I received an email from abraca, who I though was you, so I responded to it thinking I was sending it to you. 


The requests on the web page are at the end of my email.  My requests of the mortgage broker information speak for themselves.  We will not consider anything less than $11,000.00 or so, unless I see the documentary corroboration from the bank and broker that confirms this is all you can pay.  I’m sure you can understand if we’re not just going to take your word for it.


The web page requests go hand in hand with the settlement of the money issue.  There won’t be one without the other.  We look forward to receiving the information we’ve requested.


From: Roy Sommerey
Sent: Thursday, October 20, 2005 2:23 PM
To: 'abraca'
Subject: RE: Your outstanding debt to Doak Shirreff of $18,500 (approximately)


I’m not sure exactly what private letters you are talking about.  I don’t know what you mean about blocked emails.  We have an email filtering program which automatically identifies and blocks spam to our firm.  It may be that the program looked at the contents of your email(s),  identified it as spam, and prevented it from getting to me.


I know about your notice to admit, which has no application under the  Supreme Court Rules to our proceeding as outlined in the response we provided to you.   There are no facts which you should consider deemed to be admitted because they were not admitted.  You will find that our “non-response” as you have described it, is actually  accurate and that the Court will agree with us should you attempt to bring that exchange to its attention.


Under our judgment, including costs, you are indebted to us for $ 18,521.17.  We have agreed to voluntarily reduce that amount and accept only $10,000.00 ( a 46% reduction approximately).  This is an amount which is less than the original amount of the now 9 year old judgment.   You claim that is unreasonable.  Most reasonable people would acknowledge the reasonableness of the gesture, given it is purely voluntary on our part and made in the face of your ongoing, continuous, allegations of wrong doing on our part.


As the Supreme Court has consistently held and confirmed on a number of occasions (actually whenever it has been asked to deal with the amount you owe us), that we are entitled to be paid our accounts on your matter, there is no need for us to review our professional  and ethical rules and obligations to know that we are fully entitled to carry on with the process of collecting our judgment. 


If you want us to reconsider our settlement position as to amount, please authorize and have  Mr. Fenton provide us copies of  your proposed new lender’s commitment,  any supplementary documents which outline the terms of the lending commitment or proposal and any other documents that show where the money will be distributed and why you cannot pay us $10,0000.00 to satisfy an $18,500.00 debt.  We will only reassess our position at that point.  If we do not hear from you further within 7 days of today’s date,  we will simply withdraw our offer and proceed as we are able to.


Additionally, we confirm that you have refused to shut down your web site.  According to your request, the writer has modified that requirement and reviewed your web site to determine what parts of it we would ask you to remove and keep off the web site as part of the conclusion of this settlement.  They are as follows:


All text references to Salloum Doak, Doak Shirreff, Grant Hardwick, Larry Salloum, Marvin Geekie, and  any one else who currently works at our firm.  I know the latter two lawyers no longer work here, but many people know they did and leaving them there will link them to us (especially, for more obvious reasons, with respect to  Mr. Salloum).

Your MP3 segments, which by the way, are presented completely out of context as Mr. Justice Rice pointed out to you in Supreme Court on August 23, 2005.

Master Bishop’s judgment on the original taxation.

All copies correspondence to and from Salloum Doak, or Doak Shirreff.

Any reference to recent communications or developments in or concerning the Court Order Enforcement Act proceedings.


I believe this responds to most of the material points raised in your most recent email.   We look forward to hearing from Mr. Fenton.



From: abraca [mailto:abraca@shaw.ca]
Sent: Thursday, October 20, 2005 1:21 PM
To: Roy Sommerey
Subject: Professional Conduct


Re: Kelowna Registry #  68725




After much deliberation over your proposal, I sent you an email and you replied, starting off an email exchange until you objected to my desire to keep others informed. In fact, you blocked my email address.


So I wrote you a private letter to which you never replied.

Then, I wrote you another letter to which you also never replied.

Then I filed a Notice to Admit and served it on you and you had delivered to me, your non-reply.

Then I filed the Affidavit that David Lindsay compiled and drafted in support of the Petition that Judge Rice said that I "could file" but that he "wouldn't advise it".

Roy, your complicity in the criminal fraud and extortion to which I've been subjected to and to which I have since, thoroughly documented, asserted and still maintain, still stands opposed to your position, unrefuted by yourself, your client and even your insurer, who, ultimately is responsible for the costs, brought on by the extensive and still mounting damages that I continue to endure. 

As to these salient points that I continue to assert,  I accept your tacit consent as admission of the facts.

Throughout our last conversation, of which Jim Fenton was a part, you told Mr. Fenton to get back to you with the best do-able figure as an offer to settle this matter. As it turns out, my ability to obtain financing is even less than I anticipated. Mr. Fenton, in considering the reality of my situation, can only in good conscience, manage a figure of $ 5,000.00 in responding to your instructions to him.

Further, the fact remains that the mere presence of your client's and your insurer's liens, stand as a detriment to my ability to mitigate these damages by acquiring the re-financing that is necessary to satisfy your client's and your insurer's judgments, however fraudulent, that give rise to these liens.

Regarding your concerns over certain materials, published at my website; during that same conversation with Mr. Fenton, I instructed you to go over my entire site, make notes and get back to me but you have not.

As I understand it, recently conveyed to me by Mr. Fenton, your position, now, is a settlement figure of no less that $ 10,000.00, still leaving me with nothing for groceries and wondering further about your good conscience and your genuine desire to mitigate damages, of which you have control over but continue fail to act on, according to your duty, your ability and your growing responsibility.

Roy, yours and your client's position contradict the facts, the law, reason and even logic, even regarding your position in blocking my emails to you, limiting, rather that maintaining all lines of communication, necessary in settling this matter.

In closing, I again attempt to draw your attention to Chapter 1 of the Professional Conduct Handbook, Canons of Legal Ethics, Section 3, (9) and (10), to which you and your client, as "members in good standing", are bound by. If you and your client are truly sincere, you will do the honorable thing and abandon your position, your judgments and you lien. You can always write your "losses" off against your client's exorbitant income.

Let me hear back from you by letter as soon as possible, in consideration of the time-sensitivity (detrimental interest rates are on the rise) and continually mounting damages that we all suffer as a consequence of your outrageously illogical position.

Yours very truly,

David Thomson