"HOUSTON V. HOUSTON ET AL." CONTINUED
|
On June 6, 2008 I sent a letter to Gordon M. Nixon, President and Chief Executive Officer of RBC
Financial Group, demanding payment of the balance of the refund RBC still owes me for the
multiple thefts from my bank account. A total of $16,268.70 had been unlawfully removed from
my personal chequing account. After December 19, 2008 all deposits into the account would be
quickly removed by RBC. I'd received a refund of $1,908.73, now I wanted payment of the
remaining $14,359.97 that was taken out. I pointed out to Nixon that the complaint I filed with
RBC's ombudsman in a February 5, 2008 letter was never replied to by RBC's ombudsman. I
asked when I could expect to hear from RBC's ombudsman.
I received a reply to the letter to Nixon electronically via e-mail on June 17, 2008. The reply was
from the RBC Financial Group ombudsman, W. L. Knight, and it was absolutely disgusting. The
ombudsman process doesn't resolve grievances, it just makes them worse.
The RBC line hadn't changed at all and the e-mail confirmed RBC still suffers from a serious
inability to face facts. RBC Financial Group continued to deny its internal fraud problem and flat
out refused to admit it committed any wrongdoing whatsoever in the total confiscation of my Royal
Bank personal chequing account. At the same time, RBC Financial Group fully admitted it is the
one and only party that illegally removed all the funds from my bank account.
The letter is loaded with lie after lie:
W. L. Knight starts the letter by falsely claiming the date is June 20, 2008. RBC Financial Group
policy is Lie Lie Lie. RBC Financial Group is so accustomed to lying about everything they've even
lied about the date. Yes, they even lied about the date! In actual fact the letter was issued through
my e-mail on June 17, 2008. Why would a so-called financial services industry professional
post-date a statement to an aggrieved RBC client? This deliberate attempt to mislead is indicative of
RBC's lack of professionalism and shady business practices.
The lying continued in full force.
W. L. Knight said the following: ". . .I am not writing on behalf of RBC. . ." What? An incredible,
outrageous lie. Not writing on behalf of RBC? The letter is from the head office of RBC Financial
Group. The letter is written on RBC Financial Group corporate letterhead. The address on the
letter is the same as RBC's president and C.E.O.'s address. The same address as RBC's president!
The letter is from the RBC Financial Group ombudsman. The RBC Financial Group ombudsman is
a RBC Financial Group employee. Who else would this RBC Financial Group employee be writing
on behalf of? And why would W. L. Knight lie about not issuing the statement on behalf of RBC
Financial Group? W. L. Knight indeed wrote the letter on behalf of RBC.
Only one paragraph into the letter and it was already proven the RBC Financial Group ombudsman,
like all the other bank ombudsmen I've corresponded with, is a confused, incompetent liar.
W. L. Knight wrote: "With respect to your RBC account, RBC processed a Requirement to Pay. .
." Another lie. While RBC did receive a Requirement to Pay form, the Canada Revenue Agency
document did not instruct RBC Financial Group to take action with respect to my personal chequing
account. RBC continued to blatantly blame the Canadian government for the thefts from my
account. RBC was continuing to shamelessly use a Requirement to Pay form to cover up its
internal fraud situation.
W. L. Knight then made up a myriad of detailed lies, elaborately falsifying a series of fabricated
justifications for the illegal activity in my account between the dates of December 19, 2007 and
January 14, 2008. It was a deceitful attempt at covering up criminal fraud. W. L. Knight obviously
took some time crafting the statement with the intention of misleading me. W. L. Knight carefully
created the document for the purpose of conning me into believing RBC had conducted an
investigation into the criminal activity at Royal Bank of Canada. The excuses were downright
feeble. They're pathetic. And very dumb. And in every instance of a theft from my private
account W. L. Knight confirmed unequivocally that the withdrawal was executed by RBC and only
by RBC. Nobody else. W. L. Knight does not deny that it was RBC and only RBC that stole all
the funds from my account.
W. L. Knight claimed a December 19, 2007 theft from my account of $6,872.88 was an RBC
attempt to apply a Requirement to Pay order from CRA. A lie. There is no Requirement to Pay
instruction from CRA that orders RBC to remove $6,872.88 - or any other amount - from my
personal chequing account.
W. L. Knight claimed a December 20, 2007 theft from my account of $602.26 was a "RBC
Reversal of payment - funds returned to CPP [Canada Pension Plan]." A lie. According to the
account statement the transaction was a "withdrawal" from my account, not a "reversal of
payment." The evidence proves W. L. Knight is lying. A withdrawal is not the same as a reversal
of payment. According to the account statement, on December 20, 2007 RBC illegally withdrew
$602.26 cash from the account. Simple as that. Yes, $602.26 is the same amount as a CPP
payment I received. But on December 20, 2007 that was all that was in the account. $602.26.
RBC simply flushed out the remaining funds from the account again and the amount happened to be
$602.26. What has a CPP payment got to do with a theft from a bank account? In actual fact the
CPP payment has nothing at all to do with RBC's theft from the account. Nothing at all.
Was this too the application of a Requirement to Pay by RBC? Does the Requirement to Pay form
instruct RBC to return CPP payments? Of course not. The Requirement to Pay form RBC
received didn't instruct RBC to block or remove CPP payments from my bank account.
Then it got worse. Much worse. W. L. Knight's lies were downright obscene.
W. L. Knight claimed that a $1,872.88 withdrawal from my account on January 8, 2008 was paid to
me. Paid to me? No way. W. L. Knight claimed I withdrew these funds from my account.
"Funds provided to client" W. L. Knight wrote in the letter. Oh boy. A complete untruth. A
terrible falsehood. The reason? By January 8, 2008 I had no ability to withdraw funds from my
account. By Christmas Eve 2007 the account had been permanently frozen by RBC. I was booted
out of my bank account by Royal Bank. Accordingly, the funds could not have been provided to
me. It was impossible. RBC had placed a hold on the account on or about the date of December
14, 2007. The account had been confiscated. I was shut out of my own account. I was not able to
make a withdrawal from the account. RBC Financial Group does not deny it placed a permanent
hold on my account. RBC did not remit these funds to me. I have no idea who received this
$1,872.88 that was stolen from my account on January 8, 2008.
These questions remain: Who received this $1,872.88 stolen from my account and why would
RBC's head office lie and say the funds were provided to the client? The $1,872.88 was not
remitted to me and RBC knows the funds were not remitted to me.
W. L. Knight claimed that $35.85 taken from my account on January 14, 2008 was for the purpose
of producing a money order for a payment to me. Another lie. The withdrawal is just another theft
from my bank account by RBC Financial Group. The withdrawal was not executed by me. Who
had authority to withdraw funds from the account? No one but me. And I did not withdraw these
funds from my account nor did I authorize RBC to remove $35.85 from my personal chequing
account on January 14, 2008.
W. L. Knight claimed that $1,872.88 (another $1,872.88!!!) taken from my account on January 14,
2008 was for the purpose of producing a bank draft for a payment to me. So much lying. The
withdrawal is theft and nothing more than theft. The withdrawal was not executed by me. Who
had authority to withdraw these funds from my account? No one but me. I didn't withdraw these
funds from my account either and and I did not authorize RBC to remove $1,872.88 from my
personal chequing account on January 14, 2008.
On January 14, 2008 when I attended the Powell River, BC branch of Royal Bank of Canada to
make a withdrawal from my account, I punched my PIN number into a keypad and was told by a
RBC teller my account was overdrawn to the tune of $11.95. It was RBC that took the $35.85 and
the $1,872.88 from the account on January 14, 2008 without lawful authority to do so. I did not
authorize RBC to remove these funds from my account.
W. L. Knight made the claim that ". . .$5,000.00 had been forwarded to CRA by RBC as part of
the application of the Requirement to Pay." A lie. There is no Requirement to Pay instruction from
CRA that orders RBC Financial Group to remit $5,000.00 - or any other amount - from my
personal chequing account to the government. The $5,000.00 was simply stolen from my account.
So who's telling the truth here? Do we believe the repulsive juggernaut of lies W. L. Knight
hammered into my e-mail in-box on June 17, 2008? Or do we believe what the hard, tangible
evidence tells us? Account statements do not lie. RBC Financial Group employees lie.
Doesn't RBC realize it's illegal to lie to cover up their crime?
None of the withdrawals from the account were authorized by me. Not one of them. The account
was a private account of privately-owned and privately-administered cash. I had sole signing
authority on the account. Nobody else had signing authority on the account but me. Nobody else
had authority to draw funds on the account but me. RBC Financial Group does not have a power
of attorney with respect to the administration of my financial affairs. And I don't owe RBC
Financial Group any money and I never have owed RBC Financial Group any money. What's
going on here? RBC Financial Group had no authority to make multiple withdrawals from my
personal chequing account.
And, further exacerbating the injury, in the letter W. L. Knight admitted RBC Financial Group
obtained my private address to which it had sent unwanted letters from Canada Revenue Agency.
And I don't know how CRA uncovered my private mailing address. I didn't give it to CRA. CRA
had no legal right to disclose my private mailing address to RBC Financial Group and RBC has no
right to send abusive material to my private address (or to my e-mail address) simply for the
purposes of covering up their fraud. It's illegal to use the mails (surface or electronic) to perpetrate
fraud.
I reported CRA's instigation of recurring thefts from my RBC bank account to the police in several
fraud complaints. Every piece of evidence I received regarding the thefts was filed with the cops,
including the unbelievably outrageous statement I received from W. L. Knight, the RBC Financial
Group ombudsman. I also filed a June 13, 2008 complaint with the Office of the Privacy
Commissioner of Canada in Ottawa, the second privacy complaint filed against CRA, the first
having been filed in a letter dated March 12, 2007 detailing CRA's unlawful communications with
TD Waterhouse Discount Brokerage and CRA's unsuccessful attempts to seize a retirement account
I held at the brokerage. I thought that was it for the bank robbery problem.
I thought wrong.