September 30, 2005.
Via email
Roy; again, just you and me, private man to private man, I
write to you in honour, this second time, seeking your agreement
that:
1. I came to Salloum Doak in May of 1992, a victim
of:
a) criminal
fraud
b) solicitor
negligence.
2. This was evident at the time I presented myself and my
case to your predecessor-firm, Salloum Doak.
3. Your predecessor-firm, now Doak Shirreff, agreed at
that time, to represent my best interests in recovering my losses from the
negligent/criminal parties and/or insurance agencies; i.e.: Lawyers'
Insurance Fund.
4. In June of 1994, Marvin Geekie filed a false Trial
Certificate and Certificate of Readiness.
5. On February 2, 1995, Grant Hardwick and Marvin
Geekie resigned as my legal counsel, just 1 working day prior to my first
trial date.
6. They acted throughout the entire contract, in a
conflict of interest.
7. Their departure was abrupt, leaving me at a most
critical moment.
8. They breeched their contract with me, making it
null and void, according to law.
9. Their breech of contract has caused me considerable
damages that to this day are still accruing.
10. I still have my rights and remedies, guaranteed in
equity.
11. You and your firm have also suffered damages on
account of the position that you have taken, that I've published my account of,
first by dissemination via facsimile campaign and handing out printed copies,
and more recently by my website publication.
13. A filed document is a public document.
14. I have no significant control over what other people
do and cannot be held responsible for their actions.
15. Being classified as I am, without prejudice
or admission of correctness, as having a mental disability, creates a
stigma and a significant loss of credibility, reducing one's
success, quality and enjoyment in life, apart from any other
contributing factor.
16. You and your firm have a professional obligation to
consider my ability to pay your judgment over enforcing your
judgment.
17. You and your firm have no standing in law on your
position to demand that I remove my site, as a condition in your
consideration in the execution of the sale of my home.
18. A happier ending for me, published on my website, say
$7,000.00 as a total payout against your judgment, a significant
but achievable figure for me, would in fact be mitigating those damages
referred to in point 11.
19. Were the Law Society's insurer to accept such a
figure, their contribution to facilitate what would still be achievable for me,
we would all simply be mitigating damages.
20. Mitigating damages is merely the prudent thing to do;
there is no loss of face in mitigating one's damages.
21. Your losses as a result of your generous consideration
in this settlement, would be an acceptable entry in your ledger, reducing your
taxable income.
21. An agreeable settlement, now, would be in everybody's
best interests.
I look forward to your agreement in honour, Roy,
privately, private man to private man. Due to the close of your imposed
dead-line, if I do not hear back from you by Monday @ 10:30, I will accept as
your decision not to reply to my each and every point, your tacit agreement,
serve public notice and arrange this reasonable and
achievable financing. Let us all mitigate our damages and get on with our
lives; what's done can be changed.
Yours very truly
David Thomson
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Thursday, September 29, 2005 10:48 PM
Subject: Between you and me..
Mr. Sommerey;
Just between you and I, let's be
frank.
Your references to slander and
defamation were addressed in 1997 by my letter to your client, when I gave him
the opportunity to identify to me, which part(s) of "My Horror Story", he
thought were untrue. Instead, he did not reply to me.
Instead, he told Kirby Grant that he
was fine with the 6 page version of the original "facsimile campaign", now "My
Horror Story". Also, there can be nothing
mis-represented by email exchanges where others have the opportunity to assess
both sides, including substantiating material, referenced with-in.
Still, I will extend the opportunity
again, 8 years later; what part, if any is untrue?
Of those who have taken the
liberty of expressing their feelings, more than one responded to me with
referrals to brokers that they knew but the bottom line remains that:
a) I need to be able to present an
accurate sum total to remove all debts, in order to be accepted for
financing
b) that sum total has to reflect into
a total mortgage payment that will leave me with some grocery money; I would be
thrilled with what you spend on lunch, alone. No offence - just being
frank.
However uninformed you may think that
Mr. Fisher or others are, he is right about the volume of people who are
watching the outcome of this courtroom drama that is coming to its
conclusion;however unentitled you may think they might be to their opinions,
they will form them as they see this unfold, verbatim. Again, no offence
meant.
A close friend of mine recently
stopped for no reason and offered a lift to an old indian that was just sitting
on the side of the road, just north of Enderby. My friend doesn't pick up
hitch-hikers and the indian wasn't hitch-hiking. The indian got in the car and
said, "What kept yuh? I been waiting here for quite a while, now". My friend
immediately regretted his impulse, thinking the guy was drunk.
Then the indian said, "Here, I got
your tee-shirt for yuh." and handed him a grey tee-shirt with 3 eagle feathers
on the right right sleeve, pointing down. When my friend related the story
later, we all had a good time, teasing him about "wearing his feather down" but
we thought hard and long about the implications of the incident and the old
indian's comments. It's become a motto among us all as we mused individually and
collectively over the incident.
And then I received your proposal,
leaving me with what I strongly feel are outrageous demands; unjust
demands. They offend me and I'm back in "campaign mode".
You've aimed to command my
co-operation in a variety of ways and I've rebelled, entirely. The fact remains,
even if you sell my home, I won't take my site down and you will
look all the more, the villian in the eyes of so many. As you proceed to
file for an injunction to have my site abolished, I will, among other
things, further proceed to appeal to the court of public appeal.
Or you could be gracious, cut me a
charitable bargain, leaving me relatively intact and come away from this looking
like good guys. Most certainly I've already repeatedly suffered considerable
injury since the unsecured conveyance of the sale of my business, back in
1991. It's literally worn me thin.
You want me to put a figure to you,
first; o.k., I'll try, though I want to be certain that I will be able to meet
the demands that come, attached. Mr. Hardwick quoted a figure of $ 7,500.00
in his letter of Oct. 1997. Then as now, my bank
refused.
I suggest this figure, not as an
insult to you but because, provided the Lawyers' Insurance Fund would
accept a similar amount, it would leave me in a more realistic, rather
than an impossible position to carry the extra financing. And that would resolve
a lot of issues for everybody, making for "a happier ending".
While I maintain my right and remedy
in equity, I assure you that I have a lot of more pleasant activities that I
would rather persue than "campaign", if I didn't feel so provoked to continue.
As for what occupies my thoughts whilst I campaign; I think of other innovative
ways to convey my message - call me "driven".
Again, I mean no provocation; I only
wish to be frank, sharing these personal thoughts with you, Roy Sommerey,
the private man, man to man, in my sincere effort to mitigate any further
damages to all parties affected.
I trust you can understand that
I seek your agreement, herein.
Yours very truly,
David Thomson
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Thursday, September 29, 2005 5:51 PM
Subject: FW: David (email from Ken Fisher)
From: Roy
Sommerey [mailto:RSommerey@doakshirreff.com]
Sent: Thursday, September 29, 2005 10:31
AM
To: Volkmann,
Susan
Subject: FW: David (email
from Ken Fisher)
I must say Mr. Thomson
has some very short sighted friends and supporters. They shout from the
sidelines thinking they are helping when they are doing the opposite. Easy
for them to do when its not their houses that are on the line. Also, these
communications give us evidence to support a defamation action against Mr.
Thomson, should we decide to take that step (which he is making harder and
harder for us not to do). His friends would better serve him by providing
financial assistance. I suppose its easier to vent their ill informed
opinions.
I have been willing to
negotiate with Mr. Thomson to come to a reasonable solution for both
sides. Unfortunately, he has chosen to communicate and circulate events
and developments to people who are not directly involved. I have asked him
to discontinue broadcasting of untrue and misleading defamatory comments about
our firm and it seems he has chosen not to do so. I asked him to keep our
negotiations between the parties involved, and he has chosen not to. Now
we are getting emails from others who I do not seem to have the basic
understanding we are willing to discuss ways to resolve this matter, and
that if they harass us, we could change our mind about doing
so.
This is his last
notice. Please let him know that if he does not immediately remove all his
web site material about our firm, and its lawyers off the internet and
stop circulating our emails forthwith to persons who are not necessary
participants in this discussion (like Mr. Fisher), we will cease any
consideration of negotiating and proceed through the courts without further
discussion. He has 24 hours to get his web site off line and to take the
steps necessary to ensure his friends don’t carry on for him. No further
transmissions of our emails and letters to others will be tolerated.
If we get one more email like this, we will cease discussing
settlement and proceed to collect the money the Court has determined we are
entitled to. I will not bother scheduling an appointment with
you or discussing anything further until www.ourcourtssuck.com and the
information on it is off the net.
Thank
you.
From: Ken
Fisher [mailto:kgfisher@shaw.ca]
Sent: Thursday, September 29, 2005 10:02
AM
To: Roy Sommerey
Subject:
David
Thousands of people in Kelowna are watching how
you and your firm Doak Shirreff mishandle the matter between Grant Hardwick
and David Thomson.
I am appalled at
your controlling and threatening statements...
"I wonder what you were thinking while you were
carrying on your advertising campaign, your rant against our firm,
etc."
"Also, I don’t accept
the fact you are involving persons other than your advocate at interior
health."
" Stop involving
others not directly involved, or I’ll stop the discussion."
"We recommend you keep
a low profile if you want to work towards a resolution."
Why your hypocrisy
when you are involving many others at your disposal then threaten Mr. Thomson
for doing so.
This kind on control
and threats give lawyers a very bad name.
It is the general
opinion in Kelowna that Mr. Hardwick screwed Mr. Thompson
by pulling out at the eleventh hour.
No one wants to do
business with a law firm that one cannot trust.
Now Kelowna feels that you
and Doak Shirreff continue to screw Mr. Thompson.
The firms of Doak
Shirreff will lose hundreds of thousands of dollars of business over the
years.
Mr. Hardwick and you
are shooting yourselves in the foot by not concluding this matter expeditiously
in a fair & humane manner.
I encourage you to
conclude this matter for all involved.
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG
Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.11.9/115 - Release Date:
9/29/2005