Legend: Grey Text denotes direct text from the judges decision. Black Text denotes our responses and evidence. 1. The conclusion #1 through to Supporting reasons #6. 7.Now, let me turn to a brief review of the evidence. The accused are a couple. They first lived together in the province of Quebec, and then came here to live in this province. In the former, they set up a web page and touted an investment scheme under the name “G.I.S.P. Aid4Families.com”. Because of the language requirements in Quebec, the scheme was sometimes referred to as “G.I.S.P. AideauxFamilles.com”. Somewhat confusingly, the accused also had a plan referred to as “Aid2Families”, and also another called “Pay4Families”. These were described by the second accused as having different purposes. 7. First, we never came here to live..... we were visiting and once arrested, the restrictions forced us to stay. -aidauxfamilles was never used by us -aid2families is a separate program as he acknowledges -Pay4families has no website is not part a public offering of any type and is the licensed embodiment of our “lied about back office”. -Webpage = licensed company?
8.The G.I.S.P. Aid4Families.com website was set up initially in Quebec, and solicited investors there. The complainants, Michael Koch, and his spouse Ann Koch, found the website in February, made inquiries of the defendants, but did not invest in the plan. Six months later, when the website was still on the Internet, and there having been no adverse publicity about it, the Kochs incorrectly assumed that the investment plan offered by the accused was valid. The Kochs sent money to the accused while they were in the province of Quebec, and, subsequently, to this province. 8. Aid4families was set up in Quebec but never solicited customers in Quebec. -The February inquiry from the Koch's resolved issues of the company's size, structure, investments, location etc. Since we would not divulge our specific investments, we had no 3rd party affiliations and the company's small size, the Koch's declined to join and were sent away. During this period they investigated the program through the RCMP (RECOL). The Koch's testimony (that is glossed over in this decision) as to their reason for making their unsolicited deposit, was a clean bill of health from the RCMP crime unit and no customer complaints.
9.While it is difficult to quantify their losses, the Kochs sent a total of $343,500 to the defendants, in four payments. These were two payments, of $30,000 and $135,000, to the accused in Quebec, and two more, of $25,000 and 153,500, to the accused in this province. Subject to legal fees and sheriff's costs, most of these funds have since been recovered. However, the complainants were deprived, at least temporarily, of $178,500 by the accused while the latter were operating in this province.
9.While the credit union was in possession using the funds = the time the Koch's were “deprived”. Their losses in newfoundland are from the lawyers and police. – The $25,000 check we sent back after an erratic email warning us of dire health effects on Mr. Koch. If we were out to steal money why send any of it back at that time? 10.The accused admit that the complainants were deprived of the $178,500 which was sent to this province, deposited in the credit union, “frozen”, first by the credit union and then by order of the Superintendent of Securities, and then seized by the High Sheriff and returned to the complainants. However, say the accused, there was no fraud, because there is no nexus between any representations made to the complainants and the deprivation, however temporary it might have been, of their funds from them. The accused take the position that it was only when the complainants did not receive their October 2 interest payment that they complained, and, that, since there was no nexus between the admitted deprivation and any alleged falsehood, then the prosecution has failed in proving fraud. 10. There is no admission of deprivation but there seems to be no legal definition for deprivation. i.e. is it fraud every time money changes hands? e.g. can I sue a lawyer for fraud for accepting a retainer since I will thus be deprived? This interpretation is dubious at best since the credit union would have performed the same “deprivation” with actual deceit (length of the hold) which didn't give the court any pause. The blocked payments were considered the deceit according to their testimony. Here, the judge, is trying to reimagine the trial. Through the end of the trial it was still the position of the government that they were responding to a complaint. One we now know, from Mr.Allwood's testimony, that the Koch's were tricked and coerced into making. Until this decision, the fraud had been that it was a lie that the payments would have been made. (Mr. Koch was specifically asked what he felt he had been lied to about; he stated that the lies he considered material were the fact that he had not received his contract or his payment). The nexus argued by defense counsel was highlighting the deceit in other convictions where there was a MATERIAL misrepresentation and deprivation. eg. R. V. Wheeler: where the money is accepted for a particular investment i.e. a specific stock, real estate investment, etc. Instead, the money is not put to these purposes. Aid4families was honest in telling potential clients that we don't divulge the specific investments and that we were taking full discretion over the funds because we take all the risk (same relationship as a savings account – guarantee interest independent of risk or use of customer deposits). Since our clients did not rely on misrepresentations like being told the funds would be placed in a specific investment or use and they agreed to those terms, it wasn't fraud. To belabor the point, until now, a practical application had been a deliberate dishonest deceit such as telling people you are buying them Ultramar stock or, in the case of Madoff, making investment trades on the customers behalf and never doing so. In stark contrast, Aid4families was deliberate in our representation that deposits would be used at our discretion and made no claims to the specific use. With that having not worked out, the judge seeks an even more lenient interpretation of the crown's burden by attempting to imply that it is fraud whether the clients consider it to be, whether we consider it to be, whether we set out to commit fraud, whether the acts are routinely prosecuted as fraud. This threshold and custom interpretation has the de facto effect of eliminating any burden for fraud and shifts the onus to the accused by doing away with Actus Reus & Mens Rea in one fell swoop.
11.With respect, this is incorrect. The offence of fraud, being the combination of dishonesty on the one part, and loss, or risk of loss, on the other, was made out as soon as the complainants, relying on the representations made to them by the accused, sent money to the accused. Thus, the offence of fraud was complete before any complaint was made by the Kochs. In fact, it was complete before the Kochs even knew that they had been defrauded. 11. There is a wide discrepancy between the “representations” the Koch's relied on and the piecemeal excerpts the judge scanned over in the print-outs and selected to justify his decision. Most of the Koch's testimony had been contaminated by them parroting things that they had been told by the AMF, RCMP, Allwood and civil attorneys to add teeth to their civil and criminal complaint. Please note : Our representations nor the website were enough to convince the Koch's to join and there was no contact before they elected to join for the reasons “THEY GAVE”. Her (Mrs. Koch) was sporadic as she tried to remember what she was told was important to say. When asked about her own recollections or understandings, she would either cry, “not recall”, or defer to her husband. 12.At this point, it is useful to catalog some of the discreditable or dishonest statements used by the accused to induce the Kochs to part with their money. Mrs. Koch listed many of these, and ultimately was of the view that there was little, if anything, true from the G.I.S.P. Aid4Families.com website. I am inclined to agree with her. Let me explain why, with reference to the website, and to the things said by the accused to the Kochs. 12. It is important to note that the “inducements” end with the Koch's NOT joining the program and being sent away. This judge constantly refers to inducements as if the program was some sort of sales pitch. In august '07 the front page of aid4families would have been a large picture of the twin towers burning. The page includes our enrollment process which requires that clients independently verify everything on the website before joining. The judge isn't agreeing with Ann Koch, a frightened Ann Koch is agreeing with him. New Rules : From the front page of Aid4families New rule for those considering ways to secure retirement ---- There have been several requests for more information, make no request until you have read every link word for word. Then make your decision prior to contacting us. Our new and improved process is: read the information to actually understand the risk that you are currently taking with your money and then contact us by sending in your aid form and bank wire to receive your contracts and payments. An exerpt the crown took from the front page of the site to read into the record in summation: Many of you are wondering, where's the fine print to disclaim all of your promises? We don't have any! Our contract is available online to be seen at anytime by anyone. No fine print, a simple two-party agreement, no lawyers, no government enticement. A simple legally binding contract between you and the program. If banks and brokerage wanted to give you a fair shake, why so much fine print and arbitration? Aid4families.com is the only financial institution that doesn't rely on loopholes and
government cronyism to do business. Why hide behind a bunch of legalese and government subsidy for something that two roommates can take to Judge Judy scribbled on a napkin? An agreement between parties doesn't require loopholes or fine print, not for roommates or banks! ---> Yet we are making
people believe we are endorsed by the government? How much clearer did we need to be to say the contrary. 13.It is important to remember that the website was fluid, not static. Thus, while exhibit C.A.1 is a “capture” of the website as of October 7, 2007, by Carl Allwood, we know from his evidence that there had been prior changes to the website. However, as late as the web capture was, and it is important to remember that it was after the investigation had started, it still contained a number of false representations. 13. He lost his train of thought trying to cover for Allwood saying under oath that the CIPF(page) was on the website and not being able to provide proof of it (since it was never there). There were no changes to the site in October. Please note : On several occasions the judge and crown refused to question any of these “misrepresentations” while we were on the stand. 14.The webpage had, in the left hand margin of page 1, the statement “Win a computer lab!” There is no evidence that anyone ever won any computer equipment from Aid4Families.com. Mrs. Koch took the reference to the contest for a computer as making the site seem more “family-oriented”. At page 11, the webpage offers a chance to “Win a computer lab for your school!” 14. No questions....No entries for computer lab contest, plus funds “frozen”. Ann Koch never relied on the computer lab because it wasn't added to the site until September. This is consistent and will be repeated with the tunnel vision and retrofitting to produce this conviction. --->Below is a screen capture of the front page of Aid4families in August '07. --->Notice the address bar, independent capture by webarchive.org --->Notice on the left-hand side the list of links DOES NOT include the link about "win a computer lab"
--->Above, the huge picture of the exploding twin towers is missing. --->Obviously he wasn't "inclined" to agree with us 15.Pages 1 and 2 then continue on about why public pension schemes are likely to fail, that “industry bigwigs have pressed judges and regulators to earn their keep by ridding the industry of competition”. 15. The core issue with these proceedings : Public pension schemes are being debated in every nation around the world, in the media, government, academia etc. but when we make statements that are considered legitimate critiques (when espoused by those whose rights the judge feels obliged to respect) they become incoherent gibberish. The article below shows that the C.P.P. (Canadian Pension Plan) lost $24B THIS YEAR ALONE! At this rate it has 4 years left. That may sound like hyperbole but so would this headline back in '07 when I gave these warnings on the website. As for Social Security and its woes, choose any article you like.
16.On page 3, one finds “Aid4families.com the only entity, public or private, serving the people!”. The next paragraph begins with “Aid4families.com is alone in trying to fight for your right to thrive against public and private corruption. Why does aid4Families.com exist? Because we are the only thing standing between you and financial extinction! If you believe otherwise...don't join, don't call. Simply demand from your government and bank/brokerage that
they put their money where your mouth is. Aid4Families.com thrives because the people trust us and we are the only game on earth !” 16. If you don't believe what we are saying don't join the program(give us your money), don't call! This again is another clear contradiction to the bulk of their argument. Their assertion that this was dragnet of inducements when in fact it was made difficult to complete the process to give of giving us your money. Read entire site, follow all links, research assertions. 17.This is followed by “No risk! No fine print! No disclaimer! Just money in your pocket!” 17. We were personally liable for every dollar we received without protection of incorporation(made clear in the charges being made against us personally rather than aid4families). This put everything that we amassed personally at risk for the guarantee. No fine print No disclaimer both are true. Yet he has them listed here as proof of our lies. 18.On page 4, the webpage says that “aid4families.com is a income assurance program, that pays the largest monthly dividend.” This is to be contrasted with the generally negative remarks about the “crooks” running the finance industry (page 2), “crooks who should be paying bail” (page 6), and banks who “rip off” the public (page 7). 18. We considered 10% to be the highest and I suppose it is the “naive” people who believe the banks are crooks and have been ripping off the public. The “well informed” (those with no access to a newspaper, TV, radio etc in the past 2 years) who believe the banking system is a flawless beacon of honesty and integrity. Below are recent articles highlighting some of the non-existent problems of corruption : Leading Democrats: Congress, Senate Owned And Run By Bankers Those who created the banking crisis are also the most powerful lobby on Capitol Hill Steve Watson Infowars.ne t Tuesday, June 2, 2009
Related Conten t
The Democratic Chairman of the Agriculture Committee yesterday announced to the press that “The banks run the place,” in reference to the US Congress. He is the second notable elected official
to speak out in recent weeks over the gross and institutionally corrupt conflict of interest on Capitol Hill. “I will tell you what the problem is," Collin Peterson told the New York Times, "they give three times more money than the next biggest group. It’s huge the amount of money they put into politics.” Peterson is pushing for legislation to regulate derivatives trading. His proposed bill would limit derivatives trading to public exchanges, rather than private clearinghouses, which are managed by banks. Feds failed us on ABCP: Caisse
'Double standards' decried: Former head of risk management panel acknowledges collapse was unavoidable By MARIANNE WHITE, Canwest News ServiceMay 15, 2009 Alban D'Amours, a former head of the Caisse de dépôt et placement du Québec's risk management committee, criticized federal authorities yesterday for failing to declare a "general market disruption" in the tainted nonbank asset-backed commercial paper (ABCP) when the market collapsed in the summer of 2007. Had that been done, he said, foreign banks would have been forced to repay the Quebec pension fund manager the $13 billion of non-bank ABCP it held. "The federal government refused to do so and they have their reasons for it, but I would call it double standards," D'Amours said after testifying before a provincial legislature committee probing the Caisse's $40billion loss in 2008.....
Next up another apparent figment of my imagination. Quebec taxpayers will feel Caisse losses Government agencies lost billions By PHILIP AUTHIER, The GazetteMay 21, 2009
Logo of the Caisse de dépôt et placement du Québec. Photograph by: Pierre Obendrauf, Gazette file photo QUEBEC - It seems destined to trickle down onto the taxpayers' shoulders one way or another and it won't be pretty. A National Assembly committee looking into the massive losses at the province's pension manager, the Caisse de dépôt et placement du Québec, yesterday started hearing tales of woe from government agencies and small pension managers with funds entrusted to the Caisse to invest. They had one thing in common: shock. They were not told by the Caisse it was rolling the dice with their money by buying the now toxic non-asset backed commercial paper (ABCP) that caused the Caisse so much trouble. Most heard through the media about the Caisse's $40-billion subsequent loss after the market collapsed in August 2007. Nobody had given the Caisse a green light for the risky investments, either. But now it is becoming clear what those losses will probably mean for typical Quebecers and companies: higher fees and deductions off pay cheques to make up the difference.....
And I pretended that these guys aren't arrested...an obvious lie ;) yeah right! Please note: he is telling the Canadian government to its face that there is a “double standard”. No one considers it contempt and his are actually offensive and unfounded. Also, a month later, Sept.'07 the Quebec government worked with the Caisse to stop US! So what have we learned, Men and Women, public pensions in Canada “aren't” in trouble despite a total loss of $64B last year alone? Just more of my inducement propaganda I suppose. 19.On page 15, the webpage says that “we are registered with UK Pension Service, Dun and Bradstreet, GovBenefits.gov, and the Miami Chamber of Commerce”. There is no evidence that any of this is true. Instead, this claim is made there to cloak the aid4Families.com scheme with a credibility which it did not deserve. Similarly, on page 34, there is a photograph of a high-rise office tower, with the caption “Aid4families.com; heart of the Brickell financial district-
Miami”. Neither the accused nor their creation Aid4Families.com had any offices in Miami: the picture and caption were also added to the website to give it undeserved credibility. 19. UNDERSERVED CREDIBILITY: This is the crime! We are fraud! Not the acts, not the deeds, not the representations. Every statement is met with suspicion and an impulse to undermine. There is no evidence that any of this is false but there we are carrying the burden yet again. A few clicks, typing in aid4families into the business section of dun and Bradstreet would reveal that we were indeed registered. The Brickell address appears on my Florida id card because it is the business mailing address where we intended to conduct business. We were paying monthly for this office(to not have it?). “No evidence that any of this was true” Let's see... Step 1. Dun and Bradstreet site: http://www.dnb.com/us/ Step 2. Go to find a company: aid4families---Canada---Quebec and.... Company Search Results Select a company from the list below. Can’t find the company you are looking for? Try refining your search.
< previous page
Showing page 1 of 1 page
next page >
Address 150 rue des Quatre Vents, Sainte-Louise, PQ, CA
< previous page
Showing page 1 of 1 page
© 2009 Dun & Bradstreet, Inc.
...Voila !! NOT a lie!!! Brickell address : again verify: MIAMI OFFICE CENTER VIRTUAL OFFICE LOCATION
next page >
MIAMI OFFICE CENTER 1395 Brickell Suite 800 Miami, FL 33131
Prime Business Address Mail and Package Receipt Business Support Center Lobby Greeter Client Dropoff / Pick-up Point Lobby Directory Listing (extra fee where avail.) Mail Forwarding / Shipping Services (extra fee) Conference Room - average fee $25-$40 per hr (may vary by location) From $245/ mo * Pricing and feature offerings may vary by location. Please allow a minimum of 3 business days for set-up. 6 month minimum agreement term applies to virtual office locations.
Michael L. Labertew Labertew & Associates, LLC “As an attorney with a focus in international business, the majority of my clients are out of state and out of the country. Davinci's virtual office allows me to service these clients from anywhere in the world, while maintaining a presence in Utah. Their staff's professionalism, as well as their A+ prime office facilities and locations allow me the flexibility I need without sacrificing quality.”
HOME | News | Blog | About Us | Davinci Meeting Rooms | Employment | Affiliate Program | Tell a Friend | Newsletter | Archive Virtual Assistants | Virtual Office Space | Virtual Offices | The Virtual Office | Virtual Receptionist | Terms & Conditions | Site Map Call Answering | Call Forwarding | Live Answering | Live Receptionist Virtual Office Address | Virtual Office Advantage | Virtual Office Solution | Virtual Office System
US & CANADA LOCATIONS
Live Chat Chat with a live person about our services. CLICK HERE
Calculate which package is right for you. CLICK HERE Is It For me? CLICK HERE
FAQâ€™s CLICK HERE
Davinci Pledge Go ahead - Try out our Davinci Virtual Office Solutions. We will do our very best to exceed your expectations. We make your business our business!
Credit Card Processing And they're using a lawyers testimonial --- lol--- if anyone questions the nature or legality of it. 20.At page 17, the webpage contains a reference to setting up a “Ponzi type program that all insured banks use”. Counsel for the accused says that this was meant to be a sarcastic statement. Whether meant to be sarcastic or not, it proves that the accused were aware of “Ponzi” schemes, and it also refers to banks being insured. Earlier, I have mentioned that the webpage contained references to “no risk”, “no disclaimer”, and “assurance”. These references were made to soothe any concerns that potential investors might have had about the risk involved in sending money to aid4Families.com. 20. This page is actually entitled “The price of going legitimate” and has the percentage dropping from 120 to 5%. It is where I sarcastically threaten to map the program after the banks. If any of them would have finished the paragraph, they would have reached our understanding of the program which starts, “what are we thinking” with no government backing and paying more interest. Again no risk(we assumed the risk) no disclaimer -------> still not a lie and assurance – If they find our personal assurance of being personally liable “soothing”, okay but what is the lie? Note: No one knew this page was on the website. I was confronted with a handwritten copy during my caution statement. The RCMP still testified at trial that they had to have this page typed up so that it could be read. We had to keep reminding the RCMP that this page, which they were portraying as a secret internal document detailing our nefarious aims was published on the website. The press release page is for the press and not seen by most clients let alone relied upon. The decision is the first time it has been portrayed as something for the clients to see. 21. Also on page 17 is a stated question, in bold print: Aid4Families.com to take control of Canadian Pension Program (C.P.P.) ? Since the accused had nothing to do with the Canadian government, the only reason that this was put on the webpage was to try to give it an aura of respectability, by suggesting a connection with the stability of the federal government. Certainly, in her evidence, Mrs. Koch made it clear that she believed that Aid4Families.com had some connection with the Canadian government. 21. Mrs. Koch actually stated that she did not believe we had any affiliation with the Canadian government. This makes it clear that he has no understanding of what the C.P.P is or how it is run, nor did he read the text which clearly explains that we need proper regulatory compliance, way more money, infrastructure, licenses etc. We also provide links after the text because this article is designed to warn the public that just because the C.P.P is affiliated with the government, the government doesn't manage it and the contributions are dispersed around the world in various schemes putting the contributions at risk. This was to contrast the notion that the government would never allow contributions to be put in the hands of a “risky scheme”. But rest assured, Aid4families never got to manage any of the CPP funds, it was safely mismanaged by those guys in the picture above. Furthermore, I am not sure I could manage to lose 4 years (of worker payroll deductions) , $24B, in one year.
22.On page 18 of exhibit CA1, the webpage continues with “Aid4families.com is currently drafting a plan to make Canada the first nation to turn the national pension assets over for private management”. Again, this is both an untrue statement, and also an effort to cloak the Aid4Families.com scheme with the stability of the Canadian government. 22. Again this was neither untrue nor an attempt to absorb the perceived “stability” of the Canadian government. Since it is a criticism of them turning over workers funds to industry “insiders”. ---- He didn't click the links --- Nobody clicked the links or read entire paragraphs. The following in a excerpt from the text that the judge is referring to: “Currently the program is managed by industry insiders, spreading pension revenues all over the world in various fund and investment schemes.”
This indicates that we believe that the government isn't having the program managed by the best people but for other political reasons. ie. The government isn't doing whats best for the workers but for its careers. Another excerpt from the same text: While 100% consolidation isn’t practical into one single program, a majority hold is responsible due to the extensive gap in return for depositors. Presently no other fund in the CPP portfolio offers anything in the same universe as aid4families.com. Aid4families.com seeks an additional $30Million dollars in private assets for acquisition of various licenses, logistics and infrastructure to assume the multi-billion dollar undertaking.
This seems very self-explanatory. Obviously we consider ourselves undersized & underequipped and clearly state that we are not ready to take on the endeavor. We are also making it clear that people need to ask questions about how these pension schemes actually work, that we are better qualified to manage the assets and hopefully in the near future will find ourselves in the position to undertake this responsibility. He acts like the title question is just sitting there by itself and that we leave it to peoples imagination to think that we are partnering up with the CPP rather than the few hundred words immediately following the title that explain what we mean. 23.Pages 27 and 28 of exhibit CA1 contain “testimonials” from purported satisfied investors in the Aid4Families.com scheme. These include “Tom in Chicago”, Terry in Florida”, and “Robert in Detroit”. There is no evidence of any persons by those names, or from those places, having ever depositing any money with Aid4Families.com. 23. These are true testimonials with names and locations changed for confidentiality as promised on the aid form. Again ---- Not mentioned at trial like most things, he hid it for the decision. On multiple occasions “ spitballs” in the video and in direct testimony “don't know what I am being charged with”. I directly challenged the court and crown to question me on specific deceits. There's an entire context around these cherry picked lines and the tone of the entire website is contradictory to his portrayal.
24.Page 28 also contains the following statement: “Aid4families.com is a banking institution. Aid4Families.com has combined all of the fixed income instruments from financial institutions. This program brings together all of the best elements of stocks, bonds, individual retirement accounts and savings, to create a product known as a G.I.S.P. Government Income Supplement Program. A G.I.S.P. Brings together what until now has been taboo in the world of finance, a high dividend or yield with the guarantee for a fixed period. Your G.I.S.P. Is secured by your deposit....” 24. AND?!?! 25.Every part of the foregoing extract is false. Aid4Families.com is not, and was not, a banking institution. In fact, it was not even a body corporate. It did not combine financial institution instruments. It had nothing to do with government, and had no guarantee of success. This statement is untrue and dishonest. 25. That is his limited understanding of banking institution. See banking institution wikipedia : Banking institution
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to: navigation, search A banking institution provides banking services. They include: • • • • • •
Banks Credit unions Savings and loan association Building societies Non-banking financial company Some insurance companies
Non-bank financial institution
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia This article is an orphan, as few or no other articles link to it. Please introduce links to this page from other articles related to it. (August 2008) A non-bank financial institution (NBFI) is a financial institution that does not have a full banking license or is not supervised by a national or international banking regulatory agency. NBFIs facilitate bank-related financial services, such as investment, risk pooling, contractual savings, and market brokering. Examples of these include insurance firms, pawn shops, cashiers check issuers, check cashing locations, currency exchanges, and microloan organizations. Alan Greenspan has identified the role of NBFIs in strengthening an economy, as they provide "multiple alternatives to transform an economy's savings into capital investment [which] act as backup facilities should the primary form of intermediation fail." 
In Asia According to the World Bank, approximately 30% of total assets South Korea's financial system was held in NBFIs as of 1997.  In this report, the lack of regulation in this area was claimed to be one reason for the 1997 Asian Financial Crisis.
In the United States In 1996, the NBFI sector accounted for approximately $200 billion in transactions in the United States. End wikipedia
It did not combine financial institution instruments, it combined “elements” ( a clarification in the very next line but he never read that far). It says it supplements your government income i.e. in addition to your government pension, social security etc. Guarantee of success ? 26.The situation was exacerbated on the same page, when the following was set out: “So, that's what we do. Insure your deposit for nearly 10 X's as much as your other bank pay you, pay you 25% quarterly, or 100% per year.” 27.During the evidence, the accused denied having pretended that investments made with Aid4Families.com were insured, and Carl Allwood was repeatedly examined on whether the accused had made such an offer in the Aid4Families.com web site. It is clear from the foregoing that the accused were in fact saying that deposits made with them were insured. That was not true. 26/27. This is the long-winded way for the judge to admit that the crown and Allwood committed perjury. In his first day of testimony Carl Allwood stated that a page offering CIPF coverage had been found on the website. The crown had slid it under everybody's nose telling them they had seen it on the site. Mr. Allwood stated that he had captured it and was asked to produce it. The following day he admitted that he had not seen it on the site. The word “repeatedly” shows that the judge was annoyed with defense questioning Allwood on the specifics. He seemed irritated that this page that the crown had rested it's case on and everyone pretended to see on the site was never there. I returned to the stand to state more clearly that the Koch's had never been offered 3rd party insurance. In actuality not considering our/aid4families guarantee sufficient they didn't join. I.e. why would they refuse to join with $1Mil. 3rd party insurance from the CIPF and instead join when it was only us backing it?
28.The potential size of the Aid4Families.com portfolio was described (on page 44) as ranging from personal, corporate, and government accounts of “$1 million through $5 million, $20 million, $100 million, to $5billion”. In the context of spot trading on the foreign exchange market (which was, according to the evidence of the accused, the extent of their “investing”), these remarks are clearly untrue. The use of the words “corporate” and “government” are an effort to inflate the size of the operation: there is no evidence that any corporation or any government body ever sent Aid4Families.com one cent. Nor is there any evidence that Aid4families.com ever had any deposits greater than the $340,000 received from the Kochs. 28. We offer large accounts ---> Not a lie. As for “the context of the forex” ( the worlds largest single market). Please note: The judge and crown were aware of our other existing and planned investments—the Chique boutique website and construction of the store, newspaper advertisements for an entertainment facility, our meeting with development and municipal leaders on economic ventures including a planned facility for pay4families. At one time no one was participating in the personal accounts either, how does offering the accounts make it a lie? What proof does he offer that we would have refused these deposits? 29. Page 45 contains an “ad” which says “COMING SOON Payments will be made via our new aid4Families Visa Card”. While there is no evidence linking Aid4families.com to Visa cards, this is yet another example of a false claim, made to falsely exaggerate the size and breadth of the Aid4Families.com enterprise, to make it seem more stable and reliable as an investment institution. 29. Another thing he kept tucked away in his mind or a cherry-picked nugget he took out of context when writing his decision. Everybody including Easy Home, payday loans etc. have their own visa. We were going to use them as payroll cards but we were informed by Wells Fargo and BOA that we needed an American bank account, so it remained coming soon. It didn't say get a visa credit card. It says we will distribute and load payments on them. Welfare in the USA is deposited on a visa card. Bank debit cards have visa logos. This would not impress an American, nor does it MAKE you more “stable”.
This would have only meant that we had opened an account with Bank of America and chose to use this service. Most banks offer payroll services for companies. It was a matter of convenience and expense because we were distributing payments through bank wires.
30. The webpage occasionally used undefined terms. For example, page 44 contains the isolated and undefined term “100% APY”. At the bottom of the same page is a statement “Pays 100% APY 25% every three months.” On page 47, there is the following statement, again using undefined terms: “Government and Bank products will never offer 120% a.p.r. They will never offer a guaranteed rate or return per year for as many years!” Whether APY is meant to suggest “Annual Percentage Yield” is unclear, just is whether “a.p.r.” is meant to represent annual percentage rate. However, there is no doubt that the accused could not live up to any professed “guaranteed” rate of return on investments with Aid4Families.com. 30. What proof does he have/offer that we could not produce 120% in a year? We have proof to the contrary. 31. Last, and perhaps the lowest form of deceit found on the website is the claim that Aid4Families.com had opened a “charitable branch”. This is accompanied, at pages 58 and 59 with pictures of happy, smiling children, and a claim that Aid4Families charity, also called “A4FC”, would take 1% of the Aid4Families.com profits and use it to resolve problems like hunger (irrigation, sanitation, roads and greenhouses), poverty (financial grants for business and education), train and pay the homeless and poor to be dispatched around the world, and build homes that respect the traditional culture and meets modern needs. 31. There are no pics of happy smiling children on the A4fc page. If he read this as well it explains our interest in this field and how we believe we can improve it. Since this doesn't request any money he falls back on his unsubstantiated perceptions of the “undeserved”, a theme that runs through this decision, that swipes at the notion that we could thrive beyond our genetic impediments I.e. our low birth. He makes it clear in this decision that is his mind he part of a managing class of lords and we are the “undeserving” permanent underclass who can only pretend, masquerade or mimic “real” people. Again ---> None of this is mentioned at trial. Does the following picture look like “smiling children”?
32. These claims, all of them false, were made in order to induce potential “investors” to believe that Aid4Families.com was a stable, reliable, and ethical institution. Aid4Families.com was neither of these: it was instead a means by which the accused sought to deprive the naive of their funds. The Aid4Families.com website is replete with exaggeration, false promise, and plain lies. It provides ample evidence of dishonest and discreditable behavior on the part of the defendants. 32. Again ---> He didn't READ it. No one asked about it. It clearly states that it is coming and would have it's own website (when we launch it). One moment we're plopping out organizations too fast (aid4, aid2, pay4, Chique etc), the next moment the things we weren't allowed to get to on our list automatically become lies. Wouldn't it make more sense for the organization to be a few years old with several years of declared profits and be directly questioned about specific amounts? Example: Question: The 2011 tax returns show $150K should have been put in to a4fc. Did this happen? Or Question: You say you spent 100k digging wells in country x with pictures of workers digging wells but we have proof that your organization never took part in any such activity, do you have any proof? It is insane to say that if you never did in the past what you promise to do in the future, it's a lie!! If you promise to go to work Monday morning then no one should be able to tell you that you lied Sunday night. Shouldn't they wait til Monday before passing judgment? 33. Of course, this is not the only evidence of the dishonesty of the defendants. Let me briefly discuss that evidence. 34. In her telephone and email dealings with the complainants, the first accused used aliases: she called herself variously her real name, Breyanne, “Jessica”, and “Amanda”. She denied having used these aliases in any attempt to falsely inflate the size of the Aid4Families.com operation, just as she insisted that her references to the “wire department”, the “funding department”, or the “back room” were not attempts to falsely give an exaggerated size of the Aid4families.com operation. She said “we were a small corporation”. This in and of itself is false: Aid4Families.com was never incorporated. 33/34. Telephone conversations before anyone joins the program, I used the anglicized name Jessica(he even spells it wrong in the decision as further proof that people have difficulty with Reyanne). For internal records we assigned different names for sorting. Amanda meant either deal with Amanda at interbankfx or deal with Odette at the bank. So if we are to believe the judge, the Koch's as well as all the clients had one person answer the phone every time they called, whenever they called to make them think this was a large company to make them part with their money. Mr. Koch testified they he was given the GIGANTIC number of 4-5 people involved with the company. If the purpose of using another name was to inflate the size of the company, why wait until after they join(sent their money) to introduce them to another name? I never said it was a small corporation or mentioned a “back room”. He may be surprised to find out that a corporation can be just 1 or 2 people. So a corporation is not necessarily larger and is not at a higher status than a sole proprietorship, again we never mention being a corporation. When confronted about this “alias” law that they created, Sgt. Clifford made it clear that he was not going to make any arrests at all major corporations that require or allow their employees to choose a name when dealing with the public.
Note: No “aliases” were used in any official function of the company (bank accounts, business license, accounts with vendors, or client contracts etc). We understand that the law stretches sanity saying that if they heard these names AFTER they send their money it's deceit but is it sane or legal to say that we allowed only one name to the customers BEFORE they sent their money, even though our supposed intent was to inflate the number of people working there? This strains the imagination that had they been introduced to all 3 names up front it would have induced them to take a minimum of 25k from an organization they know (bank, broker) and trust with hundreds or thousands of employees and locations. 35. Her credibility is suspect, not only due to the use of aliases and pretending that there were different “departments” in the scheme. She told the Kochs that her own parents had invested with Aid4families.com, and were happy with it. There is no evidence that her parents had invested with the scheme, nor that they were happy with the results. Further, July Murphy testified, under direct examination and cross examination, that the first accused told her that the cheque for $153,500 which she was trying to deposit with the Marystown Community Credit Union came from their sale of property in the United States. That evidence is uncontradicted. It clearly shows a deliberate attempt by the first accused to conceal the source of the funds, itself a dishonest act. 35. Back office operations does not constitute department. Defined wikipedia : Back offices may be somewhere other than the headquarters of a company. Much of the time they are in areas and countries with cheaper rent and lower labor costs. Back office functions can be outsourced to consultants and contractors in any country. Wire and funding were outsourced. Never said her parents were invested ---> Never questioned about it. Never asked by the crown or judge about the real estate check. The trial was similar to this decision where whatever we addressed they would simply change to something else. I wouldn't know why or how I could conceal the source of the funds. THE SANITY TO CONCEAL: I'm holding a certified check, written out to my business(not my husband) from the Koch's. What could I conceal? The source is the Koch's and their bank, I make several trips outside because I keep getting different reasons for the hold( a dishonest act by the bank, he happened to miss). In questioning the inconvenience, I finally ask “ you mean to tell me that if he had sold the property down there and needed to buy property here, you would hold it for 20 days?” The following day, I was called and lied to and told that the business license was now not acceptable that they needed a “newfoundland business license”(newfoundland doesn't issue business licenses). In Elaine Seniors testimony she explained that the reason we were told it would be a 20 day hold on the check and a 30 day hold the following day was because Julie was new and had made a mistake and couldn't get her facts straight. So she was mistaken when she asked a senior officer how long the hold would be and told me 20 days, even though the following day Elaine said herself that she was informed that it would be 30days. It was also 10 months between the day I deposited the check and her testimony. We specifically asked her to confirm the origin and purpose of the check to expedite the release of the funds. She told us she couldn't then testified that she already had.
36.The second accused's credibility also suffers. He prefaced his viva voce evidence with two digital video disks (dvd) of his own making. These dvds contained an out of court statement, and were therefore of dubious admissibility, but were admitted by consent of counsel. 36. He did not admit them easily as he stopped the video 3 times in the first hour and only let it continue on the basis that was not directed at individuals or meant as contempt but to address the charges. 37. The first dvd contained several items which undermined his credibility. First, it contained his own definition of fraud, which appeared to allow a person to lie to potential clients. Second, it advanced his theory that “money is not real”, and that “gold has a static value”. Third, he alleges that the Federal Reserve System “creates money out of nothing”. Fourth, he alleges that banks operate their own “Ponzi” scheme. Fifth, he suggests that the police are complicit in this, by not investigating the banks. He does this by posing the question “Did BMO call the RCMP and get a busy signal?” That part of the first dvd closes with the second accused posing the question “what have we learned today, boys and girls?” Keeping in mind that the first dvd was prepared by the second defendant in anticipation of his viva voce evidence, it is clearly incorrect to refer to its audience as “boys and girls”. 37. Was not my definition:
Dothan Alabama Criminal Law Links
In a broad strokes definition, fraud is a deliberate misrepresentation which causes anothe person to suffer damages, usually monetary losses. Most people consider the act of lying be fraudulent, but in a legal sense lying is only one small element of actual fraud. A sales may lie about his name, eye color, place of birth and family, but as long as he remains tru about the product he sells, he will not be found guilty of fraud. There must be a deliberat misrepresentation of the product's condition and actual monetary damages must occur.
The dvd was me sourcing my information for the website. It was addressing that they simply could not hang their hat on someone not using their actual name on the phone: Which is still not contradicted. The rest is because the dvd is incomplete. We provided our counsel with a companion binder full of source material to force the judge shift his low opinion of us to our sources. Gold has a static value → again I was reading (paper in hand on the video): Here's another example from Seeking alpha: How long is the long term? "It is said that an ounce of gold bought 350 loaves of bread in the time of Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon, who died in 562 BC," wrote Stephen Harmston – then an economist at Bannock Consulting – for the World Gold Council (WGC) just when Niall Ferguson was condemning gold as mere frippery ten years ago. "The same ounce of gold," Harmston went on in his study, Gold as a Store of Value, "still buys approximately 350 loaves of bread today." Which seems an odd swap to us, unless you're very hungry indeed. But "across 2,500 years, gold has in other words retained its purchasing power, relative to bread at least."
The judge refuted this by making 2 erroneous statements 1. Gold is not static, it fluctuates on an open market. 2. Canada was never on the gold standard. --> source : Canadian
encyclopedia (but anywhere will do for this fact). When World War I commenced, Canada, like the United Kingdom, went off the gold standard and remained so until 1 July 1926, when it went back on again. Then, in January 1929, Canada ceased redeeming Dominion notes in gold, and thus effectively ended its adherence to the gold standard. Since that time its has either let the Canadian dollar float or pegged it to the US dollar, as in 1962-70. Unlike the judge, crown and police, we can provide proof and source OUR “unfounded” remarks. #1. may seem correct but it has nothing to do with the static value. Earlier he states that I trade forex, a commodity just like gold. It should have dawned on him that a commodity trader would know that the price of gold fluctuates. #2. Canada was on the gold standard but him stating it never was is him advancing HIS unfounded theory. “fed creates money out of nothing ----> Google it:
Google fed creates money out of thin air
Advanced Search Preferences
WebHide options Show options... Results 1 - 10 of about 368,000 for fed creates money out of thin air. (0.28 seconds)
Search Results 1. How the Fed Creates Money - Brief Analysis #611 28 Feb 2008 ... The Fed reduces interest rates by increasing the supply of money available to borrow. ... one could say they were created out of “thin air. ... www.ncpa.org/pub/ba611 - Cached - Similar
1. How Banks Create Money Out Of Thin Air 10 Jan 2008 ... Once again the bank creates money out of thin air. ... Free Home Repairs & Improvement Grants - How to Get Free Federal Grants For Home ... ezinearticles.com/?How...Create-Money-Out-Of-Thin-Air... - Cached - Similar
1. What happens when the FED create money out of thin air ?? reduce ... Printing money ( without Gold, after Nixon ) , create price inflation ? ... Technically, the "Fed" (Federal Reserve Bank) does not print money. ... answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid... - Cached - Similar
1. Video results for fed creates money out of thin air How Banks Create Money Out Of Thin Air 7 min www.youtube.com
Ron Paul - Federal Reserve creates money from ... 10 min www.youtube.com
2. How Banks Create Money Out of Thin Air - TRCB 13 Aug 2008 ... However, they still exercise a great deal of “power” to create money literally out of thin air with some help from The Fed, of course. ... www.trcb.com/.../how-banks-create-money-out-of-thin-air-525.htm - Cached - Similar
1. How Banks Create Money Out Of Thin Air | NO MONEY LIMITS... 10 Jan 2008 ... The Federal Reserve requires banks to keep a portion of their customer deposits ... Once again, the bank has created money out of thin air. ... www.nomoneylimitsblog.com/.../how-banks-create-money-out-of-thin-air/ - Cached - Similar
1. Shocking: How the Fed Really Creates Money Out of Thin Air (video ... 7 Oct 2008 ... Shocking: How the Fed Really Creates Money Out of Thin Air (video) www.naturalnews.com/News_000340_fractionalreserve_banking_Federal_Reserve_money_supply.html - Cached - Similar
Money from thin air High street banks issue money in the form of loans. Could this be the root cause of the credit crunch? James Robertson •
guardian.co.uk, Thursday 20 March 2008 17.00 GMT
...At the heart of the matter is the fact that commercial banks are allowed to create almost all the money we use. They create it out of thin air and put it into circulation in the form of profit-making loans. They credit those to their customers' accounts by a simple accounting procedure, and their customers spend the money into circulation. This bank-account money is the money that all of us, people and organizations alike, have in our bank accounts. It is held in electronic form in bank computers. It is far and away the largest part of the money supply. The rest, less than 5% in this country, is "cash". This is issued by agencies of the state in the form of paper banknotes by the Bank of England and metal coins by the Royal Mint. The key question is this: did the banks' privilege of creating bank-account money to lend to one another play a significant part in fueling the credit bonanza, subprime market and financial boom that bust, leaving such a tangle of international interbank indebtedness that central banks and other authorities like the Financial Services Agency could not assess the potential consequences if it unraveled? The answer, of course, is yes. But supposedly democratic parliaments, governments and monetary and financial authorities avoid explaining points like that to citizens in understandable words. Secrecy and deception about
how the money system works, why it works as it does, and whether there might be a clear and simple way in which its workings could be reformed in the public interest, undoubtedly contributes to disillusionment with democratic politics and government....
Banks operate their own ponzi scheme ---> Google it.
Google banks ponzi scheme
Advanced Search Preferences
WebHide optionsShow options... Results 1 - 10 of about 1,260,000 for banks ponzi scheme. (0.30 seconds)
Search Results 1. The Bank's Ponzi Scheme of Credit Creation in the Subprime ... 1 May 2008 ... The Bank's Ponzi Scheme of Credit Creation in the Subprime ... In essence, the subprime mortgage experiment was a Ponzi scheme at its least ... www.foreclosurefish.com/blog/index.php?id=484 - Cached - Similar
1. Web of Debt - THE COLLAPSE OF A 300 YEAR PONZI SCHEME: THE REAL ... 16 Oct 2008 ... The Wall Street Ponzi scheme is built on “fractional reserve” lending, which allows banks to create “credit” (or “debt”) with accounting ... www.webofdebt.com/articles/modest_proposal.php - Cached - Similar
1. Did the banks perpetrate a Ponzi scheme? (Dealscape - Scandal) 15 Dec 2008 ... The media has accepted Bernard Madoff's reported admission that his $50 billion Ponzi scheme is the largest in history, but Janet Tavakoli, ... www.thedeal.com/.../who_perpetrated_the_larger_pon.php - Cached - Similar
1. Ponzi Scheme Defined - The World Newser EVERY SINGLE BANK IN THE WORLD runs a Ponzi scheme. HELLO?!?! Banks take your deposits, invest them in other areas, and give you interest ... blogs.abcnews.com/theworldnewser/.../ponzi-scheme-de.html - Cached - S
“Did BMO call the RCMP and get a busy signal?” ---> NOT my quote. A seeking alpha article entitled “ are candian regulators ignoring fraud”.
Are Canadian Regulators Ignoring Fraud? 4 comments by: Mark McQueen February 04, 2008 | about: BMO / CM / MER / RY / SCGLY.PK / UBS
Mark McQueen Follow 94 Followers 0 Following
You are currently following Mark McQueen Stop Following You are no longer following Mark McQueen About this author: • •
Profile & More Articles Wellington Financial Blog
Last week, Conrad Black was told by a Chicago judge that he couldn’t delay his March 3rd jail date. He plied his trade out of the historic 10 Toronto Street address, but Canadian enforcement officals never found Lord Black wanting - even though Canadian equity research analysts had long figured out that most of Hollinger’s profit wound up in the hands of Ravelston shareholders. One doesn’t even need to raise the name Garth Drabinsky, who never caught the Ontario Securities Commission’s eye until the FBI came calling, to get a sense that we do things differently in Canada. In one needs any confirmation of this indifference, the recent billions of lost shareholder wealth at the hands of Canadian bankers hasn’t raised a single gumshoes' eyebrows. That’s not to say they aren’t keen to fry the small fish: Debbie Weinstein, Brian Costello and Jo-Anne Chang. But if the sums are massive, or the defendants wellheeled, the situations invariably seem to generate a free pass from the OSC and RCMP. ....Strangely, Canada’s
Integrated Market Enforcement Team trucks have not rolled up to Toronto’s First Canadian Place to investigate this alleged crime, even though the Canadian Criminal Code has an entire section devoted to monetary fraud .
Did BMO call the RCMP and get a busy signal? See not a quote from genetically criminal black guy rather a respectable white guys quote ;) In none of this does he offer any information to the contrary, he seems to expect the reader to be like minded. 38. Worse than that, however, is the remark which follows it, to the effect that “it is very difficult for a Judge, prosecutor, cop or politician to go against a bank”. This contempt is continued with statements like “bankers don't go to jail” and “we don't have a justice system”. 38. He offers nothing to refute it. The following article is a little something to prove it: His evidence is that you would be “naive” to believe me in '06 & '07 when I talk about large organizations getting a pass and pension schemes being run in the ground. In 2009, it's not only naiveté but malice, it's clear that no research was done to verify my assertions as a valid point of view.
ABCP investors say they were duped by financial community Last Updated: Thursday, April 10, 2008 | 5:22 PM ET Comments0Recommend10 The Canadian Press The breakdown of the $32-billion asset backed commercial paper (ABCP) system amounted to criminal fraud that no one in Canada appears prepared to investigate or prosecute, a House of Commons committee was told Thursday. "It's a free ride in Canada for financial crime," said Larry Elford, a former Alberta financial adviser who now heads an investment advocacy group. "The law simply does not apply to the financial industry." 'The current financial regulatory system is broken and offers no protection to Canadian investors'—Financial analyst Diane Urquhart In the first public hearing on the financial markets crisis that unfolded from the U.S. subprime meltdown last summer, the House finance committee heard horror stories from three independent investors unwittingly caught up in the secretive, arcane world of high finance. One Victoria investor, Wynne Miles, 58, who described herself as self-employed and with no pension, had placed her life savings in what she supposed were government treasury bills, only to find out in July they had been transferred into non-bank ABCP without her knowledge. Retired Alberta farmer Murray Candlish told a similar story
about how his $350,000 in savings was invested in a triple-A rated trust he was assured was as secure as the Canadian banking system. "Now our dreams are slowly disappearing as the value of our investment erodes," Candlish told the committee. The first-person testimonials held MPs from all four parties spellbound for most of the two hours and surprised some, who said they were under the assumption investors knew what they were getting into. "It's been like a red light going on for us," said Bloc QuĂŠbĂŠcois MP Paul Crete, who at the end of the hearing proposed that the asset-backed commercial paper affair become a priority for the committee, after passage of the budget. "We have to have people from banks, regulators, others who can tell us why this crisis is there and what are the solutions to this problem." Thursday's witnesses, including investors and investment experts, had no trouble pinpointing the problem. They said financial institutions they trusted duped investors into putting their money into ABCP with assurances the investments were rock solid, when they were in fact tied up in the U.S. subprime mess. And when the house of cards came tumbling down last summer, Canada's entire structure of oversight agencies was more interested in saving the system from exposure and collapse than in protecting innocent investors. Even now, the system is protecting itself, they added. While cautiously welcoming Tuesday's proposed "relief plan" by Canaccord Capital Inc. to repurchase up to $138 million of the debt held by 1,430 of its individual clients holding less than $1 million in the investment, Miles points out that acceptance comes with strings. "The requirement that we waive our rights to sue is unacceptable," she said. "I feel as if I am being offered an ultimatum and that makes me very angry. We have been wronged." Regulators criticized Most witnesses were very critical of provincial and federal regulating bodies like the Ontario Securities Commission and the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions for looking the other way while suspect and likely illegal practices were being carried out, failing to investigate abuses, and for often granting legal exemptions to financial institutions. "The current financial regulatory system is broken and offers no protection to Canadian investors," said Diane Urquhart, a Toronto-area independent financial analyst. "They have violated provincial securities acts and the Ontario Securities Commission has done nothing and stood by blindly." Both Elford and Urquhart said the only solution is the creation of a national securities commissioner with the sole mandate to protect investors and no connections to the financial sector. Part of the current problem, added Elford, is that the current provincial regulators have a conflict of interest and too close ties with the financial houses. "They not only fail to protect consumers, but they give Canadians a false sense of security," said Elford. "We are sitting ducks. If one finds a law being broken, there is simply no police agency to call that does not have a conflict of interest." Some of the witnesses said that the system is so broken that eight months after the commercial paper was frozen, some Canadians still don't know that part of their investments are in ABCP.
Liberal finance critic John McCallum, a former vice-president of the Royal Bank, said the allegations are serious and need to be investigated, but he was not prepared to apportion blame at this time. "I can't stand here today and say who's to blame, but we have heard disturbing allegations about regulators who may be in the pockets of the regulated," he said. "We need to find out what went wrong in this particular disaster and what we can do to make sure that future crises are less likely to happen." The law doesn't say he has to agree with my free speech, which is the criteria he used to discredit it without cause. We did the research and provided the public with an eerily exact analysis, it's too late to say these warnings were uninformed ramblings to steal peoples money. You couldn't be “naïve” to believe us, you had to be extremely progressive to accept this information at the beginning of the crisis.
39. The second accused's contempt for the judicial system is evident in the second dvd as well. It includes a title called “Banks and the Judiciary: a double standard”. It also purports to be developing a plan whereby Aid4families would have eventually created a banking system along an amalgam of Kiva.org and Grammeen Bank, loaning out small loans to poor people. There is no evidence of any of this from the operations of Aid4Families.com: on the contrary, the only persons who might have benefited from those operations were the accused, and they did not loan one cent to anybody. 39. I've shown no contempt for the judiciary. I been compliant and courteous during this assault. He doesn't offer any evidence either with a criminal past, disrespect to any court officers or violation of his orders. Aid4families would have eventually grown into a banking system and not created one. Our existing recipients were benefiting from our program who were not loaned but Given a lot more than 1 cent.
40. Let there be no confusion here: the second accused is not being cited for contempt for these offensive and unfounded remarks. However, his obvious contempt for the Judiciary and the justice system does seriously undermine his credibility. 40. Here he's saying that he IS CONVICTING ME for reading and saying things that are often delivered in speeches at legal conferences, are part of essays by law students, appear as articles in legal journals, railed against daily in the halls of government, mocked and exposed in media but when it comes from someone in the “UNDERSERVING” class it becomes contempt and not an informed critique. He repeatedly refers to them as my views in an attempt to isolate and malign me. As you can see for yourself, I can source my “unfounded” remarks. If this is fair at all, let him provide some evidence like I just did. 41. But the evidence of the accused is, at the end of the matter, of no import, because they have no onus of proof. Certainly, if their evidence was believed, they would deserve to be acquitted. Even if their evidence was rejected, but the Court was left with a reasonable doubt, the accused would still have to be acquitted, because it would mean that the Crown had failed to meet its burden, of proof of all elements of the offences alleged beyond reasonable doubt. It is only when the offences have been proved beyond reasonable doubt that a conviction may enter: see R. v. W(D), (1994), 93 C.C.C. (3d) 1 (S.C.C.).
41. The only thing he says, not seething with contempt; â€œ certainly, if their evidence was believed, they would deserve to be acquittedâ€?
Summary: As he made it clear, he came to his conclusion by declaring everything on the site to be fraud in a blanket manner. Then he cut pasted unrelated excerpts and tacked on his own unsubstantiated claims. What we are saying is simple, the people who would have shared our ideology(a requisite for joining the program) would not have interpreted the site in any way similar to the people involved in the investigation/prosecution/judgment. This a clear case of advocacy from the bench, judicial misconduct, tunnel-vision as evidenced by the text of this decision which is written more as an article to the media than a legal decision. He immediately released it to the media and public and gave interviews upstaging the prosecutor who generally takes credit for prosecuting the case. He obviously wants it known that were it not for him, we would have been acquitted. It's clear that he considers himself the successful prosecutor of this case with no chance of failure since he also was the acting judge. How often do judges talk to the media about a verdict they gave while the case is still before his court? You don't have to wonder what kind of sentence we are facing nor do you have to wonder what chance we ever had in defending our innocence. The answer is clearly, No Chance! A year ago the crown offered to completely drop the charges against Reyanne and 1 year conditional to earl. If we had taken it, this would all be over for us and we wouldn't be going to jail. A year ago the crown knew the case was a dud and we thought we had a chance at a fair trial so we moved forward. After kicking the trial out another year effectively sentencing us both to 1 year conditional he still gave us a guilty verdict and wants to throw us in prison. It destroys our livelihood and essentially divorces us since we can't enter each others country, never mind the destruction to the lives of our 2 toddlers. This makes the punishment cruel and unusual just with the decision alone. It already surpasses the sentence of similarly situated defendants. Spending time in prison for a crime you didn't commit and according to the ruling didn't need to commit to be punished is a nightmare.
9.While it is difficult to quantify their losses, the Kochs sent a total of $343,500 to the defendants, in four payments. These were two pay...
Published on Feb 26, 2010
9.While it is difficult to quantify their losses, the Kochs sent a total of $343,500 to the defendants, in four payments. These were two pay...