| "HOUSTON V. HOUSTON ET AL." CONTINUED |
PANIC OVER TERM 14!
The downtown Vancouver Bar scene hasn't changed. Robert Taylor's still heading to court every
six months or so threatening to sue me, in out-and-out violation of a court-imposed expiration date
for further proceedings in the Houston v. Houston matter and he used my dead dad's identity (his
name) again to book hearings with Justice Burnyeat. But so far it's all been bluff, he hasn't brought
a suit against me. That's because there isn't anything I can be held to account for.
Taylor claims he has a legal responsibility to serve Houston v. Houston et al. materials on Glen
Sherman, an attorney who hasn't represented me for years, instead of on me. Through Sherman I
received a notice document for a January 26, 2007 motion by Scot G. Houston. This is weird since
Scot G. Houston is dead. I received a notice document for a January 2007 motion by my sister
Lesley Houston. Both documents are dated August 21, 2007, seven months after the January '07
motions were scheduled to take place.
I was sent a copy of a May 25, 2007 letter from Richard D. Pallen of PricewaterhouseCoopers Inc.
to Taylor providing him with the financial status of the companies in court appointed receivership.
PwC gave Taylor a receipts and disbursements document detailing company assets, expenses and
transactions. This document tells me that the real estate property owned by Cedar Grove Holdings
Inc. that PwC threatened to sell in 2006 was indeed liquidated. I have not seen a court judgment
that orders the sale of this asset as is required in the terms of PwC's appointment as receiver. And
the court didn't bother to determine ownership of the asset. There was never a hearing that I was
invited to to adjudicate ownership of Cedar Grove Holdings Inc. PwC went ahead and sold the
asset to a third party without knowing who owns it. The sale of that property was not legal. Who
are the shareholders of the holding company that owned it? Yet to be determined. Likely never
will be determined. And PwC sold the asset after the court-imposed deadline for putting an end to
the action of October 1, 2005. The document doesn't attempt to hide the complete and
non-compliant liquidation of the assets of Powell River Investments Ltd. either. The companies'
assets have mostly been sold and the proceeds distributed. Also attached to Pallen's letter are BMO
Nesbitt Burns Inc. account statements showing the brokerage holdings of Alco Enterprises Ltd., a
company I own. PwC divulged the monetary worth of these companies to Taylor down to the
exact penny.
PwC's actions cannot be explained. Taylor's a third party with respect to the companies in
receivership. Taylor doesn't have an ownership interest in the companies obviously, and the suit
these companies were named in is long-defunct, and the client Taylor represented in the suit is
deceased. Taylor has as much authority to receive information about my companies as I have
authority to call up his bank to find out how much money Taylor has on deposit. I can't inquire
about Robert W. Taylor's personal financial affairs. Why does PricewaterhouseCoopers Inc. think
Taylor can receive information about mine? The financial information PwC is divulging gives
Taylor enormous incentive to make a play to get his hands on the cash in receivership. Giving
Taylor this private information is like giving a bottle of scotch to an alcoholic. It's impossible for
him to resist. Of course Taylor's going to try to get at the money. That's what he does. Taylor's
proven he'll try just about anything to squeeze a judgment from Justice Burnyeat that puts my cash
in his pocket. Pallen's letter alone alerts Taylor to at least $650,000.00 of dormant trust money,
money that doesn't belong to either PwC or to Robert W. Taylor. Did Taylor stay away from the
capital? What do you think?
The PwC material was included in a July 31, 2007 affidavit Taylor prepared for my sister. Not
only is disclosure of the financial records to Taylor a privacy breach, it's also a breach of privacy
for Lesley Houston to have access to this information. She wasn't a party in the expired Houston
v. Houston matter, she wasn't a litigant, so there's no legal justification for her to be privy to the
confidential information. I was the one who was sued and I can't even get access to this
information. So why are Bob Taylor and Lesley Houston getting these documents?
My sister's affidavit was prepared for a September 17, 2007 application to the court by Scot G.
Houston. There is no Scot G. Houston. Scot G. Houston is dead. In her testimony my sister asks
Justice Burnyeat to allow the defunct proceedings to continue indefinitely by substituting the estate
of my late father in place of the petitioner. She then asks Justice Burnyeat to settle the matter by
agreeing to the recommendations of PricewaterhouseCoopers Inc. in one of their reports to the
court. None of the respondents supposedly being sued are once mentioned in her statement.
Attached to her affidavit was a probate document charging her with the administration of my
father's estate as well as a copy of a will supposedly prepared on the instruction of my father
bequeathing his entire estate to her. After six years of bitter deadlock between the two parties in
the dispute, myself and my father, my sister was quietly given the green light to apply for a
resolution to the matter, a resolution in her favor in a matter in which she's not a party. How is it
that my sister's claim for the money in receivership supersedes mine? The petitioner in Houston v.
Houston was Scot G. Houston, not Lesley Houston.
On August 21, 2007 Taylor sent Sherman a letter advising that Burnyeat is prepared to hear
Taylor's applications pursuant to the expired action. For this Monday morning, September 17
hearing Taylor served notice on my ex-attorney Glen Sherman at 2:42 Friday afternoon September
14. If Sherman had immediately contacted me about the hearing (which he didn't, he's not my
lawyer), the document doesn't even give one full business day notice.
Apparently the hearing took place and Taylor convinced the judge to substitute a new petitioner in
place of the dead one. Taylor sent a September 21, 2007 letter to Sherman asking Sherman to
forward it (the letter) to my attention. Taylor demanded that I either hire counsel or file a notice of
self-representation form at the courthouse. This too is weird since Taylor doesn't represent a party
suing me. There's no real reason for Taylor to communicate with me.
All of that evidence of misconduct was dumped in my mailbox by Vancouver attorney Glen
Sherman. It was served on Sherman, not on me. Yet Sherman doesn't represent me, he's not my
lawyer. I haven't retained Sherman as counsel. I wasn't served any of this material by Taylor.
Glen Sherman hasn't represented me since 2005 and Taylor knows Sherman's not my lawyer. This
is a con game, it's a scheme. These aren't real, bona fide hearings Taylor's scheduling. They're
secret meetings between Taylor and Burnyeat. Taylor's serving my ex-lawyer instead of me as a
way of getting around informing me of the hearings. The result is the hearings are conducted in
secret, unopposed, the way Taylor wants it. That way he can get judgments from the judge
unchallenged. And Justice Burnyeat is hearing Taylor's closed applications, whether he represents a
client or not.
The downtown Vancouver Bar scene hasn't changed. Robert Taylor's still heading to court every
six months or so threatening to sue me, in out-and-out violation of a court-imposed expiration date
for further proceedings in the Houston v. Houston matter and he used my dead dad's identity (his
name) again to book hearings with Justice Burnyeat. But so far it's all been bluff, he hasn't brought
a suit against me. That's because there isn't anything I can be held to account for.
Taylor claims he has a legal responsibility to serve Houston v. Houston et al. materials on Glen
Sherman, an attorney who hasn't represented me for years, instead of on me. Through Sherman I
received a notice document for a January 26, 2007 motion by Scot G. Houston. This is weird since
Scot G. Houston is dead. I received a notice document for a January 2007 motion by my sister
Lesley Houston. Both documents are dated August 21, 2007, seven months after the January '07
motions were scheduled to take place.
I was sent a copy of a May 25, 2007 letter from Richard D. Pallen of PricewaterhouseCoopers Inc.
to Taylor providing him with the financial status of the companies in court appointed receivership.
PwC gave Taylor a receipts and disbursements document detailing company assets, expenses and
transactions. This document tells me that the real estate property owned by Cedar Grove Holdings
Inc. that PwC threatened to sell in 2006 was indeed liquidated. I have not seen a court judgment
that orders the sale of this asset as is required in the terms of PwC's appointment as receiver. And
the court didn't bother to determine ownership of the asset. There was never a hearing that I was
invited to to adjudicate ownership of Cedar Grove Holdings Inc. PwC went ahead and sold the
asset to a third party without knowing who owns it. The sale of that property was not legal. Who
are the shareholders of the holding company that owned it? Yet to be determined. Likely never
will be determined. And PwC sold the asset after the court-imposed deadline for putting an end to
the action of October 1, 2005. The document doesn't attempt to hide the complete and
non-compliant liquidation of the assets of Powell River Investments Ltd. either. The companies'
assets have mostly been sold and the proceeds distributed. Also attached to Pallen's letter are BMO
Nesbitt Burns Inc. account statements showing the brokerage holdings of Alco Enterprises Ltd., a
company I own. PwC divulged the monetary worth of these companies to Taylor down to the
exact penny.
PwC's actions cannot be explained. Taylor's a third party with respect to the companies in
receivership. Taylor doesn't have an ownership interest in the companies obviously, and the suit
these companies were named in is long-defunct, and the client Taylor represented in the suit is
deceased. Taylor has as much authority to receive information about my companies as I have
authority to call up his bank to find out how much money Taylor has on deposit. I can't inquire
about Robert W. Taylor's personal financial affairs. Why does PricewaterhouseCoopers Inc. think
Taylor can receive information about mine? The financial information PwC is divulging gives
Taylor enormous incentive to make a play to get his hands on the cash in receivership. Giving
Taylor this private information is like giving a bottle of scotch to an alcoholic. It's impossible for
him to resist. Of course Taylor's going to try to get at the money. That's what he does. Taylor's
proven he'll try just about anything to squeeze a judgment from Justice Burnyeat that puts my cash
in his pocket. Pallen's letter alone alerts Taylor to at least $650,000.00 of dormant trust money,
money that doesn't belong to either PwC or to Robert W. Taylor. Did Taylor stay away from the
capital? What do you think?
The PwC material was included in a July 31, 2007 affidavit Taylor prepared for my sister. Not
only is disclosure of the financial records to Taylor a privacy breach, it's also a breach of privacy
for Lesley Houston to have access to this information. She wasn't a party in the expired Houston
v. Houston matter, she wasn't a litigant, so there's no legal justification for her to be privy to the
confidential information. I was the one who was sued and I can't even get access to this
information. So why are Bob Taylor and Lesley Houston getting these documents?
My sister's affidavit was prepared for a September 17, 2007 application to the court by Scot G.
Houston. There is no Scot G. Houston. Scot G. Houston is dead. In her testimony my sister asks
Justice Burnyeat to allow the defunct proceedings to continue indefinitely by substituting the estate
of my late father in place of the petitioner. She then asks Justice Burnyeat to settle the matter by
agreeing to the recommendations of PricewaterhouseCoopers Inc. in one of their reports to the
court. None of the respondents supposedly being sued are once mentioned in her statement.
Attached to her affidavit was a probate document charging her with the administration of my
father's estate as well as a copy of a will supposedly prepared on the instruction of my father
bequeathing his entire estate to her. After six years of bitter deadlock between the two parties in
the dispute, myself and my father, my sister was quietly given the green light to apply for a
resolution to the matter, a resolution in her favor in a matter in which she's not a party. How is it
that my sister's claim for the money in receivership supersedes mine? The petitioner in Houston v.
Houston was Scot G. Houston, not Lesley Houston.
On August 21, 2007 Taylor sent Sherman a letter advising that Burnyeat is prepared to hear
Taylor's applications pursuant to the expired action. For this Monday morning, September 17
hearing Taylor served notice on my ex-attorney Glen Sherman at 2:42 Friday afternoon September
14. If Sherman had immediately contacted me about the hearing (which he didn't, he's not my
lawyer), the document doesn't even give one full business day notice.
Apparently the hearing took place and Taylor convinced the judge to substitute a new petitioner in
place of the dead one. Taylor sent a September 21, 2007 letter to Sherman asking Sherman to
forward it (the letter) to my attention. Taylor demanded that I either hire counsel or file a notice of
self-representation form at the courthouse. This too is weird since Taylor doesn't represent a party
suing me. There's no real reason for Taylor to communicate with me.
All of that evidence of misconduct was dumped in my mailbox by Vancouver attorney Glen
Sherman. It was served on Sherman, not on me. Yet Sherman doesn't represent me, he's not my
lawyer. I haven't retained Sherman as counsel. I wasn't served any of this material by Taylor.
Glen Sherman hasn't represented me since 2005 and Taylor knows Sherman's not my lawyer. This
is a con game, it's a scheme. These aren't real, bona fide hearings Taylor's scheduling. They're
secret meetings between Taylor and Burnyeat. Taylor's serving my ex-lawyer instead of me as a
way of getting around informing me of the hearings. The result is the hearings are conducted in
secret, unopposed, the way Taylor wants it. That way he can get judgments from the judge
unchallenged. And Justice Burnyeat is hearing Taylor's closed applications, whether he represents a
client or not.
25 / 45