I think the day is near that the only solution to a spite fence is removal.
Especially if it is on someone else’s land. IF that ever happens in the future.
It is just a matter of time.
Category: Whither goest Gwendolyn Adrian?
Where will Ms Adrian end up? LSO Heaven or LSO Hell?
I like the remote court appearances by Zoom software. They are much less stressful. It is impossible to feel stressed sitting in pyjama bottoms with a shirt, tie and jacket.
I filed a single judge motion to extend my time to perfect my appeal of Gwendolyn Adrian’s client refusing to wait for the SLAPP s.137.1 motion to be heard. I filed May 2019 and it has not yet been heard.
Despite that shortcoming, Ms. Adrian was able to convince several judges to award her massive unearned costs and a default judgement. NOTHING was to happen after May 2019 but so many justices just (pun intended) do not understand SLAPP s. 137.1 and its goal of eliminating EXACTLY this kind of assault on my bank balance.
When I get the extension, my appeal perfection will take maybe a week to finish off. So much happened I can now use as evidence of SLAPP.
Over the weekend I read the Plaintiff’s claim again. The suit was so poorly written. By law, it was to have included EVERY alleged slanderous thing she says I wrote. Instead, it had just 15 quotes, 9 for Buckles in Facebook and 6 for me from my blog and change.org petition and 1100 signatures.
Not one of the 15 alleged quotes is in any way slanderous.
And, more importantly, lawyer Brad T. Cran had no idea how to claim libel. He wrote that I had just made too MANY libellous posts to include and he would reveal them at trial.
Well, it turns out he did not know the law. By failing to cite EVERY alleged statement… he made the suit useless. Because the 15 he picked are simply innocuous. Both Marnee and I simply stated the facts and the history without making any personal comments or casting any aspersions. We both just stated what Adrian’s client had done and had said, and we left it to the reader to make up their minds.
Soon, I will be allowed to post them all here for you to read. Until then, come see me for a hard copy. You will laugh at what they claim was libellous.
Until then, as expected, Ms Adrian served 273 MORE pages in a NEGATIVE response of my motion late Friday for motion to be heard 10:00 am Monday. She expected the justice to read it over the weekend I guess.
Her entire law suit is just 18 pages, and YET, she came up with 255 MORE than that JUST to say NO! to the justice.
if your suit is just 18 pages, and you think it can succeed… why would you need 273 pages to explain how good the 18 were?
So she can claim costs! and sure enough, as I told the justice she would, she asked for $2,000 for the LATE 273 soft copy pages. No photocopying, no couriers, no binding… just a bag of bits and bytes sent with NOT enough time to be read. A waste of data.
I asked for $18,000 if I get the extension. I theorized that if Adrian got $18,000 for NOT arguing SLAPP s. 137.1 then I should get $18,000 for WINNING something.
But the justice knows self reps do not get costs compensation as we do not EXPEND any costs…. we magically beat lawyers on a regular basis without having to spend ANYTHING… not one penny….. so we get no costs and the lawyers just laugh at us for working hard enough t beat them and then NOT get paid a penny.
Such is the mystery of Ontario’s legal systems.
The big bucks in law can be made on “costs” alone since they are not audited. And with COVID, Zoom and soft copy everything, the profit on the costs gets better each month.
I told the lawyers they gad a conflict of interest one they had me arrested. It is hardly fair that they can BOTH represent Lloyds of London against my suit AND arrest me. It took Charles Painter two police reports to get me arrested. I forgave him that one false attempt when he claimed I had “gotten close: to his client… in fact, my son did that.
So, I have waited for new names and none are forthcoming, despite J. Edwards ordering Mr Painter to use only email with me.
So, I will email Jody Johns and ask.
I will ask Michael Simaan who will litigate for her two ladies acting to sue me, I called for the arrest of Ms Adrian when she admitted stealing my CIBC bank account number,
Some fresh faces may be more willing to settle.
You have both acted to enable Gwendolyn Adrian to seize my pension. Then, you ordered I answer her questions to collect that $18,000 despite her not giving me one day to pay it.
She asked for my answers to all the online banking security checks, SIN, birther date, wife’s full maiden name, mothers full name and age. All of the extra password protection we set up.
I refused.
Then, she admitted how she had stolen my CIBC banking data to garnish it legally. She admitted she did not use her client’s 40 years’ of banking career in Aurora, but stopped short of naming the person. She then admitted “None of your business” stole it.
By Jennifer PagliaroCity Hall Bureau
Wendy GillisCrime ReporterAccording to the police association, the Toronto police board was unable to extract any major concessions during negotiations.
So I reported her to Nicole Ozretic, Toronto police detective, but her FIRST question to me was “Why not report in Aurora to YRP” and then “What is your bank account number?”. When I refused because it had no value to her investigation, she refused to investigate at all. So I emailed Mayor Tory and he advised some senior police official. Dead end.
Today, I told the Canada Pension folks to direct deposit at RBC Aurora. I opened it so I could get cash nmonethly so Ms Adrian could not take it again.
I sued CIBC and Ms Afrian’s biss Michael Simaan for failing to train her.
I will ask YRP to investigate instead. They will decline, and wil claim it is a Toronto crime.
Then I wil try the OPP and RCMP. Then I will fond someone else.
Justices, you created and enabled this mess and I ask you to fix it,
Thanks if you can.
Bob
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
Lady B – using homeowners insurance lawyer
If you require access, email me for a link. BobLepp at gmail dot com
If I Had only ONE suggestion, I’d Be Worried… BUT, I have Two “Cannot Fail” Applications
The $750,000 (Cumulatove Historically) Fund Disbursements are explained here:
https://www.aurora.ca/en/aurora-cares-community-action-team.aspx
See it here: https://www.aurora.ca/en/aurora-cares-community-action-team.aspx
#1 – Make Aurora 100% Googlefied
BLC20-172-1-Mayors-Golf-Fund-Applications#2 – Sell 13,000 Rainbow Pet Tags
Remember, PetSmart and Ren’s Pets PAY owners $50 per pet to register for $10-$35 – EVERYONE wins!
BLC20-172-2-Mayors-Golf-Fund-ApplicationsAurora’s Docupet Sponsors
Keep your fingers/paws crossed.
Wish me luck. I will need it.
Watch this space.
Did I mention… EVERY PET TAG PURCHASED GETS $50 in CASH COUPONS! $25 EACH from….
When everyone came back from World War II did they start the thin brown line? When they came back from Korea, did they start the brown line? Iraq? Afghanistan? No and that’s because they had no desire at all to keep doing what they WERE doing.
They just wanted to get back to their lives and forget everything they saw and everything they had done.
But police are not like that. We started thanking them for looking after us, just for doing their jobs THEY chose to do. And so it went to their heads. we honored them as first responders on 9/11 and every other opportunity. We cranked them up, puffed them up…we made their jobs seem more important than our own, when in fact they are just jobs like all the rest and no one forces them to do it.
We gave them a uniform, we gave them a taser, rifles, we gave them a gun and troop carriers, gas masks, we gave them a fast car and we said go get ‘em!
But they did not want to do it alone. They did not want to pick on somebody and have that person fight back. They may get hurt.
So, they started long ago a special fraternity called the “Thin Blue Line” and it was meant to scare the bad guys. You knew that if you ever picked on one cop, you were picking on all of them, and so they all (and their lawyers and their union reps and publicists) piled on and that also went to their heads.
Back in the 80s crime started to decline and police saw that they were not gonna have so many opportunities to show off, and so they started to generate crimes using breaches of recognizance. If there were fewer real bank robberies and not as many murders, at least they could arrest people for breaking the terms of their bail.
But even that might not work if they made those terms too easy to comply with. So, they made them impossible to comply with. They literally wrote up the bail terms so that the accused person must fail, and so they could be arrested again and the cops would look great again.
Somewhere along the way they realize that they could inflict more REAL, IMMEDIATE, COSTLY punishment using bail terms then they could with a judge and the jury.
And rarely could judges and juries drain your bank account as easily as having to hire a criminal lawyer. That is the REAL punishment they seek. To impoverish their perceived enemies.
Crown prosecutors jumped in to help because they would look busier if they had more matters on the docket. And more matters meant judges were overworked, and crowns knew that if you wanted to create your own justice system, all you had to do was hand a very busy judge a piece of paper with what they wanted the judge to do.
Some judges then figured out they didn’t have to work very much if they just had their assistant type up what the crown gave them to say, and so judges began to rubber stamp the draft orders from the crown.
This would be funnier if it weren’t so true. Ontario has had declining crime rates, yet the courts are bigger, there are more judges, and they still can’t keep up. They even rehire pensioned off judges, paying by the hour. The government of Canada saw this happening, they acted, and so, in December 2019, they introduced new law in Bill C-75.
The new bill deemphasized the role of the Crown and the court in a simple breach of bail. They made it a “slap on the wrist, get out of here you silly boy” kind of thing, A ticket is written, literally, a judge hears it like a parking ticket and decides on the spot.
But that that did not work as planned. A weakness in the Attorney General‘s guidelines Issued to all to local Crown attorneys allows them to develop what are called “local practices”. Like, a court can be created in a sweat lodge up north, or plaid jackets are permitted.
They are allowed to modify how the law is imposed for any reason they make up, and Newmarket made up the reason that they simply had no time to learn Bill C 75, and so they just ignored it. How do I know this? Because all my charges are breaches of bail. Oh sure there were a few lame criminal code charges and even one of those was successful before appeal but the rest are all just silly wastes of time.
They involve blogging about the very people who arrested me. My charter rights, remember them?. Because what the crown was able to do was to ignore the orders of the Superior Court on several occasions, and they would lie time after time to judges that I was forbidden to even say four names to my son in private. In their desire to arrest me, again and again, the Crown convinced several judges that I should be forbidden to say the names of these people and of one of their businesses even in private even to my family. It took 2 1/2 years for me to prove that to the Superior Court but when I did they ordered Crown Greg Elder just stop doing it.
His solution was simple beyond belief.
He simply ignored superior Court of Justice Dawe. WORDS went in one ear and out the other. He knew he could get away with this because he had already done the same thing to the top judge in the GTA. Senior regional justice Fuerst on November 16, 2019 ordered him to remove all the names from the bail terms and Greg Elder found that if he just ignored the order, he could still use those terms in a draft order to any judge he wanted. And so, on December 4 2019 he specified the same four forbidden names all over again to Justice Rose in a draft decision and a draft probation order. Justice Rose was very busy that day, so all he had to do was to sign the draft order and his assistant would type it up over his name. The manipulation of the justice system was complete.
Police could arrest me time and time again knowing that the Crown had away to get the judge to rule against me. And no one caught on that it was because the Crown was ignoring the orders of 2 Superior Court justices. Now, you need to know that an interesting thing happens when people find out but the Crown will prosecute any old charge at all against a person like me. Those people then make up whatever charges they want, they lie whatever they want on police interview videos and they know the police and the Crown will take it from there.
So starting on June 3, 2017, the same three women have used the implicit support of police and the Crown to arrest me seven times on 27 charges with the most outrageous lies in the most illegal actions imaginable. Then one of them retained a lawyer and let her in on the fun. So Gwendolyn Adrian jumped into the fray and began to do whatever she wanted knowing that the courts and the police would back her up. A paralegal, one who should known better, even decided she could break her oath and breach the trust of the public and go undercover to help POLICE try to entrap me. I was a convenient pin cushion for anything That bothered them in life.
Her dog died of cancer and old age and to her it was just another opportunity to call police and ask them to arrest me. It’s not like I didn’t fight back, but I just don’t have enough money to defeat them totally. The paralegal created 19 false charges, and not one of them was successful, yet if she went to POLICE today they would dutifully take another report, and record another video interview and call me to come in to be arrested.
The genesis of the affair, The Bylaws department of the Town Of Aurora had some family connections to York Regional police meant that nothing I did could stop police from arresting me.
There have now been 37 different officers assigned to keep me in prison. And the excuse their boss uses is that I had the nerve to write her name in my blog after my first arrest July 14, 2017. And here’s where the privilege afforded by the thin blue line comes in. She is backing up an ex police officer and her husband, and she knows that regardless of what she does, the rest of the police force will back her up because of course she is one of the glorious Thin Blue Line and she deserves it.
She proves that by telling me she has been an officer for 31 years. She does not tell me whether she did good police work or bad police work for 31 years, only that she has paid her dues. And so, she infers that because she paid her dues she can do whatever she wants to me. Luckily I was recording that conversation, and in the course of an hour she verified everything that was just a theory to me before I sat down to talk to her. I was thrilled and worried at the same time as I listened to her. I was thrilled she was admitting to it all, but, I was worried my battery would run out. That turned out not to be a problem and so I blogged her name again February 28, 2020 on a Friday.
Bright and early on a Monday morning Detective Sergeant Heather Bentham assigned four more officers to make up a case against me. Of course the first person they called was the paralegal who initiated the other 19 breaches, and within a few hours she had convinced two lawyers to back her up. Maybe there is a Thin Gray Line as well, or would it be green for the color of money.
In any event, a mere paralegal was able to convince two full stripe lawyers to agree that I had spoken to her inside a court room. She chose that crime because she thought it was a bail term, and if it was a bail term she could certainly get the crown to prosecute me for it. But there was one wrinkle she had not considered.
She never thought that a Superior Court justice had already closed down that door. Because of the delays during the pandemic it took until June 5 for justice Dawe to once again tell the Crown that they had all been abusing my rights. He ordered for the third time the Crown Greg Elder must delete the four names from my bail terms after providing great detail as to why they violated my rights. To be completely truthful, he could not even figure out what term number six meant. But he did understand enough that the only place in the universe that I COULD speak to the paralegal was in a court room.
I can hear several of you saying well that should take care of the problem, Bob, that should be that the arrest of March 4 will have to be withdrawn as false because a judge just ordered you to speak to that paralegal only inside a court room. I can hear you say that but I cannot tell you it worked.
And again the Crown is using the pandemic as the excuse to delay Superior Court of Justice Dawe’s order from coming into effect. For 3 1/2 months, the Crown has been told that they have been prosecuting me on a completely illegal bail term.
So all of that allowed Justice Harper to sentence me to 60 days of house arrest based on the same old, obsolete, abusive wording. The Crown knew that I had an extremely strong appeal and so the next problem was how to stop me from getting the sentence suspended until my appeal could wipe it out completely .
Of course the Crown went to the playbook and simply found a busy justice to hear my motion, and then they passed her not only a draft decision but a draft argument for the decision. They gave her the complete decision to publish under her own name.
But they made a few mistakes and added in a few facts that were never discussed in our, so the justice could not possibly have known about them. The most obvious was to state that five paragraphs number 45 through 49 were written by Justice Harper to explain the legal reasons why a legal contract requiring volunteers to manage a dog park did not give me any reason to email them when I was attacked by a dog in the dog park.
My only conviction on a criminal code charge was ordered by Justice Harpur. He ordered that I was guilty of harassment by emailing the people in charge of the dog park that I had been attacked. I was simply following the contract the town had required the volunteers to sign. The contract said that all users of the dog park must communicate all problems to the volunteers, because there was no one at the town who would help them.
So, POLICE simply made the contract disappear. And the town removed the contract from the website, taking it out of the public view. Then, the Crown in one of many drafts of orders and motions given to the judge pointed out to him that I was going to use the existence of the contract as the reason for communicating about my dog attack.
And so, Justice Harpur did what he was asked. In the middle of my testimony, he kept telling me repeatedly he had already made up his mind and I should just stop talking about that contract. He told me that no contract could possibly explain why I emailed the volunteers about being attacked by a dog in the dog park.
To me this was a problem, because the only reason I emailed the volunteers is that the contract required me to do that. That contract actually required the volunteers to communicate all of the terms of the contract to every user of the dog park,and further the volunteers were required to publish all of the rules for using the park and they were to assure that every person bringing a dog to the park had a copy of the Contract and of the rules and understood them.
This was a great plan, but the volunteers defeated that plan by simply doing nothing. They knew that if they EVER DID show the contract to every user, and EVER DID make up rules, that everyone would know the volunteers themselves were using the dog park to make money in a commercial dog walking business.
The volunteers all knew that the other users of the park would be upset to know that the only people breaking the rules where the volunteers themselves, and so the volunteers simply NEVER published any rules.
My fault, if I have one and I’m sure I do, is that I FIRST researched all of that as a user of the park. The contract was on the town website. There is a huge sign at the gates that explained the rules and it excluded commercial dog walkers, and so I understood how things were supposed to work.
What I failed to understand is that I was the only person to know the rules.
Even the volunteers had signed the contract so long ago that they had actually forgotten that it even existed. I had to repeatedly ask the volunteers for their signed copy, and once I got it I confirmed it was very clear to anyone who happened to be given a copy.
So you may ask why would Aurora want me arrested for being the only person that knew the rules and followed them? Because in my research I also found that the bylaws department was selling only 10% of pet tags to 14,000 pets in Aurora. I was the only one to notice that each year the financial statements reported a shortfall of $300,000. I thought the town would be happy to hear the news, and, of course, I blamed it all on the bylaws department.
What I did not know was that the bylaws department was having an affair with the parks director and every time I criticized the lack of fiscal responsibility by the bylaws department, the parks director took increasingly serious measures tO shut me up.
He started slow by having his manager Jim Tree try to bribe the volunteers with free wood chips if they would disparage me in writing. When that failed, he asked a counselor Tom Mrakas to you offer the same bribe, I witnessed it. When that failed, he simply threatened all the volunteers that they would be ejected from the park, and they could not run their business if they did not disparage me.
So the volunteers turned against me and they ignored the fact I had won them $80,000 for a brand new park. They all went to police and claimed that my many emails back and forth with them getting the money wee actually harassing them instead.
They were not immediately successful because, of course, police saw nothing in the emails of any concern, and twice that was the official written result
But then, Detective Sergeant Bentham, assigned the most senior detective in York region to take over. He was the one who implemented the plan to erase, remove and bleach the contract that the town themselves had written. While the town had demanded the volunteers tell everyone about the contract, Detective James Ward decided no one should know about the contract, and on May 28, 2018 he taught all of the volunteers how to deny the existence of that contract when asked in court. He told them that if they were ever asked about a contract, that they should deny there ever was a legal contract and say that it was only a “memorandum of understanding”. They got no cash at all, so, it had no legal force and nothing in it required them to accept my emails of help or my email asking for help with the dog attack. Once he had implanted his plan into all their minds, he arrested me May 30, 2018 and he worked with the Crown to have them communicate to the judge that the contract simply had no place in anything, including my alibi. So now, you say, why don’t we just look at that video where he trains the volunteers to deny a contract and show it to a judge. Well that would be a good plan if it was not a pandemic. But the pandemic is being defeated. And the courts are about to reopen and that video will be played front and center after the one hour recording of Detective Bentham, admitting that she was behind it all along.
Keep your fingers crossed.
Watch this space.
Wish me luck. I will need it.
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. |
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.
Not garnishing RBC is an admission of guilt.
Your call.
Dear Crown,
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.
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.
AP – Breaking News – Saturday, September 5, 2020
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:
Number of places named Wall per country:
There are 5 places named Wall in Germany.
There are 4 places named Wall in United Kingdom.
There are 3 places named Wall in America.
There is one place named Wall in Vanuatu.
There is one place named Wall in Czech Republic.
There is one place named Wall in Cameroon.
There is one place named Wall in Australia.
Better L8 than never! MAYBE I was wrong!
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.
Plausible deniability…. always useful, always valuable.
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.
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 at RBC 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?
See, more humour. I win again.
See what I did there? Humour!
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.
JUST like Adrian asked the judge to do.
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 >>>>________________________
Dear Mr. Lepp,
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 East Aurora Ontario L4G 0K3). Thank you, Regards,
Camilla Latronico, CFP STI | Senior Manager | Office of the Ombudsman
P.O. Box 342, Commerce Court, Toronto, ON M5L 1G2 | Tel: 416-980-3755 | Fax: 416-980-3754 |
September 2, 2020 at 4:29 pm
Hear the results here: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1QNWhqlc05eCj7Pct_pVEhc2nfPncnDYY/view?usp=sharing
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;
Sincerely,
Michael Hamilton
Senior Investigator
———————————————————————
OBSI / OSBI
T: 1.888.451.4519 x 2262
F: 1.888.422.2865
September 2, 2020 at 4:29 pm
SO, I guess the OBSI will sue me now.
So far, what I got from the OBSI is “We need another 60 days to take us out to our maximum of 120 days to come back with a result.
Well, CIBC already telegraphed the result… a frozen account.
Did anyone see or notice that lawyers and government and bankers EVERYWHERE want to shut me up?
Aurora wants me shut up about the illegal business and education tax exemption for Terry Redvers and his soccer dome and maybe his tennis club by now.
York Region wants me shut up about Bus Safety.
the Catholic School Board wants me SiLENTLY to stay off public land at the bus stop.
York Region police want me shut up about Det. Sgt Bentham in my blog
The Police services Board want me to shut up and not demand they control the Thin Blue Line mentality of the Crawford family.
All of this silencing will come with a cost. Which is pretty cool, I will get paid for shutting up!
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.
By Gary Goodwin
OPINION 06 Nov 2017
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.
Dear PC Mohammed
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
- Did I mention www.boblepp.com?
I have done few related posts already. I created a new “category” ‘Whither Goest Gwendolyn Adrian?” for all such commentary on the Bank Act.
Just click HERE and see ALL posts about the legalities of Garnishment
and of course, get them to ask THE experts.. their credit union, because I am guessing NO ONE illegally garnishes them!
Do we arrest Gwendolyn Adrian for stealing my banking data from CIBC in less than one day?… or do we forgive her?
https://www.lucidchart.com/blog/how-to-make-a-decision-matrix
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.
“…🎶 and the painted ponies go round and round..♬”
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
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.
A rainy day project.
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.
- And the ever popular… “NO, just no.”
Why is she being given a free lawyer?
How is that even possible, let alone doable??
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
Criminal breach of trust
Identity theft
The Law Society of Ontario requires:
Undertakings and Trust Conditions
SECTION 2.1 INTEGRITY
Competence
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 exact OPPOSITE 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.
For the CIBC Employee
Criminal breach of trust
s. 336 Every 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;
- (b) to pledge it or deposit it as security;
- (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);
- (c) section 130 (personating peace officer);
- (d) section 131 (perjury);
- (e) section 342 (theft, forgery, etc., of credit card);
- (f) section 362 (false pretence or false statement);
- (g) section 366 (forgery);
- (h) section 368 (use, trafficking or possession of forged document);
- (i) section 380 (fraud); and
- (j) section 403 (identity fraud).
- 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)
- 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. 336 Every 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);
- (c) section 130 (personating peace officer);
- (d) section 131 (perjury);
- (e) section 342 (theft, forgery, etc., of credit card);
- (f) section 362 (false pretence or false statement);
- (g) section 366 (forgery);
- (h) section 368 (use, trafficking or possession of forged document);
- (i) section 380 (fraud); and
- (j) section 403 (identity fraud).
- 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)
- 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.
aka: “If they ask for SIN… RUN!”
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.
So, my complaint to the Banking Ombudsman for Canada worked!
My 2 previous banks honoured a FAXED garnishment to Head Office when the law DEMANDS service at the Branch where the funds are held.
BUT, RBC is able to know the law despite Gwendolyn Adrian.
Cheers! To RBC! R-eally B-eing C-anadian!
RBC = R-etain B-ob’s C-ash!
I finally found a bank with morals, ethics, with a copy of the law.
EVERYONE should switch to RBC, this is a bank who cares!
THESE are my buddies.. even though they got robbed….
https://www.yorkregion.com/news-story/1433275-man-robs-aurora-rbc-branch/
I first thought these two were great… I was wrong…
BUT
Then I saw this…..
WOMEN at RBC RULE!
SHHHHHH… don’t tell anyone!
These are the INFLUENTIAL women in MY life now.
WEBDEV101: The simplest way to make your web site an e-commerce site is to insists on payment by Interac
Finally I have a bank account I can use for my pension and OAS deposits. I doubt Ms. Gwendolyn Adrian will ever find this one.
That’s just my $.02 worth!
First Deposit: June 27, 2020
and MR Painter,
I hope you find what you come back for every day!
Court: 10:00 am, 8th floor, 393 University Ave.
“The lady doth protest too much, methinks”
a line from the play Hamlet by William Shakespeare.
THIS is the $18,000 Fraud,… J. Schabas awarded $18K for this stack which was NEVER heard!
I blogged and emailed the miss-represented spite fence built by Jayne Dough. She admitted that in court under oath. She built it ONLY because neighbour told her to remove the gate post she drilled 12 inches across 4 feet deep 100% on her neighbour’s land without asking. She assumed it was OK to go off of her OWN Land and completely ONTO the neighbour’s land and “almost touching the wall” erected a gate post to keeps her doing in the yard. She thought her neighbour would APPROVE of blocking her from her own land.
She was wrong, she was TOLD she was wrong, and so she retaliated by building a spite fence JUST 8 inches from 3 windows, blocking access to the neighbour’s own home. She admitted doing this in October 2018 in Small Claims Court, sworn in and on the stand.
She testified she built a spite fence.
“Had we left the gate where it was , there would never have been a fence.”
“We would just be living harmoniously”
“So just the gate alone would’ve – none of this would’ve happened.”
Ending at line 17
Page 576 at line 11….
Then Lawyer Adrian admitted in final submissions:
“The fence does not encroach above ground.”
If it did not encroach below ground she would have said that.
She is trying to get a “default judgement” of $80,000 from me for advocating for her neighbour when She built a “Spite Fence” right on her neighbour’s land without discussion or permission. She sued while I was in Mexico and I was a couple of days late filing my defence. She then filed with the court to have me placed “In Default” rather than read my defence.
She admits the gate post was 100% in trespass.
“A” is “A-nswer of Jayne Dough on cross.
I hired a surveyor, Bob Pearson, to agree with her surveyor, Delph and Jenkins on Industrial Parkway. He had already sited the fence as in trespass from the first hole being drilled. She had her lawyer send Bob Pearson a letter threatening to tie him up in court if he completed the survey. He then refused to do the work I had contracted.
She then refused to take me out of default status for free. Repeatedly. Lawyers charge $3,000 and up to do that. I will move it for free on Monday. Once active, I will move this is a SLAPP suit and must be dismissed with costs and UNCAPPED damages of the judge’s choice.
The aggrieved neighbour sued her, and in court she was sworn in and admitted she and fence builder Shiner’s Fencing in Newmarket knew they had drilled ALL the fence posts as 12 inch holes STRAIGHT into her neighbour’s foundation. She bragged to the court that she had kept a chunk of concrete foundation as a souvenir, but it was too heavy to bring to court.
Monday, Gwendolyn Adrian of law firm Kramer, Dhillon, Simaan will litigate her lies in her $80,000 suit against me in court. She will lie that her client feels I should shut up about this HUGE matter of public interest. Ms. Adrian will go on to claim that I had no Charter Right to discuss and publish my many opinions on it.
I will show the judge what she said in the verbatim transcript of Small Claims last October. She admitted she knew all along she built the fence on her neighbour’s land. She described Shiner’s calling her out as they drilled post holes. I’ll subpoena Shiner’s Fence’s owner and her suit ends. Then, Works Director Allan Downey of Aurora will testify how he advised Aurora to NOT inspect the fence after the second surveyor said EXACTLY what the first one said… Trespass!
Then, he told Techa Van Leeuwen to refuse a second inspection. And then Techa swore in a council meeting there was nothing she could do about the trespass.
She paid for a SLAPP suit against me to shut me up. The courts on Monday will be asked to find her in violation of 137.1 in the Courts of Justice Act forbidding suits to silence public discussion and involvement. Aurora has been convicted once already of SLAPP, Mayor Phyllis Morris did it in 2009-2012. She tried to make it look like she sued when the Town was paying her lawyers. Mayor Day promised bloggers Bill Hogg and Dick Johnson he would not allow Aurora to ever do that again to a taxpayer.
Today, I am ALSO sued PRIVATELY and TOWN lawyers, PMLaw, will defend against me in a counter claim.
So, click to email your Councillors : allcouncillors@aurora.ca or phone the Mayor 905 727-1375.
Ask them to stop wasting YOUR taxes suing me!
There is no secret why Jayne was unable to sell her home with the spite fence bringing new owners very obvious legal expenses to settle. She dropped $90,000 from the asking price and still it did NOT sell.
Come Monday to watch the fun!