DOWNLOAD FULL DOCUMENT WITH EXHIBITS
A Private Information Affidavit of Anthony Crawford as a victim of crime
To Whom It May Concern,
I signed Bank of Montreal Releases under duress in consideration of the return of seized property to dismiss legal actions by Consents to Orders executed on January 20, 2012. I have also signed another Release for Noik & Associates a Professional Corporation that under extreme duress and in fear of a prison term if do not appear before a judge according to an Order by Justice Allen, dated December 21, 2012 that must give Consent to an Order to dismiss what appears to be a barratry instant action that indemnifies lawyers and the bank in case of crime to settle this affair to be heard April 4, 2012.
Please deny the truth of my Private Information Affidavit by April 1, 2012 or grant my lawful right the police must investigate alleged crime in the instant and underlying actions cited in my affidavit.
1. Her Royal Highness Queen Elizabeth the Second
2. The Hon. Stephen Harper the Prime Minister of Canada
3. The Hon. Rob Nicholson the Minister of Justice of the government of Canada
4. The Hon. James Flaherty the Minister of Finance of the government of Canada
5. The Hon. Dalton McGuinty the Premier of Ontario
6. The Hon. Andrea Horwath the Provincial Leader of NDP Petition 44 for an investigation in this case
7. Her Worship Cornelia Mews Justice of the Peace for the Toronto Region
8. Her Worship Marsha Farnand Justice of the Peace for the Toronto Region
9. Chief William Blair of the Toronto Police Service
10. Chief Gary Growell of the Halton Regional Police Service
Unit 37, 223 Rebecca Street
Oakville ON L6K 3Y2
March 1, 2012
BMO / Allied Canadian 89-2 Pre-executed Investment Loan Promissory Note
BMO / Allied Canadian 90-1 Pre-executed Investment Loan Promissory Note
The Private Information Affidavit of Anthony Crawford for Review and Response
Unit 37, 223 Rebecca Street
Oakville ON L6K 3Y2
905 842 4798
Affidavit of Anthony Crawford I, Anthony Crawford, of the city of Oakville, hereby say (or affirm):
1. I believe my wife and I are victims of “Signature-Specific-Identity-Theft” predatory lending practices behind Allied tax shelters sold as investments in so-called Registered Retirement Savings Plans that after saving tax credits for ten (10) years BMO sued me for 10 years to collect one of two (1 of 2) commingled loans in a BMO Action that has cost me and my loving wife our retirement savings, our home, our health, our lifestyle and life- long marriage, which has been stressed and changed from what it was before we became entrapped, tortured, traumatized and aged by heavy handed lawyers acting for BMO, Allied and Perris seemingly bent on abusing civil procedures including apparent perjury and appearing to interfere with Court documents to in effect obstruct justice and protect alleged lawbreakers with rulings from judges who find lawyers’ mendacities more credible than my testimony and properly researched discoveries from examinations of BMO witnesses under oath.
2. I believe I am a victim of discrimination by the Canadian Justice System in vicarious ways of lawyers, judges and the police: Mr. Joshua Siegel (“Siegel”) of Rubenstein Siegel litigating for Bank of Montreal (“BMO”) as a BMO loan (“BMO Loan”) debt collector in the BMO Action Milton File _ 1678/02 (the “BMO Action”), and Messrs. Oren Chaimovitch (“Chaimovitch”) and Robert Riteman (“Riteman”) of Noik & Associates (“Noik”) in my defense of the BMO Action. And, Ms. Deborah Squires (“Squires”) Barrister and Solicitor seeming to act at first for Avalon Securities (“Avalon”) re Mr. Michael Emory (“Emory”) of Allied Canadian (“Allied”) and Mr. Michael Perris (“Perris”) of Chenney Glenn Graydon Accountants re the Counterclaim Defense (“Crawford Counterclaim”) filed against BMO, Avalon et al. And, a Cross-claim filed by BMO against Avalon et al., and Messrs. Kenneth Dekker (“Dekker”) of Affleck Green McMurtry acting for Avalon a.k.a. IPC Securities. And, David Goodman (“Goodman”) of Goodman Solomon & Gold for Mr. and Mrs. Perris of Mikary Investments, and Michael Girrard (“Girrard”) of Girrard Law Office for John Graydon, William Wright, Donald Ivy, Robert Pell and Douglas Ferguson of Chenney Glenn Graydon Accountants, and John Whitehead (“Whitehead”) of Cosianos Lee representing my appeal for trial of the Crawford Counterclaim to the BMO Action, and reply to an Avalon Motion for Particulars and Examination of Documents that Whitehead advised a judge would rule to prevent trial of the Crawford Claim File _ 2940/07 (the “Crawford Claim”) from Mr. Bois Wilson (“Wilson”) of Noik alleging willful ignorance of credit alerts and fraud by Emory and Perris by Mr. Ian Fardoe (“Fardoe”) of BMO arising from an RCMP review citing potentially criminal acts. It was too complicated a struggle for me to ward off so many opposing lawyers that I suffered a stroke, at which point Whitehead set up a proposal that all parties settle all Actions arising from the BMO Action, but it was withdrawn through lack of agreement to sign. Ms. Jasmine Sweatman (“Sweatman”) of Sweatman Law Office advised me IPC Securities would sign on behalf of Emory of Allied in Minutes of Settlement. Mr. Brian Hunt (“Hunt”) of Cleaver Crawford (“Cleaver Crawford”) was my ninth lawyer who appeared to act for me and my wife as he responded to BMO demands that BMO stipulations be written in a Mutual Release and Consent for a Court Order to dismiss the Crawford Counterclaim in consideration of BMO clearing paid writs (“Paid Writs”) on our property that BMO evidently held ransom for relief of the Crawford Claim for BMO, Emory and Perris to avoid trial, and the possibility of
the Crown prosecuting Perris in the simple case of identity theft that I reported to the Police and the ICAO – Institute of Chartered Accountants Ontario many years ago.
Attached hereto is the RCMP Review of potentially criminal fraudulent BMO loans as Exhibit ‘1.1’ Attached hereto is the Halton Regional Police response to my allegations about Perris as Exhibit ‘1.2’ Attached hereto is the Halton Regional Police response to my allegations about Noik as Exhibit ‘1.3’ Attached hereto is the ICAO v Perris Disciplinary Committee decision as Exhibit ‘1.4’
(Ref: Attached hereto is the ICAO v Perris investor analysis data as Exhibit ‘35,5’)
Litigation tactics and abuse of civil procedure to pervert the course of justice
3. I believe litigation tactics as apparently carried out by lawyers has perverted the course of justice in a failure of judicial procedure in which Riteman appears in the BMO Action court transcript to have delivered a brief Factum that Siegel appears to have led the court to accept and log as if my Factum for Defense apparently used by the judge instead of my Factum of Defense and Counterclaim while Siegel denied the existence of a second (2nd) of two (2) commingled “Allied” pre-executed BMO promissory notes evidenced in my real Factum. It is evident in the transcript that BMO also denied litigating the Crawford Claim alleging fraud behind “Allied” notes that sworn as being truth of the court; BMO won summary judgment to collect debt to the first (1st) note without trial.
4. I believe BMO methods to seemingly hold Paid Writs ransom and by refusing to lift liens of judgment debt on my house until lawyers signed Releases in December 2011 and Consents in January 2012 for Court Orders to dismiss the Crawford Claim for BMO to avoid trial – indicates Siegel may have denied the existence of the 2nd BMO promissory note and especially have denied litigating the Crawford Claim to win to collect the BMO Loan.
5. Having yielded to immense psychological pressure to sign BMO Releases for BMO to lift wits on my property in January 2012, it seems my wife and I cannot avoid being victimized by lawyers that appear to continue to abuse the justice system in never ending pressure for me and my wife to sign yet another Release for BMO.
6. It seems Hunt set up an Action for Mr. Eldon Hunt to profit from a professional misconduct insurance claim alleging that Noik lawyers; Chaimovitch hid a NOTE DEFAULT AGAINST Avalon Securities in Default of Filing a Notice of Intent to Defend in a different court with intent to pervert the course of justice, and Riteman interfered with court documents with intent to obstruct justice in the case of the BMO Action. Hunt apparently negotiated a tolling of statutes of limitations to reinstate a Milton Court File _ 3259/10 that I originally filed as Anthony Crawford v Noik (the “Anthony Crawford v Noik Action”) but, in fear of vindictive judgments such as a court apparently overlooking a swapped Factum and perjury behind a summary judgment for BMO to collect a loan with punitive costs, I did not legalize it, and let it lapse as not served.
7. The Anthony Crawford v Noik Action is currently defended by Messrs. Michael Kestenberg (“Kestenberg”) and David Lipkus (“Lipkus”) of Kestenberg Siegal Lipkus as Lawyer of Record for the Lawyers’ Professional Indemnity Company (“LawPRO”) and also Noik. I believe Hunt created a lawsuit for his client Mr. Eldon Hunt that a court has swapped to me and my wife (the “Crawfords”) on December 21, 2011 with a ruling from a judge who was apparently unaware Mr. Eldon Hunt was a contingency billing client for a Cleaver Crawford Action (“Cleaver Crawford Contingency Action”) in Toronto Court File _ CV-10-414951. I believe Jill Crawford did not sue Noik and was “mistook” to be a Crawford in an apparent setup by Cleaver Crawford.
Plaintiffs, Defendants and Respondents to the BMO Action and the Cleaver Crawford Consignment Action
8. Respondents to the Milton File _ 1678/02 Crawford Counterclaim and defendants to the Milton File _ 2940/07 Crawford Claim are in effect third (3rd) party defendants as the same persons in Crawford lawsuits (“Crawford Lawsuits”), including; BANK OF MONTREAL and ALLIED CANADIAN a.k.a. AVALON SECURITIES CORP a.k.a. IPC SECURITIES CORPORATION (since 2001 by amalgamation shall be individually cited in this document where appropriate, or named as one and the same company (“Allied/Avalon/IPC”)) and MICHAEL PERRIS, MIKARY INVESTMENTS LTD., GORDON E GLENN, JOHN M GRAYDON and WILLIAM WRIGHT, DONALD IVY and ROBERT PELL and DOUGLAS FERGUSON and shall be collectively, or individually referred to in this document where appropriate, as debt defendants ("Debt Defendants"). The Crawford Counterclaim and the Crawford Claim and shall be collectively, or individually referred to in this document where appropriate, as Crawford Lawsuits (“Crawford Lawsuits”). All Releases to settle the BMO Action, the Crawford Counterclaim Action, and the Crawford Claim Action refer to the all same Plaintiffs, Defendants, and Respondents with all the same Court File Numbers and shall be collectively or individually referred to in this document where appropriate, as BMO Releases (“BMO Releases”).
9. Defendants to the Cleaver Crawford Toronto File _ CV-10-414951 as revived from the Anthony Crawford Milton File _ 3259/10 in are the same persons in Noik & Associates, including; partners, lawyers, associates,
employees and servants dealing with Crawford Lawsuits arising from the BMO Action and shall be collectively or individually referred to in this document where appropriate, as Noik. The Cleaver Crawford claim against Noik shall be referred to in this document where appropriate as the Cleaver Crawford Contingency Action and the Release as required by Noik and LawPRO to settle the Cleaver Crawford Contingency Action shall be referred to in this document where appropriate, as the Noik Indemnity Release (“Noik Indemnity Release”).
10. As such described above, I have direct knowledge, information or beliefs of matters defined by me deposed to in this my sworn affidavit with a Responding Motion Record to dismiss the Cleaver Crawford Consignment Action as is my resolute response to a Court Order that I must attend court on February 23, 2012 to reply to the Noik Motion Record to dismiss the Cleaver Crawford Consignment Action that evidently Hunt does not oppose. Indeed, without my opposition it should be dismissed with a Court Order written by a judge on my Responding Motion Record that deems this private information affidavit as a truthful account of the BMO Action and the Crawford Lawsuits and the Cleaver Crawford Consignment Action and the Anthony Crawford v Noik Action to be assigned to a Criminal Court for prosecution in case of criminal acts by persons cited in the RCMP review
of Perris, and others including; Mr. Ian Fardoe (“Fardoe”) and BMO others and/or Emory and/or Perris and/or lawyers representing the BMO Action and/or Crawford Lawsuits and/or lawyers representing LawPRO and/or Noik with respect to the Cleaver Crawford Consignment Action and/or the Anthony Crawford v Noik Action based on my recall (or where I do not have direct knowledge of such matters deposed to, I state my basis for such knowledge, information or personal beliefs).
The BMO Action is political issue for an investigation into predatory lending practices
11. I recall Riteman and Whitehead advising me that judges would never allow my defense of the BMO Action to be tried in Court. Hunt told me judges seem to have operated as debt collectors for BMO under their oath of office including; Langdon (“Langdon”), Harris (“Harris”), Gillese (“Gillese”), MacFarland (“MacFarland”), and Laforme (“LaForme”) of the Ontario Judiciary presiding over the BMO Action in Milton, and my appeal for trial in the Toronto Court of Appeal. I also refer to Mr. Gary Growell (“Growell”), Chief of Halton Regional Police Service who in contrast to treatments given me, law enforcement authorities appear to have protected Emory, and guarded Perris from Crown prosecution, who despite being cited by the RCMP as involved in potentially criminal acts behind fraudulent tied loan selling demonstrably flawed securities in Canadian Financial Markets that appear to have been designed to harm individual investors and taxpayers alike, which Perris sold to me, no one has ever been charged with crime in the BMO Allied affair despite complaints by numerous investors to several government agencies including Toronto Police and the Ontario Securities Commission (the “OSC”) that consistently ignored or rejected any of my allegations of wrongdoing by BMO, Emory and/or Perris.
12. I believe from my experience of Canadian banking as discussed in Canadian politics that my friend the late Leader of the New Democratic Party of Canada, the Hon. Jack Layton to whom I dedicated my storybook account of the BMO Allied financial scandal and courtroom experiences of Siegel entitled “Contaging” was a politician demonstrably willing for public debate of bank regulations for consumer safeguards and taxpayer protection. I am proud to have known him and to have his signature in support of Petition 44 that has been tabled by the NDP in a fourth (4th) reading by Hon. Andrea Horwath at the Ontario Legislative Assembly in 2009 to reopen the OSC complaint file and for an investigation into the Allied Canadian affair.
13. I believe it is time to honor Mr. Layton’s signature and to intervene in this matter in case of crime.
Attached hereto is Petition 44 Hon Jack Layton signed to investigate the BMO Action as Exhibit ‘2.1’ Attached hereto is Liberal Party support for the OSC to reopen the Crawford Case as Exhibit ‘2.2’ Attached hereto is a letter to Hons. Robert Nicholson and James Flaherty to intervene as Exhibit ‘2.3’
Hunt Affidavit with apparent improper purpose to indemnify alleged perpetrators of crime from prosecution
14. It seems my wife as well as being an unwitting debtor through Perris apparently using her name and private and personal information to create a trick loan in the BMO Action that a court ruled in favor of BMO to collect with ongoing abuses of civil procedure to apparently win rulings to block Crawford Lawsuits that continue...
15. It is evident my wife, Jill Crawford, has become an unwitting Plaintiff to an Action due to Cleaver Crawford taking and attaching her identity to a lawsuit she was not involved as a litigant in November 2010 while my wife and I were out of Canada tending to an end-of-life situation for several weeks that a judge attached to a court ruling according to pleadings of Lipkus and Kestenberg in a Toronto Court on December 21, 2011.
16. I believe Hunt created a legal situation with a Notice of Motion and a misleading if not falsely stated Affidavit apparently sworn with intent to force me and my wife to sign a far-reaching LawPRO prosecution indemnifying release apparently for the benefit of BMO, Emory and Perris in the contrived circumstance of us apparently not “falling to sign” an Indemnity Release (the “LawPRO Indemnity Release”) that a judge would in effect sign for us, wherefore it is my opinion that Hunt swore an Affidavit with improper purpose to cover up and indemnify alleged criminals from prosecution of a crime that should be tried in Criminal Court (the “Hunt Setup”).
Attached hereto is the BMO Action litigation history and Noik Indemnity Release Matrix as Exhibit ‘3.1’ Attached hereto is December 1, 2011 Hunt Affidavit he is Crawfords Lawyer of Record as Exhibit ‘3.2’ Attached hereto is December 12, 2011 Hunt Affidavit he is Crawfords Lawyer of Record as Exhibit ‘3.3’ Attached hereto three (3) styles for Hunt to be removed as Lawyer of Record from each as Exhibit ‘3.4’ Attached hereto is December 28, 2011 Hunt advising he is not Lawyer of Record as Exhibit ‘3.5’ Attached hereto is an October 25, 2011 Motion to execute a “falling to sign” Release as Exhibit ‘3.6’
The Hunt Setup for a judge to in effect sign a LawPRO Indemnity Release for the benefit of BMO
17. I believe it was wrong of Justice Allen (“Allen”) to swap me and/or my wife as unwilling litigants to a lawsuit the purpose of which only came to our attention for what it was as referenced in an apparently improperly served Noik Motion Record given to a judge to apparently deem us as “falling to sign” a Noik Indemnity Release as another BMO Release for a judge to deem signed that is the essence of the Hunt Setup.
18. As I recall from Hunt-talk about judges, they rule under an oath of office, which Hunt explained to me and my wife in a recorded phone call as to what he intended and could apparently make a judge do in the Hunt Setup, and how a judge would do it... as follows and as played on several YouTube and internet sites;
CRAWFORD: “We might as well have nobody sign this except lawyers, the only people who actually sign it, who are genuine people is me and Jill.” HUNT: “They’re the ones that have to sign it, the Release.” CRAWFORD: “You told me a judge would sign on my behalf.” HUNT: “A judge would never sign on your behalf; they would just make an order that is equivalent to you signing.” CRAWFORD: “And how is that?” HUNT: “There is no defense; they would basically say the actions are dismissed”.
19. I believe the Hunt Setup caused a judge to apparently traffic the identity of my wife by her name to the instant Action that has the potential of creating unjustifiable judgment debt in terms of legal costs as an unwarranted liability placed upon my wife if the Hunt Setup continues from December 21, 2011 as it seems it was planned.
20. I believe the first stage of the Hunt Setup was executed when the court apparently chose one of three (1 of 3) Motion Records that apparently none were never filed by Hunt with his Affidavit that he was Lawyer of Record to be removed as Lawyer of Record. It is evident the court selected a Title of Proceedings Motion restyled as Anthony Crawford and others v Noik & Associates for Hunt to be removed as Lawyer of Record that Allen endorsed and signed, and then added my name as well as my wife’s name to the same Title of Proceedings restyled as Anthony Crawford and others v Noik & Associates to endorse the Motion for Noik represented by Lipkus and Kestenberg – as I recall pleading for the judge to add my wife’s name with costs, which Allen signed and passed it on to another judge to decide legal costs for the motion on February 23, 2012.
Attached hereto is a December 21, 2011 Court Ruling on a never filed Motion Record as Exhibit ‘4.1’ Attached hereto is a parallel Court Ruling on an improperly served Motion Record as Exhibit ‘4.2’ Attached hereto is a December 21, 2011 Order the Crawfords engage criminal lawyers as Exhibit ‘4.3’
Crown Intervention in case of crime in the BMO Allied Canadian Perris affair
21. It is evident that Hunt forwarded his December 21, 2011 Court Ruling that Cleaver Crawford is no longer Lawyer of Record and that if we do not engage a Lawyer of Record for the upcoming February 23, 2012 hearing, the “instant action” may be dismissed without being heard, or it may not be given due process in a Civil Court, or an Appeal Court, whereby in my opinion lawyers will have finally covered up a crime that has never been allowed in Civil Court, or followed up by Halton Regional Police or the Toronto Fraud Squad that have no mandate to investigate RCMP allegations of fraud in the BMO Allied Perris affair.
22. I believe it is impossible for me and my wife to engage lawyers as ordered as the case involves potentially criminal acts as we cannot find any lawyer willing to litigate. We are advised it is up to the Crown to review if Hunt did in fact falsely swear an Affidavit for the improper purpose of protecting RCMP alleged perpetrators of
crime that Fardoe and/or Emory and/or Perris were possibly involved in criminal acts to defraud my wife.
23. If on February 23, 2012 a judge rules for Noik and LawPRO, it would presumably have to wrongly state that I had not signed a Release for the Anthony Crawford v Noik Action requested by Kestenberg that only being aware of what he wanted on December 16, 2011 it is evident that I immediately signed such a Release and offered it to Kestenberg on December 19, 2011, which he refused to accept. Furthermore, it would seem a Court Ruling for Noik and LawPRO would also have to incorrectly state me and my wife refusing Consent to Kestenberg to process a Court Order to dismiss both the Anthony Crawford v Noik and the Cleaver Crawford Contingency Actions, which is I evident that I offered Consent for a Court Order in my written pleadings.
24. I believe it evident that Kestenberge received a Full and Final Release as requested as well as an alternative court date to adjourn, which both Kestenberg and Hunt refused. I wrote a situation overview in a letter to Hunt of December 19, 2011 that I presented to the court that the Allen denied before her on December 21, 2011.
Attached hereto is Kestenberg letter to Crawford November 4, 2011 for signed Release as Exhibit ‘5.1’ Attached hereto is December 19, 2011 Kestenberg receipt of Milton Action Release as Exhibit ‘5.2’ Attached hereto is December 19, 2011 Noik Release that Kestenberg refuses to accept as Exhibit ‘5.3’ Attached hereto is December 19, 2011 Crawford letter to Hunt about the situation as Exhibit ‘5.4’ Attached hereto is December 21, 2011 written pleading to dismiss Hunt Actions as Exhibit ‘5.5’ Attached hereto is a February 24, 2012 date to adjourn Kestenberg refused to accept as Exhibit ‘5.6’
Hunt Setup for removing Cleaver Crawford as Anthony and Jill Crawford Lawyer of Record
25. I believe Civil Court Judge Mdm. Justice Allen has been deceived to carry out a plan to hide a crime
26. At 2:00 PM on December 16, 2011 Kestenberg gave me his file including the Cleaver Crawford Consignment Action, a Noik Affidavit in Defense, and various letters and emails that neither me nor my wife had ever seen before. In reading the file correspondence, it appeared that Kestenberg expected material from Hunt that he held back in the Hunt Setup that was only apparent on December 21, 2011 with his courtroom appearance.
27. It is apparent that given Hunt advised Kestenberg he would be “Off-record” the week of October 14, 2011 Kestenberg should have served me and my wife with the Noik Motion Record that we only became aware of in individual letters we received from Hunt on December 15, 2011 that he would appear with Kestenberg to be removed as Lawyer of Record with a Court Ruling on a never filed and never served Motion Record with a sword Affidavit that Hunt testified he was Lawyer of Record that aside from breaching civil rules of procedure that is evidently deceiving, if not plain and simple perjury to obstruct justice.
28. I believe I tried to understand the Hunt Setup on December 15, 2011 to write an overnight Responding Motion Record to an apparently improperly served Noik Motion Record that Kestenberg filed on October 25, 2011 and delivered to Hunt apparently knowing Hunt was not acting for me or my wife since September 21, 2011.
Attached hereto is Crawford to Hunt September 21, 2011 dismissing him as our lawyer as Exhibit ‘6.1’ Attached hereto is LawPRO letter to Hunt October 13, 2011 request for Release as Exhibit ‘6.2’ Attached hereto is Hunt email to LawPRO October 14, 2011 to be “Off record” as Exhibit ‘6.3’
29. I believe that if the court had been more aware of the Hunt Setup on December 21, 2011, as defined in my written pleadings (as if a Court Transcript) with Exhibits in a properly witnessed and rightly served and filed Responding Motion Record for an adjournment, the judge could have and should have moved the Cleaver Crawford Consignment Action to a Criminal Court, instead of to me and my wife. It is evident that according to letters and recorded phone calls from Hunt he told us a judge could rule up to thirty-thousand-dollar ($30,000) costs against us being deemed to have not signed another Release for the benefit of BMO and even the Noik Release required by BMO as a specifically named entity on page one (1) of the Noik Indemnity Release.
Attached hereto is the LawPRO – Noik Indemnity Release for the benefit of BMO as Exhibit ‘7’
Retainer for Hunt to be Lawyer of Record for Anthony and Jill Crawford for BMO Action Releases
30. I believe and attest that BMO Releases and Consent documents have been signed by me and my wife under duress with unbearable pressure on my wife as forced to choose between being deprived of either her property rights or plaintiff rights because of a judgment issued in the BMO Action to which she wasn’t even a party. We
have both given up to apparent blackmail as evidenced in BMO letters, and Releases behind our Consents for Court Orders prepared by and witnessed by Hunt who we engaged, and paid to be the Lawyer of Record for the Crawfords to deal with Siegel, which it appears he did in his stipulations written into BMO Releases.
Attached hereto are BMO Action Releases as required by BMO to lift Paid Writs as Exhibit ‘8’
31. On or around October 28, 2010, I paid the sum of two-thousand-dollars ($2,000) to Cleaver Crawford LLP to retain Hunt to act for me and my wife to settle the BMO Action and ensure BMO lifted Paid Writs. Hunt did all the work with me alone, until he needed to see my wife for her to sign BMO Releases. It took about a year.
32. I trusted Hunt as he appeared to be acting in good faith to meet BMO demands for Mutual Releases and to ensure BMO lifted Paid Writs when my wife and I signed them. I had no idea Hunt was not our Lawyer of Record, or what he was planning in the Hunt Setup that was apparently a very costly exercise according to billing to his real client, Mr. Eldon hunt, after itemizing our cost after the $2,000 retainer in the bottom line.
Attached hereto is the Crawford retainer paid to Cleaver Crawford to lift BMO writs as Exhibit ‘9.1’ Attached hereto are BMO September 2, 2009 receipts to lift writs of seizure and sale as Exhibit ‘9.2’ Attached hereto is a BMO September 8, 2009 lift writs of seizure and sale for Releases as Exhibit ‘9.3’ Attached hereto is a Hunt letter to Siegel March 29, 2011 “Violates Natural Justice” as Exhibit ‘9.4’ Attached hereto is a Jill Crawford email thanking Hunt for his letter to BMO as Exhibit ‘9.5’
Attached hereto is the billing statement for the Cleaver Crawford Contingent Action as Exhibit ‘9.6’
Hunt offer to quit after witnessing Crawford signatures on BMO Releases
33. On September 20, 2011, my wife and I signed BMO Releases in a meeting with Hunt when he suggested we work with another lawyer. I received an email from Hunt advising he would sign Consents for Court Orders to dismiss Crawford Lawsuits before BMO lifted Paid Writs, as he was not following our instructions or even BMO instructions as we thought we knew them. So, we accepted his offer to quit on September 21, 2011.
34. In or around October and November 2011, Hunt wrote offers to continue to act for us, but he confused us by referring to Noik and BMO Releases as one and the same. Hunt was specific he had reviewed Releases with us that he had not, and I wrote that I held him responsible for any liabilities he may have set up in our names.
Attached hereto is Hunt email to LawPRO August 26, 2011 that a Release is required as Exhibit ‘10.1’ Attached hereto is LawPRO letter to Hunt August 30, 2011 a Release is not required as Exhibit ‘10.2’ Attached hereto is Jill Crawford to Hunt October 19, 2011 concern about Releases as Exhibit ‘10.3’ Attached hereto is Hunt November 8, 2011 options letter as Exhibit ‘10.4’
Attached hereto is Jill Crawford letter to Hunt November 20, 2011 about Noik as Exhibit ‘10.5’ Attached hereto is Hunt November 24, 2011 options letter as Exhibit ‘10.6’ Attached hereto is my letter to Hunt November 26, 2011 holding him responsible as Exhibit ‘10.7’ Attached hereto is Crawford letter to Hunt December 2, 2011 about the situation as Exhibit ‘10.8’ Attached hereto is Hunt December 8, 2011 letter for Noik Release and “Off-record” as Exhibit ‘10.9’
LawPRO – Noik Indemnity Release pending judgment on February 23, 2012
35. I believe as of February 23, 2011, the only dispute for a judge settle is not one of whether the Cleaver Crawford Contingency Action should or should not be dismissed, as both Crawfords as assigned Plaintiffs and Noik and LawPRO want the Anthony Crawford and Clever Crawford v Noik Actions dismissed:
36. I testify that as court assigned Plaintiffs, we, Jill and Anthony Crawford want both Actions dismissed out of fear the Canadian Justice System is out to victimize us.
37. It is evident Noik and LawPRO have vested interests in being released to avoid a liability to an insurance claim bestowed on me and my wife by a court evidently swapping Crawford names to lawsuits simply at the request of lawyers acting for Noik and LawPRO. Given the court has swapped the Crawfords as litigants to apparently replace Cleaver Crawford, another judge has to decide to dismiss the Cleaver Crawford Contingency Action and the Anthony Crawford v Noik Action cited in the Noik Motion Record and Crawford Responding Motion Record to dismiss the exact same Actions unopposed, except for who signs what Releases, and pays costs.
38. I believe in my fear of the Canadian Justice system that on December 15, 2011 gave me less than a day to
respond to an improperly served Noik Motion Record for a judge to dismiss the Cleaver Crawford Contingency Action it was sufficient time for me to yield to LawPRO demands for a Noik Release. It is the same as I did for Siegel when I gave up to BMO demands they would only lift Paid Writs if my wife and I signed BMO Releases.
39. I believe it was an easy non-monetary decision that my wife and I knuckled under pressure and shock as to what is happening to us in the courts that I asked the court to dismiss the parallel Anthony Crawford v Noik Action as one and the same in my Responding Motion Record with written pleadings to the court, which the court denied on December 21, 2011, and reserved for judgment on February 23, 2012.
(Ref: Attached hereto is December 21, 2011 written pleading to dismiss Hunt Actions as Exhibit ‘5.5’) Attached hereto is my Responding Motion Record ruled as unheeded by the court as Exhibit ‘11.1’ Attached hereto is the Affidavit of Anthony Crawford ruled as unheeded by the court as Exhibit ‘11.2’ Attached hereto is are Exhibits attached to pleadings ruled as unheeded by the court as Exhibit ‘11.3’
Options to dismiss the Cleaver Crawford Contingency Action before the court
40. The simple issue after twelve (12) years posturing to obstruct justice in civil court and apparent blackmail to avoid trial of alleged crime is now before a judge to decide on: whether to write judgment on a Motion Record from Noik the Defendant to dismiss the Cleaver Crawford Contingency Action or to write judgment on the Anthony Crawford Responding Motion Record from me and my wife as newly court appointed Plaintiffs to dismiss the same Cleaver Crawford Contingency Action, the difference is down to costs and Releases;
A) will a judge sign the Noik Motion Record to dismiss the Cleaver Crawford Contingency Action with costs against Anthony and Jill Crawford and deem the Noik Indemnity Release to be signed by Anthony and Jill Crawford that according to the Noik Motion Record Anthony and Jill Crawford are taken as “falling to sign” the Noik Indemnity Release for BMO, Emory and Perris to be immune from prosecution that a judge would in effect be “falling to sign” on behalf of me and my wife with according to the Hunt Setup delivers more judgment debt for yet another lien for lawyers to seize and sell our house as Hunt threatened in letters and phone calls, unless we signed the Noik Indemnity Release in addition to BMO Releases; or,
B) will a judge accept the Anthony Crawford v Noik Milton File _ 3259/10 Release for Noik, which I have signed exactly as requested by Kestenberg in his letter of November 4, 2011 and with me and my wife’s Consent for a Court Order to dismiss the Cleaver Crawford Contingency Action without costs and deem this affidavit as a Private Information be carried over to a Criminal Court for prosecution in case of crime.
Evidence before the court for judgment Option (A) to exonerate perpetrators of alleged criminal acts:
41. I trust the option for a judge to rule for Noik and LawPRO to dismiss the Cleaver Crawford Consignment Action and the Anthony Crawford and others v Noik Action will be weighed in considered of the apparent confusion that surrounds parallel Noik Release and BMO Releases in various letters and emails between Hunt and Noik and Kestenberg and BMO and Siegel and Cleaver Crawford and Anthony Crawford and to Perris signing BMO Releases on December 18, 2011 as signed by the Crawfords and witnessed by Hunt for a Court Order to dismiss the Crawford Counterclaim and the Crawford Claim in consideration of BMO lifting Paid Writs executed January 20, 2012, and Anthony Crawford signing a Noik Release December 19, 2011 for a court hearing as scheduled by Hunt and Kestenberg and heard December 21, 2011 pending judgment to execute a Court Order to execute the Noik Indemnity Release February 23, 2012 for the apparent benefit of BMO, Emory and Perris to avoid prosecution of RCMP alleged potentially criminal acts to defraud.
Attached hereto is BMO Satisfaction Piece to lift Paid Writs for BMO Releases as Exhibit ‘12.1’ Attached hereto are Orders that dismiss Crawford Lawsuits after return of property as Exhibit ‘12.2’
Evidence before the court for judgment Option (B) to prosecute perpetrators of alleged criminal acts:
42. I trust the court will be moved by the weight of evidence herein to relieve us, Anthony and Jill Crawford from a legal nightmare and endless threats on our being and property being seized and sold by lawyers that seem to go to extraordinary ends to extort signatures on BMO Releases and a Noik Indemnity Release to be signed by us or deemed by a judge as if signed by us for Court Orders to dismiss the BMO Action that has been done and the Cleaver Crawford Contingency Action that will be done as God wills;
43. I believe since time spent with Whitehead and in time with Hunt and Kestenberg, my wife and I are not the
same persons we used to be.
44. I suffered a stroke in January 2010 that severely affected my health and state of mind. I still have troubles breathing and speaking. I lost some memories and do not remember things day to day. We recognized our declining health so as well as engaging Hunt to act as lawyer for us to settle the BMO Action, we engaged Mr. Eldon Hunt prepare new Wills for us. I regret I let my wife down in my gullibility to trust the Hunts.
45. I believe bankers, lawyers and judges have abused positions of trust to such extent in the BMO Action that I have been forced to succumb to intimidation evidenced in BMO Releases and Consents that my wife had to choose between being deprived of either property rights or plaintiff rights because of a judgment issued in the BMO Action to which she wasn’t even a party. So, we have been coerced by Siegel to sign BMO Releases against our will and Orders to dismiss the Crawford Counterclaim and Crawford Claim have been executed on January 20, 2012 for BMO, Emory and Perris to avoid trial, and in doing this we have been intimidated and abused by Hunt who in his own spoken words claims he can make a judge in effect sign an additional Noik Indemnity Release that is a Lawyers’ Professional Indemnity Company contract in our names that removes our rights and freedoms as Canadian citizens only a month later on February 23, 2012 is simply shocking... and the very essence of justice denied.
Litigation summary and BMO demands for signed BMO Releases arising from the BMO Action
46. The BMO Action to collect alleged debt of some eighty-thousand-dollars ($80,000) in my name started with BMO demands in around 2000 and a lawsuit in 2002. I tried to end the matter with several offers to settle that BMO always rejected. Siegel refused a fifty-thousand-dollar ($50,000) offer that I made in 2002. In this, I remember he called me a “Sitting Duck” I assumed for a namesake loan that he told me and my lawyer was nonnegotiable. Siegel said the law on his side, which I think he has proven to be the case at enormous cost.
47. I believe Siegel performed extraordinary acts for the sake of collecting some thirty-thousand-dollars ($30,000).
48. Noik represented me from about 2003 and spent years creating and amending legal documents that went through the courts with confusing legal procedures that Noik said I could not examine Avalon or Perris. Noik abandoned me in May 2008. Langdon refused to dismiss the BMO Action and an adjournment for me to find a lawyer. Siegel denied the existence of the second (2nd) of two (2) commingled BMO promissory notes in the BMO Loan Account. Riteman appeared in court to interfere with court documents and replace my Factum for Defense and Counterclaim for another that Siegel defined for Harris as a Factum for Defense. None of the Debt Defendants appeared before Harris and BMO denied litigating the second promissory note in the BMO Loan and Siegel won a Summary Judgment to collect the BMO Loan in May 2008. Whitehead informed me the Harris ruling closed the Milton File _ 1687/02, which in effect he told me Harris threw out the Crawford Counterclaim that was never allowed in court. I filed an appeal for a fair trial, which was denied in January 2009. In 2010 I paid judgment debt to BMO with additional thousand-dollars ($1,000) that Siegel claimed was missing from his cash payment that was counted and receipted before an independent witness that I thought would have ended the affair in 2009. I was mistaken; Siegel held Paid Writs over me and my wife’s house for another two (2) years with threatening letters and recorded phone calls for money and BMO Releases that Siegel appears to have required for BMO, Avalon and Perris to avoid trial.
Errors of judgment for BMO debt without trial
49. I believe BMO authorized Allied as a tax shelter scheme Allied property (“Property”) developer and promoter (“Promoter”) to act as an agent for BMO (“Agent”) given authorization to sell pre-executed investment loans with Emory of Allied notarizing sales reps witnessing of signatures as a “Taker of Affidavits” in front office sales for BMO to sell loans in back office sales that together created two (2) codependent promissory notes as defined in a BMO guidelines for “Off-site Loans Closings” (“Loans Closings”). A BMO Memo describes the Agent relationship behind a BMO business objective: Quote, “To acquire and own income producing retail store and office/commercial building located at 41-43-45 Front Street, Toronto, Ontario.”
50. In May 2008 and January 2009 judges ruled no credible evidence for trial of my Counterclaim defense of the BMO Action and I paid BMO legal costs and judgment debt to settle the BMO Loan tied to an Allied mortgage (“Mortgage”), which as a financial instrument (“Instrument”) in default behind the BMO Loan I believe I paid a hidden secondary BMO Loan dependent risk amount due to a Credit Default Swap (“CDS”) insurance contract in a government approved tax shelter scheme (the “Scheme”). The Scheme appears to have been designed to garnish rental income due to me as a Partner with Emory as the Allied Managing Partner collecting consigned
rent I think paid down the Allied Mortgage reported to me as “losses” including a CDS insurance fee offset by government income tax credits that in hindsight it seems I monetized a so-called toxic loan (“Toxic Loan”) for cash through the Canadian taxation system in my name for ten (10) years until default due to an Allied credit event that in court judges made out it was a plan of my own design. I recall Harris saying to the effect I could not hide behind Perris in setting up trick loans accredited in my wife’s name for me to use to defraud BMO.
51. I believe Harris in the Milton Court in May 2008 and Appeal Court judges; Gillese, MacFarland and LaForme in January 2009 made the same error of judgment with seeming willful disregard of evidence of a BMO Allied Agent relationship and the quantum of secondary risk due to a concealed CDS insurance contract set up for me to repay a hidden Allied Mortgage in default that could not have existed without the BMO Loan tied to the Allied sale from which Perris apparently received a secret commission from the proceeds of the BMO Loan.
Attached hereto is the Supplementary Notice of Appeal re BMO Loan dependent risk as Exhibit ‘13.1’ Attached hereto is the Toronto Court of Appeal ruling finding no evidence for trial as Exhibit ‘13.2’ Attached hereto is the BMO identification of Allied as the Scheme Promoter/Agent as Exhibit ‘13.3’ Attached hereto is LSUC review of Emory as a “Taker of Affidavits” as Exhibit ‘13.4’
Attached hereto is a BMO Undertaking re Emory of Allied in BMO Capital Markets as Exhibit ‘13.5’ Attached hereto is a BMO definition of Credit Default Swap – CDS Insurance as Exhibit ‘13.6’
Inequitable justice in the case of BMO v Crawford and BMO v Perris Actions
52. I believe lawyers colluded to block trial of the Crawford Counterclaim and Crawford Claim in which I alleged Perris had a hand in creating BMO Loans for the benefit of secret commissions paid from loan proceeds to close Allied sales cited in the BMO Action. I recall Langdon described my description of fraud as an “Alice in Wonderland” story that he refused to hear. He rejected my Motion Record to dismiss the BMO Action and instead he issued a Court Order that I attend the BMO hearing for Summary Judgment without a lawyer. I recall BMO denying the existence of a second note to avoid trial, Riteman appearing in Court with a bogus Factum from which Harris ruled no credible evidence for trial, Chaimovitch and Riteman apparently hiding a Noted in Default to defend against Avalon a.k.a. Allied in a different court that if Noik had made it known to me and had it been before Harris as it should have been, it could and should in all fairness have resulted in a ruling for trial by the Court. I recall Whitehead presenting his arguments for a fair trial in the Toronto Court of Appeal and Gillese telling Whitehead, quote; “Crawford could not have not known he had a loan”.
53. I believe Harris, Gillese, MacFarland and LaForme erred in their judgments as to the quantum of secondary risk due to CDS liabilities in my name that Perris created by his representations for BMO Loans to close sales.
Attached hereto is the Langdon Ruling that I had to defend myself re the BMO Action as Exhibit ‘14’
54. In or around November 2010, Siegel threatened more litigation and he accused me of shortchanging his cash payment of his legal cost award by one thousand dollars ($1,000), which I paid just to be rid of him. But he resorted to holding Paid Writs on my house in apparent ransom for signed Releases and Consents to dismiss Crawford Lawsuits. I gave up my claim against Perris on the condition BMO removed Paid Writs on my home.
55. It took two years until January 2012 when BMO finally countersigned Releases and Consents for an Order to dismiss a lawsuit the same as BMO apparently did for Perris, but much quicker back in 1997.
56. I believe injustice and discrimination against me is that BMO sued me for more than ten years and resorted to perjury to win judgment debt without trial with accusations to recover mislaid money and threatening the Court would collect more money, and evidential blackmail that BMO would not clear Paid Writs until me and my wife signed Consents for Court Orders executed in January 2012 to dismiss Crawford Lawsuits to relieve BMO and its Agent Emory and Perris from trial compared to a December 1996 BMO v Perris Action involving the same Allied Scheme, bankers and debt collecting Law Firm that BMO decided it could not stand a “Reverse Onus” test requested by Mr. Marc Klaiman (who was my company lawyer) acting for Perris and his wife who in their defense demanded the strict burden of proof of debt for BMO to collect a like loan in my name as issued in the name of Perris... that after only eight weeks litigation the Court dismissed the BMO claim in February 1997
Attached hereto is the December 11, 1996 BMO Statement of Claim against Perris as Exhibit ‘15.1’ Attached hereto is the Perris Statement of Defense to the BMO Action as Exhibit ‘15.2’ Attached hereto is the BMO Reply to the Perris Statement of Defense as Exhibit ‘15.3’ Attached hereto is the February 1997 Order to Dismiss the BMO Action against Perris as Exhibit ‘15.4’
Attached hereto is news how a BMO-NB banker forged signatures behind transactions as Exhibit ‘15.5’ Jill Crawford “Identity Theft” scenario as filed by Noik in Milton Court 2940/07
57. I believe I put ten years’ life savings into fraudulent BMO loans after taking advice from Perris who held a position of trust as my accountant when I signed an interest in Allied income tax savings Schemes that in hindsight I found he acted in a dual role that he did not disclose he was an unauthorized dealer (“Dealer”) of Securities touting rent encumbered mortgage on Allied income producing commercial real estate as so-called investments. My wife did not sign the underlying Instrument, which appears to have been designed with intent to defraud investors and taxpayers alike. It is evident that Perris created liability in my wife’s name when he obtained her signature on an incomplete blank BMO promissory note packaged within and tied to Allied sales. Perris apparently swore an oath bearing his false witness as a Dealer that he believed my wife was a person of the same name signing the Instrument on a BMO Affidavit of Subscribing Witness that he signed as sales rep for BMO notarized by Emory as the promoter (the “Promoter”) and a “Taker of Affidavits” and Agent of BMO (the “BMO Agent”) selling the Scheme. It is evident that Perris trafficked her personal and financial information as her identity without a SIN – Social Insurance Number to BMO for BMO accreditation of a pre- executed undisclosed loan amount that Perris subsequently filled out on a BMO rubberstamped promissory note according to a BMO lending decision. BMO apparently dated the note that transferred loan proceeds to Allied the Promoter/Agent to close a sale with an undisclosed commission paid to Perris as the Dealer. In my ignorance, I signed an Allied Investor Note as its maker (“Maker”), which as a result of BMO accreditation and closings quantified the CDS asset as debt that in default it became a liability to me to repay a contractually insured so-called toxic loan (“Toxic Loan”) with a notional Mortgage amount payable to Allied Properties as its holder (“Holder”). Upon receipt of funds from BMO, it seems Emory as the Allied Property owner counter- signed the CDS Third Party Non-bank Note in my name as the CDS asset provider. Emory apparently signed Allied Investor Notes in acceptance of money in Canadian currency thereof with Perris the Dealer in witness whereof assigning its value to Allied Properties due to my purchase a Scheme that couldn’t be sold or defraud without it. Evidently, BMO so-called “Off-site Loans Closings” created financial conduit (“Financial Conduit”) revenue streams for both BMO and Allied. BMO cash flow started with remittances for monthly payments to an unnumbered bank loan with Mortgage equivalent terms and conditions renewed annually for the life of the Mortgage as the only visible money in tax deductable retirement savings in the deal (“Deal”). It is apparent Emory pre-consigned rent to pay down the Mortgage that was collected and reported through “off-the- balance-sheet” accounting methods and reported to me as “losses” for me to claim tax credits including the CDS insurance fee. Perris reported and I declared both the BMO Loan and Allied Mortgage interest charges as “Mortgage-partnership-losses”. It seems I claimed the Allied Mortgage and the CDS fee as a business “expense” that monetized a Toxic Loan in my name for cash through the Canadian taxation system for some ten years until the Scheme managed by Emory as the managing partner collapsed with the Allied Mortgage in default due to an Allied “Credit Event”. It appears Allied collected principal value of my Toxic Loan evidenced by a CDS Note in my name in final accounting and disbursements to pay out the Allied Mortgage. Allied as the CDS Note Holder and Debtor in Possession (the “DIP”) apparently reacquired Allied Property in a tax free non-arms length deal that was the ultimate loss to me in the Deal. After that, BMO claimed its BMO Loan in default, which I had misunderstood to be an Allied Mortgage for some ten (10) years. BMO presented a personal promissory note in me and my wife’s names with signatures witnessed by Perris swearing an oath notarized by Emory the Promoter as Agent of BMO to collect by summary judgment for debt without trial.
BMO “Off-site Loans Closings” behind Allied Canadian “Step-transaction” Tax Credit Default Swaps
58. The Scheme involves BMO “Off-site Loans Closings”, which is an accreditation procedure for pre-executed BMO Loans tied to Allied/Avalon/IPC sales that follow a step-transaction (“Step Transaction”) guidelines lending practice to create a Credit Default Swap, which has a purpose of hedging acquired credit that is apparently not regulated [in Canada] because of massive volume. Definition: The basic structure of CDS is similar to credit insurance contracts. In a CDS, the default protection buyer makes fixed periodic premium payments to the protection seller in exchange for being made whole on a set amount of notional principal should the specified reference entity experience a “credit event”.
(Ref: Attached hereto is the BMO Definition of CDS that is not regulated in Canada as Exhibit ‘13.6’)
59. An Allied tax shelter sale is generally called a deal (“Deal”) whereby investors as income tax credit “Savers” purchase one or more interests in Allied property (“Allied Property”) depending on cash down, or borrowing to invest based on BMO accreditation for pre-executed personal loans that quantify the number of unit (“Unit”) sales of a rent encumbered Allied Mortgage sold as an investment in financial markets.
60. I believe an Allied Deal is a “Limited Partnership” company offering of a syndication setup of so-called Units of Allied commercial income producing real estate. The Allied Mortgage behind Allied Property is a sub-unitized Financial Instrument.
61. I believe the Allied Financial Instrument was funded from rent collected by Allied that reports rent payments to an “off-the-balance” sheet mortgage as derivative interest charges interpreted as “rent losses” to Allied investors (“Allied Investors”) who claim the same as “income losses” as if they are personal expenses for government approved income tax credits to pay down the Mortgage that is the hidden cost to Investors.
Attached hereto is the Allied Front Street Properties Mortgage sold as an investment as Exhibit ‘16.1’ Attached hereto is the Allied Front Street Propertied Rent Encumbrance as Exhibit ‘16.2’ Attached hereto is my claim for personal income tax credits due to Allied “Losses” as Exhibit ‘16.3’
Multi leveraged Allied Property value in the total purchase price of manufactured debt
62. The promoted price of Allied Property as a tax shelter Scheme is cash down, or the cost of borrowing to a disclosed or undisclosed pre-executed, often described as a pre-approved BMO Loan evidenced by a BMO Demand Note originating as a blank pro-forma promissory note in an Allied Sales Package (“Package”).
63. The real cost of Allied Property includes additional debt due to principal and interest charges quantified in Allied Investor Notes carried by subscribers who sign both Allied and BMO loans in the Allied Package and claim each debt for tax credits generated from interest cash flow accounting of both loans.
64. The principal amount of an Allied Investor Note is debt defined as the “Asset” in the tax savings Deal.
65. Each Investor is defined as an “Asset Provider” and “Maker” of an Allied Investor Note that hides a secondary risk due to a contractual Allied Mortgage Derivative Tax Credit Default Swap (“TCDS”), which upon execution by Allied as the “Holder” creates a Collateralized Debt Obligation (“CDO”) whereby all subscribing Investors to the Allied “Mortgage Partnership” do in effect insure the Allied Mortgage in default due to a “credit event”.
66. In my opinion from experience of the BMO/Allied Scheme, it is a scam that only works with nondisclosure. Salesmen such as Perris may, but likely not disclose the nature of TCDS to Allied Investors that the total liability of the CDO is dependent on and proportional to a BMO credit decision for a BMO Loan.
67. Investors may not be aware that Allied has authority to operate like an Investment “bank-within-a-bank” to handle so-called “Pre-executed” or “Pre-approved” loan applications in an “Agency” relationship with a Retail Bank engaged in accreditations for “Off-site Loans Closings” where the total debt due to leverage can be three to four times the actual cost of Allied Property to Investors as subscribers to the Deal.
68. I believe, BMO as a Retail Bank “Asset Sponsor” performing accreditation for Investors as “Asset Providers” does not follow normal lending practices as a bank has no duty to protect clients. A bank that operates under voluntary guidelines may not even contact borrowers with a “Collateral Deficiency Notification” report such as my case that BMO ignored a ninth (9th) “Credit Alert” citing a one-hundred-thousand-dollar ($100,000) unpaid mortgage and unusual color ink of questionably forged initials that I cannot recall signing.
69. I doubt I would have misunderstood a filled out undisclosed promissory note with a scratched out rate of interest for me to initial without noticing usury purpose, which BMO documented in an management decision on an internal memo that the bank would not contact the “Broker” being Allied, or “Clients” being investors to sign new documents to borrow money from BMO to invest in Allied Property.
Attached hereto is a BMO $100,000 Collateral Deficiency Notice and “Unusual Initials” as Exhibit ‘17.1’ Attached hereto is a BMO internal Memo to ignore questionable initials on BMO Notes as Exhibit ‘17.2’ (Ref: Attached hereto is news how a BMO-NB banker forged signatures to do business as Exhibit ‘15.5’)
BMO promissory notes for “Daylight Loans”
70. A BMO Loans Closings Screen sets up codependent “Daylight Loans” to purchase Allied Mortgages sold as investments that must be executed by the end of the same business day for legal reasons, including; a BMO Demand Note tied to an Allied Investor Note tied to an Allied Mortgage in the underlying Financial Instrument.
71. Debt evidenced by two (2) BMO and Allied promissory notes has the same “Terms and Conditions” as the Allied Mortgage from which they are derived and defined in loan agreements in the Allied Package that is an SIV – Structured Investment Vehicle (“SIV”) signed by Investors and closed at the Point of Sale, which is the BMO “Off-site Loans Closings”.
72. In my experience, BMO operated in the background and was not visible to me nor understood by me as involved in two (2) Allied Deals that required (2) accreditations for me to borrow money with two (2) BMO Loans to invest in two (2) Allied Properties. The only contact from BMO was an after-the-fact remittance request for monthly payments to an unidentified “Investment Loan” that Perris told me was a mortgage.
73. I took my payments to BMO, which were receipted as Allied Mortgage payments to be tax credit savings to fund my ownership in a Unit of commercial real estate managed by Emory of Allied Canadian.
74. Perris sold an Allied Scheme to me in 1989 and I signed an Allied Investor Note (the “Allied-89 Note) that I was not aware was dependent on contingent borrowing evidenced by a BMO promissory note that I signed in the Allied Package (the “BMO-89 Note”), which was the object of collection in the BMO
75. Perris sold another Allied Scheme to me in 1990 and I signed an Allied Investor Note (the “Allied-90 Note”) that I was also not aware depended on contingent borrowing evidenced by a BMO promissory note that I signed in the Allied Package (the “BMO-90 Note”), which is the object of concern for recompense in the Crawford Counterclaim as somehow Perris also had my wife sign the BMO-90 Note referred to in the BMO Action – and the Crawford Claim that is currently defended by BMO et al.
76. Allied Investors such as me might be forgiven if a BMO remittance request for payments to an unnumbered loan might be mistaken as funding an Allied Mortgage as the only cash flow from an Investor’s point of view is money paid to BMO receipted as “Allied Mortgage Partnership” interest payments for income tax credits.
Secret commission sales of BMO Loan dependent Allied Mortgage Derivative Credit Default Swaps to defraud
77. Perris sold two (2) Allied Schemes to me, and Emory notarized Perris witness my signature for a BMO Loan to fund the first of his sales in 1989 and a second sale in 1990.
78. It is evident from BMO testimony that Emory notarized Perris swear witness of me and my wife’s signatures re the Crawford Counterclaim and Crawford Claim that allege fraud behind the 1990 BMO sale, which the bank apparently closed by adding impossible credit and unsustainable debt to BMO Loan Account 3203-798. BMO CCAP – Central Credit Approval Process 1989 and 1990 Set Up and Closing Screens provide a record of proceeds from the same BMO Loan transferred to Allied in December 1989 and June 1990 to close two (2) sales that paid secret commissions to Perris who was never engaged by me or my wife to do anything more than basic accounting, and he did not disclosed to us he had vested interest in selling securities at the time.
Attached hereto is the BMO/Allied Business Model Cash Flow Analysis Chart as Exhibit ‘18.1’ Attached hereto is an averaged Cash Flow Analysis of BMO-89 and Allied-89 Notes as Exhibit ‘18.2’ Attached hereto is BMO/Allied Commingled Loan Manufactured Debt Creation Workflow as Exhibit ‘18.3’ Attached hereto are two BMO Loans Closings for two Allied Sales from one BMO Loan as Exhibit ‘18.4’ Attached hereto is the 1990 Perris ‘Review Engagement Letter for accounting services as Exhibit ‘18.5’
RCMP review of the BMO Action
79. Synopsis of Crawford allegations reviewed by the RCMP in 2005:
In or around 1989, BMO authorized Allied Canadian selling Allied Properties to operate as an Agent of BMO selling investment loans tied to sales of rent encumbered Allied Mortgages as government approved income tax credit savings Schemes that in my experience appears to have involved fraud in the hands of my accountant Michael Perris (“Perris”) then of Chenney Glenn Graydon, an investment promoter Michael Emory (“Emory”) of Allied and BMO Lending Officer Ian Fardoe (“Fardoe”) involved in potentially criminal acts according to an RCMP review of these allegations restated as follows:
Perris did not disclose his dual role as a commission paid Securities sales rep while providing accounting services for me and my wife as his clients. Perris sold loan dependent Allied Schemes to me that were
neither affordable nor suitable to my needs. Emory as a “Taker of Affidavits” notarized Perris’s sworn witness of me signing an Allied Investor Note as the person of the same name on a BMO Demand Note and BMO Affidavit of Subscribing Witness that provided a “Sample Signature” that Perris used to apply for a loan in my name with a grossly exaggerated falsified Allied “Statement of Affairs” for accreditation of an undisclosed BMO Loan to transfer borrowed money to Allied to close the sale. To this end, Perris tricked me into signing a blank BMO Demand Note that was partially hidden under a large cardboard document corner. The BMO Demand Note was rubberstamped with a BMO Oshawa Branch address and filled out by Perris and BMO staff to evidence a new BMO Loan account lending decision in me and my wife’s names for me to purchase the Allied tax shelter Scheme, for which my wife neither signed as a subscriber, nor applied for the BMO Loan from which she received no value or benefit. Perris caused a BMO accreditation failure by Fardoe whose name, Executive Loans Manager, BMO Oshawa Branch was rubberstamped on PLSA – Personal Loan Service Agreement that BMO filled out for my interest in one Allied Unit, which was approved for fifty-five-thousand-one-hundred-and-seventy-seven-dollars ($55,177) dated September 26, 1989. BMO appears to have been willfully ignorant of nine credit alerts re my liability to a one-hundred- thousand-dollar ($100,000) mortgage on my home and a serious “Collateral Deficiency Notification” on December 1, 1989 requesting clarification of potentially fraudulent initials in different colored ink as though penned by me on an incomplete and not witnessed BMO Demand Note that Perris filled out for one- hundred-and-ten-thousand-three-hundred-and-fifty-four-dollars ($110,354) dated December 1, 1989. Perris wrote up the BMO Demand Note for $110,354 instead of $55,177 for one Allied Unit. In the result, BMO processed a “Daylight Loan” for $110,354.00 in me and my wife’s names, which closed the sale of two Allied Units to me on December 1, 1989. BMO documented my purchase of one Allied Unit billed at twice the cost for the life of the Scheme. In around April 1990, Perris sold me another Allied Unit, which in my ignorance I signed Allied documents as before. Perris somehow tricked my wife to also sign a blank BMO Demand Note and BMO Affidavit of Subscribing Witness whereby Emory notarized Perris swear an oath in false witness that my wife was a person of the same name signing an Allied financial instrument. BMO received a blank and fax copy of the previously used Allied “Statement of Affairs”, which my wife had not signed for a BMO Loan. It appears BMO processed another loan application that without my wife’s Social Insurance Number and unknown income, which BMO took to be fifty-thousand-dollars ($50,000) in her name, BMO added credit to the 1989 pre-existing loan from which BMO transferred funds to Allied evidenced by a BMO Demand Note filled out for thirty-eight-thousand-and-eighty-six-dollars ($38,086). According to handwriting analysis of combined loan and interest charges the second BMO Demand Note was apparently filled out and dated June 29, 1990 by Ms. Carol Sullivan thereby closing another sale of an Allied Unit for another commission Perris received 1990. In transacting two BMO “Off-site Loans Closings” Perris witness my passage into debt due to misleading BMO Loans that he referred to as Allied Mortgages and receipted as such in my ongoing claims for income tax credits. In hindsight I understand from a review of my tax receipts that Allied collected rent to pay down interest due to Allied Mortgages that I claimed as income “losses” that offset by me receiving income tax credits, it seems I permitted Allied to monetize Allied Mortgage interest charges for cash through the Canadian taxation system until an Allied “Credit Event” created a ruinous loss for me with Allied Mortgages in default. Final accounting and disbursements apparently returned Allied Property to a DIP - Debtor in Possession, or to Allied leaving me in debt as the “Asset Provider” to BMO as the “Asset Sponsor” who appears to have collected the balance of its second $38,086 BMO Demand Note by direct debit from a Personal Checking Account, and its first $110,354 BMO Demand Note by suing me since 2002 to collect by Judgment Debt. Apparently, Allied collected Allied Investor Notes to pay out Allied Mortgages at my expense as Perris witnessed BMO Loan dependent secondary risk in my name with me as an unwitting “Maker” of ABCP – Asset Backed Commercial Paper in the form of Allied Mortgage Derivative Credit Default Swaps that Emory signed in acceptance as Canadian money thereof in Mortgage “like” interest and principal amounts of sixty-one-thousand-six-hundred-and- forty-seven-dollars-and-six-cents ($61,647.06) on the 1st day of December, 1989, plus forty-six-thousand- nine-hundred-and-fourteen-dollar ($46,914) on the 29th day of June 1990 that Emory assigned on my behalf as Managing Partner of Limited Partnership Schemes to Allied Properties as the “Holder” with Perris as witness to each respective BMO “Off-site Loans Closings”. BMO seemingly held paid writs my property since 2009 until me and my wife signed Mutual Releases and Consents for Court Orders to dismiss the Crawford Claim regarding these allegations that have never been heard in court, or investigated by any Canadian authority I have made aware of the operations and harmful consequences of the Scheme.
80. BMO/Allied Step Transactions created Asset Backed Commercial Paper (“ABCP”) Third Party Notes in my name that were apparently traded until seizure in a thirty-two-billion-dollar ($32B) market of irreconcilable investor notes bailed out by Canadian taxpayers in the Montreal Accord settled by Purdy Crawford in 2009.
Attached hereto is a numbered BMO / Allied Canadian “Step-Transaction” procedure as Exhibit ‘19.1’
Attached hereto is a connect the dots Alleged Fraudulent Commingled BMO Loan as Exhibit ‘19.2’ Attached hereto is Allied 89-2 Package for an undocumented BMO Loan as Exhibit ‘19.3’ Attached hereto is Allied 90-1 Package for an undocumented BMO Loan as Exhibit ‘19.4’ Attached hereto is Handwriting Analysis of Sullivan for an undocumented BMO Loan as Exhibit ‘19.5’
Riteman refuses to challenge apparent perjury by BMO
81. In ten (10) years litigation, I have never been allowed to examine any Defendant and not one of their lawyers has ever appeared in Court with regard to Crawford Lawsuits that allege fraud behind BMO loans.
82. As I recall in court, other than Siegel, no Debt Defendant, or any Debt Defendants’ lawyer has ever made an appearance as Defendant or Respondent in Milton Court or in the Toronto Court of Appeal where numerous “Title of Proceedings” clearly state all the parties who should have been present before judges who seemed to be oblivious to the complete lack of presence by any Debt Defendant or any of their lawyers.
83. I believe Riteman told me I was not allowed to examine Defendants. He told me I had to obtain permission of the Court to use Perris’s testimony from an ICAO investigation, which was denied. Riteman told me that Court “Rules of Procedure” did not allow him to examine Emory or Perris, and he told me I had to file a Motion Record for a judgment that would allow him to examine BMO as BMO had examined me three times.
84. In or around 2007, Mdm. Justice Millar ruled I was allowed to examine BMO with respect to the quantum of the BMO Loan and further examination of a BMO witness resulted in more refusals and undertakings whereupon Siegel denied the existence of a second BMO-90 Note in response to Court’ questions in a Refusals Hearing.
85. I do not remember Riteman challenging Siegel denying the existence of the BMO-90 Note in Court. Nor did he challenge Siegel’s statements to the Court that BMO was not litigating the BMO-90 Note in the Crawford Counterclaim or the Crawford Claim, which Noik knew or ought to have known it was untrue as Riteman professed to have had served the Crawford Claim on BMO and all other Debt Defendants’ lawyers.
86. I believe Riteman did not challenge Siegel’s denials except for clarification in a follow-up email chain.
87. I recall Siegel continually denied the coexistence of BMO-89 and BMO-90 Notes as evidence of debt as questioned in the Crawford Claim, which Siegel also continued to tell judges he was not litigating.
88. In or around May 2008 Riteman told me he was quitting working for Noik to join another firm. He was in transition and he advised me to work with him at his home with a colleague named Mr. Stanley Razenberg.
89. I believe Riteman told me Noik would not represent me as they would not challenge Siegel in the event of what I understood from Riteman as quote; “Perjury by a colleague”.
90. In around May 2008 – in the end, Riteman became abusive with threatening behavior and angry phone calls that I recorded when he called me at home and when he quit his acting for me as if my lawyer.
91. Riteman quit as my lawyer just some eight days before the May 26, 2008 scheduled hearing of the BMO Motion to collect the BMO Loan by Summary Judgment. In the few days available, I wrote Siegel to request an adjournment for him to answer refusals and for me to find a new lawyer, which Siegel did not allow.
92. In or around June 2008 Noik wrote me that my wife had instructed them to not serve the Crawford Claim, which I believe is untrue. My wife certainly did not instruct Noik to “hold off” the Crawford Claim.
93. I believe Riteman still works for Noik as the object of an alleged professional misconduct lawsuit defended by Kestenberg of LawPRO acting for both Noik and LawPRO.
Attached hereto is evidential perjury by BMO in the January 10, 2008 Refusal Record as Exhibit ‘20.1’ Attached hereto is a May 1, 2008 email re Riteman questioning apparent perjury as Exhibit ‘20.2’ Attached hereto is the address of Stanley Razenberg with Riteman while quitting Noik as Exhibit ‘20.3’ Attached hereto is a May 2008 email chain re Noik intentions to act for Crawford as Exhibit ‘20.4’ Attached hereto is my request to Siegel for an adjournment to find a lawyer as Exhibit ‘20.5’
Attached hereto is a May 23, 2008 Letter from Noik re not serving Crawford Claim as Exhibit ‘20.6’
Anthony Crawford Ongoing Offers to Settle and May 22, 2008 Motion Record to Dismiss the BMO Action
94. In the circumstances of not having legal representation and based on the evidence of the second BMO promissory note that I believe Siegel testified in Court – it did not exist, I filed a Motion to Dismiss the BMO Action. I offered to settle with BMO and quit all Crawford Lawsuits at no cost to anyone, but BMO refused out of hand as Siegel did with all my offers over the years since about August 2002.
95. My Motion to Dismiss the BMO Action was heard on May 22, 2008 by Justice Langdon who as I recall simply refused to discuss it in Court. The court would not grant an adjournment for me to find a lawyer and Justice Langdon ordered me to file a Factum and appear in Court on the 26th to represent myself.
96. It is evident Siegel made a deliberate decision to continue litigating for a Summary Judgment at whatever cost regardless of my three (3) no cost offers for BMO to dismiss the BMO Action. Each offer was on the table for more than a year, prior to attendance before Justice Coats, prior to the examination of Mr. Curry, and prior to the BMO May 2008 Motion for Summary Judgment to collect its alleged debt.
Attached hereto is my August 21, 2002 $50,000 offer to settle the BMO Action as Exhibit ‘21.1’ Attached hereto is my February 13, 2003 $50,000 contributions offer to settle BMO as Exhibit ‘21.2’ Attached hereto is my May 25, 2004 consideration of BMO $68,000 offer to settle as Exhibit ‘21.3’ Attached hereto is my May 24, 2007 Settlement Offer to dismiss the BMO Action as Exhibit ‘21.4’ Attached hereto is my February 11, 2008 continuation of 3 zero cost offers to dismiss as Exhibit ‘21.5’ Attached hereto is my May 22, 2008 “Walk-away” no cost offer to all Debt Defendants as Exhibit ‘21.6’ (Ref: Attached hereto is the Justice Langdon ruling that I represent myself in Court as Exhibit ‘14’)
Doppelganger BMO v Perris to collect a BMO/Allied Investment Loan and the Lemberg v Perris Case
97. While BMO refused numerous offers to settle and chose to litigate the BMO Action for 12 years, Rubenstein Siegel signed a simple Consent Order to end a similar BMO v Michael and Debra Perris Action of December 11, 1996. It was resolved by February 5, 1997 in less than three (3) months by “Reverse Onus Rule”: Quote: “The Defendants further deny the amounts due and owing as claimed and puts the Plaintiff to the strict proof thereof. The Defendants therefore submit that this [BMO] Action be dismissed with costs.”
98. It is my opinion Riteman was aware of the BMO v Perris Action as he questioned it in examination, but Siegel denied any knowledge of any other Court case concerning BMO Loans behind Allied Schemes.
99. Noik filed the Crawford Claim at Milton in 2007 while the Lemberg v Perris Case File 682/07 was underway.
100. I believe Noik was aware of the Lemberge v Perris Case that was before a Court that found Perris failed in his fiduciary duty to his client by misrepresenting a financial transaction that the CRS – Canadian Revenue Service disqualified for income tax credits. Perris was found guilty of taking secret commissions in a so-called “Art-flip” tax shelter scheme that generated claims tax credits for higher appraised “notional-value” debt of art objects donated to charities than the actual cost of purchase. The precedent setting Canadian Case Law File 682/07 reads as a perfect reenactment of my experience of the Perris modus operandi.
Attached hereto is the Citation Lemberg v Perris “Art-flip” tax shelter scheme as Exhibit ‘22’
Riteman appearance in Court with apparent intent to interfere with Civil Procedure to obstruct justice
101. In stark contrast to Perris being relieved from alleged debt to a BMO Loan to invest in Allied, it seems Siegel went through extraordinary acts and unprofessional performances to litigate to collect an alleged debt to a BMO Loan in my name apparently by the hands of Perris and Emory that from 2002 through 2011 it seems the case has involved some seventeen (17) lawyers, six (6) Courtroom appearances and nine (9) Judges all seemingly bent on protecting Perris and Emory from ever having to testify as judges ruled no credible evidence in my case for trial.
102. On May 26, 2008, Riteman as the lawyer who had quit acting for me – made an unexpected and unwanted appearance in Court with a document in hand that he gave to Siegel before Harris.
103. A “Truth of the Court” January 30, 2009 Court of Appeal Transcript No. C49171 of the May 26, 2008 Milton Court Hearing (the “Harris Transcript”) reads that Harris allowed Riteman to interrupt proceedings. Riteman
came forward and he introduced himself to Harris saying he had been my defense lawyer in the BMO Action until he quit a few days past. (Transcript Page 4 line 17).
104. On May 26, 2008, none of the Debt Defendants’ lawyers appeared with Siegel to attend the BMO Action for Summary Judgment or to defend the Crawford Counterclaim. Siegel defined the case for Summary Judgment as his burden, SIEGEL: “We have a prima facie case for judgment and then to demonstrate no issues for trial, and that is my burden and my friend* has to raise issues” [* his reference of me]. (Transcript Page 11 line 11)
105. I am constantly reminded Riteman offered to robe as if to appear to act as a dutiful lawyer in my stead, if Harris required, which I did not, and Harris declined. (Transcript Page 5 lines 2-5 and Page 6 line 9).
106. I am constantly reminded Harris did not want my Factum, which he described as quote, THE COURT: “The issue is factums are to be concise. We don’t want long love letters”. (Transcript Page 7 line 29, 33).
107. I am constantly reminded Harris allowed Riteman to present a document referenced as a brief Factum from Noik to replace mine. The court allowed Riteman and Siegel to argue to replace my Factum for Defense and Counterclaim by a document I can only describe a ghost Factum (“Ghost Factum”). I recall Siegel handing a document to Harris and instructing the Court to write it up as if it were my Factum for Defense, Book nine (#9). According to transcript, Harris resumed Court with the Noik Ghost Factum that while he used it, it was not copied for me to refer to in Court. (Transcript Page 9 line 22 through Page 10 line 16).
108. I am constantly reminded of the confusion caused by the Noik Ghost Factum, which was used by the Bench and Siegel who interjected to define me as the Plaintiff, which was the case for the Crawford Counterclaim.
109. The confusion annoyed Harris who found fault in me, ANTHONY CRAWFORD: Your Honour, may I just – I’m struggling here because the documentation I’m using I’m not sure that you have in front of you... THE COURT: Exhibit A has only got one page. ANTHONY CRAWFORD: Oh, I’m sorry, Your Honour. It must be the wrong book. THE COURT: Well, it’s really regrettable that you’re not prepared, but I want you to get a full hearing. And, THE COURT: I don’t have numbered tabs here. These are all lettered. So why don’t you tell me your argument. (Transcript Page 71 through Page 72 and 73 line 2 and Page 74 line 4).
110. I am constantly reminded the Court would not allow me to assign a Book Number to log my Plaintiff Brief of Documents, and Harris told me not to worry about it. (Transcript Page 67 line 5 through 22).
111. I am constantly reminded the Court knew the BMO Loan that was written up for $55,177.00 on paper but that it was keyed in a computer set up for a $110,354.00 in closing. (Transcript Page 76 line 10 through 24).
112. I am constantly reminded despite evidence of tax returns reporting combined interest charges for an Allied Mortgage and a BMO Loan collectively and in total to claim income tax credits – the Court argued the Allied Mortgage was one and the same as a BMO Loan as Harris protested there was only one loan in the Scheme, THE COURT: Wait a minute. You can call it what you want. Whatever it was, how much was it? No, how much was the loan, the mortgage, whatever it was, the security. (Transcript Page 78 lines 11 and 15).
113. I am constantly reminded that Noik had apparently labeled my name and address and phone number on the Ghost Factum to make it appear as if it were my Factum that Harris checked to ensure my identity was on it when he adjourned Court to reserve judgment. (Transcript Page 105 line 6 through 13, and 21, 22).
114. I am constantly reminded Harris brought down a ruling for BMO to collect its BMO Loan without trial with specific reference to the Ghost Factum. Harris quoted a line about a “Chinese Wall” as though I had made a vague unsubstantiated assertion, which is not the case as my submissions were well supported in my own genuine Factum for Defense and Counterclaim that included BMO testimony as to how Emory notarized Perris’s paid witness of me and my wife’s signatures and trafficked her personal and private financial information to apply for the BMO Loan that he used to close commission paid sales.
115. I am constantly reminded Harris seemed to argue for BMO that I was aware, and that by my hand I created an undisclosed commingled BMO Loan behind a Scheme by which I filed claims income tax credits to offset Allied Mortgage payments that were doubled in amounts written on a BMO-89 Note and Allied-89 Note signed by me with additional commingled debt due to another BMO-90 Note signed by me and my wife and an Allied-90 Note only signed by me in the final quantum of debt that qualified for government approved tax credits in my name. (Transcript Page 67 line 31 and Page 90 line 26).
116. I am constantly reminded that despite an RCMP report citing Perris involved in potentially criminal acts and that the ICAO found Perris guilty of selling securities to clients contrary to professional guidelines before the Court, Harris nevertheless accused me that an Allied “Statement Of Affairs” in Perris’s handwriting that Emory appears to have had used twice over the Court argued it was my doing, quote, THE COURT: Okay, so this your loan application? You were making this out for a loan. You can’t hide behind your accountant can you? I mean this is yours, isn’t it? (Transcript Page 90 lines 13 through 33).
117. I am constantly reminded that Siegel who is supposedly duty bound to be truthful in Court, repeatedly denied the existence of second BMO-90 Note, apparently to avoid trial. Siegel denied the admissibility of handwriting analysis of BMO writing the BMO-90 Note, which he continued to tell the Court he had no knowledge of, and was not litigating. (Transcript Page 65 lines 9, 21, 29 and Page 65 line 20 through 26).
Attached hereto are selected Milton Transcript pages re Appeal Court C49171 cover as Exhibit ‘23’
LSUC response to complaints and my request for the Canadian government to intervene in case of crime
118. In around March 2008, The LSUC responded to me and my wife’s my complaints about Riteman and Siegel. The LSUC reprimanded Riteman for dishonorable behavior in Court and ruled he had to read civil procedures. LSUC wrote Siegel had done no wrong as he had an obligation to BMO to follow his client’s instructions.
Attached hereto is the LSUC Reply to my wife’s complaint about Siegel as Exhibit ‘24’
119. Over the years I believe I have written about twenty-one (21) government agencies including Ministers to do something about the financial scandal of “Loan-Dependent-ABCP-Third-Party-Notes” from such as the Perris Affair with absolutely no effect. It was the same in or around January 2009, when Whitehead advised me to write the Minister of Justice, Hon. Robert Nicholson, for the Crown to intervene as the lawyer filing my Appeal for trial told me the case involved criminal acts that should be addressed in the Criminal Justice System.
120. As I remember, the government reply was that the matter was a personal matter between me and a bank and that it would be improper for the government to influence or interfere with judges that otherwise could not act as impartial arbitrators. I wrote a further request to the Minister of Justice on April 10, 2010 to reconsider the file with reference to possible violations of Criminal Code that in my opinion were matters for the Criminal Justice system. All my letters have been answered with an apparently standard excuse of no jurisdiction or inability to comment on matters in litigation. To my knowledge the Perris Affair has never been investigated by Police and no one in authority has ever addressed the issue of regulating ABCP Third Party Notes for consumer and taxpayer’ protection.
Attached hereto is my letter to the Minister of Justice requesting Crown Intervention as Exhibit ‘25.1’ Attached hereto is Canadian government reply to my request for Crown Intervention as Exhibit ‘25.2’ Attached hereto is my reply to the Minister of Justice to reconsider my request as Exhibit ‘25.3’
Toronto Court of Appeal for Trial
121. In or around January 2009, Whitehead assembled some two thousand (2,000) pages from BMO Action pro- ceedings to present at the Toronto Court of Appeal to plead for trial. Whitehead was given ten (10) minutes to argue that Emory as an alleged Agent of BMO, and Perris as an alleged perpetrator of fraud created undisclosed loan dependent secondary risk hidden in the workings of SIV tax sheltered mortgages sold as investments.
122. On January 30, 2009, the Toronto Court of Appeal reviewed and dismissed allegations of Emory being an Agent for BMO and Perris swearing false witness to signatures behind undisclosed loans from which Perris apparently received secret commissions to witness undisclosed exposure to BMO Loan dependent TCDS.
123. I am constantly reminded Gillese proclaimed, “Crawford could not have not known he had a loan”, as three Appeal Court judges ruled no credible evidence of wrongdoing by BMO: Quote: “Loan documentation makes it clear there is no genuine issue for trial in relation to the Bank of Montreal”.
Payment of Judgment Debt to settle Siegel and BMO
124. In or around August 28, 2009, I paid Siegel and BMO the sum of eighty-thousand-dollars ($80,000) to finally settle the BMO Action to clear paid writs (“Paid Writs”). My wife also paid an additional one-thousand-dollar ($1,000) payment to BMO as Siegel accused me of shortchanging him cash that was witnessed as received, counted and receipted by his office before he started threatening calls for money as recorded on my phone.
Attached hereto is the Acknowledge and Agreement of judgment debt paid to Siegel as Exhibit ‘26.1’ Attached hereto is the receipt of judgment debt plus $1,000 paid to BMO as Exhibit ‘26.2’ Attached hereto is the receipt of the Siegel demand for mislaid money paid to BMO as Exhibit ‘26.3’
Stroke after BMO Heavy Handed Litigation and Threatening Phone Calls for Money and a Signed Release
125. Through December 2009 and January 2010, my wife and I wrote BMO to have Siegel clear Paid Writs to allow us to execute a firm sale of our property to cover our loss due its Court Order for debt without trial.
Attached hereto is a December 23, 2009 email asking Siegel to clear Paid Writs as Exhibit ‘27.1’ Attached hereto is a December 29, 2009 letter asking BMO to clear Paid Writs as Exhibit ‘27.2’ Attached hereto is a January 15, 2010 email as to Mr. W Downe responsible for losses as Exhibit ‘27.3’
126. At the beginning of around 2000 when I was informed of the BMO Loan, my wife and I made an offer to settle alleged debt of fifty-thousand-dollars ($50,000) that Siegel refused outright. Siegel called me a “Sitting Duck” with an eighty-thousand-dollar ($8,000) namesake loan he said was not negotiable. He said the law was on his side to collect debt and for the sake of thirty-thousand-dollars ($30,000) BMO sued me for twelve (12) years.
127. On January 17, 2010, I suffered a stroke that has totally changed the quality of my life. I am presently diagnosed with Ischemic Heart Disease that my wife and I attribute to heavy handed and traitorous lawyers apparently willing to interfere with Court documents and procedures and commit perjury to collect $80,000.
128. Sign of an oncoming stroke was evident in my shortness of breath and obvious distress I believe Siegel ignored in his phone calls accusing me that I had shortchanged his legal fees by some $1,000 apparently mislaid in his office, and then again for a mutual release or he would continue litigation for more money.
129. Just two (2) days after my wife wrote Mr. Bill Downe, BMO CEO to Clear Paid Writs on January 15, 2010, I collapsed on January 17, 2010 in the certain knowledge Siegel would not end obsessive litigation, and that I could not sell property to pay a grossly unfair judgment debt. And, that treatment of me as a criminal would continue with me imprisoned in property from which I could not relocate at will as a free Canadian citizen.
(Ref: Attached hereto is a letter from Siegel seeking judgment for more money for BMO as Exhibit ‘9.3’) Attached hereto is a January 18, 2010 Stroke Prevention Diagnosis and Referral Form as Exhibit ‘28.1’
Contradictory affidavits that read as perjury to obstruct justice
130. Through around November 2009 and early 2010, Whitehead reviewed LSUC correspondence and rulings from my complaints about Siegel and Riteman. Whitehead told me how well the Upper Canada Law Society protects lawyers. He advised me to file a claim against the Law Firm alleging professional misconduct in the case of Riteman appearing to interfere with Court documents with intent to obstruct justice.
131. Whitehead told me, as I find believable, that all Debt Defendant’ lawyers, especially Riteman seemed to have worked with Siegel who they copied on letters and emails about legal proceedings they never attended.
132. In 2009, Whitehead received a confusing and contradictory Affidavit from Squires swearing under oath she had never acted for Avalon with respect to the Crawford Counterclaim from 2003 through 2006.
133. Dekker defending Avalon in 2009 denied any knowledge of the BMO Action under oath in his Affidavit that contained the Squires’ Affidavit to prove the Crawford Counterclaim had never been served on Avalon by Noik back in 2003 in a letter from Noik to Squires that Chaimovitch had filed a Notice in Default to Defend against Avalon in Oshawa that was never disclosed to me by Noik, and not known to me until Avalon denied any knowledge of the Crawford Claim prior to it passing its Statute of Limitations.
134. Dekker claimed the evidence of Noik filing a Notice of Default to Defend against Avalon on October 30, 2003 in Oshawa, instead of Milton twenty (20) required days after Noik failed to serve the Crawford Counterclaim
on Avalon on October 10, 2003, was proof Avalon was not privy to the Action, and the reason Avalon filed a Motion for Particulars and Examine Documents for a judge to rule sufficiency for trial.
135. Whitehead did not doubt the validity of correspondence from Noik to Squires, but he told me he disbelieved Squires oath that she had not acted for Avalon. I remembered she had appeared as the lawyer for Avalon attended a BMO Examination for Discoveries of me on January 26, 2006. Whitehead advised me to find the transcript record as perjury by her would be evident in legal documents if both Noik and BMO also addressed Squires as the lawyer for Allied and Perris from 2003 through 2006.
136. In her Affidavit, I understand Squires challenges my recollection of her saying that she appearing for Avalon in the BMO Examination. Squires claimed that given Noik had not objected to her presence, which as she observed in her Affidavit, Noik could have, and should have prevented her from examining me as she had with no right to appear for Avalon if she was noted by Noik in Default to Defend.
137. I recall Whitehead told me the significance of Squires revealing a Noik Notice of Default to Defend was in fact evidence of wrongdoing by Noik as Chaimovitch apparently hid it in the Oshawa Court so not advising me or using it for me, Noik apparently worked in the best interests of BMO, Avalon and Perris to obstruct justice.
138. Also, as I remember how Whitehead explained it, if Squires could be proven to have lied under oath, then Avalon could not truthfully claim to have not known anything about the Crawford Lawsuits and they too would be untruthful under oath, and both Squires and Dekker Affidavits would be read as perjury to avoid trial.
139. Whitehead told me that if he had known about the Noik Notice of Default to Defend against Avalon in January 2009 when he represented me in the Toronto Court of Appeal, he would have made it an issue for trial before Justices Gillese, MacFarland and La Forme, as it should have been an issue for trial.
Attached hereto is Noik Note Default against Avalon to Defend Noik advised to Squires as Exhibit ‘29.1’ Attached hereto is a Process Server Affidavit for Crawford Counterclaim re Avalon as Exhibit ‘29.2’ Attached hereto is the BMO Notice of Motion addressed to Squires acting for Avalon as Exhibit ‘29.3’ Attached hereto is a Court Reporter reference to Squires attending for Avalon as Exhibit ‘29.4’
Proposal to quit Crawford Lawsuits
140. In or around April 2010, given that each and every offer to settle had been refused by BMO and given I had offered to discontinue Crawford Lawsuits that had also been turned down by Siegel, Whitehead suggested a formal proposal method for me and my wife to end a legal nightmare. It meant relieving BMO and all other Debt Defendants of all Crawford Lawsuits at zero cost.
141. Perris did not respond to the proposal, and Whitehead withdrew the offer on April 25, 2010 with a request for an alternative approach in which BMO and all Debt Defendants could be in agreement. But to me, it seemed Siegel wanted more than just a Mutual Release for BMO with respect to the BMO Action.
142. I believe my wife and I have been willing to sign BMO Releases and Consent Orders to discontinue Crawford Lawsuits for the sake of my health and safe return of property apparently held ransom over us by Siegel that unfortunately, Siegel made it easy for me to believe he would never clear BMO Paid Writs no matter which lawyer we engaged to quit the Crawford Lawsuits for me and my wife to move on.
Attached hereto is the April 2010 Whitehead request for alternative proposal to settle as Exhibit ‘30’
New lawyer to discontinue Crawford Lawsuits
143. In or around May 2010 my wife and I engaged Ms. Jasmine Sweatman (“Sweatman”) of the Sweatman Law Firm to discontinue Crawford Lawsuits. We made it clear it was our highest priority and only concern was to be relieved of litigation that was beyond our understanding and highly risky as Whitehead told me that Noik had created a considerable risk to me by citing criminal matters in the Crawford Counterclaim that if not proven made me and my wife liable to considerable punitive legal costs.
144. Sweatman did not recommend pursuing the Crawford v Noik Action as it was potentially past Statutes of Limitations and so it was my choice to not legalize it or serve it on Noik and I left it as an “Administratively” abandoned case in her file-box of Crawford materials.
145. In July 2010 it was unclear who had to sign BMO releases and Sweatman reviewed Perris Cases including the BMO v Perris and Lemberg v Perris Action. Sweatman advised me that IPC Securities would sign on behalf of Emory, rather than Avalon and she wrote me about Minutes of Settlement for BMO Releases.
Attached hereto is Sweatman May 26, 2010 lawyer review of BMO Action situation as Exhibit ‘31.1’ Attached hereto is Crawford July 12, 2010 commitment to settle BMO Action as Exhibit ‘31.2’ Attached hereto is Sweatman July 2010 progress review to settle BMO Action as Exhibit ‘31.3’ Attached hereto is Sweatman September 22, 2010 termination review as Exhibit ‘31.4’
Attached hereto is Sweatman to Hunt September 22, 2010 file as Lawyer of Record as Exhibit ‘31.5’
Toronto Fraud Squad Reviews and Dr. Pepper Class Action against Allied/Avalon/IPC
146. In or around July 2010, Sweatman advised me of the Lemberg v Perris case that found Perris guilty of breach of fiduciary duty to his accounting clients Mr. Eric and Mrs. Valerie Lemberg and taking secret commissions behind a so-called Art-flip tax avoidance scheme. I met MP Terrance Young to discuss the matter as it related to my allegations of crime concerning Perris’s modus operandi. Mr. Young advised me to go to the Toronto Fraud Squad with new found evidence of the Allied Mortgage, which I did by email for an appointment.
147. Through July and August 2010, an Allied investor by the name of Dr. John Pepper (“Pepper”) and other investors called me to discuss Perris and our experience in Allied/Avalon/IPC tax shelter Schemes.
148. Dr. Pepper wrote he would find clients and a lawyer for a Class Action and I received a call from Hunt who said he worked for Cleaver Crawford Law Firm in Burlington on behalf of Pepper and other Allied investors wanting to form a Class Action against Allied Canadian (the “Cleaver Crawford Class Action”).
Attached hereto is an email copy from Dr. Pepper to investors re a Class Action as Exhibit ‘32’
149. Hunt called me and he invited me to visit Cleaver Crawford where I met him and his wife and new baby in the lobby. He claimed to be employed by Cleaver Crawford, and we went to Starbucks where he told me that he wanted me to help him prepare a Class Action Lawsuit for his client Mr. Eldon Hunt on behalf of Dr. Pepper, which I did over several weeks until he said he had enough for a Cleaver Crawford Class Action.
150. Hunt also discussed my meeting MP Terrence Young and the new evidence of the Allied Mortgage. He advised me to visit the Toronto Fraud Squad with a lawyer for my protection and recommended Chris Sweeney (“Sweeney”) to attend a meeting as arranged by Detective Constable Julie O’Riley (“O’Riley”).
Attached hereto is Crawford to MP Terrence Young July 8, 2010 re Perris Affair as Exhibit ‘33.1’ Attached hereto is Crawford to Mr. John Caird FW Email July 24, 2010 as Exhibit ‘33.2’ Attached hereto is Crawford to Detective Constable O’Riley July 26, 2010 email as Exhibit ‘33.3’ Attached hereto is Investors to Detective Constable O’Riley Toronto Fraud Squad as Exhibit ‘33.4’
151. I believe Sweeney asked O’Riley if the Fraud Squad would write me regarding the investigation that had to my understanding started in 2007 when I provided information to Detective Sergeant Logan when he interviewed me at 40 College Street on January 22, 2007 at 10:30 a.m. O’Riley told me the Fraud Squad had no record of the interview, or a file about it. And, the Fraud Squad refused to open a new file or investigate the matter.
Hunt Retainer to Act as Lawyer of Record for BMO Action and Crawford Lawsuits to Clear Paid Writs
152. I believe Hunt told me he had to take over the Crawford Lawsuits as Lawyer of Record for his interest in the Cleaver Crawford Class Action. He told me he needed to collect material from Sweatman, as he was taking over responsibility to me and my wife to discontinue the BMO Action and Crawford Lawsuits.
153. Sweatman wrote me that she had spoken to Hunt and that she would transfer her material to Hunt on the clear understanding he would file as the new Lawyer of Record for the Crawford Lawsuits when he took up employment as a new lawyer with the Cleaver Crawford Law Firm. Sweatman did not have a Mail Address to send letters to Hunt. And, up to around October 28, 2010, Hunt used a personal email: email@example.com while he took his position as a new lawyer in the Cleaver Crawford Law Firm at 530 Brant Street, Burlington.
154. Hunt requested and I paid a two-thousand-dollar ($2,000) retainer for his work on the BMO Paid Writs as his
one and only duty to me and my wife. He was very clear that the only work he would do for me and my wife concerned clearing BMO Paid Writs and that he would follow our instructions towards that end.
155. I believe Hunt was specific that he would only take instructions from his client Mr. Eldon Hunt with respect to the Cleaver Crawford Class Action and the Cleaver Crawford Contingent Action.
156. At no time did Hunt ever invoice me or my wife for any contingent billing work Hunt did for his Client Mr. Eldon Hunt on behalf of Cleaver Crawford initiatives to profit from a potential Class Action against BMO et al., and a Professional Misconduct Action against Noik et al.
(Ref: Attached hereto is the Brian Hunt $2,000 retainer to clear BMO Paid Writs as Exhibit ‘9.1’)
Kestenberg examines Anthony and Jill Crawford and Hunt refuses to examine Riteman
157. In or around August 2011, I believe Hunt arranged for me and my wife to sign affidavits that he typed up for us to meet Kestenberg for examination. I prepared my own Affidavit, which Hunt said he did not need as he was representing the Cleaver Crawford Contingency Action. I remember Hunt telling me and my wife that Kestenberg did not like Noik and that Riteman had little credibility defending professional misconduct in the case of alleged interference with Court Documents with intent to obstruct justice.
158. As I remember the time, Hunt told me and my wife we could not examine Riteman until Kestenberg examined us first. Kestenberg insisted he examine me before my wife as he specifically wanted to ask questions of her to corroborate my testimony. Kestenberg asked me if I recognized emails from Noik, which appeared to me as if they had been made up as MSWord documents rather than genuine emails. I have never seen the transcript.
159. Kestenberg insisted it was my entire fault as I had not accepted a BMO offer to settle.
160. Kestenberg told me Riteman had filed the Ghost Factum according to civil procedure and that he had not appeared to interfere with court documents.
161. Immediately after examinations, Hunt took me and my wife into a private meeting room and announced that he had called his client Mr. Eldon Hunt who recommended withdrawing the Cleaver Crawford Contingency Action because the case was not as strong as thought, and that he [Hunt] could not think of any questions he could ask Riteman that would prove anything to win the LawPRO professional misconduct insurance claim.
162. After around August 2011, the more time me and my wife spent with Hunt the more confused we became and the more pressure and the more urgent he seemed to be in wanting us sign the Noik Indemnity Release.
163. In or around January 2012, I sent an alternative Noik Release to Kestenberg with a request that my wife’s name that he had simply asked Allen to add Jill Crawford to the Cleaver Crawford Contingency Action be removed as a judge bestowed Plaintiff from the re-styled Anthony Crawford and others v Noik Action that replaced the Cleaver Crawford LawPRO lawyer professional misconduct insurance claim, apparently as planned according to the Hunt Setup. Kestenberg has refused to consider it and LawPRO still wants the Noik Indemnity Release to be signed by me and my wife, or it will in effect be signed by a judge to protect alleged criminal from prosecution that is apparently Option A in the execution of the Hunt Setup on February 23, 2012.
Attached hereto is Kestenberg to Crawford for Jill to remain as a bestowed Plaintiff as Exhibit ‘34’
Debt Defendant lawyers’ lengthy Motion for Particulars and Examination of Documents
164. I had hoped payment to Siegel and BMO and writing Siegel we would sign a Release would end all legal matters, including the Crawford Claim that I had offered and I was still willing to abandon, but Siegel had called me on the phone twice and he had written me threatening a lawsuit if he didn’t get a signed Mutual Release. According to Hunt, BMO was still threatening a lawsuit and the prospect of a repeat of how I was treated by Langdon, Harris and Gillese, MacFarland and LaForme in three Courts was terrifying – I remembered how I suffered a choking fit while Siegel continued his demands on the phone that went on for about twenty (20) minutes in a recording of it as it happened.
165. In or around April 2011, Hunt advised me that all the Debt Defendants’ lawyers were behind a Dekker lengthy Motion for Particulars and Examination of Documents continued by Ms. Sandra Monardo (“Monardo”) of
Affleck Green McMurtry LLP for a judge to rule sufficiency of evidence for trial of the Crawford Claim.
166. I believe that Monardo coordinated her threat of a judge enforcing me and my wife’s surrender to the BMO threat for BMO Releases in letters that continued through the 2011 year while Hunt apparently laid out the Hunt Setup for judges to dismiss 1) the Crawford Counterclaim that had a Note Default against Avalon for failing to file Notice of Intent to Defend and/or Statement of Defense that Chaimovitch apparently filed in the Oshawa Court for it to be hidden back in 2003, 2) the Crawford Claim that had a Motion for Particulars and Examination of Documents apparently filed in Milton Court for a judge to rule on its sufficiency for trial, or not, and 3) the Cleaver Crawford Contingency Action apparently filed in Toronto Court in a Hunt Setup that Hunt said was a foregone conclusion [in all cases] in a recorded phone call to me and my wife, quote; “A judge would never sign on your behalf, they would just make an order that is equivalent to you signing... there is no defense, they would basically say that the actions are dismissed.”
167. In or around September 2011, after my wife and I signed BMO Releases that Hunt witnessed in his office at Cleaver Crawford, Hunt told me that Momardo had in fact not filed a Motion Record at Milton Court to enforce the BMO Release. I remember Hunt advising there was no need to for me to check with the court as he knew it was not scheduled even though Monardo had written Avalon had scheduled such a hearing for a judgment that Hunt told me and my wife in a recorded phone call he could not defend and that a judge would rule some $30,000 legal costs shared among all lawyers against us – the same as the Harris ruling in 2008.
Attached hereto is Monardo to Hunt cc lawyers April 7, 2011 to enforce BMO Releases as Exhibit ‘35.1’ Attached hereto is Prof Chant Canadian government ABCP Crisis in Canada Overview as Exhibit ‘35.2’ Attached hereto is Allied a.k.a Avalon a.k.a IPC Securities IIROC Settlement as Exhibit ‘35.3’ Attached hereto is Index of Reply to Avalon Securities Motion for Particulars as Exhibit ‘35.4’ Attached hereto is ICAO v Perris Allied Investor Experience Data Analysis as Exhibit ‘35.5’
168. I believe Noik and Associates denied me the right to a fair trial. I also believe the actions of Noik lawyers created unnecessary work that was contrived to create delays beyond statutes of limitations. I believe Noik is responsible for gratuitous litigation that in effect continued into unnecessary billing for an appeal for trial and recovery of Crawford Lawsuits against Perris that Noik made more difficult, if not impossible to litigate than it ever needed to have been.
169. I believe it was wrong of Hunt to swear an Affidavit he was Lawyer of Record for the Crawfords when it is apparent he was not. I believe it was wrong of Hunt to mislead a judge to consign my wife’s name to a Cleaver Crawford Consignment Action and re-style it an Anthony Crawford and others v Noik Action through crafty manipulation of court procedures.
170. Nothing in this affidavit is intended to constitute a waiver of any privilege between myself and my current or any previous legal counsel, except and only insofar as such waiver is necessary to advance this motion.
171. This affidavit is sworn in support of the instant motion for, among other relief, to declare the settlement in this action. This affidavit is sworn for no other or improper purpose.
Index to Affidavit Exhibits
Description of Exhibit Materials Page
Intro BMO /Allied Canadian Pre-executed BMO Investment Loan Promissory Notes 2
1.1 RCMP review of potentially criminal acts re Perris et al. 26
1.2 Halton Regional Police response to Crawford allegations about Perris 27
1.3 Halton Regional Police response to Crawford allegations about Noik 29
1.4 (LSUC Complaint re Legal Representations in the BMO/Allied affair) 30
1.5 ICAO v Perris Disciplinary Committee decision 31
2.1 Petition 44 signed by Hon. Jack Layton 36
2.2 Liberal Party support for the OSC to reopen the Crawford Case File 37
3.1 BMO Action litigation history and Noik Indemnity Release Matrix 40
3.2 December 1, 2011 Hunt Motion and Affidavit he is Lawyer of Record 41
3.3 December 12, 2011 Hunt Affidavit he is Lawyer of Record 45
3.4 Lawsuit Title of Proceedings on three Actions 46
3.5 December 28, 2011 Hunt advice he is not Lawyer of Record 47
3.6 October 25, 2011 Noik Motion to execute a “falling to sign” 48
4.1 December 21, 2011 Court ruling on Hunt never filed Motion to Remove 50
4.2 Noik Court Ruling on improperly served Motion for Order to be Lawyer 51
4.3 December 21, 2011 Hunt follow up for Crawfords to engage lawyers 53
5.1 November 25, 2011 Noik demand for signed release 56
5.2 December 19, 2011 Kestenberg receipt of Crawford Release 57
5.3 December 19, 2011 Noik Release that Kestenberg refused to accept 58
5.4 December 19, 2011 Crawford letter to Hunt re situation 59
5.5 December 21, 2011 written pleadings to dismiss Hunt Actions 61
5.6 February 24, 2012 date to adjourn Kestenberg refused to accept 63
6.1 September 21, 2011 Crawford to Hunt to dismiss him as Crawford lawyer 66
6.2 October 13, 2011 LawPRO letter to Hunt request for release 67
6.3 October 14, 2011 Hunt to LawPRO to be “Off-record” 68
7.0 LawPRO – Noik “Standard” Indemnity Release 70
8.0 BMO Action Releases as required by BMO to lift “Paid Writs” 74
9.1 October 28, 2010 Cleaver Crawford retainer to act for Crawford re BMO Action Files 78
9.2 September 2, 2009 receipts to lift “Paid Writs” 79
9.3 September 8, 2009 lift writs of “Power of Seizure” for BMO Releases 80
9.4 March 29, 2011 Hunt letter to Siegel must lift “Paid Writs” that “Violates Natural Justice” 81
9.5 Jill Crawford email thanking Hunt for his letter to BMO to lift “Paid Writs” 84
9.6 November 4, 2011 Cleaver Crawford billing Statement of Account for all client Actions 86
10.1 August 26, 2011 Hunt to LawPRO that Noik Release is required 90
10.2 August 30, 2011 LawPRO to Hunt that Release is not required 91
10.3 October 19, 2011 Jill Crawford to Hunt concern about Releases 92
10.4 November 8, 2011 Hunt options letter to continue to represent the Crawfords 93
10.5 November 20, 2011 Jill Crawford to Hunt about Noik situation 94
10.6 November 24, 2011 Hunt options letter to continue to represent the Crawfords 95
10.7 November 26, 2011 Crawford letter to Hunt holding him responsible for consequences 96
10.8 December 2, 2011 Crawford letter to Hunt about BMO/Noik situation 97
10.9 December 8, 2011 Hunt letter for Noik Release 100
11.1 December 21, 2011 Crawford Motion before the Court ruled as unheeded 102
11.2 December 21, 2011 Crawford Affidavit before the Court ruled as unheeded 105
11.3 December 21, 2011 Crawford written pleadings before the Court ruled as unheeded 113
12.1 January 2012 BMO Satisfaction Piece to lift “Paid Writs” 116
12.2 January 20, 2012 Orders to Dismiss BMO Actions and Crawford Lawsuits under duress 117
13.1 September 24, 2008 Supplementary Notice of Appeal re BMO Loan dependent risk 120
13.2 January 30, 2009 Appeal Court Ruling finding no credible evidence for trial re BMO 121
13.3 August 28, 1989 BMO / Allied agency relationship 122
13.4 July 25, 2005 LSUC review of Emory as “Taker of Affidavits” for so-called “Sitting Ducks” 123
13.5 BMO undertaking to define Allied business relationship 124
13.6 BMO definition of CDS – Credit Default Swaps 125
14.0 May 22, 2008 Justice Langdon Ruling that Crawford had to be self-represented 128
15.1 December 11, 1996 BMO Statement of Claim against Perris to collect Allied Loan 130
15.2 January 25, 1997 Perris Statement of Defense 132
15.3 February 5, 1997 BMO Reply to Perris Statement of Defense 133
15.4 Court Order to Dismiss BMO v Perris Action not dated 134
15.5 BMO-NB news that banker forges client signatures for investment transactions 135
16.1 September 30, 1987 2:13 A.M. filing of Allied “Head Office” Mortgage 138
16.2 September 30, 1987 2:13 A.M. filing of Allied “Head Office” Assignment of Rentals 139
16.3 December 14, 1989 BMO notification to save income tax credits on unnumbered loan 140
17.1 December 1, 1989 Crawford Collateral Deficiency Notification re unusual “initials” 142
17.2 December 1, 1989 BMO Internal Memo re Allied/BMO promissory notes 142
18.1 Crawford Ph.D. Dissertation BMO/Allied Business Model Cash Flow Analysis Chart 144
18.2 Crawford Ph.D. Dissertation Cash Flow Analysis of BMO/Allied Codependent Notes 145
18.3 Crawford Ph.D. Dissertation BMO/Allied Commingled Loan Debt Creation Workflow 146
18.4 Crawford Ph.D. Dissertation BMO/Allied “Daylight Loans Closing” commingled account 147
18.5 March 31, 1990 Crawford Review Perris / Crawford Engagement Letter 148
19.1 Crawford Ph.D. Dissertation BMO/Allied ABCP “Step Transaction” procedure 150
19.2 Crawford Ph.D. Dissertation BMO/Allied connect-the-dots index to BMO loan documents 151
19.3 Allied 89-2 Package for an undocumented BMO Loan 152
19.4 Allied 90-1 Package for an undocumented BMO Loan 153
19.5 Handwriting analysis of BMO Ms. Carol Sullivan 154
20.1 January 10, 2008 record of evidential perjury by BMO 156
20.2 May 1, 2008 Riteman follow up of apparent perjury 157
20.3 May 2008 Riteman and Razenberg working from home 158
20.4 May 2008 email chain re Noik intentions to act for Crawford 160
20.5 May 12, 2008 Crawford to Siegel request for adjournment that was denied 163
20.6 May 23, 2008 Noik letter re not serving Crawford Claim 164
21.1 August 21, 2002 Crawford offer to settle BMO Action 166
21.2 February 13, 2003 Crawford offer to settle BMO Action 167
21.3 May 25, 2004 Crawford consideration offer to settle BMO Action 168
21.4 May 24, 2007 Crawford offer to dismiss BMO Action 169
21.5 February 11, 2008 Crawford zero cost offer to settle BMO Action 170
21.6 May 22, 2008 Crawford walk-away offer to settle BMO Action 171
22.0 June 30, 2010 Court File 682/07 Citation re Lemberg v Perris Judgment 174
23.0 May 26, 2008 BMO v Anthony Crawford Harris Court Transcript 182
24.0 March 18, 2010 LSUC reply to complaint about Siegel Case 2009 - 72179 196
25.1 January 28, 2009 Crawford request for Crown Intervention in the BMO / Allied affair 200
25.2 April 3, 2009 Canadian government reply that BMO Action is a personal matter 201
25.3 April 7, 2010 Crawford second request for Crown Intervention 202
26.1 August 28, 2009 BMO Acknowledgement and Agreement of judgment debt paid 204
26.2 September 2, 2009 $1,000.00 receipt for Siegel demand for “mislaid money” paid 205
26.3 September 2, 2009 letter to BMO CEO to settle differences re Siegel demands for money 206
27.1 December 23, 2009 Crawford request to Siegel to clear “Paid Writs” 208
27.2 December 29, 2009 Crawford request to BMO to clear “Paid Writs” 209
27.3 January 15, 2010 email Crawford holding BMO CEO Mr. Downe responsible for losses 210
28.0 January 18, 2010 Crawford stroke prevention diagnosis and referral 212
29.1 October 30, 2003 / March 30, 2004 Noik Note Default against Avalon / advice to Squires 214
29.2 October 10, 2003 Affidavit of Service to Avalon 215
29.3 March 21, 2007 BMO Notice of Motion addressed to Squires as Lawyer for Avalon 217
29.4 December 23, 2009 Court Reporter log Squires as Lawyer for Avalon January 16, 2006 219
30.0 April 25, 2010 Whitehead request for alternative proposal to settle all Crawford Lawsuits 222
31.1 May 26, 2010 Sweatman as lawyer for Crawford Review of BMO Action to settle 224
31.2 July 12, 2010 Crawford commitment to settle BMO Action with BMO Releases 225
31.3 July 2010 Sweatman progress review to settle BMO Action with BMO Releases 226
31.4 September 22, 2010 Sweatman termination review 227
31.5 September 22, 2010 Sweatman advice to Hunt to file as Lawyer of Record 228
32.0 August 25, 2010 Dr. John Pepper Emails of Investors 230
33.1 July 8, 2010 Crawford letter to MP Terrence Young re “Identity Theft” in the Perris Affair 232
33.2 July 24, 2010 FW: Email to Mr. John Caird 233
33.3 July 26, 2010 Crawford email to Detective Constable O’Riley Toronto fraud Squad 235
33.4 July 26, 2010 Investor List to Detective Constable O’Riley Toronto fraud Squad 237
34.0 February 10, 2012 Kestenberg demand that Jill Crawford must sign LawPRO Release 240
35.0 April 7, 2011 Avalon Securities Motion for Particulars and Examination of Documents 242
DOWNLOAD FULL DOCUMENT WITH EXHIBITS