On June 1, 2006 Sherman sent me notice of a June 7, 2006 application by Taylor which I retrieved from my post office box on June 12 along with a June 6 letter from Sherman informing me the hearing had been moved up a day. So by the time I got word of a hearing the event had already transpired. In the hearing Sherman told Burnyeat I had been mailed notice (a lie) and he expected I might even show up. I received no notice of a June 6 hearing, only a June 7 court engagement. Had I shown up at the courthouse for the June 7 hearing I would have been told I was a day late. As usual, no notice of a BC Supreme Court hearing. Sherman felt it was necessary to be alone in court with my enemies. He wasn't my lawyer any more. In both letters Sherman declared he had ceased acting for me and he told the court the same thing. Then he endorsed Burnyeat's judgments on my behalf anyway.
The court order derived from this June 6 hearing is signed by Taylor and Sherman and it awards a large lump sum payment of $436,615.00 from Alco Enterprises Ltd., a company I own, to the executrix of my father's estate, Lesley L. Houston. This was a completely illegal judgment for Justice Burnyeat to render and it proves he's an incompetent old shyster lawyer not qualified to sit as a judge in any courtroom. According to the last will and testament Taylor Veinotte Sullivan used to divert $436,615.00 to the executrix of Scot G. Houston's estate, Lesley L. Houston was not the executrix of his estate on June 6, 2006. The will stipulates she does not qualify to be the executrix of Scot G. Houston's estate unless she survives him by a period of not less than 30 days. Because my father allegedly passed away on June 2, 2006, Lesley L. Houston didn't become the executrix of his estate until July 2, 2006, if at all. And according to the judgment, the petitioner in the hearing was my father, Scot G. Houston. That was not possible. My dad was dead by June 6, 2006. Using a deceased person's identity to procure a court judgment is an act of fraud, it's an identity crime.
My dad, named as the petitioner, died under mysterious, unexplained circumstances in a Vancouver hospital four days previous on June 2, 2006. He went out the door on May 23, 2006 like he was leaving on a vacation, next thing I hear he's dead after getting his belly sliced open at St. Paul's Hospital. Under these circumstances that's very suspicious. Sounds like a professional job to me. The BC Supreme Court commences secret hearings to distribute our assets, a million dollars finds its way into PwC's bank account, and a key witness in the matter suddenly turns up dead. All these events make perfect sense in an area where the government is participating in hardcore fraud.
The executrix of his estate is my sister Lesley L. Houston. Lesley L. Houston is not, and never has been, a party in the legal dispute. She's a third party in the matter, not one of the litigants. How does a person win an exorbitant cash award in someone else's lawsuit? I've never heard of that. All parties present in court were apprised of the death of the petitioner but decided nonetheless to proceed with the hearing. I have not yet received an entered copy of this order.
This was a tense period. With my dad, the petitioner, deceased, it was now out in the open I wasn't being sued by anyone except Taylor and Burnyeat, and it didn't seem to matter. If Taylor and the judge had that much latitude with the law they could do anything - confiscate my house or throw me in jail for no reason, make up some excuse like I'm guilty of contempt and incarcerate me. Taylor's going full steam ahead with his applications, PricewaterhouseCoopers is hanging loans over my head which they may or may not attempt to collect and they've shown they can get judgments without even showing up in court, and then my attorney tells me he's quit just when things really start heating up and I'm most in need of protection. I was under attack by the Ministry of Attorney General.
Jolted, I ran to a pay phone and got Sherman on the line to find out what the hell was going on. He didn't mention his resignation letters, he gave the impression he was still my lawyer so I didn't bring it up. I implored him to please bring the matter to a settlement. Sherman said Taylor would have to consent to a settlement at that point and it would be tied into my agreeing not to contest my father's new will (prepared by Powell River attorney Shirley E. Giroday) making my sister the sole beneficiary of his estate. He said to call him back the following morning and we'd discuss the options.
I thought about what I'd say to Sherman on the phone. The primary point I had to make was that it was wrong to negotiate with Taylor, he's not the one who sued me and the companies. I was sued by my dad and my dad's dead. The next morning I called Sherman and pointed out that with no petitioner it wasn't right that I'd have to settle the suit with Taylor who's not a party in the matter. Sherman agreed that, yes, the law is Taylor ceases to act as counsel in the action upon the death of his client. He seemed to understand my point. Sherman concluded the conversation by saying he'd see the matter through, taking his fees on a deferred contingency basis when the process is concluded upon the discharge of the receiver manager. This was a relief. I'd decided I would not pay out any further money in the matter. Back in early 2005 when I retained Sherman I had made up my mind that with all the leverage I've got against my adversaries there was no reason for me to expend any more than $10,000.00 on negotiations to conclude the dispute. If it couldn't be settled for ten thousand then it probably couldn't be settled at all. The lawyers had gotten as much cash from me as they ever would. The deferred fee contract was verbal, he didn't send me a formal, written copy of the agreement and Sherman has since denied we reached any agreement at all on the phone. It doesn't matter since he didn't send me any more bills anyway.
After the two June 2006 telephone calls I sent Sherman a number of letters instructing him to proceed with an application to the court for the discharge of the receiver manager. My instructions were ignored. However, he did threaten me with more unlawful litigation. PricewaterhouseCoopers had to be told they'd breached Term 9 of the receivership order prohibiting the sale of any asset owned by the companies without an order of the court. They'd been caught ripping off the Powell River Investments Ltd. account at BMO Nesbitt Burns to the tune of $787,169.07. Sherman was informed of PwC's embezzlement and he didn't act on it. He couldn't be trusted to oppose them. He didn't see them as an opponent in the litigation and had cooperated with them against my interests. On December 9, 2005 he consented to the terms of their application without consulting me. He was resisting me, not those opposing me.
Knowing Sherman wouldn't, couldn't, confront them, I took it upon myself to notify the receiver manager I was aware they had liquidated the account and pocketed the proceeds. No one else was going to do it so I knew I had to. Mockler's restraining order making it actionable for me to communicate with the receiver or its counsel could make this a tricky maneuver. According to the appointment order the receiver manager is only the Vancouver office of PwC, so on September 25, 2006 I sent a letter to PwC's Toronto head office attention the Chief Executive Officer and Senior Partner at the time, Christie J. B. Clark, informing him of the governance problems at PwC's Vancouver office. Attached to the letter was a copy of a criminal complaint against PwC employees Michael J. Vermette and Richard D. Pallen. I was pretty sure the letter would trickle down to the Vancouver PwC office and it did.
Three weeks later I got a note from Sherman with a letter of warning from Joseph P. Mockler demanding that I cease all communication with PwC in light of the no-contact order. The message had gotten through. I quickly responded by pointing out to Sherman that the receiver is not PwC's head office in Toronto, Ontario, it's only the Vancouver office of PwC. That's what Burnyeat adjudicated. I had not breached the order. I was in fact complying with the order by writing to their head office. I also passed this message on to Mockler via a complaint registered with The Law Society of British Columbia. I told Sherman that if he was going to align with Mockler and abuse me with the no-contact term I wanted to oppose the condition in the hearing I'd been denied. In an affidavit prepared by Richard D. Pallen of PwC, he claimed I harassed them with phone calls and visits to their office. Sherman consented to the no-contact term based on the charge without giving me any opportunity to deny the allegation. Sherman didn't reply to my request to revisit the no- contact condition.
Finally in mid-December 2006 Sherman sent me a letter saying he'd quit as counsel. Again. Sherman had exhausted all his efforts to intimidate me, he had nothing else to oppose me with. In a January 5, 2007 letter I said to him he could quit if he wanted but I had to get my ten thousand dollar retainer back. If he didn't give me a refund I told him I'd report him to The Law Society.
Then an interesting thing happened. On January 11, 2007, four business days after I told Sherman his conduct would be reported to The Law Society, I get an e-mail from him out of the blue informing me Jordan Kinghorn of Taylor Veinotte Sullivan had informed him they were proceeding with another court application and Burnyeat was prepared to hear it. Sherman said he'd contact Taylor's office for materials and he'd help me by appearing in court as my counsel in the proceeding if I liked. I told him no, he's not my lawyer so why would I want him to represent me? I also told him to point out to Taylor it wouldn't be legal for him to proceed with the application if he's not representing a client. Taylor couldn't lawfully use any orders he received from the judge, the judgments wouldn't be legal. They backed down and the hearing was adjourned a few days later. Needless to say Sherman didn't refund me my ten thousand dollars.
Getting my materials from Sherman was problematic. It took a couple of months of haggling. Instead of sending me the box of court documents, Sherman laid out terms I had to comply with if I wanted what was my own property. Sherman wouldn't incur delivery costs. I was not to attend his office in person. He stipulated that before a courier could pick up the materials I'd have to have filed a notice of intention to act in person form at the courthouse, or alternately, notice appointing new counsel. I had no intention of filing anything with the courthouse. I instructed him to mail me the box C.O.D., cash on delivery, which he agreed to and eventually the documents were delivered.
Glen Sherman was recommended to me by British Columbia's lawyer referral service. All of his misconduct, as well Taylor's, was reported to The Law Society of British Columbia's professional conduct department. It saw no wrongdoing in any of their actions.
The conspiratorial silence of the lawyers and justice system officials involved in this case in the face of naked, out of control fraud and corruption is consistent with omertà, an Italian word which refers to the maxim of silence undertaken by the Mafia, the refusal of its members to rat out fellow mafiosi to the cops, for example. Similarly you'll never hear of a lawyer reporting the criminal misconduct of another lawyer to the authorities in the province of BC. That'll never happen. A secret vow of silence is in effect with the fellowship of The Law Society of British Columbia. What I've described here are the bullying tactics of organized justice system thugs acting in accordance with classic methods of the mob.
This bill is now being circulated to the government:
CALLUM HOUSTON P.O. BOX 423, STATION MAIN POWELL RIVER, BC V8A 5C2
OCTOBER 22, 2007
HONOURABLE WALLY OPPAL, Q.C., M.L.A. BY MAIL ATTORNEY GENERAL AND MINISTER RESPONSIBLE FOR MULTICULTURALISM PO BOX 9044 STN PROV GOVT VICTORIA, BC V8W 9E2
RE: SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA ACTION NO. L012320, VANCOUVER REGISTRY SCOT G. HOUSTON (PETITIONER) V. CALLUM G. HOUSTON, ALCO ENTERPRISES LTD., CEDAR GROVE HOLDINGS INC., POWELL RIVER ACCOUNTING SERVICES LTD., AND POWELL RIVER INVESTMENTS LTD. (RESPONDENTS)
DEAR SIR:
ATTACHED IS ANOTHER CRIMINAL FRAUD, CRIMINAL THEFT, CRIMINAL BREACH OF TRUST, CRIMINAL CONTEMPT, CRIMINAL MONEY LAUNDERING, AND CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT FRAUD COMPLAINT LEVELED WITH THE CITY OF VANCOUVER POLICE DEPARTMENT AGAINST TWO COURT-APPOINTED SATELLITES OF THE MINISTRY OF ATTORNEY GENERAL IN BRITISH COLUMBIA, PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS INC. (PWC) AND BMO NESBITT BURNS INC.
THE COMPLAINT AMOUNTS TO A MULTITUDE OF EXTREMELY SERIOUS CRIMINAL CHARGES AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT.
PWC'S APPOINTMENT AS RECEIVER MANAGER WAS SUBJECT TO ITS COMPLIANCE WITH THE TERMS OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER. WHEN PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS INC. BREACHED THE TERMS OF THE ORDER IT VOIDED ITS APPOINTMENT AS RECEIVER MANAGER.
PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS INC. AND BMO FINANCIAL GROUP MUST FORTHWITH DESIST FROM UTTERING MY NAME, THE NAMES OF MY COMPANIES, AND MY DECEASED FATHER'S NAME (SCOT G. HOUSTON) IN THE COURSE OF ANY TRANSACTION OF ANY NATURE, IN ANY CONTEXT INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, IN THE PROCUREMENT OF COURT JUDGMENTS.
EXCEPT ONLY WHEN REMITTING PAYMENT(S) TO CALLUM HOUSTON TO SETTLE THIS MATTER (OR WHEN REMITTING PAYMENT[S] FOR ANY OTHER MONIES OWING), THE GOVERNMENT MUST FORTHWITH DESIST FROM UTTERING MY NAME, THE NAMES OF MY COMPANIES, AND MY DECEASED FATHER'S NAME IN THE COURSE OF ANY TRANSACTION OF ANY NATURE, IN ANY CONTEXT INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, IN THE PROCUREMENT OF COURT JUDGMENTS.
THE FOLLOWING ARE FACTS:
SCBC ACTION NO. L012320 COMMENCED IN 2001 WHEN THE ASSETS OF THE RESPONDENT COMPANIES WERE FROZEN WITHOUT WARNING PURSUANT TO AN EX PARTE APPLICATION IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA.
THE PETITIONER WAS NOT ABLE TO PROVE TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE COURT THAT HE WAS THE SOLE AND/OR MAJORITY SHAREHOLDER OF THE RESPONDENT COMPANIES AS ALLEGED. THERE IS NO CREDIBLE EVIDENCE THE PETITIONER HAD AN OWNERSHIP INTEREST IN THE COMPANIES AT ALL.
SCBC ACTION NO. L012320 DID NOT PROCEED TO A TRIAL.
SCBC ACTION NO. L012320 OFFICIALLY EXPIRED ON OCTOBER 1, 2005 PURSUANT TO AN AUGUST 5, 2005 JUDGMENT OF THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA.
THE COURT HAS NOT FOUND ME, CALLUM G. HOUSTON, A RESPONDENT IN THE MATTER, LIABLE OF COMMITTING WRONGDOING OF ANY NATURE AGAINST THE PETITIONER IN SCBC ACTION NO. L012320.
THE COURT HAS NOT FOUND THE RESPONDENT COMPANIES LIABLE, EITHER INDIVIDUALLY OR AS A GROUP, OF COMMITTING WRONGDOING OF ANY NATURE AGAINST THE PETITIONER IN SCBC ACTION NO. L012320.
SCBC ACTION NO. L012320 HAS NO PETITIONER. THE PETITIONER IS DECEASED.
THERE IS NO LAWSUIT THAT CONTESTS MY OWNERSHIP OF THE COMPANIES, INCLUDING IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA.
THERE IS NO LEGAL JUSTIFICATION FOR THE GOVERNMENT'S CONFISCATION OF THE FOUR COMPANIES (AND THE ASSETS THE COMPANIES OWNED) NAMED IN THE EXPIRED LAWSUIT.
THE GROSS DOLLAR AMOUNT OF CORPORATE CAPITAL MY COMPANIES HELD WHEN THE ASSETS WERE FROZEN BY THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA IN 2001 WAS $1.3 MILLION. THERE WAS $1.1 MILLION IN THE BROKERAGE AND BANK ACCOUNTS OF ALCO ENTERPRISES LTD. AND POWELL RIVER INVESTMENTS LTD., THERE WAS A POWELL RIVER, BC RENTAL PROPERTY OWNED BY A COMPANY CALLED CEDAR GROVE HOLDINGS INC. THAT PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS INC. RECENTLY THREATENED TO SELL FOR $100,000.00, AND A COMPANY CALLED ALCO ENTERPRISES LTD. HELD A SECURED MORTGAGE WORTH $105,000.00. THESE FIGURES ARE BACKED UP BY DOCUMENTATION PREVIOUSLY FORWARDED TO THE GOVERNMENT'S ATTENTION.
I HAVE PERSONALLY WASTED $35,000.00 IN LEGAL FEES ON A CIVIL DEFENSE.
THE GOVERNMENT MAY HAVE PREVAILED IN AN ILLEGAL WAR AGAINST ME. HOWEVER, THE GOVERNMENT DID NOT WIN A CIVIL LAWSUIT AGAINST ME.
TOTAL PAYABLE: $1,340,000.00
PAYMENT DUE DATE: DECEMBER 31, 2008
PLEASE REMIT A CHEQUE FOR A TOTAL OF NOT LESS THAN $1,340,000.00 MADE PAYABLE TO CALLUM HOUSTON BEFORE THE DATE OF JANUARY 1, 2009.