You are needlessly repeating yourself. I have memorized your argument as to why you think you shouldn’t have to pay us anything so you don’t have to repeat it again. You can move on. If you want to pay less than the full amount the Courts have found on two separate occasions that you owe us (see above amount), you will arrange to have Fenton get me the information I have asked for and you will take the references and excerpts I’ve asked you to remove from your web site. You continue to allege we are frauds and extortionists and then ask us for mercy. You are one of a kind, Dave……
Sent: Monday, October 31, 2005 9:08 AM
To: Roy Sommerey
Subject: FW: Your outstanding debt to Doak Shirreff of $18,500 (approximately)
David Thomson [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
Sent: Sunday, October 30, 2005 10:17 AM
To: Roy Sommerey
Cc: abraca; Adrienne Jean; Fred Johns; TheFirm; email@example.com; LKnights@lsbc.org; JCorbett@lsbc.org
Subject: Re: Your outstanding debt to Doak Shirreff of $18,500 (approximately)
I can understand your confusion, thinking that abraca was me. You've obviously a tough enough job, just trying to stay focused on your client's fraudulent and extortionist position, all the while aware that others are looking on. Still, I understand that in your email back to abraca, you referred to me in the 3rd party tense, ("I can assure you that Mr. Thomson has been doing all the “treating”") giving rise to question your integrity, further.
The private letters that I sent to you, via email and fax, are no longer private as you saw fit to ignore my correspondence, harried though I've been, by your dead-line. Further, at 1st glance, it appears to me that you changed your email address, capitalizing the 1st 2 letters, R and S; perhaps that's why my reply to you, bounced.
No matter, as I faxed you a copy and also c.c.ed your client and your firm in my subsequent email correspondence, just to be sure that you did receive my correspondence, which has been substantial but still ignored by you up until the following, regardless of your imposed dead-line, adding to my frustration and my rising anxiety.
I can also understand your admitted lack of trust; being a legal professional, you deal with criminals, regularily. It appears as though that has tainted you trust in others. I assure you, though, that Mr. Fenton is forth-right and diligent in all that he does. In determining how high my borrowing capacity is, he is also considering my ability to put food on my table, a consideration that appears to be lacking from yours and your client's perspectives.
I assert that if you have trust issues with Mr. Fenton, that's your problem and your own responsibility and not mine. As such, you confront him. As for my part, I have known Mr. Fenton since childhood and I trust him and his judgment, implicitly.
Whether you or your client wish to admit the facts or not, they are, in part and most salient, as follows:
1. Your client knew when he agreed to take my case, that a fellow lawyer was implicated and it could very well lead to a law-suit which he agreed to conduct on my behalf, keeping from me the fact that he had no intention of ever following through with his agreement, should it come to that.
2. Your client allowed the filing of a false Trial Certificate and Certificate of Readiness, knowing that no depositions had been taken and that no discoveries had yet been conducted, constructively, knowingly and willingly mis-leading the Supreme Court, all other parties, as well as myself.
3. The judgments that your client holds against me make no mention of any of the evidence that I have repeatedly put before the Supreme Court., ie: suppression of evidence, an Offence Against the Law and the Administration of Justice (Section 118 - 149 - Part iv of the Criminal Code of Canada).
4. I enter into these "settlement proceedings" under extensive protest, duress, threat, and intimidation, wishing only to mitigate my own damages, unrepresented at law and to the best of my own ability.
Honestly Roy, how can you or your client justify demanding payment (14,000 dollars) in full for services not even rendered?
As it is, your client caused my work-truck to be siezed and wholesaled for a third of it's value; I'd paid 12 thousand dollars for the truck in 1993. Further, I'd paid him a total of 800 dollars in retainers and another 500 dollars after his 1st judgment and he garnasheed my bank account for another 400 dollars.
In satisfying your concern that the excerpts of the tape-recorded conversation(s) do not reflect the entire context of of the discussions that took place on that final day when your client, Grant Hardwick and his associate, Marvin Geekie quit, prior to fulfilling any portion of their end of their agreement with me. As such, I've upgraded my site and uploaded the entire recording so that there can be no mistaking any intent. Please be patient, waiting for it to load; it's a 32 meg mp3 file, identical to the one that I attached to my affidavit and filed and served on you and your client on October 7th of this month.
Roy, you said to Fred Johns that you respect me and my position but your client's deceitful position (that you now represent), laying siege to me, these past 10 years, literally starving me out, and your deceiptful actions as demonstrated by you, show just how little respect that you do have for me and my position.
Your deceiptful behaviour only rankles my sentiments, further, again causing me further concern that you wish only to suppress those relevent facts as has been done through your friends and associates in the Supreme Court. In light of this, I can hardly be expected to remove any of those facts and evidence from my website or even obscure them in the slightest, as I appeal to the higher Court of Public Opinion.
In short, your behavior is quite counter-productive to your agenda in attempting to silence me.
That said, in consideration of yours, your client's and your associates' concerns, I might be persuaded to sell you my domain name, www.ourcourtssuck.com, provided your offer is generous enough. Keep in mind as you consider my generous offer, those liens/encumberances that your client and the Lawyers' Insurance Fund hold over my home that, incidentally, needs a new roof among other things, that I cannot qualify to finance, due to those encumberances, legitimate - not, that your client, through his initial and continued criminal fraud and misrepresentation, has caused to be placed against my home.
Also, please consider the costs to my deteriorating state of mental and physical health; namely: anxiety, frustration, appetite-loss, subsequent weight-loss and associated and heightening health concerns, sleepless nights and restless days, as I malinger through this abusive process of criminal fraud and extortion, leaving me to wonder, Roy, do you wish to kill me?
Yours very truly,
P.s. Roy, contrary to your position, I have demonstrated considerable kindness, refraining from including in my previous emails to you, a c.c.to some 1,500 email addresses, located in my "Lawyers" folder. As you can already see, your persistent provocation does indeed sway my inclinations.
----- Original Message -----
From: Roy Sommerey
To: David Thomson
Cc: Adrienne Jean
Sent: Thursday, October 27, 2005 8:46 AM
Subject: FW: Your outstanding debt to Doak Shirreff of $18,500 (approximately)
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
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:firstname.lastname@example.org]
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 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,
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.362 / Virus Database: 267.12.5/150 - Release Date: 10/27/2005