bank head office and they do the rest, Each head office finds and freezes the account and sends the cash to the sheriff,
Until all the debt is paid, you CANNOT use your account.
So, you lose your money AND the ability to day your bills.
And nome of that is legal.
Call YOUR bank and ask their routines. You will be amazed,
Ms Adrian and Mr Painter OFTEN forget I am not a lawyer. They then expect I know all the secret handshakes.
The both enjoy whining to justices that I do not play by unwritten lawyer rules developed over the centuries to make their lives even easier. This makes tech judge biased against me.
To be honest, if a self rep actually finds himself standing before a justice then he has moved heaven and earth. It is not trivial to schedule a motion. To be able to produce the paperwork takes a lot of learning, effort and mistakes.
Below is Ms Adrian’s signature under paragraph 10) in which she claims:
“…Lepp increased costs by unilaterally scheduling the SLAPP relief motion…Increased costs were incurred. Had Lepp acted REASONABLY, a motion to deal with the preliminary issue of default could have been scheduled before a master…..”
G. Adrian Costs submission to J Schabas
I “reasonably” plead 137.1 in my Defence and on May 21, 2019… EXACTLY as I am supposed to. Ms Adrian filed for “Default Judgement” WHILE I filed 137.1 WITH HER on May 21, 2019
She refused ALL communication while I was in default. I emailed her several times citing PPPA, COJA and SLAPP 137.1 rules.
Framers of the PPPA despised SLAPP suits. They are predatory and allow wealth to defeat dissent through false suits JUST to cost MONEY and l its of it.
SLAPP suits are oppressive and illegal now and Ms Adrian has STILL not “got” it.
“DEFAULT” means NOTHING when 137.1 is moved.
The whole idea of the PPPA is to cut off SLAPP suits at the knees, AND at NO COST TO THE DEFENDANT.
Before the PPPA, MONEY was simply the weapon to shut up the dissenter.
Adrian refused to understand that 137.1 SUPERCEDES EVERYTHING ELSE ABOUT A CASE. The PPPA’s purpose is to DISCOURAGE exactly the kind of suit Duncan brought. To do that, the Defendant can challenge it ANYTIME under 137.1. He can be assured of NOT PAYING ANY COSTS. He can win UNCAPPED damages if he proves SLAPP.
FACT: On May 21, 2019 we BOTH stood before J. Archibald and HE ordered us back August 26, 2019 for the 137.1 hearing… a date acceptable to BOTH of us.
There was NO unilateral “scheduling” of anything. I had ALREADY pled 137.1 IN SENTENCE ONE OF MY DEFENCE TO Brad Cran.
There is NO REQUIREMENT for a self represented person to beg a lawyer for a date. Lawyer “friends” do that as a nicety to fellow union members. I have it from Llyshelle Barrett, Superior Court Scheduler Newmarket that no “consultation” is required.
As you consider the revenue streams from the lawsuits of TD and the other one, think about how…
Ms. Adrian submitted costs stating she worked seven 8.5 hour days, or 60 hours at $300 per hour, defending her client’s suit from SLAPP s.137.1 of the PPPA and the COJA and NEVER ONCE read the section to see what she was trying to defeat.
If she HAD read the s. 137.1 it states clearly it can be moved at ANY TIME, when in default, or NOT in default, BEFORE filing a defence, AFTER filing a defence.. there is NO TIME when it cannot be moved.
FACT: There is NO TIME when SLAPP s. 137.1 cannot be moved.
A woman who falsely arrested me on three criminal charges, the crown withdrew on all 3, she sues me for her losing her two town jobs… and yet she testified at MY trial it was her choice to leave each and she was paid “cash on lieu of notice” by both Aurora and Erin.
A trained lawyer can claim to J. Schabas she worked 60 hours at $300 an hour on defending SLAP 137.1 BUT she never actually read the section in either the PPPA or the Courts of Justice act.
She denies knowing:
137.1 can be moved WITHOUT filing a defence, therefore, everyone who moves 137.1 IS IN DEFAULT.
That defending 137.1 CANNOT BE AWARDED costs.. EVEN IF SUCCESSFUL.
The meaning of SLAPP… as defined in the PPPA and 137.1
She denies her client claimed she built 100% on her own land, right up until Ms Adrian got her to admit she knew it all along to beat Ms Buckles in Small Claims. That was brilliant of her. She won $2,000 by admitting her suit was FALSE all along… and forgot she now LOSES her $80,000 suit of two people.
Now, if she had NOT STOLEN MY CIBC DATA,.. she might convince a judge she was just sloppy, but once she committed a crime the judge SHOULD lose all respect for her.
But, she did steal my account number. And I can prove it.
CIBC said their staff ALL did a perfect job, just like they worked for Trump.
That MEANS, there was a match between the account Ms. Adrian submitted on the garnishment order and the account number on my still wet signature card.
CIBC would not lie to police, correct? They would say they did not Gove the number away. And then the police ask for the garnishment order, point to the account number and say “Well how did Ms Adrian get it legally?”
So, Ms Adrian somehow got knowledge of my account number to be able to write it on the order to the court and to CIBC. And I can state I did not give it to her.
ONLY CIBC knew my account number when I opened the account March 3, 2020 and BEFORE she garnished it March 4. So, in those 24 hours, Ms. Adrian stole it from someone.
AND, someone told her I was in that CIBC branch March 3. She could NOT know to go steal the account UNLESS a co-conspirator saw me there and phoned her up. THEN, she could go steal the account number.
So, she had TWO helpers, one playing lookout and one on the INSIDE of CIBC to print out my banking data for her. Its a long number, plus the TRANSIT code… she could not just be told it, someone printed it out or wrote it down for her.. and that piece of paper is evidence she now cannot destroy.
CIBC logs EVERY access to my profile data. They can be subpoena’d, ALL of the staff… to ask each one to confess.
And then August 26, Ms Adrian tried to elicit all my password hints. Wife’s name. birthday, mother’s name, son’s name, birthday…. she got EVERYTHING she needed to log in as me and take my money directly. Was she planning to do that? Or were the improper Discovery questions part of her thievery?
And imagine how much time CIBC wil spend backing away from claiming they did everything legally when they decide its easier to just charge Adrian for theft and let police figure it out. Not great press, but all press is good press.
The cost of all these suits to taxpayers is unfortunate.
On August 26, 2020 I was ordered by Ms Adrian to attend Discovery in aid io execution. She repeatedly asked me for ALL the accounts I had beyond the two she had ALREADY garnished so she could garnish it.
I told her “RBC Aurora”… why is it NOT garnished yet?
If you have read what the function of various levels of Ombudsman inside and outside CIBC, you know:
They will never admit they made a mistake
They will never offer compensation for abuse and withdrawal of service
Their “Top Guns” at OBSI take over to silence you JUST to open a file.
The range OBSI states they pay for silence to continue to infinity is $1,000 to $5,000
You will never know how much or how often people are paid to shut up about Bank Misconduct because a non disclosure starts at minute one off your complaint
You can accept $1-5,000 and play that game, or you can sue
I can clone my Michael Simaan and TD Bank to Michael Simaan and CIBC Bank in an eyeblink
This time Ms Adrian cannot represent him as she is udder investigation for theft of my banking data at CIBC
I will post the Small Claims Suit Number HERE >>>>________________________
I am writing in response to your email of today’s date regarding your bank accounts
In order to access funds in your accounts, you need to contact CIBC at (905) 727-4248 X 222 (660 Wellington Street EastAurora Ontario L4G 0K3). Thank you, Regards,
Camilla Latronico, CFP STI | Senior Manager | Office of the Ombudsman
Recall that OBIS exists to pay off people who get screwed over by a bank.
As soon as you start not the process, the “Cone of Silence” drops over you. Then, whatever they tell your whatever the solution is you must shut up. You cannot use the admissions of OBSI that a bank screwed you over to sue that bank.
So, in essence, OBSI is just a muffler for complaints. Only the serious errors and omissions would be brought to them and they INSTANTLY have you wrapped in sound absorbing legal instruments.
If you get screwed over, just go straight to a law suit, because OBSI tops out at $1,000 anyway. Chump change.
CIBC broke the Bank Act was, specifically s. 462, but accepting a garnishment order at head office as a fax. They did not require Ms Adrian to courier it to my branch for comparison of the account number she had to the one on my signature card.
Because CIBC then froze my account to all uses for the last 5 months, they still assert they did nothing wrong.
So, if on September 2, 2020 (today) CIBC asserts they have done nothing illegal, why os my account not of any use to me?
Mr. Lepp,
Thank you for the update. At this time, I am required to remind you and bring your attention to the consent you signed with OBSI on July 7, 2020. Specifically:
Information you receive from us is confidential
You cannot share the information you get from us with anyone except the firm’s regulators and anyone who has also signed this agreement. You cannot use information you get from us in any legal action.
You agreed to the terms set out in the consent. In particular, you agreed that:
OBSI’s correspondence, files, and any discussions we have during the review of your complaint are confidential;
UPDATE: September 3, 2020 – I met the RBC Aurora staff and set it all up for garnishment, They will let me know September 4 whether they can guarantee they will not take CPP and OAS if I direct it there
On August 26, 2020 I was ordered by Ms Adrian to attend Discovery in aid io execution.
She repeatedly asked me for ALL the accounts I had beyond the two she had ALREADY garnished so she could garnish it.
I told her “RBC Aurora”… way is it NOT garnished yet?
This is all she had, if police believe her, to garnish me at CIBC. She said she did not get my actual real account number or anything else REAL about me.
I challenge her NOW to prove it. And it is dead easy to prove.
I DEMAND she garnish it today September 2, 2020 a week LATER.
But you KNOW NOW she will not, don’t you?
Because, without an account number and a branch address and then registered mail or courier personal service TO the branch address, my signature card account number cannot be compared to the account number in the garnishment order.
Aurora RBC is at: 15408 Yonge St, Aurora, ON L4G 1N9 (905) 841-2020 Closes 5:00 pm today.
And because you would FAIL to prove that, she must have broken the law getting “Ms. Nunhov U.R. Business!” to give her my account details.
She is in a corner now. Backed in real tight.
If she DOES garnish my RBC Aurora pension money, she will break the law.
If she does NOT garnish RBC Aurora, she is admitting she can find no legal way to do that.
So, what shall it be?
I have already offered settlement in my suit of you and TD Bank. You declined. So at trial the justice can go nuts with a cash award. Especially when I tell him the same lawyer you hired AGAIN illegally garnished Canada Pension and OAS at CIBC.
My conundrum is what do I DO?
Do I sue CIBC for $35,000?
Do I sue you again for $35,000
Do I sue her client for $35,000
Any free legal advice for me?
I thought not. I have GoogleLaw, don’t worry about me.
Te following article is from 2017
GoogleLaw and creative destruction of the legal profession
Google and artificial intelligence may not be the end of the legal profession, but, boy, can you see it from here.
Google and artificial intelligence may not be the end of the legal profession, but, boy, can you see it from here.
I anticipate encountering what Joseph Schumpeter euphemistically called creative destruction. Innovation destructs archaic business models and creatively releases capital to be deployed elsewhere — a benign description of being out on the street with your law degree.
Perhaps it’s too hyperbolic, but, for example, Google has made a database of federal and state case law and legal journal articles available via its Google Scholar search. In their defence, lawyers can now purchase on Amazon the “Please Do Not Confuse Your Google Search With My Law Degree” coffee mug.
For a simpler DIY approach, YouTube displays more than 146 videos on family law. This also includes shuffle playlist for greater variety.
For comparison, AI factors into more than 38 per cent of regular enterprise planning for mainly customer interfaces. As for law firms, it’s likely not so much. Most of law firm and in-house planning centres on how to augment regular legal work with new AI tools to make this more effective and efficient.
JPMorgan Chase & Co., apparently, eliminated 360,000 hours of legal work creating legal security documents by the use of COIN, for Contract Intelligence, to review commercial loan agreements. The bank plans to use AI to analyze credit default swaps . . . since things worked out so well last time.
Other forms of AI can review entire contracts, interpret sections and even recommend sections that are not there. These recommendations can depend on which side of a particular transaction you happen to be. Similar to customizing streaming music systems, one can imagine the type of customization that can occur as you adjust the lever from buyer focused over to seller focused. We await the ultimate customization that includes sliding the scale either to the far left or far right into the “jerk” setting.
I tried a contract review application one time with a simple release. No comments came back. I imagine legal associates would be ecstatic to receive something back from a senior lawyer without any comments. I was hoping for at least one “atta boy” type of meme.
Instead of augmenting legal practice, another perspective suggests a client-based focus where the system asks questions and directs the client to certain resources. For example, The DoNotPay website helped users successfully appeal hundreds of thousands of parking tickets by having the client answer a number of questions. The system then interprets the situation and prints out a draft letter to send to the authorities.
I tested DoNotPay over the weekend and can confidently assert that the experience replicated that of retaining some legal firms. The site took in my request, said it was sorry to hear that and told me if I could email more information it would get back to me in 24 hours. Nice immediate reply, but a solution may come a bit later. Notwithstanding the delay, the value proposition — benefits divided by total costs — cannot be beat. The system is free.
So, where do the law societies stand among all of this creative destruction? Their mandate includes the protection of the public. However, the other two mandates generally include advancing the cause of justice and the rule of law, which requires the public disclosure of legal codes and processes. Societies also facilitate access to justice. This suggests making it as easy as possible for the general public unable to afford a lawyer access to some form of legal information.
This type of access does not mean providing paper or online brochures but a more customized response. In other businesses, chatbots can ask an advancing series of questions and provide a more “intelligent” and applicable answer. This forms the entire basis behind a customer-focused type of interface.
A new client-driven model suggests perhaps an Uber approach. Uber does not own cabs and tries not to employ drivers. The courts have imposed some obligations here. Generally, Uber is a simple platform that connects customers and drivers. A similar approach could connect a client and a lawyer providing the most cost-effective service.Cost is not everything, but as the law becomes more commoditized, then perhaps being “the better lawyer” may not carry the day if everyone uses the same type of AI platform to research and provide a result. And, yes, everyone shall likely have their respective settings maximized over to jerk, so there will still be plenty to argue about.
From a policy analysis perspective, one appreciates the different approaches each law society brings to the table and the complicated socio-economic analysis that would be required to balance justice access and public protection. The 2014 CBA Legal Futures Initiativeoutlined a number of areas that the legal profession could take to remain relevant. Implementation of the recommendations may be slow in coming.
The various law societies currently have authority over who can practise law. One can easily imagine a public lobbying effort to storm the ramparts to allow some form of AI system that can ask questions and guide the individual to a possible area where help could be found.
There is nothing like a bit of urgency to assist in the legal change management process.
When and if your detectives speak to Ms Adrian, she will impress u[on them her superior knowledge of the law.
She will say: “Detective, I know the law and I did what it said to do.”
Well, faced with that assault on the competence of a highly trained Detective in Canada’s most sophisticated city… he or she may crumble and give up.
I ask that you do a couple of things for me:
Always read www.boblepp.com for the truth
The Bank Act section 462 is the law, and it says the garnishment must include the branch address and account number and be served to the BRANCH, NOT head office so the account number submitted can be compared to the one on the signature card in the branch
A catch-22 is a paradoxical situation from which an individual cannot escape because of contradictory rules or limitations.[1] The term was coined by Joseph Heller, who used it in his 1961 novel Catch-22.
An example is:In needing experience to get a job…”How can I get any experience until I get a job that gives me experience?” – Brantley Foster in The Secret of My Success.
Catch-22s often result from rules, regulations, or procedures that an individual is subject to, but has no control over, because to fight the rule is to accept it. Another example is a situation in which someone is in need of something that can only be had by not being in need of it (e.g.: the only way to qualify for a loan is to prove to the bank that you don’t need a loan). One connotation of the term is that the creators of the “catch-22” situation have created arbitrary rules in order to justify and conceal their own abuse of power.
Newmarket Crowns make up arbitrary rules all the time.
NO Crown Pre-Trial (CPT) meetings, the time to exchange evidence and discuss options to a trial, despite the Attorney General mandating Self reps should get MOPRE CPT’s than a represented accused so teycna be given some training in court room procedures. Crown Moull WANTS want EVERY self rep to look like a RUDE RUBE to a justice. He wants mistakes made, rudeness, anger fro the self rep FLOUDERING in a strange land
(Note: Over 50% of cases now self represent due only to HIGH COSTS of lawyer.)
NO Consent for obvious motions…Like: Suspend sentence for a first time criminal who appealed the DECISION…. should be automatically consented to.
NO Consent for obvious motions… Consent to Strike “term 6” as J. Dawe ordered in every OTHER active order, release order, probation order, conditional release order… WITHOUT FORCING AN EXPENSIVE MOTION.
NO paper given to the accused facing a trial on 8 Summary charges and a Preliminary Inquiry 3 Indictable charges within a week of each other June 11 to 18, 2019 so he cannot know WHEN to hire a paralegal
MIX an Indicatable charge in with 7 summary charges in a SUMMARY trial to bias the justice to evidence unrelated to the Summary charges
PRESENT to J.P. Premji March 6, 2020 for a REVERSE ONUS bail release …a list of DISPOSED CHARGES ALREADY WITHDRAWN OR DISMISSED, JUST to BIAS JP Premji to think I had all of those as CONVICTIONS.
Accuse me of “filing too many motions on the wrong day” and THEN order that I NOT FILE ANYTHING AT ALL.
Until last week, I could NOT have won for trying.
Today, I CANNOT POSSIBLY LOSE even if I tried.
Watch THEM lose ME now! They have it ALL figured out, I only have half.
There are now THREE entities examining their options. Each has just two options, YES (Arrested, Adrian erred) or NO (No arrest, Adrian did everything correctly)
So, in the end, we will have 4 YES/NO’s
ALL WILL most likely say NO!
WHO/Decision
YES
NO
ME
X
CIBC
X
OBSI
X
Toronto Police
X
Depending on the mix of answers, I will take the next actions. I will do what every organization I asked said to do: “Sue ’em!” is all you CAN do.
Then, Charles Painter will have FRESH evidence of my vexatious tendencies.
See how they all work together? “They” force me to sue, so Aurora can defeat my $7 million suit claiming I overuse and abuse the courts.
You may “proceed directly to any medical…approved in advance by the Conditional Sentence Supervisor”
Signed july 18, 2020 by D Whitman for J. Harpur
I have a lab test requisition, which I believe is “any medical” in nature.
I must get approval from my CSS to go a lab test. He will ask where, I will say “Lifelabs Aurora, or an alternate if it is closed.”
He will say yes.
I will go to Lifelabs Aurora.
If it is closed, I will got to another Lifelabs at: 1040 Oliver Rd #101
If you Google that, it is in Thunder Bay.
I’ll be back Sunday morning Sept. 6. I have surgery, a secondary repeat of last time next week and according to probation I will get advanced approval.
When the lab returns results showing I had ingested 4 beers and a martini minutes before the Dracula’s me.. I wil be asked to go to any Lifelab for a repeat.
Driving just 10 hours a day, I can be back by the end of my sentence.
I booked the Ferry in case there is a Labour Day rush.
For those a little bit short of any such sense, this is called humour.
I have a permit for a “concealed carry LOADED” at all times. Fully Automatic, the large clip, no silencer, water cooled (well iced Martini-cooled, belt loaded (one belt 🍸 per load), 10X scope, crosshairs, laser pointed, accepts bayonet, integrated brass knuckles for larynx-to-ear combat, body camera Bluetooth linked while firing.
Virtual Reality playback enabled. Real time publishing on YouTube.
The OBSI exists to mediate to pay off people to NOT tell the public when banks break the law. Period.
They “Spoke and offered to think about ” paying me $1,000 to NOT talk more about how CIBC accepted and implemented an illegal garnishment in less than 24 hours of a brand new account.
CIBC pays OBSI to pay people off when its member has paid the current year dues, and broke a law
OBSI exists to negotiate to buy its members silence from those it abuses. OBSI exists to subvert the law behind closed doors in silence so the Federal government does not cancel its charter
The dues CIBC paid for 2020 is “hush money” so no one knows they illegally removed my new bank account from my use, froze it March 4 without waiting 2 days, kept it frozen as I write September 2 four months later even though not one penny was deposited or garnished.
Are You A Logical Thinker?
Follow this closely and tell me why I am wrong.
The Bank Act is the law banks must follow.
s. 462 defines to the bank when and how to Legally garnish an account.
If a bank claims it acted legally, it can display the evidence of EACH and EVERY one ofthose actions.
Because, s. 462 says the entire process must be Properly documented documented.
CIBC, therefore, can show me NOW, TODAY these proofs
The carrier or postal registered mail receipt showing the exact branch address matching mine
A log or register from the branch
The paper letter from Gwendolyn Adrian being received AT MY BRANCH.
The name and account account number Ms Adrian specified to garnish
An image of the signature card used to verify that the correct account number matched what Ms Adrian wrote
The affidavit of service proving I was served the NEW garnishment order for the new account
The date of the request, the total to be garnished, and the date AFTER waiting 2 days to take money.
Proof that the account was left in a status which does NOT prevent me from using it to receive my CPP and OAS direct deposits
Proof I can still deposit online or accept transfers of money INTO my account
Proof that my CPP and OAS deposits will NOT BE GARNISHED
Proof that EVERY garnishment they acted on is now properly documented showing compliance with s. 462
It is designed only to satisfy the Bank Act.
CIBC will stick to its position they did nothing wrong despite the fact they have none of the documented evidence
OBSI is a structure mandated by the law. It is just a necessary “last chance” when the bank says no.
OBSI is NOT on the side of the bank customer, nor is it biased to the bank. But, it IS funded by the banks and that answers the question. The Bank Act says they need to fund the OBSI, so they do, but it is NOT designed to help customers.
It is designed to be impartial enough tp satisfy the Bank Act.
Attributed to The Rev. Bob Dod, aka: “The Deacon of Dyslexia”
My dog, Scheibe was killed as a direct effect of Det. Sgt. Bentham’s push to punish me for blogging about her. By banning me from the dog park, she forced me to the forest where she impaled herself, March 2019.
So, she’s in heaven. Yup, there is one. It is populated ONLY with our dead dogs. They are the only creatures deserving of heaven. No cats, except to lick up after serving the meals.
Anyway I ask her to do stuff for me. She does them, and I give my wife’s dog, Coco, extra treats.
Seems Coco has a lot of sway with heaven too. She asked Scheibe for our back yard to be filled with rabbits, tender ones, for her to chase.
Poof! Rabbits are nesting in a large flower pot. So, Darwin had to know this strain of rabbit had to be removed from the gene pool and a Scheibe gave him a paw.
Ontario utilizes a “loser pays” legal system in which the losing party is usually ordered by the court to pay a portion of the successful party’s legal fees. As a result, regardless of who wins, someone ends up with a piece of paper requiring the other party to pay money.
Assuming that the losing party does not voluntarily cut a cheque, a bank garnishment oughtto be the most straightforward and direct means to collect. I emphasize the word “ought”.
Put simply, once a bank is served with a Notice of Garnishment it is required to seize any funds the debtor holds at the bank and pay those funds (up to the amount owed to the creditor) to the sheriff. Ultimately the sheriff hands the money over to the creditor.
The catch is that in order to garnish the account, the creditor must serve the Notice of Garnishment at
the branch where the debt is payable.
If the creditor does not know the branch location then they are out of luck.
For example, the debtor may have $1 million dollars in a savings account at TD Canada Trust. However, if the creditor serves the Notice of Garnishment at the main branch, and the debtor’s “branch of account” is actually a different branch just around the corner from the main branch,
then the bank is not required to garnish and pay the funds over to the sheriff.
From a practical perspective, this means that if the creditor does not have any banking information for the debtor they have limited options.
The creditor can require the debtor to attend an examination and disclose his/her banking information. However, debtors often fail to show at these examinations and when they do they are often not very forthcoming. The result is more time and money wasted while the creditor returns to court to compel proper answers.
The creditor could also take a shot-gun approach and try to garnish different branches. While this may work in small rural areas, in larger urban centers there can be hundreds of bank branches which makes this approach cost prohibitive.
All of this got me to thinking, why on earth is it necessary to locate a specific bank branch.
The answer, it seems, was that this was initially required to make lives easier on the banks!
This case from 1981 discusses why the Bank Act created this requirement. At paragraph 32 the court states
“The subsection was necessary to protect the bank against garnishing orders issued, say, in Victoria when there was an account, say, in Halifax. The bank would be bound, upon receiving each garnishing order, to search the records of every branch in Canada and probably out of Canada, a quite impractical proposition. What need be done now is to search only the branch at which the garnishing order is served. If there is found to be neither property in the possession of the bank belonging to the person garnisheed nor moneys to the credit of that person, the bank need not search further.”
I agree that in 1981 having a bank search the records of every branch in Canada was likely “a quite impractical proposition”. However, over 30 years later one has to think that banks could, from a central location (or any location for that matter), easily search all of their records to see if the debtor has any accounts at any branch across the Province or Canada.
A simple amendment to s. 462 of the Bank Act could radically improve the way that litigants are able to recover sums of money that the courts have awarded to them. Instead of hunting for specific branches, litigants could easily take a shot-gun approach and serve all of the major banks.
Recovery prospects would increase dramatically. Enforcement costs would be reduced drastically given that litigants would only be paying fees associated with issuing 5 Notices of Garnishment as opposed to 500.
461(1) For the purposes of this Act, the branch of account with respect to a deposit account is
(a) the branch the address or name of which appears on the specimen signature card or other signing authority signed by a depositor with respect to the deposit account or that is designated by agreement between the bank and the depositor at the time of opening of the deposit account; or
(b) if no branch has been identified or agreed on as provided in paragraph (a), the branch that is designated as the branch of account with respect thereto by the bank by notice in writing to the depositor.
Where debt payable(2) The amount of any debt owing by a bank by reason of a deposit in a deposit account in the bank is payable to the person entitled thereto only at the branch of account and the person entitled thereto is not entitled to demand payment or to be paid at any other branch of the bank.
Idem(3) Notwithstanding subsection (2), a bank may permit either occasionally or as a regular practice, the person to whom the bank is indebted by reason of a deposit in a deposit account in the bank to withdraw moneys owing by reason of that deposit at a branch of the bank other than the branch of account or to draw cheques or other orders for the payment of such moneys at a branch other than the branch of account.
Situs of indebtedness
Situs of indebtedness
(4) The indebtedness of a bank by reason of a deposit in a deposit account in the bank shall be deemed for all purposes to be situated at the place where the branch of account is situated.
the place where the branch of account is situated.
Effect of writ, etc.
462(1) Subject to subsections (3) and (4), the following documents are binding on property belonging to a person and in the possession of a bank, or on money owing to a person by reason of a deposit account in a bank, only if the document or a notice of it is served at the branch of the bank that has possession of the property or that is the branch of account in respect of the deposit account, as the case may be:
(a) a writ or process originating a legal proceeding or issued in or pursuant to a legal proceeding;
(c) an instrument purporting to assign, perfect or otherwise dispose of an interest in the property or the deposit account; or
(d) an enforcement notice in respect of a support order or support provision.
Notices(2) Any notification sent to a bank with respect to a customer of the bank, other than a document referred to in subsection (1) or (3), constitutes notice to the bank and fixes the bank with knowledge of its contents only if sent to and received at the branch of the bank that is the branch of account of an account held in the name of that customer.
It saddens me to say I snitched. I have a report number # is 2020-1645xxx
I snitched on CIBC and Kramer Dhillon Simaan. It took at least one from each company to collude and breach the trust of clients.
I think they all have reasonably good connections to various police forces, they are “in the biz” and nothing much will happen.
CIBC will now have to be sued since I did not get a final payoff amount from them. We verbally discussed $1,000 – 10,000 as a range of payoff, but I heard nothing from either CIBC or the OBSI today.
No one got back to me.
If no charges are laid, it seems easiest to just add Ms. Adrian and both her clients to my suit if they are not there already.. They are ALL working in concert, And Ms Adrian bridges the Civil-Criminal gap nicely, interfacing with Charles Painter and the Crown.
How Could She Legally Know of My New Bank Account – a theory
There is ONE possible way she got the data WITHOUT breach of trust and theft. A “system” all banks set up quietly in back rooms.
Banks lose money to deadbeats, as do lawyers.
If the majors wanted to collect MORE money MORE often, they need to know what deadbeat MOVED around. All Banks would ALL contribute THEIR deadbeats to a common, shared database of “Known DeadBeats”.
So every bank puts in their new garnishments. And every bank can inquire when they need to see who has failed t okay… A credit check maybe…..
Then, all the banks ALSO would share “new accounts” with each other, and then, daily, someone would “run” the new accounts names against the database of “Known DeadBeats”, and spit out matches back to every bank.
When they match on name, address, or SIN, or Driver’s Licence… they know someone skipped out at one bank and JUST that day went to another. BANG! GARNISH!… they get that account frozen again instantly.
That would do what happened to me.
It also smacks of illegal use of personal data.
So, if the major banks are “sharing deadbeats” like that, she did not steal my data.. Maybe CIBC just GAVE it to her.
But, that illegal system would need to keep a whole LOT of people silent about its existence, like covering up failed moon landings or Trade Center collapses.
Maybe some clever nerd figured out how to get “deadbeats; from some OTHER legal source, and maybe banks only submit NEW accounts.. .under the guise of making sure …like a credit check… to a Credit Rating Company.
Maybe the banks got one of them to write a new system.
Maybe “Return of the DeadBeats”.. or “UndeadBeats”, or “DeadBeats Arose”.
That is all its takes. A third party willing to get each bank to feed it garnishments and new accounts and it just innocently says…”Hey, DeadBeat Lepp at TD Aurora just opened a new account at CIBC Aurora.” And maybe banks PAY an amount per “hit”.
Maybe Equifax is tracking them. After all, Equifax tracks EVERYONE and maybe banks feed Equifax new accounts and maybe Equifax does the matching so it looks to be at “arms length.”
The banks will never tell us.
But it may be proven anecdotally. If a LOT of garnished people report their second attempt at a new bank account ALSO froze next day… we are onto something.
OK, this is a fun thought for ME to start the day, Monday, August 31, 2020
I bet, that while 3 of “them” with no evidence of any illegal act on my part, were able to put me in Lindsay for 2 nights IN THE MIDDLE OF COVID-19… I will NOT be able to arrest ONE lawyer for ADMITTING she stole my identity under the guise of an “examination for discovery”.
I contend that this time Tuesday, she will still not be arrested.
Within a few hours of being asked by Det. Sgt. Bentham March 2, 3, 4 …THEY successfully arrested me and put me in prison for 2 nights and had me under house arrest and a $15,000 bond
March 2 thru 4, 2020 … Within just hours of starting out, YRP Lawyer Barry Stork, and Aurora Lawyer Charles Painter, and a 3rd ringleader, SIGNED (or WOULDN’T SIGN) affidavit(s) and were ABLE to arrest me on JUST the CROWN’s trust of their friend’s words, telling police I merely spoke to the ringleader in a court room, precisely where J. Dawe ordered me to talk to her.
August 31, I WILL ATTEMPT to arrest just ONE of “them” for ADMITTING to stealing my personal banking data ON VIDEO with a court reporter as witness
August 31, 2020 I ask to arrest Lawyer Gwendolyn Adrian for SPEAKING to me in a COURT ordered Zoom meeting, and saying she got and garnished my brand new banking data from CIBC in less than 24 hours … and then she asked me for EVERY answer for EVERY question one must use to secure a bank account for online access. She had everything needed to directly take my money with even needing a garnishment order.
What are the bets police WILL REFUSE?
“FILM at 11:00” as they once said, today it is “Check your Twitter feed”
I will bet you they will claim (all of):
The Zoom meeting was implicitly “without prejudice”
There was only one eye and ear witness
The video quality is 540P and not 720P for courtroom use
I had caught her in a tired and confused state after being exposed to MY VOICE from 10:00 to 2:07 without earmuffs
I cheated her into admitting it by asking her outright if she had done it
I’ve been harassing Gwendolyn Adrian since December 1, 2016
Ms Adrian does NOT have an ethics contract as an LOS licensee, it is merely a “memorandum of understanding” to be trustworthy and honourable
It was a on a day with a “Y” in it and there is a Y in “lawyer” specifically for that matching purpose. Because, if a man who farms is a farmer, why is a man who practices law not a LAWER? Why did they get the “privilege” of an EXTRA letter?
I was involved in a “matter” against her in court
That would be a collateral attack. (I say it is a colawyeral attack)
It’s a P.D. day. Not a Professional Development day, Police Domination day.
Should that be permitted? Should Gwendolyn Adrian and Charles Painter be permitted to act CONCURRENTLY THIS for an ex employee paid by my taxes for three years?
Should York Regional Police’s lawyer, Barry Stork, be able to join with those two to arrest me on three false criminal charges?
Should her lawyer be able to ask me for all of my bank account numbers and all my security answers to manage my online banking?
Should her lawyer be able to collude with CIBC to take all my account setup data?
no….. she should not.
Below are the summaries of potential charges. Some Provincial and some Federal. So, which police force do I report them to?
YRP – ummm, no.
Metro Toronto – If they would have me,
OPP – maybe. I have yet to get them to admit they do anything other than Hwy 400 traffic,
RCMP – maybe. I will ask. I know an ex-Mountie and he will know.
For the CIBC Employee
Criminal breach of trust
Theft
Identity theft
For the third party receiving the stolen personal banking information
10:10 am Sunday August 30, 2020 – I am on hold and reporting in to CIBC Security to report the admission of guilt and that a CIBC Aurora staffer had to be complicit.
Below are the summaries of potential charges. Some Provincial and some Federal. So, which police force do I report them to?
YRP – ummm, no.
Metro Toronto – If they would have me,
OPP – maybe. I have yet to get them to admit they do anything other than Hwy 400 traffic,
RCMP – maybe. I will ask. I know an ex-Mountie and he will know.
For the CIBC Employee
Criminal breach of trust
Theft
Identity theft
For the third party receiving the stolen personal banking information
August 26, 2020 – Victory Verbatim Hosts Ms Gwendolyn Adrian
I was ordered to attend a “discovery” and I was TWICE sent an invitation for 10:00 a.m. and I was not told an end time. a 10:00 am meeting with no end time ends at lunch. Everyone knows that,
The invitation cited a bunch of stuff to bring, most of which just did not apply to me. I sent back a response for each item requested.
She already had all my banking, because she had ALL my money in CPP And OAS and she has GARNISHED every account I had except my RBC Aurora account. To do that, she has to have the branch and account and transit numbers for the garnishment order and serve it “as personal service”. She faxed to head office instead.
Coming in at #10…
In the actual examination, Ms. Adrian then took a giant left turn into inventorying the minutiae of my home. But, she wanted to make a coffee table book out of dozens of photos she demanded. For every appliance in my home, she wanted 4 photos.
My 20 year old lawn mower. Snowblower. All of which are community property. My “stereo”… a quaint anachronism. Dishwasher, $229 chest freezer.
1) The item
2) The manufacturer name
3) The model number
4) The serial number
So, it dawned on me these requests were new to me. I did not recall seeing them on the invitation.
So, at 1 hour 34 minutes and 58 seconds in …I asked “Were these items and photos requested on the meeting invitation?
Ms Adrian: “That is none of your business.!”
That sums it up, it was none of my business whether she asked in advance for this standard stuff. She did not want it 9 the invitation because it is out of line.
Holding down #1
Close to #1 Ms. Adrian asked for my mother’s name.
Now, how does that apply in a discovery?
But then she topped herself.
“Mr. Lepp, are you expecting to inherit any money?”
She wondered if my mother was dying.
This is the lowest thing I can imagine doing to a person. Asking him to rank the odds of his mother dying before Ms. Adrian gets her money.
Why?
She was looking to get her claws into the pennies left behind by a WWI veteran. Wife of a 19 year old WWII volunteer who flew 33 night bomber missions in defence of HER country.
The soul of a lawyer is so cold. They will say and do ANYTHING for money,
She is willing to act as counsel to two women who have lied about every aspect of their law suits. She litigates THEIR lies for them in full knowledge they are lies. It is in the public record, in the transcripts anyone can read.
Both women testified on the witness stand, both sworn in, to the exactOPPOSITE to what they sued me for. They lied in their Plaintiff’s Claims. Both women told MS Adrian the truth, and yet she still litigates the lies instead.
One said Aurora fired her on my request and she could no longer get work. In fact, they offered her cash to leave so her lover was not her superior Director. Just for appearances that looks bad.
Then she got work, at the identical job, in charge of the whole department again, within mere days in another town. Then her suit claims, at the 4 month mark of a 6 month contract, she swore THAT town fired her, ALSO on my request. In fact, as she and her boss BOTH testified at my trial, she was given two months pay FREE to leave early when they unexpectedly ran out of work when she cleaned up all the outstanding problems given to her ahead of schedule.
She signed happily, TWICE in two towns, to take cash money in lieu of notice for being terminated without cause and she admitted that to J. Harpur. Her director boyfriend testified they had been a couple months BEFORE she arrested me.
The second one sued me for how I said what she had done. She said I slandered her, that I told lies about her. Then, just a few months later, in Small Claims court, she testified on the witness stand to the EXACT same facts I had stated about her. Exact. Within 20 minutes of being hired to advocate, I had simply measured, then drawn up and sketched and photographed the exact proof of trespass she THEN admitted to and agreed with in her sworn testimony. It was the same trespass her TWO surveyors swore to. Both men cited the same trespass. Her contractor told her he was trespassing with his drills. We all agreed on the amount of trespass. The judge declared the trespass, Ms Adrian continues to litigate those lies.
s. 336Every one who, being a trustee of anything for the use or benefit, whether in whole or in part, of another person, or for a public or charitable purpose, converts, with intent to defraud and in contravention of his trust, that thing or any part of it to a use that is not authorized by the trust is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding fourteen years.
Theft
s. 322(1) Every one commits theft who fraudulently and without colour of right takes, or fraudulently and without colour of right converts to his use or to the use of another person, anything, whether animate or inanimate, with intent
(a)to deprive, temporarily or absolutely, the owner of it, or a person who has a special property or interest in it, of the thing or of his property or interest in it;
(c) to part with it under a condition with respect to its return that the person who parts with it may be unable to perform; or
(d) to deal with it in such a manner that it cannot be restored in the condition in which it was at the time it was taken or converted.
My bank accounts were frozen, made dead, useless, not for deposit or payment… of no use at all. She stole it by giving my personal banking data to Ms. Adrian. And, as defined, she now CANNOT put the genie back in the bottle.
Identity theft
402.2(1) Every person commits an offence who obtains or possesses another person’s identity information with intent to use it to commit an indictable offence that includes fraud, deceit or falsehood as an element of the offence.
Marginal note: Trafficking in identity information (2) Everyone commits an offence who transmits, makes available, distributes, sells or offers for sale another person’s identity information, or has it in their possession for any of those purposes,knowing that or being reckless as to whether the information will be used to commit an indictable offence that includes fraud, deceit or falsehood as an element of the offence.
Marginal note: Clarification(3) For the purposes of subsections (1) and (2), an indictable offence referred to in either of those subsections includes an offence under any of the following sections:
(a) section 57 (forgery of or uttering forged passport);
(b) section 58 (fraudulent use of certificate of citizenship);
Marginal note: Jurisdiction(4) An accused who is charged with an offence under subsection (1) or (2) may be tried and punished by any court having jurisdiction to try that offence in the place where the offence is alleged to have been committed or in the place where the accused is found, is arrested or is in custody. However, no proceeding in respect of the offence shall be commenced in a province without the consent of the Attorney General of that province if the offence is alleged to have been committed outside that province.
Marginal note: Punishment(5) Everyone who commits an offence under subsection (1) or (2)
(a) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than five years; or
(b) is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.
2009, c. 28, s. 10
2018, c. 29, s. 45
For the third party receiving the stolen personal banking information
Criminal breach of trust
s. 336Every one who, being a trustee of anything for the use or benefit, whether in whole or in part, of another person, or for a public or charitable purpose, converts, with intent to defraud and in contravention of his trust, that thing or any part of it to a use that is not authorized by the trust is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding fourteen years.
…assuming a LSO Licensee can be considered to be a TRUSTEE at any time
Identity theft
402.2(1) Every person commits an offence who obtains or possesses another person’s identity information with intent to use it to commit an indictable offence that includes fraud, deceit or falsehood as an element of the offence.
Marginal note:Trafficking in identity information(2) Everyone commits an offence who transmits, makes available, distributes, sells or offers for sale another person’s identity information, or has it in their possession for any of those purposes, knowing that or being reckless as to whether the information will be used to commit an indictable offence that includes fraud, deceit or falsehood as an element of the offence.
Marginal note:Clarification(3) For the purposes of subsections (1) and (2), an indictable offence referred to in either of those subsections includes an offence under any of the following sections:
(a) section 57 (forgery of or uttering forged passport);
(b) section 58 (fraudulent use of certificate of citizenship);
Marginal note:Jurisdiction(4) An accused who is charged with an offence under subsection (1) or (2) may be tried and punished by any court having jurisdiction to try that offence in the place where the offence is alleged to have been committed or in the place where the accused is found, is arrested or is in custody. However, no proceeding in respect of the offence shall be commenced in a province without the consent of the Attorney General of that province if the offence is alleged to have been committed outside that province.
Marginal note:Punishment(5) Everyone who commits an offence under subsection (1) or (2)
(a) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than five years; or
(b) is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.
2009, c. 28, s. 10
2018, c. 29, s. 45
The Law Society of Ontario requires:
Undertakings and Trust Conditions
7.2-11 A lawyer shall not give an undertaking that cannot be fulfilled and shall fulfill every undertaking given and honour every trust condition once accepted.
[4] If a lawyer is unable or unwilling to honour a trust condition imposed by someone else, the subject of the trust condition should be immediately returned to the person imposing the trust condition, unless its terms can be forthwith amended in writing on a mutually agreeable basis
[Amended – October 2014]
Practice by Suspended Lawyers Prohibited
7.6-1.2 A lawyer whose licence to practise law is suspended shall comply with the requirements of the by-laws and shall not
(a) practise law;
(b) represent or hold himself or herself out as a person entitled to practise law; or
(c) represent or hold himself or herself out as a person entitled to provide legal services.
Disciplinary Authority
7.8.2-1 A lawyer is subject to the disciplinary authority of the Law Society regardless of where the lawyer’s conduct occurs.
SECTION 2.1 INTEGRITY
2.1-1 A lawyer has a duty to carry on the practice of law and discharge all responsibilities to clients, tribunals, the public and other members of the profession honourably and with integrity.
[1] Integrity is the fundamental quality of any person who seeks to practise as a member of the legal profession. If a client has any doubt about their lawyer’s trustworthiness, the essential element in the true lawyer-client relationship will be missing. If integrity is lacking, the lawyer’s usefulness to the client and reputation within the profession will be destroyed, regardless of how competent the lawyer may be.
[2] Public confidence in the administration of justice and in the legal profession may be eroded by a lawyer’s irresponsible conduct. Accordingly, a lawyer’s conduct should reflect favourably on the legal profession, inspire the confidence, respect and trust of clients and of the community, and avoid even the appearance of impropriety.
[3] Dishonourable or questionable conduct on the part of a lawyer in either private life or professional practice will reflect adversely upon the integrity of the profession and the administration of justice. Whether within or outside the professional sphere, if the conduct is such that knowledge of it would be likely to impair a client’s trust in the lawyer, the Law Society may be justified in taking disciplinary action.
2.1-2 A lawyer has a duty to uphold the standards and reputation of the legal profession and to assist in the advancement of its goals, organizations and institutions.
Competence
3.1-2 A lawyer shall perform any legal services undertaken on a client’s behalf to the standard of a competent lawyer.
[2] Competence is founded upon both ethical and legal principles. This rule addresses the ethical principles. Competence involves more than an understanding of legal principles; it involves an adequate knowledge of the practice and procedures by which such principles can be effectively applied. To accomplish this, the lawyer should keep abreast of developments in all areas of law in which the lawyer practises.
[10] In addition to opinions on legal questions, the lawyer may be asked for or may be expected to give advice on non-legal matters such as the business, economic, policy, or social complications involved in the question or the course the client should choose. In many instances the lawyer’s experience will be such that the lawyer’s views on non-legal matters will be of real benefit to the client. The lawyer who expresses views on such matters should, if necessary and to the extent necessary, point out any lack of experience or other qualification in the particular field and should clearly distinguish legal advice from other advice.
The fence was built KNOWINGLY in trespass. The builders lawyer should not litigate a suit claiming slander for stating the facts admitted by the builder in court o n the witness stands questioned by her OWN LAWYER.
Gwendolyn Adrian questioned her client WHERE she KNEW the fence to be located, the client said “I knew I built it ON the neighbours land and I dug up her foundation stones doing it.”
From that moment on, Ms Adrian KNEW her client lied in her suit of me and should have dismissed the suit. She continues to litigate this lie by her client.
Fall 2007 – (Commercial Litigation Brief Winter 2007/2008)
In order to get the information necessary to seize a debtor’s assets or garnish his income, Rule 60.18 of the Rules of Court permit a creditor to require a debtor to attend an examination under oath before a court reporter and be questioned in relation to:
(a) the reason for non-payment or non-performance of the judgment;
(b) the debtor’s income and property;
(c) the debts owed to and by the debtor;
(d) the disposal the debtor has made of any property either before or after the making of the order;
(e) the debtor’s present, past and future means to satisfy the order;
(f) whether the debtor intends to obey the order or has any reason for not doing so; and
(g) any other matter pertinent to the enforcement of the order.
In reading the rule, the most important provision is the ability to ask a question about “any other matter pertinent to the enforcement of the order.” That means that legal research into the panoply of post-judgment enforcement remedies must be done before the examination in aid of execution (formerly called a judgment debtor examination) to determine what you have to establish to obtain those remedies and, therefore, what evidence you need from the debtor to assist you in obtaining those remedies.
She did the LEGAL RESEARCH and chose Garnishment of every bank account combined with a write filed against the sale of my home. There was no FURTHER questioning required. She had solved it.
Obviously, the debtor is hesitant to cooperate in this process, so one has to be prepared for the possibility that the debtor will ignore a personally served Notice of Examination,1 and one will have to get a court order to re-attend.
I joined Zoom at 10:00. She ended the examination at 10:03 to get a certificate of non-attendance. The entire legal community waits 30 minutes for traffic. But not for a self rep. She waited only 3 minutes WHILE I SAT THERE WAITING TO BE INVITED IN TO THE MEETING.
The court may set out the method of service of for the second Notice of Examination. A copy of that Order, and the second Notice of Examination is then served. Ultimately, the court may make an Order for contempt, but only after service of the motion for contempt personally, and not by an alternative personal service, absent extraordinary circumstances, such as proof that the Debtor was evading service.2
An officer or director of a corporate debtor or, in the case of a debtor that is a partnership or sole proprietorship, a partner or sole proprietor against whom the order may be enforced may be examined on behalf of the debtor. Only one examination may be held in a twelve-month period in respect of a debtor in the same proceeding unless the court orders otherwise. Therefore, proper preparation is key. Where it appears from an examination that a debtor has concealed or made away with property to defeat or defraud creditors, a judge may make a contempt order against the debtor, so pursuing a line of questioning about the history of the property belong to the debtor into the hands of third parties is an important part of the examination.3 When the debtor feigns a lack of knowledge, or cannot be located, one can rely on Rule 60.18 (6) which provides that where any difficulty arises concerning the enforcement of an order, the court may,
(a) make an order for the examination of any person who the court is satisfied may have knowledge of the matters set out in (a) through (g); and
(b) make such order for the examination of any other person as is just.
Because the Rules of Court therefore provide that a creditor may examine a debtor not only as to his income and property, and debts owed to and by the debtor, but also with respect to the disposal that the debtor has made of any property either before or after the judgment, the creditor is entitled to examine not only as the debtor’s present means to satisfy the judgment, but also his means and assets previous to the judgment, for example, at the time that the debt to the plaintiffs was contracted. A debtor who contracted for the purchase of items at a time when they could not have paid for them may be guilty of fraud.
Questioning financial HISTORY is for fraud in a purchase. Not applicable.
Property transferred by the debtor prior to judgment for the purpose of avoiding creditors may also be challenged. Preferential transactions with non-arm’s length creditors to the detriment of other creditors at a time when the debtor was insolvent, may also be the subject of a challenge. All of these areas may be explored at an examination in aid of execution. A historical examination of the debtor’s assets and income is critical to determining historical patterns which demonstrate whether, and when, the debtor started to divert or hide income and assets from the impending threat of creditors’ claims.
There has been NO diversion or hiding detected, ever.
Conclusion
Clients retain high paid legal counsel to win trials for them, but often leave it to collection agencies to collect those judgments. Obtaining a judgment may only be half the battle, and it is important to treat post-judgment realization of that asset with the importance it deserves as part of an overall process of turning a claim into cash. Taking advantage of the expansive rights allowed under the Rules of Civil Procedure by a properly conducted Examination in Aid of Execution is a critical feature to that process, and must be understood as such.
Ms. Adrian chose to NOT hire an expert in collections law. She did not have the requisite skills to do her own examination, since she revealed MORE about HER possibly alleged criminal act than anything negative about me.
1 Or by an alternative to personal service, but not by service on a solicitor, as set out in Rule 60.18 (7)
2 Rule 60.11 (2)
3 Rule 60.18 (5)
This article appeared in Commercial Litigation Brief Winter 2007/2008.
Now, lawyers looking in will tell you I got that backwards, that it’s “Examination for Discovery“.
Normally.
And, yes she DEMANDED my Social Insurance Number!
But, when Ms. Gwendolyn Adrian, senior lawyer of Michael Simaan’s firm Kramer Simaan Dhillon, does it… it comes out backwards. She wanted to find my lost old mine to get her $18,000
Trouble is, she had already been paid the $18,000.
She took $4,500 of our pensions from TD Bank within a week of J. Schabas order WITHOUT a single collection notice. No wasteful 30 day terms for lawyers. When I had not brought her cash THE NEXT DAY she illegally garnished our joint account of our CPP and OAS depots date day before.
That left about $13,500 to collect, so, she collected that amount too.
By attaching a $14,000 lien on our home, she was PAID IN FULL, she had accepted the lien as full and final payment.
So, why did she force me to a meeting? For greed.
But, in fact, out was met who was greedy. I knew I had paid her and wondered what I could get out of HER.
Jackpot! The brass ring.
Ms. Adrian ADMITTED out loud “It was someone else!”… who gave me your CIBC banking details…
Yesterday, on Zoom audio and in my v\deo recording. Mrs Adrian ADMITTED out loud “It was someone else!” who gave her my CIBC banking account info THE SAME DAY I OPENED IT.
This was after scheduling a marathon 14 HOURS of questioning, without telling me,
Yes, she said she had the legal authority to call me to a 10:00 am meeting, she gave me perhaps 5% of the documents she wanted to discuss, she stated NO END TIME for the meeting so we were going to midnight and THEN refused me an hour lunch break to do business.
I connected to the meeting precisely 10:00. But, by 10:03, as I waited quietly to be greeted, she declared I had not shown up and she left the meeting to get a piece of paper to that effect to file me for contempt. She stood up and left.
The Victory Transcription lady and I chatted aimlessly. She called Ms Adrian to find out where she was. Ms Adrian came back on.
Then, she ejected my representative from the Zoom audio meeting. Tossed him because “he is not a party to this”. And there went Jock.
She will claim this EXACT SET OF RULES would apply if I had hired a lawyer. Because she began to list EVERY item we own in our house and separately demanded
1) A photo of “TV #1 of 5”
2) A photo of TV#1 manufacturer name
3) A photo of the model number
4) A photo of the serial number…
and repeat that for each of 5 TVs.
THEN she ORDERED me to take a second camera and take a photo of my Google Maps camera. Well, probably 3 photos.
When she asked the serial number of my (dog’s food) chest freezer ($229 at Costco) I offered to put it at the curb last night for her client to pick up. She did not agree. But she snickered.
A hint: Drive lawyers nuttier… GIVE THEM WHAT THEY ASK FOR RIGHT AWAY!
Chest freezer, stereo, air conditioning, electronics, cameras… she began to list every item I owned TO KILL TIME. And to crank a big fat bill for “collection” when I had ALREADY paid her.
Get THIS! I had already paid the debt.
She lied to J. Schabas on her costs submissions for a 20 minute default motion. Spoiler alert: I lost.
Instead of submitting the August 26, 2019 costs of saying”NO” for 20 minutes, she INSTEAD submitted costs of $18,000 and she told the forgetful J. Schabas he had REALLY ruled on a complete SLAPP 137.1 motion planned since April. Fraud. Misrepresentation. Misdirection.
Luckily for me, J. Schabas in his decision wrote that he had no time for my SLAPP 137.1 motion. Then, because I was still in default, Ms. Adrian “played” him by convincing him the SLAPP 137.1 motion from April 2019 was never going to be heard, after all, “he is in default your honour! “
Which would all be fine…. EXCEPT everyone claiming SLAPP 137.1 IS ALREADY IN DEFAULT.
The PPPA, something Mr Simaan has never read so he can maintain plausible deniability, says I need NOT even file a defence. You just file SLAPP 137.1 in a motion before trial begins. I did so anyway.
If someone sues you JUST to silence your blog posts, that is SLAPP, and when they sue… you do NOT write a defence, you JUST go file a SLAPP 137.1 motion. From that instant, the court has 60 days to say YES or NO to SLAPP.
I filed 137.1 April 2019 and agreed with J. Archibald to hear to August 26, 2019… then J. Schabas replaced J. Archibald.
And to prevent SLAPPers from cheating, they CANNOT change anything in their claim, nor can they file ANYTHING until AFTER the SLAPP decision is published. Ms Adrian ignored all that and all my emails telling her she cheated J. Schabas
Neither J. Schabas nor Ma Adrian knows the law around SLAPP 137.1.
You can pick up a complete copy of the win on their web site.
Justice Edwards was right, I’m mouthy, not vexatious.
All court I find want top hear only the soft dulcet tones of this called to the bar.
No court likes the idea of a self rep, it’s embarrassing for the pros tp lose to a high school grad so they always fond a way to shove it in your face.
In my case, I was supposed to put up with 3 years of false arrests, 7 of them and 27 charges, 19 false so far, 3 outstanding and 5 appealed.
I was supposed to do that and then be all perfectly lawyerly standing up for myself against the entire Crown, the eminent judiciary AND Lloyd’s of London. All at once. All by myself.
I was supposed to take all that and smile and be silent.
Lawyers are dispassionate, the have no “skin” in the game, win or LOSE they get $500 an hour, and it its an insurance job, the payday is every day. And they have a union, the Law Society, in their six at al times fending off all miner of outrageous complaints.
Barry Stork and Charles Painter, Lloyd’s pros from Dover, got togther and led to arrest me for speaking to a counsel in a court room.
Imagine the nerve. They allege I spoke to a counsel in a court room when that counsel was a litigant. She slo wanted me arrested for writing her name on a piece of paper for the judge.
This is screwball stuff.
Neither Stork NOR Painter said they heard a single word DESPITE sitting BESIDE the 3rd counsel. He sat there, right. where she said he was, and he swore out an affidavit saying I SPOKE to the counsel,,,,, BUT, get this, he did not hear any words at all. His counsel-mate agreed I said “Hi Barry, nice to see you.” Barry dod not hear that. the counsel then alleged the next words were aimed at her,,,, despite ADMITTING she sat BESIDE Stork. So to believe that, you suspend reality and pretend I WHISPERED or something.
Mr. Painter declined Any and ALL statements of what he did or di not hear. So, lets take that as “He heard nothing too”
Anyway, back to my big mouth.
To a man, the courts feel they do not like my style.
My substance is fine, I won the appeal, m7 $7 million goes forward before j Edwards and now he knows Mr Painter called him a piece of poop, judicial-wise. He cited everything from brains to body odour as being failed. He cited every last element of being a justice was LACKING in J. Edwards.
Judges do not mind. They are used to “friends” trashing them to win a case, lawyers will do ANYTHING to win.
I thought they just had to be truthful. I was wrong.
And how dos the Appeal COurt let me win BUT keep me” in my place”?
They awarded Lloyd;s $15,000 of MY money to Lloyd’s because I won the motion, and then I won the appeal. BUT, Lloyds was able to snag “aggressive case management
Although Aurora had greater success given the orders obtained, we note that the application judge did not ultimately grant the s. 140(1) designation or the r. 2.1.01 motion in its entirety.
So, let me translate.
I sue, Aurora claims I am vexatious for suing. They apply for that.
I win that. I am not vexatious.
J. Edwards suggests some edits for clarity, and imposes himself as case manager.
Aurora did not CLAIM a lack of clarity, they claimed “vexatiousness”
Appeals gave them $15,000 for being beaten by a self rep TWICE.
And this is Canadian Justice.
Lawyers may let you win, but their friends on the bench will make sure they get paid anyway.
I have worked DAYS to defeat the motion and appeal and I win BOTH and get $0.00\
I have this sO short I can leave it in every post as a reminder why you are here.
June 3, 2017, working for Google Maps, I was assaulted from behind in Sheppard’s Bush. June 4, I went to the Prospect Street police station and I filed a written complaint. The next thing I knew, I woke up and it was August 2020, and I am fighting for what is left of my miserable (apparently THEY say!) life. My dog is dead. My son left home. My wife is divorcing me. I am out $44,000, under house arrest, and cannot blog the names of the persons who did this to me.
Ontario has paid $.25 million in 3 years, I’ve spent $44,000. ive lost my son, my wife, my dog and the pickup truck is not in the drive away. I drive an Edge. It’s still there, but she got the Audi Q3.
I am constantly amazed at the professionalism of the Crown prosecutors. Regardless of what they are doing they make statements and arguments that support the Crown. They are very loyal to the Crown. At no time has a Crown prosecutor ever said something in support of me to a justice in a court session. I don’t know how it’s possible to focus so intently on your job.
. I would’ve thought that by now at least one of them would’ve made a mistake and said something nice about me.
Instead, they are ALL able at all times to speak the best line of argument that supports what the Crown has done to date and they remain 100% consistent and they are fully interchangeable and what one crown prosecutor does…all of them do.
This makes it very easy for the self represented person to develop a defense.
All I have to do is stick to the truth, take a gamble and speak over top of someone on occasion, even a justice in her own court, because I have to make the point that no crown that has not been involved in my case for three years has a chance of understanding it.
They have taken perhaps an hour in total to review three years of documents. They have searched case law, and they have met with the deputy Crown to receive instructions.
Today, as always, the Crown prosecutors tell the judge that I am guilty of harassing telephone calls. And they have been doing this for years because a female judge will just be irrate that I got on the phone and harassed a woman over the telephone. The problem is I have never made a telephone call to anyone and crown Westgate knew that because he had no telephone logs, and he had No Bell Canada listings of numbers and he had no recordings of audio proving harassment by TELEPHONE.
Yet because of his commitment to always support the Crown he repeated what he was told to say … so he said harassing telephone calls. Again and again.
And today he was told to tell the judge that I’m guilty of making harassing telephone calls to three women and he did it with a straight face and a furrowed brow…. such fatherly sincerity.
Crowns always use the telephone calls gambit to give a new justice a lie, a false impression of my character. They say this and if I catch them at it, they blame their computer. As if that computer cannot be fixed. They do it to produce bias and they do it to try to make a case where none existS.
And again today Mr. Westgate argued that the 18 month period of alleged acts, which is triple with the law says is permitted when they have these alleged “harassing telephone calls” I suppose going back 18 months
The only problem with this argument is that there were no telephone calls ever and the police on November 29, 2017 looked at everything back to 2016 and said I had not harassed anyone
The second thing that’s wrong with his argument is that on May 14, 2018 the same person went to the same police force and made the same allegations of the same thing over the same time. And another officer again looked at everything and again said there has been no crime here.
Thirdly, Crown Westgate failed to point out to the justice that only when detective James Ward came up with the idea to liquidate or bleach the contract that I was once again arrested
and of course Mr. Westgate would never agree that the video interview provided to the crown in disclosure by Detective Ward showing him dissuading the witness, telling her not to use the word contract, telling her to use the words memorandum of understanding instead and so on…
So, we were told there will be a decision today or tomorrow it will come by email and I will let you all know as soon as it comes in
My Story… As a signature on every post
I have this sO short I can leave it in every post as a reminder why you are here.
June 3, 2017, working for Google Maps, I was assaulted from behind in Sheppard’s Bush. June 4, I went to the Prospect Street police station and I filed a written complaint. The next thing I knew, I woke up and it was August 2020, and I am fighting for what is left of my miserable (apparently THEY say!) life. My dog is dead. My son left home. My wife is divorcing me. I am out $44,000, under house arrest, and cannot blog the names of the persons who did this to me.
Ontario has paid $.25 million in 3 years, I’ve spent $44,000. ive lost my son, my wife, my dog and the pickup truck is not in the drive away. I drive an Edge. It’s still there, but she got the Audi Q3.
I think I can finally tell my story in just one paragraph.
Sit back, grab a breath, hang on!
So, June 3, 2017 I was working for Google Maps and I was assaulted from behind in Sheppard’s Bush and next day, June 4, I went to the Prospect Street police station and I filed a written complaint. The next thing I knew, I woke up and it was August 2020, and I am fighting for what is left of my miserable (apparently THEY say!) life. My dog is dead. My son left home. My wife is divorcing me. I am out $44,000, under house arrest, and cannot blog the names of the persons who did this to me.
Lloyd’s clients, various employee(s), past and present, of the Town of Aurora, have had me sued in Superior Court for $1,000,000 as soon as I was arrested. Can you spell… C-O-L-L-A-T-E-R-A-L A-T-T-A-C-K??
PMLaw’s Charles Painter defends the person as if an employee relationship has anything to do with my 7 arrests by Aurora since July 14, 2017. Police assured me in my video interview that the complainant came “as a private citizen” and NOT as an employee.
My words in these criminal trial appearances are being used against me in a $1 million Civil Suit in Superior Court by Aurora
Further, at my arrest when I asked “by who”…. DC Jeff Brown stated EMPHATICALLY, and I quote:
This is NOT what the town wants me to do.
Emphasis is by York Regional Police
His orders were unclear, vague I guess. They had told him it must look like Aurora had nothing to do with it. Despite the Town Hall meeting 2 hours before with CAO Nadorozny and Mayor Dawe and techa Van Leeuwen.
SO, he really emphasized, explicitly as it turns out, that the Town of Aurora preferred I allowed to be free to blog what I wanted to blog. Even HE knew Mayor Morris and Aurora in 2009 sued BLOGGERS Johnson and Hogg for $6,000,000 and they got their legal hands slapped for just TRYING to pay her lawyers under the table.
Aurora, inJuly 2017, had tried EVERYTHING legal to silence dissent.
Aurora had only criminal acts left to stop people like me. So, they dissuaded a witness, an employee, to go to police as a civilian, and to lie to testify that I had been harassing in my emails asking for a legal name of the person who later arrested me. I said “What’s your legal name”, effectively, and, to police, that was characterized as “Criminal Harassment”…. PERSONALLY, CIVILLY, by a single, named person with a first name and a surname.
But, Lloyd’s TODAY insures that very ex-employee exactly as if that “employee” spoke to police AS an employee of Aurora, and they arrested me.
It’s confusing.
And, if I heard correctly, Lloyd’s defends a “Board”, maybe?, or group of municipalities insured as a group. I am not sure of anything about that so I will stop.
Anyone from, or insured, by Lloyd’s must be barred from my Application today to defer my sentence until my appeal fails.
In 2017, I submitted to the this Crown a spreadsheet of 42 lies the KGB SWORN client told police, the charges were stayed, and now the PERSONAL CIVIL lawyer, Gwendolyn Adrian, has included that very analysis in a demand for documents in the employee’s suit. The “EMPLOYEE Lawyer” Charles Painter meanwhile, takes details of these very criminal charges to Superior Court to argue I am being vexatious for getting arrested 7 times and 27 charges.
The client wants to use what I say are lies told to police as “evidence” I caused loss of the last 2 jobs.
So, if anyone from Lloyd’s, any Aurora counsel, anyone related to anyone I sued…. if any one them attend today, they would hear evidence of every lie I have already proved all 3 have told.
I especially ask the Press to not attend and try to report my claims. Maybe, go for a walk instead. I need my privacy, today, at least.
Remember as you read this, York Regional Police convict just 25% of arrests.
No other PROFESSION is paid to be WRONG 75% of the time, just police.
EITHER, they are incompetent, or they have some OTHER reason to arrest 3 innocent people for every ONE crook.
Ontario hosts a “Sunshine List”, employees in governmental jobs making over $100,000 a year
York Regional Police have hundreds.
Not too far from the top at #21 is Det. Sgt. Heather Bentham. At $192K in 2015 she must be well over $200K today, so $100 an hour just in payroll, excluding benefits, excluding costs for an office, etc.
Other Detectives must be about $120K. $60 an hour say.
John Howard Society says…
It can cost over $100,000 a year to put an adult in prison, and more than twice as much to imprison a youth.
$275 per day
So, on March 4, 2020, after getting upset I recorded her February 27 confession about arresting me because I blogged her name here… say she spent just 3 hours assigning 5 officers to arrest me and each officer spent just 5 hours total on my case over the next 3 days.
That’s $300 (Ms. Bentham) + ($300 each X 5) $1,500 = $1,800 just in police costs, conservatively,
Then, 3 days, 2 nights in Lindsay, two transports = another $550
So, $2,350 minimum.
To attempt to punish me for:
1) Speaking to a lawyer in a court room, 3 lawyers lied. And it’s legal!
2) Filing a court motion naming a “victim” or 3… claimed as “a breach of bail”
If that’s Ms. Bentham’s relation, Robert, at #11, they are pulling in MAYBE half a million per year. And she is supposed to understand and be sympathetic of my life as living on CPP and OAS and personal savings?
$7,200 for watching Lepp for a weekend. Denied me counsel for over 26 hours. Not arraigned in 24 hours, took 72 hours +. On December 6-9, 2019 police were PAID $100 an hour, 2 cops 24 hours daily at $50 an hour each, for 72 hours to “guard” me chained 3 ways to a bed in a cardio ward. And they never even caught me surfing the web on the flat screen TV. They were so busy flirting with nurses. I had an iPad sized remote control in my chained hands and I was emailing and Facebooking live from prison, Lindsay Prison, if you believe Crown Moull’s court records for that weekend. They lied they had sent me to prison. They did not know they called 911 for my heart attack, When I got there for real in March, the admissions office welcome me back for a second visit. Her computer showed me there December 6-9 and 18 cops made $400 each at Southlake Hospital. I am a high cost perp.
St. Andrews College is employing a security guard who was once a Canadian movie star.
Strath Crawford starred in “Sharp Teeth”, A “Christine Whitlock” film.
The Crawford name looms large over York Region as the name of the very first chief, Bruce in 1971, and Dep. Chef Andre today. It is to know of they are related.
I try to keep them away. I do everything I can. They keep coming back to be frightened. Why?
As a subplot of their major scheme to keep men in jail, police keep encouraging the same 3 women to come here to boblepp.com multiple times a day JUST to get scared out of their gourds seeing their own names in print.
For my part, I always try to not scare people. There are enough things in life that scare people, I find I am quite unnecessary for that task. Normally.
I blocked anonymous people browsing. If you are so sleazy you need to buy a VPN… you are not reading my stuff.
I blocked people who are obviously “hooked” on finding crimes in whatever I write… if one person is here a LOT of times each week, I block them.
I should have looked into medical conditions years back when this all started. Who would guess there is a fear of your own name and a fear of relatives having the same name?
And in my defence, I submit I would not have guessed theirs were psychological fears of seeing their own family’s name on a computer screen. Unless you are Don Jr. or Ivanka… THEN I know.
I just studied a huge list of phobias trying to find “Fear of your own name”.
It’s worse than I thought… there is even a fear of having a fear.
Let’s see which ones may apply to these three.
Do they have REALLY, REALLY HUGE monitors? Maybe they use a 71 inch flatscreen TV? Switch to iPhones.
Megalophobia is the fear of large objects. The object in question can run the gamut from large ships to airplanes and large animals to towering sculptures.
Agateophobia
This one explains why I am so well adjusted. I don’t FEAR insanity, I CELEBRATE it. I laugh in its face! Booga-Booga!
Agateophobia– Fear of insanity. (NOT the fear of colourful volcanic gemstones)
What if they feared seeing their name ONLY when a MAN typed it?
Talking treatments or talking therapies, which include counselling, might be very effective at treating fear of justice or Dikephobia. Talking therapies are very laid back treatments and physically non intrusive which involve talking to a highly trained and proficient professional about your thoughts, feelings and behaviour. There are many different types of talking therapy, but they all aim to:
help you recognise unhelpful patterns in the way you think or act, and find ways to change them (if you want to).
help you resolve complicated feelings, or find ways to live with them
help you make sense of things and understand yourself better
give you a safe time and place to talk to someone who won’t judge you
I can relate… I know I have longed for a place where people do not judge me!
Here’s a few they need not fear having, it is impossible to apply these to them.
Logophobia– Fear of words. (NOT of the Nike swoosh or Colonel Sanders)
The term was introduced—obviously in jest—by philosopher Nicholas Shackel in a delightful paper entitled The vacuity of postmodernist methodology (Shackel, 2005). Shackel’s paper is actually a serious, and at times rather technical, critique of the modus operandi of postmodernist (and deconstructionist, anti-rationalist feminist) authors such as Michel Foucault, Jacques Derrida, Jean-Francois Lyotard, David Bloor, Richard Rorty and Stanley Fish, to mention just a few of the major offenders. But the list might as well include the names of pseudoscientists such as the Intelligent Design proponents Bill Dembski and Michael Behe, alternative medicine “gurus” such as Deepak Chopra, or vaccination-deniers such as Jenny McCarthy.
Patroiophobia is the fear of heredity. Some people may fear heredity because they worry that their children will inherit deformities or mental disorders. The origin of the word patro is Latin (meaning father) and phobia is Greek (meaning fear). (Not to be confused with the fear of the New England football club)
Onomatophobia (from Greek onomato meaning “word” or “name”) is the fear of certain words or names, a branch of logophobia. This fear is usually caused by a traumatic experience that has been associated with that particular word.
Or… if they ALWAYS move their lips or read out loud… Misophonia!
Misophonia is a disorder in which certain sounds trigger emotional or physiological responses that some might perceive as unreasonable given the circumstance. Those who have misophonia might describe it as when a sound “drives you crazy.” Their reactions can range from anger and annoyance to panic and the need to flee.
There is nothing to fear but EVERY word EVER written, especially Logophobia/Verbophobia
There is also nothing to fear but the fear of being fearful of fear… Phobophobia
The fear of phobias is phobophobia. This anxiety disorder can lead to a self-replicating cycle, ultimately resulting in escalating circular fears.
Some people with phobophobia already have one or more existing phobias, while others are afraid that they might develop one. Phobophobia is often, but not always, linked to other anxiety disorders.1
Phobophobia With an Established Phobia
If you already have an established phobia, you may be at greater risk of developing phobophobia. This is because a common symptom of any phobia is anticipatory anxiety, which causes increasing fear in the days or weeks leading up to a planned confrontation with the object of fear.2
Therefore, you may begin to dread not only your original trigger but also your own reaction to it. Over time, this dread can worsen and develop into phobophobia.
OK, that’s it! They fear their own names so much, they DREAD having to come here to see their name. SO… they tell police little white lies about seeing something that did not actually appear so they can avoid seeing it.
J’ever notice people always give you back just what they claim you are handing out?
So, I started with complaining in an arrest report to police
I got back an arrest order, on me!
I was accused of faking my identity to email someone.
She created five fake Twitter id’s to send undercover emails to @sargetarp
Daria Morgendorffer was created to trash my business listing.
I was accused of photographing children
They photographed my childish blog posts to blow them up big enough so they could arrest me.
I recorded Det. Sgt. Bentham admitting she hates my blogging
She assigns five officers to get three lawyers I sued to say they hate the fact I had the nerve to speak to them in a court room… the only legal place to do so.. and they send me to Lindsay prison for THREE DAYS in the MIDDLE OF COVID-19.
I make legitimate complaints in writing to the Law Society As demanded
They use the email I sent to subpoena Danielle Wilson to give testimony and demand I had breached my bail by typing the lawyers name to her.
I notice Aurora is cheating with their liability insurance and using cash to defend private citizens under the table, AGAIN, like with Mayor Morris, I tell BFL Adjusters
They subpoena Jody from BFL to testify I breached by naming the ex employee in an email to her company.
I point out Clerk De Ronde Illegally told the Finance Minister that Redvers’ soccer dome rental business is owned by Aurora taxpayers for a $40,000 LOSS of education taxes
They withdraw ALL TOWN SERVICES from my family and I. But that’s ok, police told me I can’t mail in my taxes anyway! Kaching!
I worked four months with the dog park contractor to get a brand new park
Aurora has me trespassed from the new park so a commercial walker can let twelve dogs loos without bumping into me.
I report children cannot use the school bus stop safely due to their parents parking INSIDE the bus stop.
They issue me an official Catholic School Board letter to trespass me from my own home and call police to tell them I breached my bail.
I sue the lot of them for being kind of rude to me.
They sue me for vexatiously and relentlessly abusing the Superior Court of Ontario by filing my suit. They lost that claim. They appealed.
So, to be cautious, I will type you one sentence per day, so I know which sentence was a crime.
Sit back, grab a beer, hang on!
So, June 3, 2017 I was working for Google Maps and I was assaulted from behind in Sheppard’s Bush and next day, June 4, I went to the Prospect Street police station and filed a written complaint.
The accused was Randie Frawcord, and he was once a police officer.
The first chief of YRP in 1971 was a Frawcord. As is the Deputy Chief today. Lots of Toronto cops are Frawcords, Descendants.
So it came as no surprise that there was no investigation on my assault.
But, what there WAS was even better. Mr. Frawcord, within just 5 days, claimed to cut ties with the other Frawcords and it was now Randie Edwards. I presumed Randie was trying to cover up his Frawcordery. He knew he had messed up ant the shit would fly and so he wanted the fallout to not affect Frawcords in any way.
Randie’s cousins, maybe, first arrested me July 14, 2017. And their bail terms were not to communicate to anyone employed by Aurora. He did not want his staff to know he could get someone arrested, they would undoubtedly pester him to arrest their mother-in-laws.
I complained to the OIPRD but after a four interview I gave up. They had answers for everything that seemed so true that I’m surprised I did not just plead “guilty”.
After I showed the Crown the truth, they dropped the charges. For two years I could not type “Frawcord” on my blog.
Ontario is certainly not unique, either, when it comes to solving the grief brought on by a BLOGGER. Their new system will eventually move across Canada.
Everyone is guilty of something, it’s just a matter of de-greed.
Ontario Adopts China’s
GUILT-O-METER
The inspirational Justice Rose set the bar HIGH on writing Reasons For Judgement.. instead of struggling for words to say “We almost HAD him!”, J. rose can now just assign a persintage™ of innocence or guilt,
“This is a CLOSE case!”
So, the accused is no longer binarially assigned a level of guilt, such as yes OR no….
Instead, the accused is found a percentage GUILTY… as in GUILTY-23 for 23% guilty, or INNOCENT-77 for 77% innocent.?
Now, it has been decreed that any level of innocent less than 100% is EQUAL to a finding GUILTY-1 to -99.
So, Innocent-100 replaces the old “INNOCENT”.
Innocent-01 is “it was very close” and Innocent-99 is “a fingerprint away from Lindsay”
Guilty-01 is “I flipped a coin” and Guilty-49 is “You’ll never see light of day”
Guilty-100 is reserved for a hopeful future… “Fry ’em!”
So, to reduce confusion INNOCENT-49 or less is now replaced by GUILTY-01
The Justice most surely ROSE to the occasion!
Makes perfect sense, right? The 3,000 year old Chinese legal system is well aged compared to our mere 1.53 centuries.
Aurora is certainly not unique when it comes to solving the grief brought on by a BLOGGER.
Some may recall the photo published of returning high school students near Atlanta.
It showed a jammed hallway between classes, not a mask in sight. The girl who took the photo blogged it and was suspended for breaking the privacy of those pictured.
I can relate. I too was accused of photographing students with no common sense. And the principal suspended ME too. Principal Donato first published a trespass notice, followed by sending three women to my probation office. My PO called me an told me to go get arrested.
I did as she ordered me because, well, I’d be arrested if I didn’t follow my Probation Officer’s orders, and I’d be arrested if her findings were correct. Either way, I’m arrested. And it is Justice Rose’s Probation Officer.
The Queen bestowed Canada with Common Law. You break the same law some other guy did and you get a duplicate of his sentence. Sounds great. Sound fair.
Justice Fuerst has personally advised I should parse the transcripts for mistakes made by the Crown and how they fooled the judiciary.
I completed parsing June 11, 2019 the first day of trial. In just a few hours, the die was cast.
It reminds me of the seemingly endless repetitions in the Peter days.
Die Casting
Man!
Dies can be so tricky to deal with, high pressure stamping out piece after piece of identical shit. Well, each a tiny bit different, but not so’s you’d notice.
They get worn out, scarred, reshaped, broken, and finally they are discarded when all the coverups fail.
They can be filed smooth again, and that is what I plan to do!
Wouldn’t it be great to die stamp PEOPLE! We’d all be the same, cut “from the same cloth” as it were. We could use just one female die, and one man die and THEN maybe every SINGLE one would get along. Because they would all look the same and they would act the same.
I plan to file all my dies today so that, to a man, they are fully functional once more.
4 newly stamped outputs of the man dieA woman die is used to stamp out Barbies
If you see me tonight, with an illegal smile, I didn’t kill anyone!
I’m just tryin’ to have me some fun!
Today I got consent for several changes in my sentence.
I can drive anytime 9:00 to 4:00 to the Probation office on Davis Drive
I can go to medical appointments or issues for myself 9:00 to 5:00 Monday to Friday.
I can go to medical needs any other time by text my PO.
July 31 to August 9 daily I can work at my Google Maps job. For each day I specified an area of Aurora, Newmarket, Alliston, Beeton, Tottenham. If I need to change areas I text where I am going.
So, life is normal again. I can make a living, good thing since CERB has ended or has it?
