The Evidence
That's what this site is about. Airing the evidence and naming
the names! You to be the judge! Several months after the trial, I filed a written complaint
regarding the disapearance of several documents related to this
case, including the "tampered" court order. Several
months after that, the court registry contacted me to inform
me that a couple of these missing documents had been recovered
and that I was to see the Chief District Registrar, Gene Watt.
Mr. Watt explained that the 1st (tampered) order had been drafted
wrong (referring to the note at the top left side of the page)
and that a 2nd order had been filed to correct the mistake. He
then produced the corrected draft. The corrected draft was not filed until January 1996, more
than 2 years after the order was pronounced but just days before
I was called to see Mr. Watt. The corrected draft is identical
to the original except it has been laid out to use 2 pages instead
of one and the last paragraph does not start with the word "and". Another document that I had listed as missing was Marc Whittemore's
72 page affidavit. Mr. Watt claimed that he was able to find,
not one but 2 copies of this affidavit and so naturally, I photocopied
one more copy for my own use. So far, I've only loaded 4 pages
to this site. (More coming) In paragraph 11 on the 4th page
of Marc Whitemore's affidavit, Mr. Whittemore swears that
the realtor to told him that "this deal, by it's terms would
be subject to the vendor's solicitor's approval..." Some
time later, Mr. Whittemore received a copy of the real
estate sales agreement with the above mentioned term listed
as #4 on the contract. In Justice Hunter's decision, paragraph
7 (page 3), Justice Hunter wrote that "Whittemore's evidence
was that nobody told him of that clause.", contradicting
Whittemore's own affidavit testimony and also what is evidenced
by the sales agreement, the 1st document
that Mr. Whittemore received to indicate that he would be representing
my interests in the sale of my business. A professional opinion on the
subject of advice, marked as Exhibit 6 to the trial, suggests
that there be a letter of advise written by any lawyer who is
faced with a client who wishes to proceed contrary to the lawyer's
advise. Mr. Whittemore produced no letter of advise, signed by
me or otherwise, yet Justice Hunter chose to ignore this exhibit
and rely on Mr. Whittemore's allegation that he advised me on
the subject of security and that I insisted on proceeding with
the sale anyway. The realtor, Dell Arens, could not have, as he testified,
dropped off the "only copy of the Subject
Removal Form", that he could not produce.(see also paragraph
7 of Justice Hunter's decision). It is a triplicate document,
as I later learned and pointed out in paragraph 6 of an affidavit
that I later filed in Court of Appeals. My
1st Court of Appeals affidavit. Justice Hunter not only relied on, but even referred to Dell
Arens' testimony that made reference to a document that Mr. Arens
could not produce. Twice, so far that Justice Hunter has contradicted
himself, as he so advised me, regarding the law concerning the
production of documents. That pesky affidavit that Mr. Whittemore swore to support
his application to have this matter dismissed without a trial!
(Rule 18-18a). I suspect that Mr. Whittemore regretted filing
this affidavit. This is the same affidavit that I couldn't find
after my home was broken into. This is the same affidavit that
was missing at the court registry for several months (until Mr.
Watt found 2 of them). This is the same affidavit that was ommitted
from the 2nd copy of the Motion Brief that defence counsel sent
me after I lost the 1st Motion Brief in a court preliminary hearing.....You
know; you read my horror story. I photocopied the index from the Motion Brief to use as an
exhibit in another affidavit that I later filed in Court of Appeals.
See, no listing of Whittemore's affidavit
to support his Rule 18 motion. I filed a motion to tax Salloum Doak's
bill, stating among other things that they had abandoned me,
had admitted to prejudice,
acted with prejudice and were not
prepared to go to trial, contrary to a letter
they sent me, stating that they would
"see these matters to trial for a global figure of 10-15
thousand dollars".
In Fact, Grant Hardwick said that there'd be 5 cents remaining after their bill was paid. More evidence to come as I edit and post new pages.
I refer to this order as a tampered court
document. Note the circle in the centre of the bottom of
the page that says "checked by" with the initials that
have been scribbled out and the note at the top left side that
says that the last paragraph of the order is not really there.This
is the order that went missing from the File Search office of
the Kelowna Registry about the time that Justice Hunter informed
me that, as I'd referred to a document (the order) in my testimony,
I must also be able to produce the document, or by law, he must
disregard that portion of my testimony. Instead, I produced a
copy of the court clerk's notes to verify my testimony regarding
this order.