I received an email from abraca, who I
though was you, so I responded to it thinking I was sending it to you.
The requests on the web page are at the
end of my email. My requests of the mortgage broker information speak for
themselves. We will not consider anything less than $11,000.00 or so, unless
I see the documentary corroboration from the bank and broker that confirms this
is all you can pay. I’m sure you can understand if we’re not
just going to take your word for it.
The web page requests go hand in hand with
the settlement of the money issue. There won’t be one without the
other. We look forward to receiving the information we’ve
requested.
From:
Roy Sommerey
Sent: Thursday, October 20, 2005
2:23 PM
To: 'abraca'
Subject: RE: Your outstanding debt
to Doak Shirreff of $18,500 (approximately)
I’m not sure exactly what private
letters you are talking about. I don’t know what you mean about
blocked emails. We have an email filtering program which automatically
identifies and blocks spam to our firm. It may be that the program looked
at the contents of your email(s), identified it as spam, and prevented it
from getting to me.
I know about your notice to admit, which
has no application under the Supreme Court Rules to our proceeding as
outlined in the response we provided to you. There are no facts
which you should consider deemed to be admitted because they were not
admitted. You will find that our “non-response” as you have
described it, is actually accurate and that the Court will agree with us
should you attempt to bring that exchange to its attention.
Under our judgment, including costs, you
are indebted to us for $ 18,521.17. We have agreed to voluntarily reduce
that amount and accept only $10,000.00 ( a 46% reduction approximately). This
is an amount which is less than the original amount of the now 9 year old
judgment. You claim that is unreasonable. Most reasonable
people would acknowledge the reasonableness of the gesture, given it is purely
voluntary on our part and made in the face of your ongoing, continuous,
allegations of wrong doing on our part.
As the Supreme Court has consistently held
and confirmed on a number of occasions (actually whenever it has been asked to
deal with the amount you owe us), that we are entitled to be paid our accounts
on your matter, there is no need for us to review our professional and
ethical rules and obligations to know that we are fully entitled to carry on
with the process of collecting our judgment.
If you want us to reconsider our settlement
position as to amount, please authorize and have Mr. Fenton provide us
copies of your proposed new lender’s commitment, any
supplementary documents which outline the terms of the lending commitment or
proposal and any other documents that show where the money will be distributed
and why you cannot pay us $10,0000.00 to satisfy an $18,500.00 debt. We
will only reassess our position at that point. If we do not hear from you
further within 7 days of today’s date, we will simply withdraw our
offer and proceed as we are able to.
Additionally, we confirm that you have
refused to shut down your web site. According to your request, the writer
has modified that requirement and reviewed your web site to determine what
parts of it we would ask you to remove and keep off the web site as part of the
conclusion of this settlement. They are as follows:
All text references to Salloum Doak, Doak
Shirreff, Grant Hardwick, Larry Salloum, Marvin Geekie, and any one else
who currently works at our firm. I know the latter two lawyers no longer
work here, but many people know they did and leaving them there will link them
to us (especially, for more obvious reasons, with respect to Mr.
Salloum).
Your MP3 segments, which by the way, are
presented completely out of context as Mr. Justice Rice pointed out to you in
Supreme Court on August 23, 2005.
Master Bishop’s judgment on the
original taxation.
All copies correspondence to and from
Salloum Doak, or Doak Shirreff.
Any reference to recent communications or
developments in or concerning the Court Order Enforcement Act proceedings.
I believe this responds to most of the
material points raised in your most recent email. We look forward
to hearing from Mr. Fenton.
From:
abraca [mailto:abraca@shaw.ca]
Sent: Thursday, October 20, 2005
1:21 PM
To: Roy Sommerey
Subject: Professional Conduct
Re: Kelowna Registry # 68725
Roy;
After much deliberation over your proposal,
I sent you an email and you replied, starting off an email exchange until you objected to my desire to keep others
informed. In fact, you blocked my email address.
So I wrote you a private letter to which you never
replied.
Then, I wrote you another letter to which you also never
replied.
Then I filed a Notice
to Admit and served it on you and you had delivered to me, your non-reply.
Then I filed the Affidavit that David Lindsay compiled and
drafted in support of the Petition that Judge Rice said that I "could
file" but that he "wouldn't
advise it".
Roy, your complicity in the criminal fraud and extortion to
which I've been subjected to and to which I have since, thoroughly documented,
asserted and still maintain, still stands opposed to your position, unrefuted
by yourself, your client and even your
insurer, who, ultimately is responsible for the
costs, brought on by the extensive and still mounting damages that I continue
to endure.
As to these salient
points that I continue to assert, I
accept your tacit consent as admission of the facts.
Throughout our last conversation, of which Jim Fenton was
a part, you told Mr. Fenton to get back to you with the best do-able
figure as an offer to settle this matter. As it turns out, my ability to obtain
financing is even less than I anticipated. Mr. Fenton, in considering the
reality of my situation, can only in good conscience, manage a figure of $
5,000.00 in responding to your instructions to him.
Further, the fact remains that the mere presence of your
client's and your insurer's liens, stand as a detriment to my ability to
mitigate these damages by acquiring the re-financing that is necessary to
satisfy your client's and your insurer's judgments, however fraudulent, that
give rise to these liens.
Regarding your concerns over certain materials, published at my
website; during that same conversation with Mr. Fenton, I instructed you to go
over my entire site, make notes and get back to me but you have not.
As I understand it, recently conveyed to me by Mr.
Fenton, your position, now, is a settlement figure of no less that $
10,000.00, still leaving me with nothing for groceries and wondering further
about your good conscience and your genuine desire to mitigate damages, of
which you have control over but continue fail to act on, according to your duty,
your ability and your growing responsibility.
Roy, yours and your client's position contradict the facts, the
law, reason and even logic, even regarding your position in blocking my emails
to you, limiting, rather that maintaining all lines of communication, necessary
in settling this matter.
In closing, I again attempt to draw your attention to Chapter 1
of the Professional Conduct Handbook,
Canons of Legal Ethics, Section
3, (9) and (10), to which you and
your client, as "members in good standing",
are bound by. If you and your client are truly sincere, you will do the
honorable thing and abandon your position, your judgments and you lien. You can
always write your "losses" off against your client's exorbitant
income.
Let me hear back from you by letter as soon as
possible, in consideration of the time-sensitivity (detrimental
interest rates are on the rise) and continually mounting damages that we all
suffer as a consequence of your outrageously illogical position.
Yours very truly,
