"HOUSTON V. HOUSTON ET AL." CONTINUED
|
CAREY D. VEINOTTE AND THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
The Canadian government aids and abets financial crime. Every single time I've faced a criminal
charge in British Columbia there's been some form of a fraud play going on in the background.
You'd think a driving charge would be fraud-free right? Think again. Even the dangerous driving
charge the government laid on me in 2006 was part of a fraud scheme. The individual who'd filed a
criminal complaint against me, the "victim," was at the same time attempting to squeeze a cash
settlement out of my car insurance provider. The charge was part of his fraud scam. I hadn't
committed a crime against this person. It's impossible to participate in fraud-free judicial due
process in the province of British Columbia.
And the government's protection of unsavoury individuals explains why Vancouver attorney Carey
D. Veinotte was awarded a five year criminal sentence against me without any allegation of a crime
against him. Five years and no criminal conviction! Allow me to describe how the British Columbia
government sentenced me to five years without a conviction or a charge.
It's the year 2001 and I'm named in a criminal matter. The whole perverse fiasco stinks. It's a
setup. A setup by the mob, the V mob, the Vancouver mafia. On March 15, 2001 I was arrested,
denied bail, then, after eight days in jail without charges, the Crown managed to cobble together
paperwork, bereft of actual evidence, so charges could finally be processed. Knowing my back was
against the wall, realizing a fair trial was never going to take place, I pleaded guilty and after
languishing caged in pre-trial lockup for four dead-months was sentenced to an additional six months
jail and a three year probation order. The matter was heard in the Provincial Court of British
Columbia in North Vancouver. The prosecution thought I'd been entombed alive. I wasn't. This
was no premature burial.
During the entire course of the proceedings, including the time leading up to my arrest, the
prosecutor in the Crown counsel's office in North Van was discussing the detailed mechanics of my
individual case with a Vancouver lawyer called Carey D. Veinotte. Veinotte is Robert W. Taylor's
business partner. Carey D. Veinotte was a complete and utter stranger to me. He had absolutely
nothing to do with the matter at hand. I was charged pursuant to allegations made against me by a
man called Graham J. Phillips and his wife Susan. Not by Carey D. Veinotte. It was Phillips who
was the "victim" in the matter, not Veinotte. Despite the fact Carey D. Veinotte was an unrelated
third party in the proceedings, North Vancouver Crown Counsel Marie Louise Ahrens entered into
private, back door discussions with Veinotte regarding sentencing terms to be imposed against me in
an upcoming hearing. And one of the outcomes of those confidential discussions was an oddball
"no-contact" condition in a probation order. On the request of Veinotte, the prosecutor stood before
Judge William J. Diebolt in a July 6, 2001 provincial court hearing and successfully convinced the
judge to grant a no-contact order against me in favor of the law firm Veinotte worked at, a shady
establishment known as Walsh & Company.
The risk of another criminal charge for breach of a probation order, and certain re-imprisonment,
should I attempt to communicate with anyone connected with the law firm Walsh & Company,
either personally or through an agent, represented an extremely formidable deterrent to defending
myself against any civil action brought against me by Veinotte's law firm. Simply put: If I
attempted to challenge Veinotte's forthcoming lawsuit against me I'd go to jail. This is exactly what
Veinotte and the Ministry of Attorney General wanted.
The order Crown counsel procured for Carey D. Veinotte is essentially the equivalent of the
criminal code section 810 surety to keep the peace recognizance order where injury or damage is
feared. Not an actual offense (it doesn't show up on your record as a conviction) the section 810
expires after a period of one year and contains specific conditions and terms the subject must
comply with. Should an extension of the restraining order be desired, the Crown is required to
make an application to the court. However, the order prohibiting my contact with anyone employed
at Walsh & Company (does this include the janitor too?), as well as the other order making a
geographical area of downtown Vancouver a no-go zone, had a duration parallel to that of the
probation order in which it was embedded, thus it was applicable for a period of three years. Three
years. Three years is a threefold extension of the one year term on a restraining order compliant
with Canadian law.
A donation from the BC government, bestowed like a grant (or a welfare cheque), this three-year
restraining order was awarded to Veinotte with no criminal charge or allegation of wrongdoing
against him or his law firm.
Veinotte's concealed discussions with Crown Counsel Ahrens, his input into the sentencing terms to
be imposed, were for the purpose of using the criminal proceedings to entirely shut me out of a
hearing he scheduled in the Vancouver Registry of the Supreme Court of British Columbia.
Veinotte hadn't been threatened by me in any way, he hadn't lodged any criminal complaint with the
police, I didn't do a thing to Carey D. Veinotte. No, the sentencing terms Veinotte asked Crown
Counsel M.L. Ahrens to request of Judge Diebolt had nothing to do with concern for Veinotte's
personal safety.
On September 6, 2001, while I was locked up in jail, Carey D. Veinotte secured a BC Supreme
Court judgment against me, ostensibly on behalf of my mentally infirm father, now deceased, from
Madam Justice Mary Ellen Boyd in an ex parte (one-sided) hearing. The judgment froze me out of
a number of my own companies and ended up costing me one million three hundred thousand
dollars which I have yet to recover. My incarceration allowed Veinotte to squeeze the order out of
an unsuspecting Justice Boyd completely unopposed.
Then, on September 11, 2001, Veinotte deployed the Boyd court order, deliberately misusing it to
obtain unlawful access to accounts my companies held at TD Waterhouse Discount Brokerage -
accounts containing securities worth in excess of $1 million. Another unbelievable security breach.
Veinotte didn't serve me with a copy of the court order, I was forwarded a copy by TD
Waterhouse, who, recognizing the crooked play he was undertaking, refused to allow Veinotte
access to my family's wealth. Even TD Whorehouse, who usually participate in these dirty schemes
when asked to, didn't feel right about playing along with Veinotte in this case.
So, as you can clearly see, Veinotte's request for a no-contact condition in a probation order was not
to shield the poor, helpless lawyer from being victimized by me in some, as yet unknown, future
criminal act. The reason for Veinotte's talks with Crown Counsel Marie Louise Ahrens was to
create conditions that would make it impossible for me to challenge his attempt to obtain illegal
access to brokerage accounts my companies held at TD Waterhouse. My incarceration made it
easy for Veinotte to procure unopposed civil judgments against me and my companies in BC
Supreme Court. What better way to pull off a heist than to lock up the person you're about to rob
in jail? It's very hard to defend yourself while in prison. You can't fight back against this type of
crime from a jail cell, especially if the Crown is acting in a partnership capacity with the perpetrators.
According to my understanding of basic criminal procedure in the country of Canada, if Veinotte
truly felt I posed some kind of risk he would be required to report his allegation to the police to get a
restraining order against me. You report crime to the police, not a Crown attorney. Is that not how
it works? Apparently not if you're an insider with the Attorney General's ministry. It seems insiders
like Veinotte can bypass the tedious formality of filing police reports and simply call up Crown
counsel on the phone and have phantom charges laid against people. The charges were invisible -
the three year sentence was not. It's right there in the probation order in black ink.
Fact is, everybody knows if you got a situation you call the cops. And if the cops feel your
concerns are credible the matter is processed through proper, open procedure. Why didn't Crown
counsel tell Veinotte to do that? Call the cop shop, not us. That's where it all breaks down for the
Ministry of Attorney General in British Columbia, that's why the institution is in tatters, loathed and
mistrusted, its credibility splattered into a million rancid chunks of deceit.
The Crown didn't say, "You got a problem with someone, Carey? Pick up the phone and call your
local constabulary like the rest of us. What makes you so special?" The reason the Crown didn't
say that was because there was no problem, criminal or otherwise, for Veinotte to report. How
could Crown Counsel Ahrens tell Veinotte to report criminal behavior to the police if there wasn't
any? She couldn't. Nobody was doing anything to Carey D. Veinotte. So a dilemma existed for
Crown counsel. Veinotte wasn't the victim of criminal conduct in those proceedings taking place in
North Van, but the Crown wanted to support him, wanted to assist him. So Crown counsel broke
all the rules and found another way to help out Carey D. Veinotte with his scam to rip off a
brokerage. Crown Counsel Ahrens decided the only way to help him would be to make submissions
on his behalf to a judge in somebody else's hearing, in a criminal proceeding to which Carey D.
Veinotte was a third party. And it worked, Ahrens was wildly successful. She got precisely what
she wanted from the judge for her friend Carey. As it turns out, Veinotte managed to procure a
three-year no-contact order against me, obtained through the North Vancouver Crown prosecutor's
office, without a criminal complaint being filed, without any police involvement, without any
allegation of wrongdoing on my part against him, and without a trial or hearing.
Crown Counsel Marie Louise Ahrens had absolutely no legal right or authority to disclose
confidential information relating to the criminal prosecution she was undertaking against me in North
Vancouver Provincial Court to any unrelated third party, Carey D. Veinotte included. Crown
Counsel Marie Louise Ahrens had no right to let any unrelated third party influence the terms and
conditions she was to ask of a judge in a sentencing hearing. This level of misconduct on the part of
the Crown is incomprehensibly underhanded. It's very hard to understand.
The RCMP arrested me again in 2002. The Squamish RCMP. The Squamish RCMP who later
obstructed me from reporting a bank robbery. I was charged, jailed n' bailed, allegedly for
breaching the terms of a probation order. It's my belief Carey D. Veinotte influenced the decision
of the Crown counsel office in North Vancouver to pursue criminal charges against me.
Then on the morning of January 16, 2003 I was arrested by the RCMP again, for the third time, in
Langley, BC and transported to Vancouver jail where I was detained. Carey D. Veinotte had gone
to the VPD claiming he feared personal injury. Veinotte said my use of the word "action" in a
January 13, 2002 letter meant I was going to physically attack him. He was threatened with legal
action, nothing more. All I ever demanded of Carey Veinotte was that he go away and leave me be.
Veinotte did not require protection from me, it was the other way around. I was experiencing the
government's security system for lawyers in operation, first hand. Witnessing it before my eyes.
I was not charged with a criminal offense. To get around the lack of a crime, the Crown demanded
I consent to a no-contact order for Veinotte. I hadn't done anything to Veinotte so I refused to
consent to the recognizance order and spent the next eleven months on supervised bail awaiting a
hearing. The matter went to trial on December 9, 2003 in Vancouver Provincial Court. Couldn't
the judge not have just asked me straight, "Are you going to attack Carey Veinotte?" "Of course
not," I would have replied. Couldn't the VPD cop who took Veinotte's complaint, an officer
Dosanjh, have asked me the same thing? Sure. Did he. No, I wasn't questioned by the VPD. And
it's not like he couldn't get a hold of me. All the investigating officer would have had to do is pick
up the phone and ask my probation officer when my next appointment was. I was still serving the
three year sentence the Crown gave Veinotte in North Van. The VPD investigation consisted of
Carey D. Veinotte statements. That was it. The investigation was conducted around me. A
VPD/Attorney General frame-up? Could it be any clearer?
Instead of playing it straight, playing fair, the Attorney General played games, intimidtation games.
War games. It was a show trial, I was being muscled. I was sentenced to an extremely restrictive
year-long probation order instead of a no-contact order. Report to a probation officer every week
for a year, said the Ministry of Attorney General. Yet I wasn't convicted of, let alone charged with,
any criminal offence against Carey D. Veinotte.
He'd done it again! Carey D. Veinotte managed to restrain me with a two-year sentence without
any criminal conviction.
That's how the BC government slaps a five year sentence on someone without a criminal
conviction. In total a five year sentence against me was granted to Carey D. Veinotte by the
Attorney General. A five year criminal sentence and no charges. Did Carey D. Veinotte really need
two overlapping probation/restraining orders against me? The Attorney General seemed to think so.
Veinotte requested protection, he got protection. Five years of harrassment and bullying courtesy
the Government of British Columbia. On top of that the Attorney General seized my companies
and the assets they held without a hearing, without legal justification. The lawsuit against me and
the companies was a fake, it fell apart, there was no case against me, so the matter couldn't proceed
to a trial. Yet the government kept all of the corporate capital in receivership, $1.3 million dollars
that was supposed to be held in trust pending the outcome of the matter. They handed it over to
their friends PricewaterhouseCoopers Inc. A patronage handout to PwC from the BC government.
A complaint dated July 20, 2005 was sent to the Honourable Wally Oppal, Attorney General and
Minister Responsible for Multiculturalism. To date I have received no response from Oppal. No
assurance has been released from him or his office informing me that if I'm facing a charge in a
criminal matter in the province of British Columbia, Carey D. Veinotte and his law firm partner
Robert W. Taylor, or any other third party, will not be permitted to enter into secret, and quite
unlawful, discussions with Crown counsel. For all I know the Ministry of Attorney General doesn't
realize it's illegal and wrong for Crown counsel to compromise a prosecution by opening its door to
crooks, bandits not afraid to take chances to make a fast buck, when prosecuting individuals who
have assets worth stealing.
In an April 23, 2007 reply to a complaint I filed with the Office of the Information & Privacy
Commissioner for British Columbia regarding the undisclosed third party influence/interference in
the Crown counsel's office during the prosecution in North Vancouver in 2001 I was informed there
was "no reviewable issue" in the matters I had brought to the BC privacy commissioner's attention.
"It appears you may have misunderstood the role of this office" Privacy Commissioner employee
Morag Ross wrote in the letter. A Crown prosecutor was caught engaging in undisclosed, secret
discussions with a Vancouver law firm, a third party, regarding the terms of my sentencing in a
criminal prosecution. How is that not a privacy issue? Is the Ministry of Attorney General in BC
not subject to rules of confidentiality and privacy?
The current federal justice minister's position on all this? According to a May 4, 2007 letter from
the Department of Justice, the Honourable Rob Nicholson, Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada is merely a government lawyer who has no say in the administration of justice in Canada.
In Mexico they call bribery la mordida. Literally la mordida means "the bite." No government
service happens without a payoff. Corruption is endemic in Mexico and the mafia exists because
the government allows it. The Canadian government's partnerships with mobsters explains why
organized criminal activity is thriving here as well. The Canadian government aids and abets
financial crime. In Mexico it's the little bite. Up here, you get bit and it's your arm, it's a shark
attack.
Who let these Nazi's into office? The government in Canada is a mess.