SWORN AFFIDAVIT OF WEIZHEN TANG FOR MARCH 14 TO THE COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO

SWORN AFFIDAVIT OF WEIZHEN TANG FOR MARCH 14 TO THE COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO

 

(Sworn  Feb 13, 2018)

 

I, WEIZHEN TANG, of the Town of Richmond Hill, in the Province of Ontario, MAKE OATH AND SAY AS FOLLOWS:

1.             I am  one of the  appellants and the wholly owner of many other responding corporations  in this matter and as such, I have personal knowledge of the facts set out and sworn in this affidavit, where my knowledge is based upon information or experience and believe .

2.             In May, 1990, I came to Canada to pursue post graduate study in Microbiology at University of Waterloo under the co-supervision of dean of science  and department of Biology, two professors,  Dr. Bernard R. Glick and Dr. Jack J. Pastenak,  we did advanced scientific research in molecular biotechnology between 1990 -1992.

3.             In  the fall of 1992 after my graduation, I worked in the advanced and world class medical research laboratories, Toronto General Hosptial for Daniel J. Drucker and Hospital for Sick Children, Univerity of Toronto, the Medical School for Dr. Julie Forman Kay, and Dr.Lewis Kay at the Sick Children Hosptial.

4.             Since 1993, I did extensive study, and research and practice  in investment and financial   trading before started my business.

5.             I started my own financial consulting business since 1997, incorporated Weizhen Tang and Associates in Ontario.

6.             Before I formally started and registered my company, there were hundreds of Chinese medial research scientist and their friends in Toronto as investors seeking my service trading mutual fund daily.

7.             I was nominated and awarded twice in Ontario as volunteer award in 2006 and 2008.

8.             I incorporated Weizhen Tang Corp in Ontario in 2007 and successfully registered as a limited market dealer on Jan. 22, 2008  with Ontario Securities Commissions in compliance with Ontario Securities Act.

9.             Since 1993 I have been working in the industry of finance. From 1997 until early 2009, I was a registered  sales representative with Investment dealer Association (IDA) in 1998 and 1999, my corporation, Weizhen Tang Corp. was with OSC and we were also registered with Texas Trdae Commission  in 2008.

10.  As my business expanding and development, I created and was running an investment and hedge fund business, to facilitate  my business, I formed the following  corporate  entities in Canada for the purpose of securing investments  primarily  from Canadian investors:

      Oversea Chinese Fund Limited Partnership (“Oversea”), a Toronto-based hedge fund formed in December 2001 and organized under the laws of the Province of Ontario;

      Weizhen Tang & Associates, Inc. (“WTA”), which served as the general partner of the hedge fund and was incorporated under the laws of the Province of Ontario;

      Weizhen Tang Corp. (“WTC”), an Ontario corporation engaged in the management  of private equity funds and hedge funds;

11.  In addition to raising funds through his Canadian entities, Tang incorporated the Receivership Entities below in the U.S. for the purpose of securing investments from American investors:

      WinWin Capital Limited Partnership (“WinWin  Partners”),  a  Texas limited partnership;

      J.O.R. & Associates, LLC (“JOR”), a Texas limited liability company;

       WinWin Capital Management LLC, a Texas limited liability company;

       WinWin Capital Partners, LP, a Delaware limited partnership; and

 

       BJuejay Investment, LLC, d/b/a Vintage International Investment, LLC, a Texas limited liability company.

12.      The central hub of  my business in Ontario was the Oversea  Chinese hedge fund based in Toronto, Ontario. Structured as a limited partnership, I incorporated WTA to serve as the general partner in the Oversea Chinese hedge fund to manage Oversea’s investment decisions. The officers and directors controlling WTA were myself  In turn, I marketed and sold limited partnership interests in Oversea  Chinese Fund  to my  investors and partners.

13.      In the United States,  I  supplemented his efforts to solicit direct investment in Oversea with efforts to obtain indirect investments via a similar limited partnership structure based in Plano, Texas. The central hub of  my U.S. operation was WinWin Partners. As with the Canadian structure, a I -controlled entity, JOR, served as general partner and controlled · the investment decisions of WinWin Partners.

14.      Since 2004, I wrote a book, “the Chinese Warren Buffett “ and published in 2006 in China, “Economic daily, one of the state publishers.

15.      I am also one the founders of many non-profit organizations, Hunan Fellow Association in Canada and Canadian Chinese Biomedical and Pharmaceutical Association and Weizhen Tang Wealth Club and Chairman of Chinese Canadian Entrepruership of Canada.

16.      I am also director of  world wide “Oversea Chinese Friendship Association” Biomedical and Pharmaceutical Associationa non-profit , non-political organization.  

17.      There was financial crisis or Tsunami from 2008 to March 2009 and investors were scared all over the World. Because of my personal experience, I have successfully avoided the financial crisis, but I did not avoid the massive withdrawal of over 28 million in the  year between  2008 and 2009 and investors run on me, there was only one investorwho retain a counsel  complained to OSC and 99% of my partners did not complain and supported my effort, exhibit.

18.                   Since I was so successful and so well-known and famous and wealthy in Ontario and Canada, I become the target of  justice industry and the judicial system.

19.               I strongly believe that the justice industry and judicial system wanted me so badly, they wanted to totally destroy me and my wealth and make me infamous by any means, they do not care the Canadian law and the Canadian Constitution Act, the Canadian Charter of rights and Freedoms, do not care if the conduct bring justice into disrepute becare nobody know, nobody watch, nobody care, people scare of the judicial system and justice industry .

20.               Dozens of OSC Counsels and crown attorney and judges attacked me like ‘Please God, make it stop!’ British female journalist, 21, describes horrific sexual assault in Egypt’s Tahrir Square after election result. Natasha Smith attacked by a ‘group of animals’ who stripped her naked.

21.        Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2165445/British-journalist-Natasha-Smith-22-recalls-horrific-sexual-assault-Egypts-Tahrir-Square.html#ixzz56o8DZGYF 

22.      I was legally naked since OSC started investigation, up to today this procceedings.

23.      In Feb. 2013 , I did extensive research and study in law and case law and Canadian Judges who is who since I was put into Canadian prisons how the crown and judge “protect”  public or destroy the people and their lives for their own benefits and interest under the name of the public and public interest at the huge expense of taxpayers.

24.      First, they destroyed people’s name, defamation of character, assassination of character in the media and press release,  used the court to freeze people ‘s accounts and court order to cease people ‘s trading or stop business in order to make people legally defendless, namely un-represented. As money frozen and business stop, no income, A corporation cannot use its money or funds to represent it, there is no other mean, the business owner cannot represent a corporation in court. 

25.      The crown and court used bail  condition and isolation as weapon to prevent me to access my other means and resources to defend myself in court.

26.       “The Federal and provincial  Governments are not real. They are privately owned corporations [listed on Dun and Bradstreet] called governments . . . and the law is nothing more than their corporate regulations called statutes.”

27.      I finally found that both our government and our courts are playing Chess, while telling the people the game is Checkers.  They destroy people’s life and family, they tell people that they protect people and the public.  The judge and lawyers are losing  all their credibility and accountability, rules and procedures are means to deceive and misleading the public.

28.      Today all courts (except the Supreme Court) are statutory maritime administrative courts. This change in our legal system was not authorized by the Canadian  people. It was created by stealth by the bankers and the BAR association,  the law society. The BAR also instituted what is known as “case law”. According to Justice John Molloy, the “case-law system is a constitutional nightmare because it continuously modifies constitutional intent. For lawyers, however, it creates endless business opportunities. That’s because case law is technically complicated and requires a lawyer’s expertise to guide and move you through the system. The judicial system may begin with enacted laws, but the variations that result from a judge’s application of case law all too often changes the ultimate meaning.”4  

29.      While good people are working to recover a truly representative form of government (Of the people, By the people and For the people), the current corporate-government continues to attack the Canadian  population. The Canada  has imprisoned a higher percent of its population than any other country on the planet.

30.      I believe that the respondents , the court appointed counsel, the law firm Gowling WLG Canada LLP committed a crime of  fraud over $5000 by deceit, falsehood and , stole our frozen funds of $350,000  of our investors and justices of Superior Court of Justice Ontario, Commercial list and justices of appeal court committed a collusion of stealing or robbery of  money from the public and tax payers under the cover-up and  name of justice.

 My appellant proceedings

31.      I  filed an inmate notice of appeal against  my conviction and sentence received by the court on March 1, 2013. I  applied for legal aid to fund my appeal but was refused. I has exhausted all appeals from that decision.

32.       On June 12, 2013 I  brought an application before Mr. Justice MacPherson for bail pending appeal. I made submissions without  the assistance of duty counsel. Ultimately, Justice MacPherson concluded that, on the basis of the material before the Court at that time, the Applicant had failed to satisfy the Court that my  appeal had any merit.  

33.       On February 21, 2014, Mr. Justice Rosenberg (having been designated by the Chief Justice) heard the applicant’s application for a direction to review Justice MacPherson’s order of June 12, 2013. Justice Rosenberg considered the Applicant’s application and found that there was no basis to review Justice Macpherson’s finding that the appeal had no merit. He noted at paragraph 2 of his endorsement that “I have reviewed the materials especially those related to the Rowbotham motion and the charge to the jury. I can see no basis for coming to a different conclusion that Nordheimer J. for refusing the Rowbotham motion as set out in his ruling of September 29, 2011. He may have underestimated the sentence the appellant was likely to receive, but in all other respects his reasons justify the order made. The Applicant also sought the appointment of counsel pursuant to s.684(1) of the Criminal Code. The Court rejected the application finding that there was insufficient merit to warrant appointing counsel and that, additionally, based upon the findings by Nordheimer J. the Applicant was “not without means to fund his legal proceedings.”

34.      On April 9, 2014, the Applicant’s appeal was scheduled for hearing on the inmate appeal list in Kingston, Ontario. The Applicant appeared. Duty Counsel also appeared. Duty counsel identified two potential areas of appeal for the Applicant in relation to the expert forensic accounting evidence adduced at trial and a sentence appeal. The Applicant submitted that there were additional materials relevant to the Rowbotham application that should also be produced so that he could revisit the s.684 application and because it was relevant to an appeal of the Rowbotham application. The Court ordered the Crown to produce further materials and asked duty counsel to review the material and, also, to assist the Applicant in revisiting the s.684 application if the circumstances warranted.

35.      The two statutory criteria that must be met before the Court will appoint counsel are as follows:

1. That the Applicant does not have sufficient means to retain counsel; and

2. It is the interests of justice that the Applicant have counsel assist him or her with the appeal.

 The pro bono duty counsel, Micheal Lacy  to this court respectfully submit: the Applicant otherwise satisfies the court that his appeal has merit (including appealing the Rowbotham decision) and that the Applicant requires the benefit of counsel to be able to effectively advance his appeal, the means test has been satisfied. Merits of the proposed appeal based on the supplemental record or supplemental arguments not before Rosenberg J.A.

36.      It is respectfully submitted that the Applicant’s appeal against conviction and sentence is not frivolous. Although the appeal will be a difficult one for the Applicant, the following grounds of appeal have some merit:

In going through  analysis of the duty counsel, Micheal Lacy, it should be noted that the grounds of appeal are not as fully developed as they might otherwise be on the appeal proper. In order to advance these grounds, counsel would need to more fully develop them.

(a) Nordheimer J. erred in refusing to appoint counsel for the Applicant pursuant to his R. v. Rowbotham application;

(b) The evidence of the Crown forensic accounting “expert” should not have been admitted as he was an investigator as opposed to an “independent”;

(c) The trial judge erred in finding that this was an appropriate case for a fine in lieu of forfeiture given the purpose of such an Order (ie. to deprive fraudsters of their unlawful personal gain);

 

37.      In 2009,  the court appoint a representative counsel and ordered a first charge so they could take our money at will and make me and my corporation un-repsented and lost everything.

38.      I do not understand why  the court appointed counsel, the law firm Gowling WLG Canada LLP used my own money to defend themselves, not defend investors , they do not retain counsel or lawyers before.

39.      My investors thought the government and court protect them and appointed counsel for them without cost to them and pay their fees.

40.      After the law firm and judges  took all our money and investors’ money from our trading account, why they ask for cost of security from me, a self-represented to proceed, or thread to dismiss my lawful appeal  and the judge Juriansz even endoresed their request?   In the last few years, judges almost always took order from the law firm and gave them whatvever the lawyers wanted regardless lawful or not.  

41.      All The answere and evidence is clear the court will never let me, a self-represent to win regardless if I have merits or not, They always say or lie in court that I have no meirts. Because the lawyer and the court will never  intent to  pay us, to pay the people and the public. People are deem to lose and pay lawyers.

42.      It is obvious that a self represented  could not win and not allowed to win, otherwise the government and the court have to pay huge cost for lost of their cases and many cases. Where is my cost of security over 100s of million dollars if they lose. The judge and law firm know and ought to have know that without the aid of counsel to assist, I  have made various submissions to this appeal Court at various times seeking to revisit orders earlier made and seeking to make submissions on the basis of issues that would not amount to errors warranting this Court’s intervention. It is important that justice be seen to be done in this case. It is also important that whatever arguable grounds that might exist for appealing the judgments of  be properly presented to the Court in a way that will allow the Court to properly adjudicate the issues.

43.      It is not my intention and interest to act in person, or un-represented, it is never will be ( exhibit  J, Transcript from three (3) hearings heard before Justice Nordheimer on July 12, 2011, August 15, 2011 and September 23, 2011 wherein the release of the $200,175.00 investment was discussed for the purposes of Weizhen Tang’s retention of counsel and akin to a Rowbotham application.).

44.      Without counsel or representations, I lost my criminal defence, my regulatory OSC case, my good name and freedoms and liberty,  our  frozen funds, our house,  the right to work and to make lving and lost all the appeals in this court.

45.      The award court cost and order are ways and means for lawyer and law firm, the law society’s  illegal gain and proceeds of crime, it is money order and the judge and court steal money and asset from the public.

 

The Background

46.      Before February 27, 2009 due to the 2008 financial crisis and investors’ massive withdrawals of over 28 million dollars within a year, not loss, the balance of my trading IB business Account was negligible. On February 27, 2009,  the committee of investors  called a meeting to advise the investors of same and over 100 investors signed petition to support me. The meeting was held at the Holiday Inn, located in the intersection of Woodbine and Steeles, Markham, Ontario, although many of the investors attended in person and there was a video. Attached hereto as Exhibit  is an activity statement of the IB Account from February 26, 2009 to February 27, 2009 as well as a transcript of trial proceedings from R v Tang wherein Justice O’Marra indicated that, by February 27, 2009, there was “little more than $1,400 left in the fund”. Despite the above, I remained optimistic that with another investment, I could make the money back for the investors.

47.      On March 12, 2009, my wife and I withdrew $600,000.00 From the Toronto Dominion Bank Line of Credit for the purpose of discharging our first and second mortgages on 19 Robinter Drive and re-financing with TD Canada Trust. Attached hereto as Exhibit  is a letter from Alex Ranini, a financial advisor with TD Canada Trust, dated May 8, 2009, confirming same. Also attached is an account history showing activity on March 12, 2009 with $362,669.44 being used to discharge the mortgages and the remaining $236,800.00 being used for a bank draft. Any discrepancy between those two sums is attributed to in-house legal fees for the discharge of the mortgages.

48.      On March 16, 2009, I entered into a written agreement with Si Yi Qui and Guosheng Wang whereby they agreed to invest $150,000.00 in Oversea Chinese Fund Limited Partnership. Attached hereto as Exhibit  is the written agreement and the bank drafts totalling $150,000.00. This money was first deposited into the BMO Account on March 16, 2009. On the same date, $50,000.00 was transferred to the IB Account. On March 17, 2009, $100,000.00 was transferred to the IB Account. Attached hereto as Exhibit  are the bank statements indicating same.

49.      In order to pay my investors’ money back and earn a better return and show my sincerity to my investors, I required a further investment. I decided to invest my own money. For this I had to convince my wife, Hong Xiao, to let me use the approximately $200,175.00 in surplus from the refinancing of the mortgage re-finance. Attached hereto as Exhibit  is a bank draft in the amount of $236,800.00 as drawn from our line of credit with TD Canada Trust (the “Line of Credit”) and made payable to the representative investor Peter Lin, also known as Aiming Lin. Mr. Lin kept approximately $36,625.00 for administration costs and anticipated legal fees. The balance, that is, $200,175.00 was first deposited into the BMO Account and then transferred to the IB Account on March 17, 2009. Attached hereto as Exhibit  are the bank statements indicating same.

50.      On March 15, 2009  I decided to invest the $200,175.00 of TD money in the Interactive Brokers Canada Business Account to earn a better return for the investors and, admittedly, for myself and my family.

51.      With a total investment and deposit of 350,000,  I made $90,000 profit in trading of currencies  in a few days from March 16, 2009 to March  19, 2009.

52.      The  investment   of   $150,000.00  from  Ms.   Qiu  and  Mr.  Wang  as   well   as the $200,175.00  investment  from  myself  and  my  wife  were  commingled  with  the approximately $1,400.00 remaining in the IB Account. No other funds were deposited into the IB Account apart from approximately $90,000.00 in gains I made trading over a period of few days, i.e. March 16, 2009 to March 18, 2009. However, the profit I made was transferred to another account held with IB under account no. U695190. Attached hereto as Exhibit  is a bank statement showing the funds being transferred between the accounts at IB with a balance of $360,000.00 remaining on March 19, 2009; a similar balance is also reflected on the account activity statement from the IB Account for March 13, 2009 to June 12, 2009 also attached

53.      My investors and I were very happy and excited about my ability and profitability to trade and make money for them. everybody wanted to continue investing at the tmie. My investors had two meetings to signed petitions to OSC for me to trade and make money for them, one was on march 28, 2009 and the other was on Oct. 25, 2009.

54.      My investors soon found one million dollars in USA business account to trade because of my performance Exhibit  . later , the court appointed receiver defrauded my investors and I. They took  all the money over a million dollars ( Order of this Court dated April 3, 2009 appointing the Mr. Tong as Receiver over the Receivership Entities (the “U.S. Receiver Order”), (Docket No. 11); and Order of this Court dated April 3, 2009 freezing assets (“U.S. Freezing Order”), (Docket No. 7). And make me or my corporate un-represented.

55.      On March 12, 2009, OSC launched investigation because of one complain and had interview with me without a lawyer at the time I never knew that I need a lawyer. Since then our nightmares began. I was targeted and profiled by OSC.

56.      On March 17, 2009, the Ontario Securities Commission (the “Commission”) issued a Temporary Order (the “Temporary Order”) that (i) pursuant to paragraph 2 of subsection 127(1) of the Securities Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. S.5, as amended (the “Act”), all trading in securities of Oversea Chinese Fund Limited Partnership (the “Oversea Chinese Fund”), Weizhen Tang and Associates Inc. (“Tang and Associates”) and Weizhen Tang Corp. (“Tang Corp.”) shall cease and that all trading by Weizhen Tang (“Tang”), Oversea Chinese Fund, Tang and Associates and Tang Corp. shall cease; and (ii)         pursuant to paragraph 3 of subsection 127(1) of the Act, the exemptions contained in Ontario’s securities law do not apply to Tang, Oversea Chinese Fund, Tang and Associates and Tang Corp.

57.      On March 18, 2009, the Commission issued a Notice of Hearing (the “Original Notice of Hearing”) which set out the Commission’s intention to hold a hearing to consider whether, pursuant to section 127 of the Act, it was in the public interest for the Commission to extend the Temporary Order beyond 15 days.  On April 1, 2009, and on numerous subsequent dates, the Temporary Order was extended by Order of the Commission.

58.      I borrowed the personal funds from TD Bank  against my house being frozen and  held by Interactive Brokers Canada Inc. (“IB”), located at 1800 McGill College Avenue, Suite 2106, Montréal, Québec, in an account belonging to one of the Respondent Corporations, Oversea Chinese Fund Limited Partnership, under account no. U149319 (the “IB Account”) and court order to give their law firm, but they said that is for the interest of my investors.

59.      Our IB Account was opened in 2004 and was used to trade and make monies for investors. Upon receipt of investment monies, our standard practice was to first deposit them in an account at the Bank of Montréal, located at First Canadian Place, P.O. Box 3, Toronto, Ontario, under account no. 0002 1561-448 (the “BMO Account”). The monies were then transferred into the IB Account.

 

Court Directions, Orders and Convictions

60.      On March 18, 2009, pursuant to subsection 136(1) of the Ontario Securities Act, RSO 1990, c S5, the Ontario Securities Commission (the OSC”) directed IB to retain all funds, securities or property they had on deposit, under their control or for their safekeeping, in accounts in the name of the Respondent Corporations and myself in a personal capacity until such further time as the OSC revoked the Directions, consented to a release of particular funds or until the Ontario Superior Court of Justice ordered otherwise.  Attached hereto as Exhibit  are the Directions.

61.      March 23, 2009  Spence, J. orders that freeze remains in effect to April 30, 2009

62.      On March 25, 2009, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice ordered the continuation of the aforementioned Directions until April 30, 2009. Attached hereto as Exhibit  is the court Order of March 25, 2009. Since April 30, 2009, the Order has been renewed several times.

63.      Given that the IB Account is in Montréal, the Autorité des Marchés Financiers (the “AMF”), the OSC’s equivalent in the Province of Québec, issued freeze Orders of their own with respect to any dealings with the IB Account on behalf of myself or the Respondent Corporations. The AMF freeze Orders have also been extended several times since.

64.       On April 3, 2009 Because of OSC, US SEC launched investigation to my business and appointed receiver ,  Order Appointing Receiver dated April 3, 2009 and made the receiver to take all our money.

65.       Order of this Court dated April 3, 2009 appointing the Mr. Tong as Receiver over the Receivership Entities (the “U.S. Receiver Order”), (Docket No. 11); and Order of this Court dated April 3, 2009 freezing assets (“U.S. Freezing Order”), (Docket No. 7).

66.       April 30, 2009  2009  Campbell, J, orders that freeze remains in effect to June 30, 2009.

67.       The  Justice C. Campbell  even issued  an order requiring  my investor, Mr. Lin to pay, within  10 days of the service of the order upon him, $300,000  USD to Bennett  Jones LLP in trust pending further order of the court (the “Interim  Order”). 

68.       My investors’ representative, Mr. Lin has paid a total of $237,084.98 USD under the Interim Order and Bennett  Jones has secured a further $1,921.31 CAD (approximately $1,818.90 USD) through related enforcement  measures.  These funds are currently being held in trust by Bennett Jones.

69.      June 30, 2009   Wilton-Segal, J. orders that freeze remains in effect to Sept 30, 2009.

70.      I had a lawyer from US, his name is Phillip C. Umphres RE: SEC v. Oversea Chinese Fund Limited, No. 3:09-CV-614-O (USDC NDTX), he did not argue the fund frozen for me to retain counsel.

71.  On July 10, 2009  Phillip C. Umphres wrote to me as: Dear Mr. Tang,

Over the past five days, I have been engaged in negotiations with the SEC attorney, Harold Lofton, to see if we could reach agreement on a settlement of the SEC litigation that does not damage our prospects in other venues.  I believe we have done so.

72.  In essence, the SEC has agreed to bifurcate their case.  First, they want the me  to agree to a permanent injunction agreeing that I will not in the future violate the securities laws.  The SEC will agree, however, to defer for now the question of whether I should have to “disgorge” any monies received from the investors and not yet returned and whether any civil penalties and fines need to be paid. 

To accomplish this, Mr. Lofton has provided us with two documents, which I now forward to Mr. Tang and the Canadian counsel for review.  The first document to review is the Agreed Interlocutory Judgment.  Several points about this document.

1. I have no problem at all with agreeing to the injunctive relief set out in paragraphs I, II, III, IV and V.  These provisions simply provide that  defendants cannot violate the law in the future.

2.     In paragraphs VI and VII, the defendants are agreeing to be enjoined from using any funds located in the United States.  I was able to get the SEC to agree to expressly limit this restriction to monies and property in the US or that are in the hands of US companies – this does not restrict funds located in Canada, which the SEC knows are the subject of a Canadian restraining order.  Now, the SEC is not precluded from taking this injunction and trying to come to Canada and use it as a basis for freezing Canadian assets, but I doubt they will try to do that as they know full well that the Canadians are already on top of the pursuit of assets located in Canada.

3.    In paragraph VIII, the SEC reserves the right in the future to file a motion with the US court seeking money from the defendants in the form of disgorgement of “ill gotten gains” and penalties.  In this regard:

A. There is admittedly no express provision regarding how long the SEC is going to hold off on pursuing a motion to recover a monetary judgment.  However, the SEC attorneys know that it would be a waste of their time to pursue this relief now and they typically hold off indefinitely – sometimes permanently – from pursuing this

“second half” of the relief sought in this type of lawsuit.  While we have to take it on faith that they will not pursue this relief until the criminal cases are resolved (and that they may never pursue this relief), for multiple reasons I believe we can rely on their representation that they will not do so in the near future.

B.    The second thing to be aware of is that – while the defendants are agreeing to enter into this order without an admission of liability –the defendants are also agreeing that if the SEC in the future does seek monetary relief the defendants will not contest the factual basis for the relief.  That is, the defendants agree that they will not, in the future, argue in this SEC lawsuit that they did not violate US securities laws.  I need to say that Mr. Lofton was very clear and absolutely insists that this provision be included in the judgment – it is a non-negotiable provision, according to him.

28. AGREED INTERLOCUTORY JUDGMENT: The Plaintiff Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), having filed a Complaint against Defendants Oversea Chinese Fund Limited Partnership, Weizhen Tang & Associates, Inc., Weizhen Tang Corp. and Weizhen Tang (collectively “Defendants”), and Defendants, having made an appearance herein, having waived service of process and having consented to the entry of this Interlocutory Judgment, without admitting or denying the allegations in the Commission’s Complaint except as to personal and subject matter jurisdiction, which are admitted, and having waived findings of fact and conclusions of law;

29. I had lawyer at the beginning of OSC investigation, Mr. Hugh Lissaman and I asked him if I could use the money frozen to retain him and his friends when OSC was investigating me, he said no, that was very surprising and strange to me that why I could not use my own money and money of my corporations to retain counsel and lawyer to defend me.

73.  May 12, 2009,  Justice Campbell  Ordered Enforcing and Recognizing U.S. Receiver Order and Freezing Order to take money from our investment accounts and destroy my defence.

74.      July 3, 2009 , Two Investors Siyi Qiu  and Guosheng Wang issue a Notice of Application to return $150,000 of the IB frozen funds to them.

75.      Mr. Lissaman had introduced me to his friends  Andrew Burns and Glen Jennings of Hunt Partners http.  They told me that this firm is very experienced in OSC matters.  

76.      On July 16, 2009  Mr. Lissaman  introduce  Mr. Larry Lancefield  to me and I tried to retain a forensic account, Mr. Larry Lancefield and I told him that our funds were frozen and I would find some money to retain him and I did. He disappear for unknown reason.

77.      I did not know why I could not find my retained forensic accountant Mr. Larry Lancefield and lost him and I also retained Mr. Andrew Burns and Glen Jennings of the Hunt partners, but could not continue because of the frozen funds.

78.      On   Mr. Tong brought a motion to repatriate our money to US. Mr. Tong was appointed Receiver in this proceeding, Securities and Exchange Commission vs. Oversea Chinese Fund Limited Partnership et al., in Civil Action No. 3- 09CV614-B  (the  “U.S. Proceedings”), for WinWin Capital Management,  LLC, WinWin Capital Limited Partnership, J.O.R. & Associates LLC, WinWin Capital Partners, LP and Bluejay Investment, LLC d/b/a Vintage International  Investment, LLC (the “Receivership Entities”).

79.      The purpose  of the  supplemental  report is  to  advise  the  Court  of  the status of $300,000 USD that was transferred from a receivership  entity in Texas to Mr. Peter Lin (“Lin”)  in Toronto, Ontario and to establish the basis for a motion before the Canadian court to repatriate those funds.

80.      On May 1, 2009  the Ontario Court was previously made aware of the funds in the Receiver’s Preliminary Report filed May 1, 2009 at paragraph 5 (Docket No. 23) and in the Receiver’s Supplemental Report filed May 11, 2009 at paragraph 37(iii) (Docket No. 26)-

81.      On May 12, 2009, Mr. Tong brought a motion for an order for directions regarding the Order of Justice Campbell of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, dated May 12, 2009; and An order authorizing the transfer and repatriation of funds to  the  Receiver  as collected from Lin and currently held in trust by Bennett Jones LLP in Canada by order of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice in the amount of $237,084.98 USD and $1,921.31 CAD.

82.      On June 11, 2009, OSC wrongfully charged me and my companies 12 counts of frauds and later all the charges withdrew.

83.      Sept 23, 2009, Kelley McKinnon advises she will bring an Application to be appointed counsel for Ontario investors.

84.      Sept 28, 2009  First return date for  Investors Qiu and Wang Application – adjourned and transferred to Commercial List.

85.      Sept 30, 2009 Marrocco, J. orders that freeze remains in effect to October 25, 2009

86.      Oct 8, 2009   Kelley McKinnon appointed as Representative Counsel by  Morawetz, J, Order and  order provides representative counsel a “first charge” on the frozen funds for payment of reasonable fees and disbursements.

87.      Oct 26, 2009  Hoy, J. orders that freeze remains in effect to December 1, 2009

88.      On Nov. 13, 2009, I brought a motion to OSC to unfreeze fund and continue trading on behalf of my investors and OSC dismissed my motion and denied  my application  to trade and livelihood.

89.      On Nov. 19, 2009 my investors and I asked my lawyer for advice if I could trade outside of the country and  I told everybody before I leave that  I had to travel to Hong Kong and China to trade and make money to retain a lawyer and make money for my investors.

90.      Right after I left Canada, the police detective Gail Regan followed me and wanted to arrest me. I did not know why she was after me even before OSC completed its investigation.

91.      Dec 3, 2009   Mr. Qiu and Mr. Wang brought a separate application for reimbursement of their  $150,000.00 investment (the “December 2009 Application”).  Justice Pepall heard the Application and issued an Endorsement, in which she stated that it was not disputed that Mr. Qiu and Mr. Wang’s $150,000.00 investment was deposited into the 8MO Account on March 16, 2009 and then transferred to the 18 Account on March 16, 2009 and March 17, 2009. She noted that prior to the deposits, the balance of the BMO account was $750.04 (the balance on March 13, 2009). On March 17, 2009, an additional $200,000.00 was deposited by Mr. Tang into the BMO Account and then transferred to the IB  Account. Madam Justice Pepall determines that the IB frozen funds were trust funds but the funds were comingled by the time they were deposited in the IB account and distribution would be on a pro rata basis. Adjourned part of the application to permit Representative Counsel to file evidence of claims (obtained from her Nov 18, 2010 Endorsement )   

92.              The issue in the December 2009 Application was whether the funds remaining in the IB  Account should be paid out to Mr. Qiu and Mr. Wang or whether the funds should be distributed to all investors, on a pro rata basis. Justice Pepall concluded that the monies were trust monies and that they had been commingled at a minimum by the time they were deposited in the IB Account. Justice Pepall adjourned the hearing to permit Gowlings to file evidence of claims. On February 22, 2010, Gowlings filed additional affidavits and transcript of examinations of an investigator and forensic accountant with the OSC, however there was nothing filed on behalf of the Canadian Investor Class. On Nov. 18, 2010 Pepall, J. orders that freeze remains in effect until further order of this Court.

93.      On Dec. 29, 2009, the police Gail Regan wanted me back but did not say so.

94.      On Jan. 7, 2010, Ms. Gail Regan and the Toronto police issued search warrant for my arrest and destroyed my name.

95.      On Jan. 13, 2010, I voluntarily return to face charge, the police arrested me on the airplane and did not give me time to retain a lawyer and arbitrary detain me and put me into jail and kept me in the prison for more than three months in order to totally destroy my name and freedoms and my legal defense.

96.      On April 20, 2010 Mr.  Jack Pinkofsky prepared my affidavit and appealed from my arbitrarily  detention  for more than three months and  I was released on bail and was still isolated and punished before any trial and conviction.

97.      After my release on April 20, 2009, we were forced to live on social assistant and welfare, but not qualified for legal aid.

98.      On September 9, 2010 I registered to run for mayor for Toronto against Rob Ford and I was on top 20 out of 40 Mayoral Candidates on Oct. 25, 2010, I did not want to be wrongfully prosecuted and convicted.

99.      Nov 18, 2010 Madam Justice Pepall releases endorsement stating that Qiu and Wang are not entitled to return of their funds. Representative counsel seeking costs on a substantial indemnity scale.

100.                             A preliminary hearing was stared on  Feb. 14, 2011.

101.                             On   April 6, 2011, Justice Eric Libman Ruled on Committal for Trial Following six weeks Preliminary Inquiry  and two years of OSC investigation.

102.                             On May 24, 2011, I was charged with one count of fraud over $5,000.00 contrary to subsection 380(1) of the Criminal Code of Canada, RSC, 1985, c C-46. I applied and was refused legal Aid. My appeal as refused by the director of appeal for legal Aid Ontario (the LA). My constitutional right to counsel was a major issue in criminal proceedings. Three (3) hearings were heard before Justice Nordheimer on July 12, 2011,  August  15,  2011  and  September    23,  2011,  wherein  the  release  of  my $200,175.00 investment was discussed for the purposes of retaining counsel, failing which my only remedy would be to bring a Rowbotham application. Attached hereto as Exhibit are the transcripts of the hearings

103.                             At the July 12, 2011 hearing, Justice Nordheimer noted that I was at a disadvantage without counsel to defend against a serious criminal offence. The reasons for my denial included the number of parties claiming an interest in the funds placed in the IB account and the fact that the funds were transferred by Mr. Lin. The hearing was adjourned for one month so that the LAO anew. Importantly, Justice Nordheimer stated at the page 33, lines 17 -20, “ if for good reasons this court feels it necessary to remove the freeze on those funds, this court is capable of doing that”.

104.                             Mr. Hutchison, the OSC counsel: “My submission to you is that what you can’t do is use either s. 24(1) or this proceeding to somehow indirectly undue the order that was made by Justice  Peppall with respect to the monies that are held in the interactive broker account. That’s an order validly made, never been appealed, never been subject to review or challenge by Mr. Tang in any formal way. And it would be procedurally unfair to all of the other parties in this case to have their interest in those funds dealt with in the context of this kind of an application.  I understand the desire to come up with a solution that allows Mr. Tang’s criminal case to move forward, and I certainly understand the concerns with respect to not being unduly formalistic in the context of a self-represented individual, but my submission is that we can’t allow our desire to be fair to Mr. Tang to draw us into an unfairness of the other individuals, ascertained and unascertained, who may have an interest in those funds. And we can’t use it as a mechanism, in my respectful submission, to go around the procedures that are, in fact, in place to allow Mr. Tang to attack that order directly, if he chooses to.”

105.                             Justice Nordheimer: “ Well, let me take a step back, because it may be helpful to repeat the context in which all of this arises. First of all, I’m not sure that I agree with you that this Court doesn’t have the jurisdiction to address the funds that were the subject of my colleague’s order, particularly because, I stand to be corrected, my understanding is that order specifically said subject to any further order of the court.

106.                             Now, the issue as it presents itself, from my perspective, and this is how this whole matter began, is I am faced with an unrepresented accused facing serious criminal charges in a fairly complicated proceeding, who comes  before me to conduct a judicial pretrial with respect to those charges, him having been committed to trial at the Ontario Court of Justice. And when my first inquiry at the pretrial of Mr. Tang is, “Do you intend to continue to represent yourself in these proceedings?” I am told immediately that he is desirous of having counsel with respect to this matter, but that Legal Aid has denied his application for a certificate, and he has exhausted his appeal routes with respect to Legal Aid, but that he has $200,000 of his own money, which he could use to fund his defence, but he can’t access that money because another government agency has frozen it.”

107.                             On August 15, 2011, Justice Nordheimer reiterated the conflict between two (2) agencies off the same government, i.e. one government agency was saying they would not provide me with counsel because I had funds of my own to pay for same and another government agency was saying I could not access to those monies in order to pay for counsel. Justice Nordheimer stated at page 14, lines 28- 3-, that “ there was no dispute that at least $200,000 of Mr. Tang ‘s own money went into this account”. The matter was again put over until September 23, 2011 wherein I was finally denied by legal aid because, as stated at page 17, line 18 -22, I provided incomplete or inconsistent information which I believed is mostly attributable to my deficiencies of the English language. On September 23, 2011, I applies for a Rowbotham 1 order to stay the charges against me until such time as. the Attorney General provides funding to him to retain counsel Justice Nordheimer acknowledge that Mr. Tang does not have experience-with the legal system. He also acknowledge that I  would be much better served if I had counsel. Indeed the trial process itself would be better served if Mr. Tang had counsel, Nordheimer J. erred in refusing to appoint counsel for the Applicant pursuant to his R. v. Rowbotham application

108.                             On July 12, 2012, I made an application for the crown to withdraw the criminal charge and put the matter to OSC, Justice Nordheimer: Well,  let me ask the Crown counsel  this one question. Thinking  broadly, but,  if I  can  use  that expression, is there any basis the Crown can see for resolution of this charge  that wouldn’t  involve  a plea. For example, leaving the matter to be dealt with by the Ontario Securities Commission in terms of penalties  and  that  type  of thing 

109.                             The crown insisted to go on trial and concerns of charter issue 11b, a trial within a reasonable time.

110.                             On September 10, 2012, I was forced to stand on trial without counsel and expert.

111.                             During the trial between September 10, 2012 to Oct. 30, 2012, a historic 49 days, I had no legal counsel and no financial and investment expert to testify on my behalf and there was no expert to testify during the trial, the only expert testified against me was OSC financial accountant, not even  a forensic  accountant,  the trial judge  erred in  admitting the evidence of the Crown forensic accounting “expert” should not have been admitted as he was an investigator as opposed to an “independent”.

112.                             On September 23, 2011, The crown admitted before on  that “ the complexity lies not in any  legal issues but in the nature of the solicitation and the mechanics of the investment. One must realize that these enterprises were not just there, they were created by the accused persons. Surely, the creators and managers of such an enterprise knew the intricate details more so than a lawyer or a lay person.

113.                             “In the present case, the accused is alleged to have defrauded the investors in four ways. And he either committed these frauds or he did not. He either deceived the potential investors about the nature of the investments or he did not. He either provided false accounts to these investors or he did not. He either operated a Ponzi scheme or he did not. He either collected two million from his major investment vehicle or he did not. And no one can understand that better than him. “

114.     The  Amicus Curiae Mr. Peter Boushy :  In the afternoon of October 17 when he was speaking about these UPS packages delivered to his home, and Your Honour will recall that that was on the heels of him sobbing in front of the jury just before the lunch break. So with regard to those aspects of the trial, whether it’s Mr. Tang crying or the TD bank closing down his account and him alleging bias

115.     On October 26, 2012 the pre-charge conference, The trial has spend much of time on the book “ the Chinese Warren Buffet”, the King of 1%, published in China and the issue is whether it is really evidence and admissible. 

116.                   The evidence of the crown forensic accounting “expert” should not have been admitted as he was an investigators of Ontario Securities Commission as opposed to an “ independent “ .

117.                   OSC expert testimony was the only direct “ credible “ proof the crown offered against the appellant, and had much to do with my conviction.  The Crown knew and ought to have known that expert carry great weight with juries , and especially in the complicated financial industry, and when expert is the employee of the Ontario Securities Commission and called by the prosecution to testify against the criminal defendant, his opinion is deemed infallible.

118.                   Lawyer would be allowed to cross-examine the expert from  OSC and attempt to discredit him, but even lawyer rarely win such arguments, expert are hard to pin down, and the jurors are quickly confused. What the defense needed is an expert or two at the table.

119.                   Expert cost money, and judges cringe at the idea of forcing the taxpayer’s to cover the bill for an indigent defense that run too high, but I have my own money and a lot of money , but had not access to Interactive brokers Accounts of $ 440,000, 200,000 personal funds, and the proceeds of one million dollar from sale of  my house by TD Dominion Bank in August 22, 2014 and money of  $300,000 in BENNETT JONES LLP and million dollars in Tom Tong, the receiver for WINWIN CAPITAL MANAGEMENT, LLC. WINWIN CAPITAL LIMITED PARTMERSHIP, J.O.R. & AAOCIATES, LLC. WINWIN CAPITAL PARTNERSHIP, LP, AND BLUEJAY INVESTMENT, LLC.,D/B/A VINTAGE INTERNATIONAL INVESTMENT,LLC, my USA operation.

120.                             On October 30, 2012, after a 49-day trial, I was wrongfully found guilty as charged because nobody understand my business and nobody watch and nobody care.

121.                             On Feb. 1, 2013,  I was maliciously sentenced to imprisonment for 6 years. Additionally, the Applicant was fined $2,849,459.50 in lieu of forfeiture with 5 years’ imprisonment consecutive in default.

122.                             On Sept 10, 2014 The appeal court duty counsel Mr. Michael Lacy found that  (a)      Nordheimer J. erred in refusing to appoint counsel for the Applicant pursuant to his R. v. Rowbotham application; (b)   The evidence of the Crown forensic accounting “expert” should not have been admitted as he was an investigator as opposed to an “independent”; (c)          JUSTICE A. O’MARRA erred in finding that this was an appropriate case for a fine in lieu of forfeiture given the purpose of such an Order (i.e. to deprive fraudsters of their unlawful personal gain); the trial judge erred in finding that this was an appropriate case for a fine in lieu of forfeiture given the purpose of such an Order (i.e. to deprive fraudsters of their unlawful personal gain;

123.                             On March 1, 2013  I filed an inmate notice of appeal against his conviction and sentence received by the court. I applied for legal aid to fund his appeal but was refused. I   has exhausted all appeals from that decision.

124.                             On April 8, 2013 when I lost my rights and freedoms and in prison, the Lawyer . Mr. Jeffrey Kukla from Gowling for Toronto Dominion Bank found the opportunity and take advantage of us, file a statement of claim against my wife and obtained a default judgement against us.

125.                             On June 12, 2013  I brought an application before Mr. Justice MacPherson for bail pending appeal. I made submissions without the assistance of duty counsel. Ultimately, Justice MacPherson concluded that, on the basis of the material before the Court at that time, the Applicant had failed to satisfy the Court that his appeal had any merit.

126.                             On Sept. 19, 2013 when I figured out I could bring a motion  to set the default judgement aside, I wrote a motion and asked my wife to file in court, Justice

127.                             Dec 6, 2013 Motion before Justice Newbould by Cowlings to pass their accounts; Newbould, J. orders that Interactive Brokers distribute $201,352.42 to pay Cowlings account (note that Mr. Tang attended that motion and opposed it) .

128.                             January 3, 2014  I files Notice of Motion to extend time to his appeal returnable February 19, 2014

129.                             February 17, 2014  I  served new notice of motion with hearing date of  March 25, 2014

130.                                                     On February 21, 2014, Mr. Justice Rosenberg (having been designated by the Chief Justice) heard the applicant’s application for a direction to review Justice MacPherson’s order of June 12, 2013. Justice Rosenberg considered the Applicant’s application and found that there was no basis to review Justice Macpherson’s finding that the appeal had no merit. He noted at paragraph 2 of his endorsement that “I have reviewed the materials especially those related to the Rowbotham motion and the charge to the jury. I can see no basis for coming to a different conclusion that Nordheimer J. for refusing the Rowbotham motion as set out in his ruling of September 29, 2011. He may have underestimated the sentence the appellant was likely to receive, but in all other respects his reasons justify the order made. The Applicant also sought the appointment of counsel pursuant to s.684(1) of the Criminal Code. The Court rejected the application finding that there was insufficient merit to warrant appointing counsel and that, additionally, based upon the findings by Nordheimer J. the Applicant was “not without means to fund his legal proceedings.”

131.                                                     March 25, 2014 Motion Hoy, J.; I was granted adjournment of 6 weeks to May 6, 2014 to file materials when I was in prison

132.                                                     On April 9, 2014, my appeal was scheduled for hearing on the inmate appeal list in Kingston, Ontario. I  appeared. Duty Counsel also appeared. Duty counsel identified two potential areas of appeal for the Applicant in relation to the expert forensic accounting evidence adduced at trial and a sentence appeal. I submitted that there were additional materials relevant to the Rowbotham application that should also be produced so that he could revisit the s.684 application and because it was relevant to an appeal of the Rowbotham application. The Court ordered the Crown to produce further materials and asked duty counsel to review the material and, also, to assist the Applicant in revisiting the s.684 application if the circumstances warranted.  With that direction, duty counsel offers the following analysis.

133.               When Justice Rosenberg considered the question of whether the Applicant had sufficient means to appoint counsel, he noted that based on the findings of Nordheimer J. (on the original Rowbotham application), the Applicant was not without means to fund counsel. However, having first concluded that the Applicant had not met the “merits” test to justify the appointment of counsel, this finding was arguably obiter. Additionally, in any event, to the extent that there is an arguable basis to challenge Justice Nordheimer’s dismissal of the Rowbotham application with the benefit of additional materials and/or arguments that Justice Rosenberg did not have at the time of the original s.684 application, it would be circular to rely on that ruling as a basis for concluding that the Applicant has means to retain counsel.
It is respectfully submitted by Mr. Michael Lacy, the pro bono duty counsel of appeal court that, if the Applicant otherwise satisfies the court that his appeal has merit (including appealing the Rowbotham decision) and that the Applicant requires the benefit of counsel to be able to effectively advance his appeal, the means test has been satisfied. register for 19 Robinter Drive. Although the $50,000.00 deposit we used to purchase the property came from the Joint Account, virtually all the funds were contributed by Hong Xiao who was in a better position financially. At that time, I was trying to make a name for myself; I had only recently registered with OSC to run a financial business which allowed me to start managing private funds and hedge funds on behalf of investors.

134.                                         May 13, 2014, Cronk, J. dismisses my motion for extension of time and his appeal of Newbould, J. Order of December 6, 2013.

135.                             May 30, 2014,  I files appeal of Cronk. J.’s Order related to the frozen funds.

136.                             Sept 17, 2014 Court of Appeal dismisses  to stay proceeding and extend time to perfect my appeal on the frozen funds and my house (Toronto-Dominion Bank v. Tang, 2014 ONCA 657 (CanLII) and Winwin Capital Management, LLC v. Oversea Chinese Fund Limited Partnership, 2014 ONCA 662 (CanLII).  

137.                             Juriansz, LaForme and Lauwers JJ.A. dismissed my motion to extend time to perfect my appeal and stay proceedings until such time that I could retain counsel, they says the my appeal is without merit  because I did not have a counsel and  Mr. Tang has no prospects on succeeding on the appeal of Newbould J.’s decision. From his submissions, it is apparent that Mr. Tang seeks to advance other issues that are beyond the scope of the appeal.

138.                             The appeal Justices erred in finding the issue is the fee reasonableness, it was totally not entitled. big law firm Gowlings Account be taxed given that they have drained my account over the years purporting to represent the investors whom they don’t know and whose investments accounts they don’t know. Even the investors don’t know that Gowlings represents them. Gowlings does not have any retainer letters from any investors. They cannot show in the dockets if they even have dockets, what if any work they have done. They cannot show any interview notes with any investor. Yet they have seized illegally to hundreds of thousands of my money. They ought to be taxed. They ought to be reported to the Law Society of Upper Canada, they ought to account to somebody. Most important they ought to return my money.

139.                                              Appeal court judges knew and ought to have known that any court appointed lawyer has to inform the client about the appointment and to work diligently for that client. The client has to agree to be represented by that law firm appointed by the judge. It is not automatic. At least the client must know who is representing them. The issue now is, on June 5, 2017 Gowlings adjourned the case in order to find out which are their investor clients and what investments were involved. But what have they been doing all these years not knowing who their clients are and the amount of investments each deposited. The dockets may only deal with the suits filed, how about work done on their clients on their clients’ instructions. Do they even have instructions. This is Frantz Kafka. Lawyers draining money without knowing who their clients are and without receiving any instructions from the purported clients. This is a miscarriage of justice.

140.                      They could have made all arrangements with their clients before the Motion date which they knew about long before.

141.                             November 5, 2015 AMF extends freeze in IB accounts to March 10, 2016 -balance of funds in account $139,682.15 (Mr. Tang attended) .

 

142.                             November 6, 2015   Gowlings  served  me with materials to have further account approved returnable November 12, 2015.

143.                             November 8, 2015 Mr. Tang serves responding motion materials opposing Gowlings motion above .

144.                             Nov 12, 2015 Order and Endorsement of Penny, J. dated December 15, 2015    


 

The IB Account

 

145.                        In or around February 27, 2009 due to the 2008 financial crisis and massive withdrawals, the balance of the IB Account was negligible. On February 27, 2009, I called a meeting to advise the investors of same. The meeting was held at the Holiday Inn , located in the intersection of Woodbine and Steeles, Markham, Ontario, although many of the investors attended in person and there was a video. Attached hereto as Exhibit is an activity statement of the IB Account from February 26, 2009 to February 27, 2009 as well as a transcript of trial proceedings from R v Tang wherein Justice O’Marra indicated that, by February 27, 2009, there was “little more than $1,400 left in the fund”. Despite the above, I remained optimistic that with another investment, I could make the money back for the investors.

146.                             On March 16, 2009, I entered into a written agreement with Si Yi Qui and Guosheng Wang whereby they agreed to invest $150,000.00 in Oversea Chinese Fund Limited Partnership. Attached hereto as Exhibit “B” is the written agreement and the bank drafts totalling $150,000.00. This money was first deposited into the BMO Account on March 16, 2009. On the same date, $50,000.00 was transferred to the IB Account. On March 17, 2009, $100,000.00 was transferred to the IB Account. Attached hereto as Exhibit “C” are the bank statements indicating same.

147.                             In order to generate the investors’ money back and earn a better return, I required a further investment. I decided to invest my own money. For this I had to convince my wife, Hong Xiao, to let me use the approximately $200,175.00 in surplus from the refinancing of the mortgage re-finance. Attached hereto as Exhibit  is a bank draft in the amount of $236,800.00 as drawn from our line of credit with TD Canada Trust (the “Line of Credit”) and made payable to the representative investor Peter Lin, also known as Aiming Lin. Mr. Lin kept approximately $36,625.00 for administration costs and anticipated legal fees. The balance, that is, $200,175.00 was first deposited into the BMO Account and then transferred to the IB Account on March 17, 2009. Attached hereto as Exhibit  are the bank statements indicating same.

148.                             The  investment   of   $150,000.00  from  Ms.   Qiu  and  Mr.  Wang  as   well   as the

$200,175.00  investment  from  myself  and  my  wife  were  commingled  with  the approximately $1,400.00 remaining in the IB Account. No other funds were deposited into the IB Account apart from approximately $90,000.00 in gains I made trading over a period of few days, i.e. March 16, 2009 to March 18, 2009. However, the profit I made was transferred to another account held with IB under account no. U695190. Attached hereto as Exhibit  is a bank statement showing the funds being transferred between the accounts at IB with a balance of $360,000.00 remaining on March 19, 2009; a similar balance is also reflected on the account activity statement from the IB Account for March 13, 2009 to June 12, 2009 also attached. 

register for 19 Robinter Drive. Although the $50,000.00 deposit we used to purchase the property came from the Joint Account, virtually all the funds were contributed by Hong Xiao who was in a better position financially. At that time, I was trying to make a name for myself; I had only recently registered with OSC to run a financial business which allowed me to start managing private funds and hedge funds on behalf of investors.

149.                             My  wife, Hong Xiao, worked as a stock broker  in the 1990s, earning  approximately

$50,000.00 to $80,000 per year. From about 2001 to 2009, she worked as an self- employed insurance broker earning substantially less. In 2008, her total income was approximately $9,655.00. Attached hereto as Exhibit  is Hong Xiao’s 2008 Notice of Assessment indicating her taxable  income, including her commissions.

150.                             In and around 2008, my earnings began to decline. Attached hereto as Exhibit “I” is my 2008 Notice of Assessment indicating a total income of $103,679.00. This was concerning as my family depended on my income for support. It cost us approximately

$10,000.00 per month to maintain our household, including payments toward our credit cards and the Line of Credit. Needless to say we were experiencing hard times financially in 2009. Attached hereto as Exhibit  are creditor-issued statements illustrating our debt of more than $1 million.

151.   From the Line of Credit, my wife and I withdrew $600,000.00 for the purpose of discharging our first and second mortgages on 19 Robinter Drive and re-financing with TD Canada Trust. Attached hereto as Exhibit is a letter from Alex Ranieri, a financial advisor with TD Canada Trust, dated May 8, 2009, confirming same. Also attached is an account history showing activity on March 12, 2009 with $362,669.44 being used to discharge the mortgages and the remaining $236,800.00 being used for a bank draft. Any discrepancy between those two sums is attributed to in-house legal fees for the discharge of the mortgages.

152.                             It was at this time that I decided to invest the $200,175.00 of our money in the IB Account to earn a better return for the investors and, admittedly, for myself and my family.

Court Directions, Orders and Convictions

153.                             On March 18, 2009, pursuant to subsection 136(1) of the Ontario Securities Act, RSO 1990, c S5, the Ontario Securities Commission (the OSC”) directed IB to retain all funds, securities or property they had on deposit, under their control or for their safekeeping, in accounts in the name of the Respondent Corporations and myself in a personal capacity until such further time as the OSC revoked the Directions, consented to a release of particular funds or until the Ontario Superior Court of Justice ordered otherwise.  Attached hereto as Exhibit  are the Directions.

154.                             On March 25, 2009, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice ordered the continuation of the aforementioned Directions until April 30, 2009. Attached hereto as Exhibit  is the court Order of March 25, 2009. Since April 30, 2009, the Order has been renewed several times.

155.                             Given that the IB Account is in Montréal, the Autorité des Marchés Financiers (the “AMF”), the OSC’s equivalent in the Province of Québec, issued freeze Orders of their own with respect to any dealings with the IB Account on behalf of myself or the Respondent Corporations. The AMF freeze Orders have also been extended several times since.

156.                             On May 24, 2011, I was wrongfully charged with one count of fraud over $5,000.00 contrary to subsection 380(1) of the Criminal Code of Canada, RSC, 1985, c C-46. I applied and was refused legal Aid. My appeal as refused by the director of appeal for legal Aid Ontario (the LA). My constitutional right to counsel was a major issue in criminal proceedings. Three (3) hearings were heard before Justice Nordheimer on July 12, 2011,  August  15,  2011  and  September    23,  2011,  wherein  the  release  of  my $200,175.00 investment was discussed for the purposes of retaining counsel, failing which my only remedy would be to bring a Rowbotham application. Attached hereto as Exhibit are the transcripts of the hearings.

157.                             At the July 12, 2011 hearing, Justice Nordheimer noted that I was at a disadvantage without counsel to defend against a serious criminal offence. The reasons for my denial included the number of parties claiming an interest in the funds placed in the IB account, especially the court appointed counsel and  the hearing was adjourned for one month so that the LAO anew. Importantly, Justice Nordheimer stated at the page 33, lines 17 -20, “ if for good reasons this court feels it necessary to remove the freeze on those funds, this court is capable of doing that”

158.                             “The issue then presents itself, from my perspective, as I believe at one point I referred to this as being akin to a Rowbotham application. Because either on a strict Rowbotham application, I would order the charges stayed until such time as the Attorney General provide counsel. That would be at the public expense. The issue then becomes why the taxpayers in the Province of Ontario should, in the first instance, fund Mr. Tang’s defence if Mr. Tang has monies that could be used for that purpose, regardless of other claims by other people to those matters..”

159.                             This matter proceeded, at least initially, and it might still, on the basis that there was no real dispute that that $200,000 of funds belonging to Mr. Tang had gone into this particular account, even though it may be that subsequent to that other monies came in and others went out such that you can’t tell one dollar from the other. But there was no dispute that at least 200,000 of Mr. Tang’s own money went into this account.

160.                             With that factual premise, the issue then becomes does the Court have the right to order that those funds be used to pay for Mr. Tang’s constitutional right to counsel, as an — in priority, for lack of a better word, to any  claims that any people may have in civil proceedings, as essentially execution creditors or execution creditors in waiting or however you wish to put it, since some, I assume, don’t have yet judgments against Mr. Tang in terms of their claim. In other words, do their claim that these funds might be used to redress their losses in some fashion have to take a back seat to Mr. Tang’s right to use those funds to fulfill his constitutional rights to counsel and to make full answer and defence?

161.                             Mr. Hutchinson Counsel for OSC: I’m simply saying that the jurisdiction you have that can properly be exercised today, in my respectful submission, is limited to some kind of Charter relief, if I can put it that way, of some form.

162.                             Now, Your Honour has properly pointed out that the order that freezes these funds initially begins with a direction from the Securities Commission. Your Honour will note that the purpose of that order is to preserve those funds for the purposes of the administration of securities law in the province, including protecting investors. It is on the same order as a Mareva injunction. In my respectful submission, there are likely individuals who are potential execution creditors who have not sought an instrument like a Mareva injunction because they know this order is in place; it has been confirmed by this court on several occasions. And to the extent that the funds were in issue, they have been dealt with by the court when Justice Peppall ordered that they be distributed at the conclusion of the criminal case on a prorated basis.  In my respectful submission, it would be more than just ironic if in the face of an order for a prorated distribution, the only person to receive dollar for dollar his money out of those trust funds was Mr. Tang for the purposes of his criminal defence. Justice Nordheimer in response: But doesn’t the fact that the order specifically doesn’t take effect until criminal proceedings are done suggest that they are intended to be subservient to those criminal proceedings?

163.                             Mr. Hutchinson : Let me just add this,  Your Honour. It’s not as framed, and I say “framed” because obviously we have allowed Mr. Tang significant latitude with respect to how he comes to you. But he’s not asking just to get this money back to fund his defence.

164.                        Justice Nordheimer said to me: I saw that in your material. The only thing that I will contemplate, and have ever contemplated from the beginning of this exercise, is having access to those funds for the sole purpose of Mr. Tang retaining counsel. I don’t. know if I have made mention of it in earlier proceedings, but that would include, you know, there being proper accounts rendered, that the rates to be paid to counsel would be agreed upon or stipulated by the court. None of this money, to use the vernacular, is going to flow into Mr. Tang’s pockets. There is one and only one purpose of these monies, and that is to pay for counsel.

165.                        MR.HUTCHISON:  In my submission, when you look at the body of law that’s available –when I say “body of law”, for example, dealing with Mareva injunctions. And my friends, Mr. MacDonald and Mr. Gattrell, in their materials on behalf of the Crown have given you the CIBC case by Justice Molloy, which is widely regarded as one of the leading cases in terms of these kinds of issues. One of the things that an applicant or a moving party has to establish to get access to that kind of funding is that, in fact, they are otherwise unable to fund the litigation.

166.                        I accept that. That’s a requirement of a Rowbotham too.

167.                        MR. HUTCHISON: Indeed.  So if we’re going to get there, my submission is that the order that’s appropriate, and one that, frankly, to use the language of s. 24, would be an order along the lines of what I have proposed in the materials on behalf of the Commission, which is a stay or pay order, a Rowbotham type order, with the contingency added that if at the end of all of this Mr. Tang actually is entitled to any of this money and my submission is he isn’t. Just so we’re  clear, while there’s not a dispute that Mr. Tang on March the 12th took out a loan and on March the 17th seems to have moved some of these monies through various accounts, commingled with other investors, and ultimately into the commingled trust fund at the interactive broker, that’s not disputed that that money ended up in there and there was later activity in that account. It is disputed whether or not he has an ownership claim in, if I can put it this way, the first 200,000 to come out of that account. That’s the issue that was before Justice Peppall. And everybody left court after Justice Peppall had rendered her decision thinking that Mr. Tang’s interest would be equal to whatever his proration share of that was, because he was just another investor. The materials are that he chose to take that money out to invest it, to trade out of that account, with all the other investors who had money in that account.

168.                             On August 15, 2011, Justice Nordheimer reiterated the conflict between two (2) agencies off the same government, i.e. one government agency was saying they would not provide me with counsel because I had funds of my won to pay for same and another government agency was saying I could not access to those monies in order to pay for counsel. Justice Nordheimer stated at page 14, lines 28- 3-, that “ there was no dispute that at least $200,000 of Mr. Tang ‘s won money went into this account”. The matter was again put over until September 23, 2011 wherein I was finally denied by legal aid because, as stated at page 17, line 18 -22, I provided incomplete or inconsistent information which I believed is mostly attributable to my deficiencies of the English language.

169.                             On October 30, 2012, after a 25-day trial, I was wrongfully found guilty as charged without lawyer or counsel.

170.                             On February 1, 2013, I was sentenced by Justice O’Marra to six (6) years imprisonment. Although it was not practicable for an order to be made with respect to the forfeiture of the proceeds of crime, I was ordered to pay a fine in lieu of forfeiture in the amount of $2,849,459.50 within five (5) years of my release from prison. In default of payment of said fine, I will be imprisoned for another five (5) years. Attached hereto as Exhibit  is the transcript of the sentencing hearing.

171.                             On April 21, 2016, the OSC ordered me to permanently cease trading in securities or derivatives pursuant to subsection 127(1) of the Securities Act. Attached hereto as Exhibit “O” is the Order of April 21, 2016 and deprive my right to work and make living.

172.                             The two (2) investors mentioned above, Ms. Qiu and Mr. Wang, brought a separate application for reimbursement of their $150,000.00 investment (the “Application”). On December 3, 2009, Justice Pepall heard the Application and issued an Endorsement. Attached hereto as Exhibit “P” is Justice Pepall’s handwritten Endorsement as well as an unofficial transcript of same.

173.                             In the Endorsement, Justice Pepall stated that it is not disputed that Ms. Qiu and Mr. Wang’s $150,000.00 investment was deposited into the BMO Account on March 16, 2009 and then transferred to the IB Account on March 16, 2009 and March 17, 2009. She stated that prior to the deposit, the balance of the BMO account was $750.04. On March 17, 2009, an additional $200,000.00 was deposited by myself in the BMO Account and then transferred to the IB Account. Justice Pepall also made reference to my trading with the funds in the IB Account”. Moreover, Justice Pepall stated that, if only by inference, there was some evidence to support a claim to funds by investors.

174.                             The issue in the Application was to determine whether the funds remaining in the IB Account should be paid to Ms. Qiu and Mr. Wang or whether the funds should be distributed to investors on a pro rata basis. Justice Pepall concluded that the monies were trust monies and that they had been commingled at a minimum by the time they were deposited in the IB Account. Justice Pepall adjourned the hearing to permit Gowlings to file evidence of claims.   On February 22, 2010, Gowling filed  additional affidavits and transcript of examination of an investigator and forensic accountant with the OSC, however there was nothing filed on behalf of investors.

175.                             On November 18, 2010, Justice Pepall delivered a Judgment. Attached hereto as Exhibit “Q” is the judgment, including the Order arising therefrom on December 3, 2010. In the Judgment, Justice Pepall explained, at paragraph 6, that the trust and commingling determinations that she made on December 3, 2009 are res judicata and, at paragraph 8, the subject funds should be distributed to investors on a pro rata basis subject to an appropriate claims process following the conclusion of the Ontario Court of Justice trial, meaning my criminal trial. As my criminal trial has been finalized for some time, there is no court Order precluding disbursement of the monies from the IB Account.

176.                             I understand the Motion to distribute the funds was brought on a somewhat urgent basis as the AMF freeze Orders were due to expire. On February 28, 2017, Steeven Plante, a lawyer for the AMF, informed my lawyer’s office that the AMF no longer intends to apply for a renewal of the freeze Orders and, as such, they will expire on March 2, 2017. Attached hereto as Exhibit  is the letter of February 28, 2017 indicating same.

 

Current Circumstances

 

177.                             Notwithstanding our mortgage re-finance in 2009, TD Canada Trust also retain Gowling WLG Canada LLP and used the court to  repossessed and liquided 19 Robinter Drive. Judgment was sought against myself and my  wife for over $600,000.00, cost us one million dollars.

 

178.                             My wife and I have been living in the basement apartment of 17 Silk Court, Toronto. Although we are renting the basement from friends, we have been unable to make the monthly rent payments. Currently, we are only paying the bill for utilities.

Passing of Accounts


 

 

 

179.                             On October 8, 2009, Justice Morawetz appointed a representative counsels destroy our defence before trial and due process and gave Gowlings first charge against the funds remaining in the IB Account based on the OSC Directions of March 18, 2009 and an Order to pass accounts from time to time (Tab “B” of Motion Record).

180.                             On December 13, 2006, Justice Newbould ordered that $201,352.42 be paid to Ms. McKinnon and/or Gowlings. The only issue was reasonableness of the fees and disbursements (Tab “C” of Motion Record). I attended the motion to pass accounts and made submissions. I later tried to appeal the Order, which was dismissed in December 2013. As I was again unable to afford counsel, I did not understand that my argument was limited to the reasonableness of the legal fees.

181.                             On December 15, 2015, Justice Penny ordered that $91,311.50 be paid to Gowlings. Again, the only issue was reasonableness of fees and disbursements (Tab “D” of Motion Record).

182.                             Gowlings is now seeking to pass account for the third and final time for the period of December 15, 2015 to present.

183.                             From 2009 to present, Gowlings’ fees have amounted to $308,409.53, even with a 10 per cent discount on their fees. In total, 86 per cent of the funds in IB Account have been paid to Gowlings.

184.                             In their Motion Record and at paragraph 17 of the Matthew Doak’s Affidavit sworn February 16, 2017, Gowlings does not have contact information for anyone in the Canadian Investor Class, most of whom reside in China. I understand that Gowlings wants a cy-près distribution of the remaining funds in the IB Account given the small amount of funds remaining and the impracticality of distributing the funds to the Canadian Investor Class. However, there are four (4) investors here right now – Mr. Qiu, Mr. Wang and myself and my wife.

185.                                              Should Gowlings Account be taxed given that they have drained my account over the years purporting to represent the investors whom they don’t know and whose investments accounts they don’t know. Even the investors don’t know that Gowlings represents them. Gowlings does not have any retainer letters from any investors. They cannot show in the dockets if they even have dockets, what if any work they have done. They cannot show any interview notes with any investor. Yet they have seized illegally to hundreds of thousands of my money. They ought to be taxed. They ought to be reported to the Law Society of Upper Canada, they ought to account to somebody. Most important they ought to return my money.

186.                                              . If I charge or investigate the law firm,  can I freeze the lawyers’  accounts and pass the account from time to time, you pay me in front and it is perfectly fine?.
2. Any court appointed lawyer has to inform the client about the appointment and to work diligently for that client. The client has to agree to be represented by that law firm appointed by the judge. It is not automatic. At least the client must know who is representing them. The issue now is, Gowlings adjourned the case in order to find out which are their investor clients and what investments were involved. But what have they been doing all these years not knowing who their clients are and the amount of investments each deposited. The dockets may only deal with the suits filed, how about work done on their clients on their clients’ instructions. Do they even have instructions. This is Frantz Kafka. Lawyers draining money without knowing who their clients are and without receiving any instructions from the purported clients. This is a miscarriage of justice.

187.                             Every lawyer and judge love to take my case and gave whatever the lawyer wanted in form of court procedure and process because I could not afford lawyers and expert opinion, the court proceeding looks legal and civilized.  The judicial government entities  all levels of court and agencies are merely for-profit corporations.

188.                              As I understand all the process Judge; the crown Attorney or Police Officer has leveled a criminal charge with the Clerk and against the TRUST, using the ALL CAPS NAME that appears on this BIRTH CERTIFICATE! The use of capital letters is dictated by the US Printing Style Manuel, which explains how to identify a CORPORATION.

189.                             The Clerk, who is the ADMINISTRATOR of the CESTA QUE TRUST, then, appointed you Judge as the TRUSTEE for the TRUST and since neither of you can be the BENEFICIARY, that leaves me and therefore you are MY TRUSTEE! So as MY TRUSTEE, I instruct you to discharge this entire matter, with prejudice and award the penalties for these crimes to be paid to me in compensation and damages for my false arrest!

190.                             NOTE: The Law of Trusts dictates that an Administrator; Trustee and Beneficiary cannot serve two positions in a Trust. So a Trustee cannot be a Beneficiary too!

 

191.                             I DO NOT CONSENT TO THESE PROCEEDINGS.       

 

Without prejudice, UCC 1-308.     

 

 

 

SWORN BEFORE ME                    )

at the City of Toronto,                )

in the Province of Ontario          )

on Feb.  13, 2018.                        )                                        

     )    Weizhen Tang

)

)

                                                     )

A Commissioner, etc.                 )

 

 

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

div#stuning-header .dfd-stuning-header-bg-container {background-color: #efefef;background-size: initial;background-position: top center;background-attachment: initial;background-repeat: initial;}#stuning-header div.page-title-inner {min-height: 130px;}