| "HOUSTON V. HOUSTON ET AL." CONTINUED |
I decided my weapon to fight this fraud war would be Term 14 in the August 5, 2005 court order
placing a September 30, 2005 cutoff date on the proceedings of SCBC Action No. L012320. In
November 2007 I wrote letters to Taylor, Sherman, Justice Burnyeat, to Justice Donald I. Brenner,
Chief Justice of BC's Supreme Court, to the trial scheduling department of the courthouse, to the
premier, to the solicitor general, to the attorney general, to the federal justice minister, to the federal
public safety minister and to the prime minister (I've been informing Ottawa of the problems I've
experienced in BC's justice system since I was released from incarceration in 2001) alerting them to
my knowledge of the binding expiration date imposed on the proceedings. What happened next?
They hit the roof. The lawyers and the government started dancing like there's no tomorrow. This
was a new dance called the expiration date twist. The letters started coming fast and furious. The
expiration condition was unconditionally rejected by the government. But they sure had a message
for me. My mailbox could barely contain the avalanche of junk out of Vancouver.
First came a January 3, 2008 letter from a law officer with the BC Supreme Court. It's improper to
write directly to judges, I was warned. If I have something I want to say to Justice Burnyeat I have
to make a formal application to the court. What a ridiculous statement from the government. I was
serving the judge with notification of a legal judgment. I have to do a court application to serve a
court order on a government employee? But I'm not suing anybody. It didn't matter to the law
officer that the petitioner in SCBC Action No. L012320 was dead and as far as the expiration date
in the defunct action was concerned, the term didn't merit the law officer's attention. The other
parties in the action are "entitled to proceed" as they wish I was told. Entitled?
Taylor's reaction to notification of the binding expiry condition was to book a BC Supreme Court
chambers meeting. Interesting response. Getting caught breaching a court judgment means an
appointment with a justice of the Supreme Court of British Columbia? On February 5, 2008 an
employee in Sherman's office sent me an e-mail thread. You might find this important to your case,
she said. The e-mail was a confidential three-way communication between the Supreme Court of
BC, Taylor's office and Sherman. The e-mail begins with a woman from Taylor's office called
Heather Ahlsten contacting Trial Division at 12:56 p.m. on January 16 to book a hearing with
Justice Burnyeat. Trial Division responded at 11:31 a.m. on February 4 informing Ahlsten the
matter is booked with Justice Burnyeat for February 21 at 9 a.m. No questions asked, the judge
makes himself available to Taylor. The hearing request wasn't screened by the Supreme Court of
British Columbia in any discernible way. At 2:16 p.m. on February 5 Taylor's partner Jordan J.
Kinghorn e-mails Sherman to inform him of the hearing. He states that the purpose of the
application is to obtain a court order that releases the cash transferred from Alco Enterprises Ltd. to
Scot G. Houston's estate pursuant to the September 17, 2007 order. Sherman replies to Kinghorn
half an hour later saying he has no communication with me and he asks that this be brought to the
court's attention.
Kinghorn's e-mail was very clear and very damning. According to Kinghorn's communication,
Taylor's team intended to illegally breach the court-imposed September 30, 2005 expiration date to
ask Justice Burnyeat for an order that pays them cash. That is what Kinghorn's e-mail said.
Kinghorn clearly stated their unlawful intentions. In light of the expiration date imposed on SCBC
Action No. L012320 by the court, Kinghorn's statement was tantamount to a fraud scheme against
the government. Should this hearing take place it would have to be held in abject contempt of a
court-imposed expiration date for any further litigation in the action, September 30, 2005.
According to Kinghorn, not only did Taylor manage to substitute a new petitioner in the September
17, 2007 hearing, he also managed to get the court to divert funds from a company in receivership
to my sister. A lot of mail has been sent to me by Taylor and Sherman but one document I still
have not seen. The September 17, 2007 order in which Taylor puts a new petitioner in place to
suck up the cash in trust has been conspicuously withheld from my attention.
There were the usual hearing notices from Taylor to Sherman. Neither Taylor's notice of motion
nor his notice of hearing give more than five business days warning of the February 21 proceeding.
I received a copy of another affidavit sworn by my sister. Neither my name nor the names of the
companies are mentioned once in her testimony. None of the respondents are named in her
statement. Not once. The nature of the application is only to conduct an estate transaction, nothing
else. All they're going in for is to ask the court to hand over cash. Where's the beef against me and
the companies? There isn't one. There's no grievance against me or the respondent corporations.
Their lies and allegations were shot down years ago. They've got nothing on me. The action is a
shell suit. I'm not being sued at all. The suit is a sham set up to procure government endorsed
documents for conducting money laundering transactions.
The material Taylor sent to Glen Sherman is private. Very private. Because Sherman doesn't
represent me as counsel, and because the suit is long-finished, he has no legal right to examine the
contents of the material Taylor is sending him. Taylor's disclosure of confidential legal and financial
information to Sherman represents a breach of the privacy of the parties in the expired suit. The
Estate of Scot G. Houston information Taylor has disclosed to Sherman represents a breach of
privacy against the executrix of my dad's estate, my sister. The information enclosed in Taylor's
mailed and electronic correspondence is not for the eyes of Glen Sherman nor is it for the eyes of
anyone else in Sherman's office. While Taylor is well aware Sherman doesn't represent me he has
persistently disclosed private legal and financial information to him since Sherman resigned as my
counsel. Taylor claims he has a legal obligation to share the details of the confidential legal and
financial material with Sherman. Not true. Not if I haven't retained Sherman as counsel, not absent
a lawsuit, and certainly not after the court imposed an expiration date on the proceedings. Remitting
the private information to a third party is an outrageous breach of privacy.
And material relating to the administration of the Estate of Scot G. Houston is not for my eyes
either. I am not a party to the Estate of Scot G. Houston. I am a third party with respect to the
administration of my late father's estate. The release of funds from the Estate of Scot G. Houston
is a private affair and is not my business nor is it the business of Glen Sherman. The administration
of the Estate of Scot G. Houston is a matter exclusively between my sister and her legal counsel.
placing a September 30, 2005 cutoff date on the proceedings of SCBC Action No. L012320. In
November 2007 I wrote letters to Taylor, Sherman, Justice Burnyeat, to Justice Donald I. Brenner,
Chief Justice of BC's Supreme Court, to the trial scheduling department of the courthouse, to the
premier, to the solicitor general, to the attorney general, to the federal justice minister, to the federal
public safety minister and to the prime minister (I've been informing Ottawa of the problems I've
experienced in BC's justice system since I was released from incarceration in 2001) alerting them to
my knowledge of the binding expiration date imposed on the proceedings. What happened next?
They hit the roof. The lawyers and the government started dancing like there's no tomorrow. This
was a new dance called the expiration date twist. The letters started coming fast and furious. The
expiration condition was unconditionally rejected by the government. But they sure had a message
for me. My mailbox could barely contain the avalanche of junk out of Vancouver.
First came a January 3, 2008 letter from a law officer with the BC Supreme Court. It's improper to
write directly to judges, I was warned. If I have something I want to say to Justice Burnyeat I have
to make a formal application to the court. What a ridiculous statement from the government. I was
serving the judge with notification of a legal judgment. I have to do a court application to serve a
court order on a government employee? But I'm not suing anybody. It didn't matter to the law
officer that the petitioner in SCBC Action No. L012320 was dead and as far as the expiration date
in the defunct action was concerned, the term didn't merit the law officer's attention. The other
parties in the action are "entitled to proceed" as they wish I was told. Entitled?
Taylor's reaction to notification of the binding expiry condition was to book a BC Supreme Court
chambers meeting. Interesting response. Getting caught breaching a court judgment means an
appointment with a justice of the Supreme Court of British Columbia? On February 5, 2008 an
employee in Sherman's office sent me an e-mail thread. You might find this important to your case,
she said. The e-mail was a confidential three-way communication between the Supreme Court of
BC, Taylor's office and Sherman. The e-mail begins with a woman from Taylor's office called
Heather Ahlsten contacting Trial Division at 12:56 p.m. on January 16 to book a hearing with
Justice Burnyeat. Trial Division responded at 11:31 a.m. on February 4 informing Ahlsten the
matter is booked with Justice Burnyeat for February 21 at 9 a.m. No questions asked, the judge
makes himself available to Taylor. The hearing request wasn't screened by the Supreme Court of
British Columbia in any discernible way. At 2:16 p.m. on February 5 Taylor's partner Jordan J.
Kinghorn e-mails Sherman to inform him of the hearing. He states that the purpose of the
application is to obtain a court order that releases the cash transferred from Alco Enterprises Ltd. to
Scot G. Houston's estate pursuant to the September 17, 2007 order. Sherman replies to Kinghorn
half an hour later saying he has no communication with me and he asks that this be brought to the
court's attention.
Kinghorn's e-mail was very clear and very damning. According to Kinghorn's communication,
Taylor's team intended to illegally breach the court-imposed September 30, 2005 expiration date to
ask Justice Burnyeat for an order that pays them cash. That is what Kinghorn's e-mail said.
Kinghorn clearly stated their unlawful intentions. In light of the expiration date imposed on SCBC
Action No. L012320 by the court, Kinghorn's statement was tantamount to a fraud scheme against
the government. Should this hearing take place it would have to be held in abject contempt of a
court-imposed expiration date for any further litigation in the action, September 30, 2005.
According to Kinghorn, not only did Taylor manage to substitute a new petitioner in the September
17, 2007 hearing, he also managed to get the court to divert funds from a company in receivership
to my sister. A lot of mail has been sent to me by Taylor and Sherman but one document I still
have not seen. The September 17, 2007 order in which Taylor puts a new petitioner in place to
suck up the cash in trust has been conspicuously withheld from my attention.
There were the usual hearing notices from Taylor to Sherman. Neither Taylor's notice of motion
nor his notice of hearing give more than five business days warning of the February 21 proceeding.
I received a copy of another affidavit sworn by my sister. Neither my name nor the names of the
companies are mentioned once in her testimony. None of the respondents are named in her
statement. Not once. The nature of the application is only to conduct an estate transaction, nothing
else. All they're going in for is to ask the court to hand over cash. Where's the beef against me and
the companies? There isn't one. There's no grievance against me or the respondent corporations.
Their lies and allegations were shot down years ago. They've got nothing on me. The action is a
shell suit. I'm not being sued at all. The suit is a sham set up to procure government endorsed
documents for conducting money laundering transactions.
The material Taylor sent to Glen Sherman is private. Very private. Because Sherman doesn't
represent me as counsel, and because the suit is long-finished, he has no legal right to examine the
contents of the material Taylor is sending him. Taylor's disclosure of confidential legal and financial
information to Sherman represents a breach of the privacy of the parties in the expired suit. The
Estate of Scot G. Houston information Taylor has disclosed to Sherman represents a breach of
privacy against the executrix of my dad's estate, my sister. The information enclosed in Taylor's
mailed and electronic correspondence is not for the eyes of Glen Sherman nor is it for the eyes of
anyone else in Sherman's office. While Taylor is well aware Sherman doesn't represent me he has
persistently disclosed private legal and financial information to him since Sherman resigned as my
counsel. Taylor claims he has a legal obligation to share the details of the confidential legal and
financial material with Sherman. Not true. Not if I haven't retained Sherman as counsel, not absent
a lawsuit, and certainly not after the court imposed an expiration date on the proceedings. Remitting
the private information to a third party is an outrageous breach of privacy.
And material relating to the administration of the Estate of Scot G. Houston is not for my eyes
either. I am not a party to the Estate of Scot G. Houston. I am a third party with respect to the
administration of my late father's estate. The release of funds from the Estate of Scot G. Houston
is a private affair and is not my business nor is it the business of Glen Sherman. The administration
of the Estate of Scot G. Houston is a matter exclusively between my sister and her legal counsel.
26 / 45