17 Silk Court
Richmond Hill , ON
March 18, 2018
Department of Justice Canada
Criminal Conviction Review Group
284 Wellington Street
Canada K1A 0H8
Dear Mr./Ms. Green, the counsel
I am very glad to receive your letter dated March 9, 2018. I applied for wrongful conviction review and supported with one big box of documents long time ago by UPS, a registered mail.
I did not get response from you for long time and I do not know if there are any reasons for it, I am very surprised that you did reply to me now.
In your letter, you indicated that I did not provide you with my entire trial transcript. The reason I did not provide you with entire transcript is that I do not have the entire transcript, I only have those important transcript that the Ontario appeal court judge ordered the crown attorney office and the issues related to my wrongful criminal conviction. You can ask the crown office in Toronto for the entire transcript because they disable me to have the ability and resource to produce all the transcript, I could not afford to produce the entire transcript.
I am seeking Justice from Court of Ontario, Superior Court of Justice, Court of Appeal for Ontario and Supreme Court of Canada, in Canada, there is no justice in Canada, only interest and business of justice industry.
One judge made a wrongful premeditated decision, every judge must have to follow the original decisions and keep going and going until it could hit the wall and exposed, they used so-called rules and statutes to abuse the judicial process to make process last as long as it could and exhaust my energy and destroy my defense and force me to quit seeking justice.
Since I did not have a lawyer or counsel work for me and do not understand their corporate statutes, rules, and regulations, the judges never listen to me and my defense was useless and ineffective in all kind of courts and tribunals.
If you see the entire court process and court documents and transcripts, it is waste resources and exhaust and harm and you will see how much the crown attorney office spent and wasted taxpayers’ money and resources. It was a nightmare for me, for my family, for my investors and for taxpayers in order to benefit the justice industry and law firms,
I wish you could stop all these happened to the people of Ontario and people of Canada. Especially the superior court of justice, the commercial court destroy many business and business people and make them unrepresented and defendless, it is miscarriage of justice for their own economic business and industry.
My case is very simple in terms of fraud, all you need to know is where is the money come and go. All my financial transactions and trade were in the banks and brokerage firms, all the money is tracked and transparent and every penny is counted.
In terms of my wrongful conviction, Everything I did is in the highly regulated legal financial industry, all my transaction and trades are transparent and on the record those are government promotes businesses, nothing illegal.
I registered and intended to fully registered with OSC and work with the government, I made great effort to compliance with regulation and government, OSC should set me as a good example, but targeted me instead and racially profiled me and maliciously prosecuted me because I am a Chinese and do not know the criminal law, they took advantage of me.
They maliciously froze all my trading accounts, gave all our money to their friends and former colleagues in OSC, ceased all my legitimate, legal trades and business so we do not have income and business, power which make people believe that I am not a businessman, but a fraudster and made me have no money to retain counsel and defendless. Isolation is an effective weapon for law enforcement officers, they also isolated me from my partners and my investors and contacts who have interest and trust in me so I could not get help from my friends.
OSC and the crown violated me and my Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms section seven and took everything away from me since beginning, intent to harm us even before a due process and forced me and my company unrepresented and self-represented. I never want my company unrepresented and myself self-represented as you can see from the transcripts in June, 29, July 12, August 15 and Sept, 23, 2011 before Justice Nordheimer.
My wrongful conviction is intentional by the law enforcement officers because I was a high profile prominent Chinese community leader. I believe that lawyers and judges do not want see people like Chinese united and have effective leader and leadership, they are scared of community have good leaders, especially Chinese community leaders to rule, they are even more scared that I came from mainland China and have good relationship with Chinese government and I work for investors, for the Oversea Chinese people and protect the Chinese new immigrants, the court does not like me and try every ways and means to destroy me and my power.
If you read the trial transcript, you will find that nothing I did wrong and I win the trial and the trial judge killed my case in his jury charge, you will have enough evidence to convict the counsels from OSC, commissioners of OSC, many jurists and crown attorney and judges from appeal court for Ontario, nobody wanted to give me a lawyer in court.
If I do not have lawyer, they do not have to listen. Everything I said they would always say no merit. Once I could have a lawyer, the pro bono duty counsel, Michael Lacy, appointed by the court of appeal, he found three major merits, . 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 merit1: (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 (i.e. to deprive fraudsters of their unlawful personal gain);
The jury charge of the trial judge destroy my good character and strong defenses and mislead the jury, there are many fundamental errors in his charge such as good character is not defense, bias is not a defense and investment loss to investors are crime. I later found that bias could deprive the jurisdiction of the court in the extreme remedy in criminal defense
If you’ve read any of the jury charge, it’s important to keep the words of King Solomon in mind:” The first speak sound right – until the cross- examination begins” ( Proverbs 18:17). In other words, when only one side of a case is heard, the evidence often seems convincing, yet when the whole story is in, the initial case often crumble. But the trial judge and judges from appeal court stop me to tell my story.
On the face of it, especially give that some investors lost money, it would appear to be the case. However, this is fundamentally unfair and incorrect within the context of this case. Absolutely everybody understands that there is risk, to at least some extend, when investing in the stock market. The real question in the case at bar must be: Did Weizhen Tang put investors’ money at risk to a greater degree than it normally would have been if invested in the same market conditions? Put another way: was it riskier to invest money with Weizhen Tang, as opposed to an alternative fund manager (s), during the same time period?
Deprivation is an essential element of (( Section 380 (1) (a). In the judge’s charge to the jury, he stated at paragraph 107 that this element is one “ that is not in issue”. He went on to explain the definition of deprivation and how it related to this case, including a sampling of the evidence, in paragraphs 115 through 119, it is submitted that this entire section of the charge is fundamentally flawed, yet it is reversible error. It was an issue .
The appellant submit that the crown in this case has failed to meet the burden of proof by not introducing evidence of market performance for the same period, it left the jury with no means of determining whether there was indeed deprivation. The trial judge, in his charge to jury, failed to point out this deletion or bias. Properly charged, the jury would have been cautioned about this lack of baseline comparison.
This same argument is again relevant to the third essential element, which is Weizhen Tang’s state of mind, In the judges’ charge to the jury this is covered in paragraph 146 through 164, also in paragraph 147, the judge state: “ … It does not matter whether Mr. Tang thought that what he was saying /or doing was not dishonest or thought that the investors would not suffer any harm in the end as a result.” In my submission, this is a critical flaw in the judge’s charge to the jury.
First, with respect to Mr. Tang’s state of mind, it is relevant and absolutely “ does matter” should the jury conclude that Mr. Tang did not feel that what he was doing was dishonest. Furthermore, had the jury concluded that Mr. Tang felt that there was “zero risk” for investors, and that they would not suffer, then it is very significant in the context of the case. Restate: If Mr. Tang sincerely felt that the investors’ money was not at greater risk than the market general at that time, then it does matter. The jury should have been allowed to consider this, rather than have the judge dismiss it outright. In my submission, this instruction by the trial judge precluded the jury from properly considering this essential element.
This error is further compounded by the fact that this is later repeated in paragraph160. Again, if the jury had been given the option, and on their own found that Mr. Tang had not been dishonest, then it would have mattered. This essential element of the offence would have failed.
The dismissal of the first element is repeated in paragraphs 174- 175, point # 1. Clearly, the jury has been deprived of giving proper consideration.
Heading of a Section in the Jury charge is inconsistent
The heading to this section of the jury charge is inconsistent with rest of the section. Titled “ Did Weizhen Tang intend to defraud the investors?” , it does not make sense given that the predominant theme, expressed in paragraph 147; is: “ …Mr. Tang meant to … (deceive ) … could put at risk the financial economic interest of the investors …” simply put, asking whether he “intended to defraud the investors” can not be answered by asking whether he used deception and such, put investors’ money at greater risk than it would have been otherwise been in the market.
On page 48, starting at line 10 of the pre-chare conference, the judge explained to Mr. Tang that both he and Amicus could not speak during closing arguments. It had to be one or the other.
The judge explained that this would be like having two shots at it. However, this is incorrect. In fact, it would have been given as a whole, but by two different speakers, perhaps half and half, with the Amicus explaining the law and Mr. Tang refreshing the juror’s mind on the facts, Given that the Amicus was somewhat limited in restating the facts, and Mr. Tang is limited in discussing the law, this is the only fair way to proceed. It was not done, and seriously affected the defence’s closing submissions in a very negative way.
The trial judge and the Crown had a double shots at the end, the Crown attacked my character and slandered my name at the closing,, the trial judge used the jury charge to continue attacking and to re-enforce the Crown and its position to convict me without giving me any opportunity to rebuttal, I had nothing, no shot at all.
The trial judge was anxious to express his opinions and comments in his jury charge for the sole purpose of conviction and explain that our law does permit him to comment or express opinions about issue of fact (para. 13, p. 4.17) and made decision for them, the jury to secure conviction for the crown.
3: Mr. Justice Ian Nordheimer at Superior Court of Ontario denied my Rowbotham application to fund my defence wrongly, denied Weizhen Tang’ Rowbotham application in Sept, 29, 2011, The Judge’s decision based on the crown attorney’s book of authorities, opinions and speculation, there was no other side of book authorities and defence counsel, no facts and evidences, the justice Alfred O’marra later did find out that the appellant could not pay mortgage and all bank accounts corporate and personal accounts were forced to close and the appellant had no means to hire counsel and government fund is critical for my defence. There was no protection of fair trial and independent and impartial tribunal which violated charter of right 11 (d) and Canadian bill of rights 2 (e) .
Legal aid funding may not have added significant to the litigation, However, it would have been used to cover the cost of an expert witness for the defence, There was no expert to describe the financial markets, or how they operate, or the rules that companies (including investment firms, fund companies ) use when dealing in these. This aspect is important because of three reasons:
Mr. Tang ‘s actions are typical within businesses of similar type, Many of the practices are common place. This matters because dishonesty (“ other fraudulent means”) is subjective. It relies on a person’s experience. If jurors have no experience in this industry then they may not understand what is acceptable without the help of an expert.
An industry trading expert would have defined what risk investors could have reasonably expected in the market during the relevant time period. This would be used to show that Mr. Tang did not expose investors’ money to additional risk.
The expert would give an opinion as to Mr. Tang’s past trading history, and trading ability. This would also be used to assess whether Mr. Tang put investors’ money at greater risk than normal
4: In the charge to the jury, the trial judge stated that “…It is no defence to the charge of fraud for an accused to state that he did not intend to cause loss or that he believed that his actions would be subsequently ratified.” This instruction is not presumption of innocence and ambiguous, and as such was misleading to the jury ( paragraph 53, paragraph 162)
The statement is ambiguous because “… did not intend to cause loss…” is not distinguished from Mr. Tang’s claim that he did not intend to deceive the investors. It would be a defence if the jury found that Mr. Tang had no intention to deceive his investors. This was not made clear and it amounts to reversible error.
In the charge to the jury, the judge stated that what happened after February 27, 2009 was not important or relevant to the charge. However, this is in error. It is not appropriate to slice time periods and attempt to lay blame for an entire situation into small, discrete sections. In fact, this time after the meeting is important because :
when considered together, the “ before and after Feb. 27, 2009” demonstrate that Mr. Tang did not intend to deceive investors, In fact, the meeting with investors clarifies this.
The investors ‘ reaction to the meeting, both in words and actions, are relevant to their state of mind. Did they feel deceived? Using their own common sense, after the benefit of the meeting, did they consider it to be deception, why they all signed to ask OSC for Mr. Tang to trade after the meeting, One on March 28, 2009 after the start of OSC investigation and One on Oct. 25, 2009 after OSC charged me of fraud? Who would believe and trusted a fraudster after exposed like Jesus Christ Case, who would die for a dead messiah?
Did the trial judge simply “ignore” the after – an intentionally mislead the jury. I submit that this was the case.
Again, the before and after” speaks to Mr. Tang’s intention. The jury should have been given the option to draw their won conclusions, without having the trial judge dismiss it outright.
The trial judge failed to understand that what happened after Feb. 27, 2009 in para 162 are critical tests and significant to determine:
What happened after Feb. 27 ,2009 was a test if it was sound business or fraud;
What happened after Feb. 27 ,2009 was a test if investors understand, still have confidence, trust;
What happened after Feb. 27 ,2009 was a test if investors have risk or not;
What happened after Feb. 27 ,2009 was a test if the trial judge and the crown understand the business and finance and did they did presume innocence or guilty;
What happened after Feb. 27 ,2009 was a test to see if the trial judge understand and know how to instruct the jury. There’re overwhelming evidences and activities and meetings and debate by investors before and after the Feb. 27, 2009.
There ‘re significant investors’ meetings occurred at those critical times, OSC, the police , and the crown know and ignored all the positive developments and the truth. That is the evidence of apprehension of bias
When I appeal to the appeal court for Ontario, even the supreme court of Canada, the court has finality, integrity and the image to protect so appeal court always say that I have no merits. I did not understand why I did not have merit. After years’ experience and study, I finally understand why I do not have merit because I was attacked by group of 100 law enforcement officers and judges in the judicial community, I have no money and no defense team to fight back, I am not allowed by the judicial system to win because their huge economic at stake and their image and their own system, interest and their image to protect. They do not care about the law and people like me because there is nobody knows, nobody watches, nobody cares. The corrupted system expected to last forever.
Corrupted Power collapse, absolute power, collapse absolutely.
It is my experience and believe that there is no law or criminal law in Canada, the judge is the law and they do and say whatever they want.
When our money freeze, we can not access our money, only judge and lawyers could access our money without our consent and authorization, It was very strange and unlawfully, Judges stop me to use our own money in the freeze account to retain counsels, violated my constitutional rights, but gave our money of 200,000 , 350,000 and 300,000 and one million dollars in our brokerage accounts and in the accounts of our investors to their friends and law firms where the judges come from and go back after they retire. The law firm Gowling WLG Canada LLP took our money and house , use our money to defend themselves when I sue them, judges gave them green light and endorsements over and over again.
Ms. Kelley McKinnon, Counsel from Gowling WLG Canada LLP , used to work at OSC as senior counsel in the department of enforcement and since I was investigated and have accounts frozen, she was appointed by the court without my knowledge and authorization. They used our money at will and to defend themselves.
Should Gowlings Account be taxed given that they have drained my (Weizhen Tang) 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 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.
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.
This is grossly miscarriage of justice and very bad example of Canadian justice done.
The Law of Contracts requires signed written agreements and complete transparency.
Enforcement of corporate statutes, rules, and regulations by law enforcement officers – without full disclosure and written consent – are unlawful and these officers can be held personally liable for their actions.
Criminal Conviction Review
You may apply for a criminal conviction review by the Minister of Justice if you believe there has been a miscarriage of justice or a wrongful conviction and you meet the criteria set out in the Criminal Code. The Minister of Justice has the authority to order a new trial or to refer the matter to the Court of Appeal in the appropriate province or territory. Lawyers in the Criminal Conviction Review Group (CCRG) review and investigate each application and make recommendations to the Minister.
Book of Authorities
- Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce v. Credit Valley Institute of Business and
Technology,  O.J. No. 40 (S.C.J.)
- R. v. Nason, 2014 ABPC 33
The recent decision of the Alberta Provincial Court in R. v. Nason has the potential to
expand the availability of Rowbotham orders. In Nason, the defendant is charged with
provincial or regulatory Securities Act offences. If convicted, he is exposed to substantial
fines and the risk of incarceration. On February 14, the trial judge accepted the
defendant’s argument that, in order to obtain a fair trial, he required the assistance of a
specialized securities lawyer (just not a “criminal lawyer”) at a cost that could be $50,000.
He stayed the prosecution until state funding is paid into the securities lawyer’s trust
account for the defence of the defendant.
- Boughner v Greyhawk Equity Partners Limited Partnership (Millenium), 2013 ONCA
- Danyluk v. Ainsworth Technologies Inc.,  2 S.C.R.R.
- Lawfully yours-ninth editions
Weizhen Tang, the applicant