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 -----
From: David Thomson
To: Roy Sommerey
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 -----
From: Volkmann, Susan
To: idslayer@telus.net
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 donít 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

 

Dear Mr. Sommery:

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 donít accept the fact  you are involving persons other than your advocate at interior health."

" Stop involving others not directly involved, or Iíll 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.

Regards,

K. Fisher


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