Unit 37 – 223 Rebecca Street
Oakville ON L6K 3Y2 Tel: 905 842 4798
The Hon Thomas Mulcair (firstname.lastname@example.org cc c1a@ and regular mail)
NDP Leader, House of Commons, Ottawa ON K1A 0A6
March 28, 2012
My NDP Leader,
Subject: NDP Federal MP Private Member Bill re Identity Theft Tax Fraud as a Budget Deficit Issue.
Reference: January 28, 2009 letter to Department of Justice, April 3, 2009 reply, and April 7, 2010 follow up.
I write to congratulate you on winning the Federal Leadership and wish you well to support NDP vision for a fair and just society. I refer to our meeting on March 24, 2012 when you accepted the offer of my book to read identity theft debt that is ‘Contaging’. As you know I dedicated my story to Jack Layton who signed Petition 44 for an investigation into predatory lending practices behind trick loans outlined in the attached letters from my experiential study of civil litigation about predatory lending practices and potentially criminal tax shelter scams that appear to defraud law abiding taxpayers’ of their private and public wealth. (Ref: www.contaging.com).
On April 3, 2009, The Minister of Justice, the Hon Robert Nicholson advised me to hire a lawyer to settle Bank of Montreal litigation, which I did. The new lawyer composed and witnessed BMO releases that in consideration of lifting paid writs on property apparently held ransom – my wife and I signed Orders to dismiss a counterclaim and claim that relieved the bank and its agent apparently notarizing paid witnessing by sales reps for bank loans. The lawyer advised me I would be compensated from a professional misconduct insurance claim by his law firm alleging the previous law firm; concealed a Note Default to defend against a key defendant, hid evidence, did not challenge mistruths, quit without replacement, and appeared in a transcript to swap my Factum for Defense for a nonsensical misleading Factum to apparently obstruct justice. The court accepted substituted material and indeed quoted from it as it ruled for BMO to collect according to the RCMP – a potentially criminal identity theft loan.
It seems the firm converted a contingent action into a SLAPP – Strategic Lawsuit against Public Participation. I witnessed LawPRO urge a judge to name my wife as if a Plaintiff by apparent misrejoinder mistook by identity theft by the lawyer we retained following ministerial advice. We are now threatened with costs and possible jail sentences if we do not sign a release to consent to yet another Order that LawPRO appears to need to indemnify BMO and any corporation, lawyer and accountant in its litigation or any lawsuit that might arise from the action.
The SLAPP is vexatious. We retained a lawyer to have BMO lift paid writs and we quit litigating January 2012.
I have been advised to lay a private information charge regarding these matters subject to summary judgment as the LawPRO claim has no defense according to the lawyer who filed for his law firm. In fairness, I claim payment and/or that a judge will reverse the LawPRO ‘prayer’ for a release deemed signed if a judge had executed it from an improperly served instant action that with only one day’s notice I filed to defend with the attached Affidavit.
As my Party leader, I want to know if you will debate ABCP – Asset Backed Commercial Paper scams whereby duped investors sign notional value CDS – Credit Default Swaps as unwitting insurers liable to repay so-called ‘Toxic Loan’ investor notes, which as unregulated Third Party Non-banknotes launder derived interest charges and apparently $32 B principal in default for cash through taxation as irreconcilable government expenditures.
I request an NDP MP raises ABCP Non-banknotes as a budget deficit issue in a private member bill. Please feel free to call me if you need more information about my 2011 Capitalism without Capital Ph.D. Discussion Paper.
Att: SLAPP Affidavit Exhibits: January 28, 2009, April 7, 2010 letter to Department of Justice, April 3, 2009 reply, Book, Affidavit.
Cc: As per Jan 28, 2009 letter to the Canadian government for Crown Intervention, LawPRO Lawyer
Private Affidavit Tab 25.1 Page 20
Private Affidavit Tab 25.2 Page 201Private Affidavit Tab 25.3 Page 202
Minister of Justice, Hon. Robert Nicholson
House of Commons, Ottawa, Canada
April 7, 2010
Dear Mr. Nicholson,
Subject: So-called ‘Sitting Duck’ Loans – Intervener Status
Thank you for your response to my appeal for intervener status concerning a ‘Sitting Duck’ loan hidden debt in a tax sheltered RRSP – retirement savings plan that in civil litigation to collect became an election issue in 2006.
As before, I write at a significant stage of jurisprudence in a financial scandal you advise a single occurrence is a personal problem. Lawyers counsel me to sign a mutual release for the return of my home that is my only condition to abandon a lawsuit defended by the Bank of Montreal.
Alleged debtors to trick loans have the onus to prove a dealer is a bank agent. In my case, a judge overlooked a Note Default to defend against the agent also rejected by an Appeal Court that simply ruled, ‘loan documentation makes it clear that there is no credible evidence for trial with respect to BMO.’
I was denied a trial as a defendant. Crafty lawyers protected an agent from testifying in court that found a copy of a seemingly forged note more credible than a step transaction paper trail with one loan application BMO used to fill out two notes to close two sales. As a claimant, I fear my answers to a Motion for Particulars for the agent to plead will be dismissed as farfetched – with costs.
The LSUC – Upper Canada Law Society has resolved allegations about; perjury, withheld evidence, a swapped Factum, and interference with court procedure to obstruct justice. LSUC finds a court transcript of a lawyer swapping a Factum Defense and Counterclaim for a Factum Defense to eliminate a counterclaim is not proof of a mistrial. The Society advises a lawyer denying a note in one court while defending it in another is merely tactical. LSUC rejects a complaint about bank threats to seize and sell my house to extort money on paid writs. Writing a lawyer is obliged to carry out instructions that quote, “I may not agree with”, also convinced me to discontinue an undefended counterclaim under duress.
What a tangled web we weave. Canadian law allows a past lawyer as a bank agent, to notarize signature affidavits for contingent loans. Evidence denied or withheld followed a Note Default to defend a counterclaim. A default judgment against the agent could have settled a loan in default without fuss, with none the wiser. And, a lawyer responding to LSUC about withholding evidence would not have revealed the agent’s CDS – Credit Default Swap mortgage in default.
Finding a CDS mortgage withheld from court confirms my testimony consistent with the RCMP citing potential criminal acts, i.e. Market Pricing Code S 380(2), Concealed Encumbrances 385(1), False Oaths 131(1) and 134(1), Identity Theft 402.2(1), Identity Trafficking 402.2(2), and Secret Commissions 426(1). LSUC resolutions imply obstruction of justice 137 and 139(1). A bank holding writs as ransom to avoid trial is not civil, and I urge the government to uphold the law.
Mr. Nicholson, do you agree CDS–RRSP tax credits cost Canadians through tax avoidance not intended by the law? Some would call it tax evasion, even fraud. Personal misfeasance is past statute of limitations. Will you intervene on behalf of thrifty people apparently in hock to Ponzi tax credit loans? Regarding public debt, will you evaluate the law consistent with NDP Petition 44 for an inquiry, and my discussions with Hon. James Flaherty for a G20 Reverse Onus Rule?
Private Affidavit Tab 3.3 Page 48
LawPRO Claim SLAPP Motion to Dismiss with Costs and the Release
Plaintiff’s Order from Consent UNDER DURESS that Reverses the SLAPP Defendant’s Motion for LawPRO Release
LawPRO required Release to indemnify all entities and all professionals involved in said BMO Action
Private Affidavit 7 Page 70-71