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……
From:
Chris Laird
Sent: Monday, October 31, 2005
9:08 AM
To: Roy Sommerey
Subject: FW: Your outstanding debt
to Doak Shirreff of $18,500 (approximately)
From:
David Thomson [mailto:idslayer@telus.net]
Sent: Sunday, October 30, 2005
10:17 AM
To: Roy Sommerey
Cc: abraca; Adrienne Jean; Fred
Johns; TheFirm; professionalconduct@lsbc.org; 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?
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 -----
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
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.
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
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
