From: Roy SommereyTo: David ThomsonCc: Volkmann, SusanSent: Wednesday, September 28, 2005 5:50 PMSubject: RE: Your proposal
I appreciate your financial situation is tight. As I presume you have always known this, I wonder what you were thinking while you were carrying on your advertising campaign, your rant against our firm, etc. (no explanation is requested or necessary).
I am not prepared to submit a different offer at this time. The best thing will be for you to go out and see what money you can raise from a mortgage lender, friends, or whomever, and make an offer which we can then consider. We look forward to hearing from you when you find out what you can accomplish on an equity refinance. We suggest you move as diligently as you can in this effort as we will proceed with Registrar’s reference on the Court Order Enforcement Act proceeding and to have our costs assessed as scheduled.
Also, I don’t accept the fact you are involving persons other than your advocate at interior health (ie. Phil Smith, Red, Law Society, etc.). Stop involving others not directly involved, or I’ll stop the discussion. As stated in my settlement proposal, we recommend you keep a low profile if you want to work towards a resolution that will eventually be to your advantage over the situation which you now face.
From: David Thomson [mailto:email@example.com]
Sent: Wednesday, September 28, 2005 9:13 AM
To: Roy Sommerey
Cc: Susan Volkmann - Interior Health; Red; Philip R. Smith; Grant Hardwick; Hazel Cords; Law Society of B.C.
Subject: Your proposal
725 Franklyn Road
Kelowna, British Columbia
September 27, 2005
C/o Doak Shirreff Via email
Leon Avenue, Kelowna, B.C. Fax (250) 763-4780
Having turned your proposal over in my mind for more than a week, now, I’ve come to the conclusion that no matter how I turn it, your proposal is simply unacceptable.
You propose that I pay your firm $ 300.00 per month, on top of my $ 532.00 monthly 1st mortgage payment. While $ 300.00 per month might be equivalent to “lunch money" for you and your client, it would leave me with $ 14.00 per month for all of my groceries and daily necessities. The additional $ 410.00 per month that I receive as “rental income” barely covers the costs of heat, hydro, water, insurance, etc.
Your client is already aware, having canvassed my mortgage provider (of 20 years, now) in 1997, that they are unwilling to extend my credit further, even as little as $ 7,500.00. As such, I have been actively engaged in seeking a new 1st mortgage lender, hoping to secure enough funds to encompass my debt to you and also, in order to qualify, must also satisfy the judgment that the Lawyers’ Insurance Fund holds in Marc Whittemore’s name.
Therefore, I propose that if you are indeed sincere in stating that you do not wish to sell my home and that if your client, Mr. Hardwick is sincere in his wish to show “mercy” on me, that you come up with an adjusted sum total, your “bottom dollar”, that would reasonably reflect my limited ability to secure sufficient funds to pay your judgment, yet large enough to satisfy your needs.
The rest of the conditions in your proposal have nothing to do with your judgment to sell my home and amount to no less than an attempt on your part to extort my right to free speech.
In closing, let me be clear. I came to your law firm, a victim of criminal fraud, having lost, as your client put it, “the lion’s share of the sale price of my business”. While you and your client only ever wanted to be paid, I only ever wanted your client to perform the work that he agreed to perform. Out of that, I would have happily paid, commensurate with the outcome of the work that was performed. Mr. Hardwick saw fit to quit without living up to his agreement to me, leaving me without any resources to pay his substantial fees.
Yours ver truly,
c.c. Hazel Cords – Lawyers’ Insurance Fund: fax (604) 682- 5842, Susan Volkmann – Interior Health, et al
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.11.8/114 - Release Date: 9/28/2005