Justice Denied Report !
We are requesting an investigation in all issues pertaining to this website! So we can learn the truth to why this system fails us!
The first lawyer was J.C. Reddy
In 2001, Tony Anderson hired Bridgewater lawyer J. C. (aka “JC”) Reddy to help him deal with a case. Through this acquaintance, Tony discovered that Mr. Reddy was a very knowledgeable lawyer when it came to business dealings.
At the time, Tony operated a computer company, Medway Computer Services, with his business partner, Jeff Fraser. Tony was looking into having the company set up as a limited liability company to include the three business partners: Jeff Fraser, Tony Anderson and Byron Moreau.
Mr Reddy suggested setting up a holding Company, (AFM Management Ltd). They did so, and Mr. Reddy filed the company with the Registry of Joint Stock Companies. The minute books and company seal were kept in Mr. Reddy’s office under his watchful eye at all times.
The existing computer company, Red Fox Computer Services, was then registered under the holding company, AFM Management Limited. This opened a way for future companies to be set up in the same way. A mutual deal was reached with Mr. Reddy in that a laptop computer was furnished to him in payment for setting up AFM Management Limited and for drafting a shareholders agreement and other necessary documents.
This business connection with “JC” Reddy developed into a mutual friendship, and the association continued through the years.
In 2003 AFM Management entered a new business venture. Red Fox Computer Services was sold and a cleaning business was developed. It was named Spotless Cleaning and Maintenance, and was registered under the holding company, AFM Management Limited. The relationship continued with “JC” Reddy as the business lawyer.
During its first year of business, Mr. Reddy represented Spotless Cleaning Services in a Small Claims Court case over a contract dispute with a client. He was an inexperienced trial lawyer, and the small claims case became a draw. The Directors of AFM Management insisted to Mr. Reddy that he should appeal the decision of the Small Claims Adjudicator to the Nova Scotia Supreme Court. Mr. Reddy did so and won the appeal for Spotless.
The Supreme Court ordered a new trial at the Small Claims Court level. During this time Mr. Reddy had changed law firms and started to develop some personality issues. His fees began rising and his level of performance was not meeting AFM’s expectations.
AFM Management also learned that Mr. Reddy was a strong Tory and was the president of the South West Tory Association in 2004. AFM realized that Mr. Reddy was a deeply committed political animal although he indicated to AFM that he only “dabbled” in politics.
The AFM Directors were having a hard time keeping in touch with Mr. Reddy, and he was returning only very few telephone calls. The Directors could not understand why Mr. Reddy was becoming so difficult to deal with. At the time that the pending trial in Small Claims Court was about to start, Mr. Reddy’s late father, Cyril Reddy, passed away. “JC” Reddy’s office did not inform the AFM Directors that this was why he was unavailable. If the Directors had been aware of the death of Mr. Reddy’s father, they would have been far more understanding.
At a Directors Meeting of AFM Management in October 2004, Directors Anderson, Fraser and Byron Moreau decided that Mr. Reddy was not the lawyer they needed to win the coming small claims trial. AFM realized it needed a more experienced trial lawyer.
AFM Management sent Director Jeff Fraser to Mr. Reddy’s office to inform him it was dismissing him as the company’s trial lawyer. Mr. Reddy did not take this news well, seeming to think that AFM did not understand his personal situation.
AFM did understand his personal situation. This was why the Directors made the decision to remove him from the case. At the time, with the pending Small Claims Court trial looming, there was no time to deal with Mr. Reddy’s personal issues. The Directors informed him they would continue the business relationship.
* * * * * * * * *
Alan G. Ferrier
In November, 2004, after some discussion the AFM Board of Directors mutually agreed that Alan Ferrier, a Bridgewater lawyer, had the experience and expertise they needed to win the new trial. An appointment was set up with Mr. Ferrier to discuss the details. He was reserved at first, explaining that the costs of going to the new trial might exceed the judgment that AFM expected to win. The Directors acknowledged this and directed Mr. Ferrier to proceed with the trial.
Mr. Ferrier also had concerns about our previous lawyer, Mr Reddy. The Directors explained that they would deal with Mr. Reddy and that it was a matter between Mr. Reddy and AFM Management. The Directors assured Mr. Ferrier that he would be provided the necessary retainer for the case.
With less then a week before the trial was to start, Mr. Ferrier informed us that our previous lawyer, Mr. Reddy, had informed him that he would garnish any monies awarded to AFM Management from the new trial unless his services rendered were paid in full before the start of the new trial.
Mr. Ferrier had concerns about this. As a matter of fact, Mr. Ferrier demanded that AFM Management pay the outstanding bill claimed by Mr. Reddy, or he wasn’t going to proceed with the trial! The Directors explained to Mr. Ferrier that there was dispute with Mr. Reddy about the bill he claimed AFM Management owed him. However, the day before the new trial was to begin, AFM did pay the debt claimed by Mr. Reddy in order to move on with the new trial.
After AFM Management paid the outstanding bill to Reddy’s office, Mr. Reddy’s office claimed there was yet another bill owing to him for drafting the original AFM Shareholders Agreement. This had already been paid some two years prior! The Directors informed Mr. Ferrier’s office that the matter would be discussed with Mr. Reddy at a future date. Mr Ferrier was satisfied with this and proceeded with the trial the next day.
On the first day of the Small Claims Court trial, Mr. Ferrier was clearly winning the case. It was almost incredible, therefore, that when he had the case at a climax, he asked for a recess and to continue the case on a future date.
Mr. Ferrier then met with the Directors to discuss the possibility of not continuing the trial. He wanted AFM to accept a settlement offer. Amazing! The Directors of course refused, and insisted to Mr. Ferrier that he see it through to its conclusion. Ferrier grudgingly did so. The case was won cleanly.
It is interesting to note that AFM Management never saw a penny of the money that was awarded as compensation. Are we to assume that Mr. Ferrier’s services coincidentally equalled the amount of the win? Mr. Ferrier has not replied to any of AFM’s questions about the matter of the award.
It was decided because of the fact that J. C. Reddy had become so hard to work with that AFM Management would let Mr. Reddy go and move the company’s business to Ferrier’s office. Mr. Ferrier explained he wasn’t a company lawyer. However. he said his law partner, Andrew Kimball, would work as AFM’s company lawyer.
On the surface, Alan Ferrier seemed to be a good lawyer until the start of the Nova Scotia provincial election, beginning in May 2006.
Following the Small Claims Court case, the AFM Board of Directors met in May, 2006, and decided to completely sever all connections with Mr. Reddy. On the advice of Mr. Ferrier, the Directors went to Mr. Reddy’s office to obtain the minute books and records for AFM Management Ltd. The company books were then to be delivered to Mr. Kimball’s office.
Mr. Reddy’s office was very reserved about handing over the books. His office claimed that AFM Management owed an outstanding balance for his services, and said the office would keep the books until the balance was paid.
The Directors were in no way willing to pay this so-called outstanding balance. A heated conversation ensued with Mr Reddy’s office about the balance. Mr. Reddy realized he was not legally entitled to retain the books and so his office reluctantly handed them over to the Directors. The books were then delivered by the Directors to Mr. Kimball’s office. This happened in May, 2006.
By early July, 2006, AFM Management’s books had mysteriously turned up again back in the possession of Mr. Reddy, according to Reddy’s former secretary. How did the books get from Mr. Kimball back to Mr. Reddy? Who transferred the books? When? Why were the books given back to Mr. Reddy?
Jeff Fraser, a Director of AFM Management, had numerous conversations with Mr. Kimball concerning AFM’s grievances against many of the financial institutions it dealt with. One in particular was the Toronto Dominion Bank in Bridgewater, which was the principal banker for the company.
During the month of June, 2006, Mr. Kimball appeared on behalf of AFM Management as its representative in talks with the Bridgewater TD Bank. Mr. Kimball was fully aware of the financial issues with various contracts that AFM was dealing with at that time.
The TD Bank was deliberately placing freezes on AFM’s bank accounts. This caused delays in AFM’s payments, and severely limited AFM’s ability to carry on normal business practices. The bank refused to offer any explanation what so ever for these bare-faced irregularities. This is what AFM needed Mr. Kimball for: to figure out the mess and correct it.
At one point, Mr. Kimball did offer to transfer AFM’s payroll payments through his own law firm in order to ensure that the wages of AFM’s staff were paid. AFM expected that this should involve only a simple transfer, but it turned out to make the situation even worse. The anticipated payment transfer never showed up in AFM’s payroll account, and it put great strain on the company’s resources.
By the end of June, 2006, the situation was just deteriorating badly. Obviously, something was badly wrong! At one point Mr. Kimball claimed he was going to have the transfer cheque ready for pickup. When Mr. Fraser went to Mr. Kimball’s office to claim the cheque, Mr. Kimball’s secretary suggested it must have been scooped up and sent out with the regular office mail.
Several days went by and no cheque appeared via mail. The AFM Directors contacted Mr. Kimball’s office. Mr. Kimball’s secretary then claimed the cheque fell behind the filing cabinet and she would send it out immediately. At this point, AFM began to hear alarm bells ringing!
Another week went by, and still nothing had come in the mail. Now very concerned, AFM vice-president Tony Anderson contacted Mr. Kimball’s office to enquire about what was going on. Mr. Kimball told Mr. Anderson, “I have no idea what you are talking about nor do I know anything about AFM Management Limited and the Toronto Dominion Bank!” In fact, Mr. Kimball could not recall ever going to the Toronto Dominion bank on behalf of AFM Management. Absolutely incredible!
Totally frustrated at this point, AFM vice president Tony Anderson now contacted Mr. Ferrier, who had referred AFM Management to Mr. Kimball in the first place. Mr. Ferrier flew into a rage with Mr. Anderson. He yelled and screamed. He became extremely hostile and hung up on Mr. Anderson.
What happened to Mr. Ferrier and his law firm? What happened in the disappearance of AFM Management’s payroll transfer payments? Why did Mr. Kimball lose his memory? What caused Mr, Ferrier to lose control of himself? Why were the company books no longer in Mr. Ferrier’s possession?
* * * * * * * * *
Legal Aid, Barry Whynot
The Bridgewater Police Services still continued to harass and lay charges against AMF president Jeff Fraser throughout the summer of 2006. This was a continuation of their campaign of pursuit to assign blame for a rash of bad cheques which were cashed with Jeff Fraser’s name (a blatant forgery) as the signer.
In early August, 2006, the Bridgewater Police arrested Mr. Fraser while he was appearing in Provincial Court on a related false charge. Mr. Fraser was held in custody. At this time the false charges were laid against him for passing bad cheques.
Mr. Fraser requested legal counsel, and Barry Whynot, a lawyer from the Bridgewater Legal Aid office, was sent to represent him. Mr. Whynot pursued an aggressive bail hearing for Mr. Fraser, and was able to negotiate a release on bail. Mr. Fraser’s own business partner, a Director of AFM Management Limited, had to agree to have Mr. Fraser released to him on a two thousand dollar bail bond. [Please read through Mr. Fraser’s website letter, “Victim Impact Statement” for more information.]
* * * * * * * * *
The deterioration of Spotless Cleaning and Maintenance and its assets continued, stemming from the attacks following the June 2006 election, and then deliberate negative press concerning Mr. Fraser as Operations Manager of Spotless Cleaning and Maintenance, the subsidiary company of AFM Management Limited.
By September, 2006, it became impossible to keep Spotless Cleaning afloat as a viable business entity. No help was forthcoming from any of the corporate lawyers that AFM Management had attempted to hire so far. Mr. Fraser had no choice but to look for employment elsewhere.
This left Mr. Fraser in a position where he was earning income, and therefore no longer qualified for Legal Aid assistance. Mr. Whynot tried to remain very supportive and helped to organize the long list of charges that had been laid against Mr. Fraser. However, he was forced to succumb to pressure from his government department to discontinue Legal Aid support to Jeff Fraser after Jeff became employed.
By late September, 2006, the Crown Prosecutor had managed to put several charges on the docket at the Bridgewater Provincial Court for trial in October. Mr. Fraser contacted Thomas Feindel, a Bridgewater lawyer, to represent him.
During the appointment that ensued, Mr. Fraser’s files from Legal Aid were turned over to Mr. Feindel’s office. Mr. Feindel obtained a $1,000 retainer from Mr. Fraser. After Mr. Feindel reviewed the case, he informed Mr. Fraser that he could not take his case and he would have to find another lawyer. No explanation was given. The retainer was never returned.
At this same time, September, 2006, both Mr. Fraser and Mr. Anderson as Directors of AFM Management were also actively seeking corporate lawyers for AFM’s subsidiary, Spotless Cleaning and Maintenance. Also at this time, Mr. Anderson was trying to find a personal lawyer to pursue some malicious banking irregularities perpetrated against him by the Royal Bank of Canada during the June 2006 election.
In October, 2006, Mr. Anderson called reachAbility to help him find a personal lawyer. Their motto is “Equality for people with disabilities”. reachAbiliity set up a referral with Victor Goldberg, a Halifax lawyer. Mr. Anderson decided to postpone this appointment until he first followed up on several other lawyers he thought might help.
* * * * * * * * *
In mid-October, 2006, a co-worker of Mr. Fraser’s secured an appointment with Arnold Palmer, a lawyer in the Annapolis Valley. The intention was to retain Mr. Palmer’s services for both Mr. Anderson in his case against The Royal Bank and for Mr. Fraser in his case in the Bridgewater Provincial Court.
Mr. Palmer looked like the man for the job. He came highly recommended. Telephone contact with him showed that he seemed to understand corporate law very well, and understood what Mr. Anderson and Mr. Fraser needed in order to straighten out company and personal issues.
On the day before Messrs. Anderson and Fraser were to have the initial meeting with Mr. Palmer, he telephoned to say that his mother-in-law had passed away. The meeting was postponed, and Lawyer Palmer fully committed himself to a new meeting date. On the eve of the second appointment, Lawyer Palmer telephoned to say he hit a deer on his way home from Shelburne, and was therefore unable to keep the second appointment! Calls went unanswered after that.
How bizarre! What made Mr. Palmer change his mind?
By now it all started to make no sense. Why were lawyers, after they learned our names, suddenly making excuses to cancel appointments and then not returning our calls?
* * * * * * * * *
In early November, 2006, Messrs. Anderson and Fraser made a decision to contact Boyne Clarke of Halifax, one of the more respected law firms in the province. This was also the firm that represented Mr. Fraser’s employer at that time. They were widely known and enjoyed a good reputation.
Tony Anderson and Jeff Fraser arranged an appointment with Lawyer Terry Sheppard of Boyne Clarke. On their way to keep the appointment, Mr. Sheppard contacted them on his cell phone. He seemed very nervous, and there seemed to be much tension in his voice. He said he had an emergency and had to leave the office early.
He said his colleague, Brian Casey, a lawyer who used to work in the office of Joel Pink, a Halifax lawyer, would take his place. When Tony Anderson and Jeff Fraser arrived at the offices of Boyne Clarke, they were stopped at the elevator and escorted by two people. They were led into a boardroom, not an office, and shown where to sit.
Mr. Casey spoke in a rude and insulting manner. He treated Anderson and Fraser like ignorant backwoods hillbillies. Mr Casey acted like he was trying to break their spirit and to make them feel like giving up. He sneered that Anderson and Fraser would need jobs like the CEO of Nova Scotia Power to afford a lawyer to beat their case!
Mr. Casey belittled Mr. Fraser so badly that Tony Anderson got angry and let Mr. Casey have the sharp side of his tongue. They stood up and walked out. They left feeling disgusted, looking at each other and asking “What the hell was that all about?”
Mr Casey did call them back several days later, but Anderson and Fraser flat out refused his services. They just did not trust this guy to represent them fairly.
* * * * * * * * *
In late November, 2006, Tony Anderson and Jeff Fraser were referred to Philip Star, a Yarmouth lawyer. He was highly recommended and it was said he did not lose many cases.
Mr. Fraser spoke with Mr. Star on numerous occasions during the first two weeks of December, 2006. Mr. Star appeared on Mr. Fraser’s behalf in Liverpool Provincial Court on December 19, 2006. The purpose of this appearance was to set over some of the charges against Mr. Fraser. The charges were to have been tried that month. Mr. Star also informed the court that he was Mr. Fraser’s lawyer.
Mr. Star was supposed to meet with both Anderson and Fraser, but would only deal with Mr. Fraser. During the month of January, 2007, Mr. Star would not commit to an appointment and acted in Provincial Court for Mr. Fraser on his own accord, without instructions from Mr. Fraser.
Of course, this was totally against the wishes of Mr. Fraser who decided that Mr. Star was not acting in his best behalf. Mr. Fraser tried to work with Mr. Starr, but Mr. Star absolutely refused to co-operate. On a number of occasions Mr. Star telephoned and left loud, threatening and obscure messages on the answering machine. He even went so far as to say that if Mr. Fraser did not return his calls then there would be a warrant for his arrest!
Mr. Star was behaving as if he had taken leave of his senses! All this just did not make sense and finally Mr. Fraser told Mr. Star he no longer required his services.
He couldn’t lose him! Mr. Star kept the letters coming, promising to leave, but wouldn’t leave! He was fired many times, he quit even more times! What were the reasons for his bizarre behavior?
After some research, Anderson and Fraser discovered that Philip Star was no less than the president of Nova Scotia Barristers Society! Is this how a president should act?
At the beginning of the lawyer-client relationship in December 2007, as any lawyer would do, Mr. Star requested a retainer for services. Mr. Fraser had sent him a retainer, a draft for two thousand dollars, via Western Union. Mr. Star claimed he never saw it.
Western Union confirmed they received the money from Jeff Fraser for the $2,000 draft, and that Mr. Star was notified when it was received at Western Union’s Yarmouth office. Western Union stated that Mr. Star never claimed the draft. Anderson and Fraser did not realize this until after they were so advised by Western Union one year later!
A year later, when Mr. Fraser attempted to set the matter straight. He notified Western Union that he had stopped payment on the original funds he had used to send to Mr. Star for retainer. Western Union acknowledged this, and then issued their draft for $2,000 to Mr. Fraser to refund to him the amount of the original funds.
The refund draft from Western Union was received by Mr. Fraser, who then deposited it into one of Mr. Anderson’s accounts at the Bank of Montreal in Liverpool. The ATM bank deposit receipt reads $20.00! The Bank of Montreal claims they received only that amount, and not $2,000! The bank was adamant that the deposit envelope contained only $20.00, and not a draft for $2,000.
Tony Anderson telephoned the head office of the Bank of Montreal, who advised him that the deposit was not accepted “due to being in someone else’s name”!
How could the BMO head office say the Western Union draft was “in someone else” name, when their Liverpool branch said the draft was never deposited? Who is telling the truth here? Who is not?
Mr. Fraser then contacted Western Union, explaining that the Liverpool Bank of Montreal had “lost” the $2,000 ATM deposit slip, and was refusing all responsibility in the matter. He asked Western Union to void the $2,000 refund draft, and to issue a replacement. Western Union refused, and still holds Jeff Fraser’s $2,000, refusing to release it. Unable to get legal representation, Mr. Fraser has been forced to let the matter lie dormant for the time being.
Mr. Star seems to have achieved his purpose, which apparently was to create as much confusion as possible, and to tie up $2,000 worth of Spotless Cleaning’s funds for as long as possible. The Bank of Montreal stoically continues to claim they never received the $2,000 deposit. Western Union refuses to confirm or deny that the $2,000 refund draft was ever honoured.
Where is the draft for the $2,000 retainer?
Does Western Union have it? Does the Liverpool branch of the Bank of Montreal have it? Does the head office of the Bank of Montreal have it? They seek it here! They seek it there! Where on earth can it be? And why? And how? And who?
How on earth can things like this actually happen? It seems to be just too much of a stretch of the imagination for all this to be coincidental! Absolutely bizarre!
DALHOUSIE LEGAL AID
Dalhousie Legal Aid
Tony Anderson and Jeff Fraser, leaving no stone unturned, made contact with the Dalhousie Legal Aid, who arranged a meeting with seven of their student lawyers and a professor. Three attempts were made for an appointment, and then communications seemed to break down.
Attempts to contact them again met with no success. No one had gotten back at all to Anderson and Fraser. There being no communication, they took it as a message and moved on.
Tony Anderson and Jeff Fraser had sought out many lawyers by the end of February, 2007. A trusted friend, who has been helping us throughout this ordeal, recommended we go to a lawyer who seemed to be a man with integrity and respect for justice.
Anderson and Fraser made contact with Pink-Garson’s office in late February, 2007. Joel Pink’s secretary had informed us that a $350 consultation fee had to be paid in advance at the time of the appointment, which was set for March 20, 2007, at 1:00 PM.
By this point, Anderson and Fraser had developed some reservations and deep concerns with lawyers. After dealing with so many unprofessional lawyers, they simply wanted to know beforehand with whom a prospective lawyer was associated. When they arrived for the appointment with Mr. Pink they asked his secretary if they could ask Mr. Pink a simple question before wasting both Mr. Pink’s time and their time. She would not let them ask him even one question without paying her the $350.00 consultation fee. They paid.
They had researched Mr. Pink, and knew he was the vice-chair of the Nova Scotia Barristers Society. They wanted to know if he was a Tory supporter or not. Tony Anderson asked him the question point blank during the interview and he replied “NO!”
Mr. Pink also couldn’t understand why Mr. Star wouldn’t meet with only Jeff Fraser, and not both Anderson and Fraser. He said he would inquire as to why. The meeting proceeded quite well. However, after discussing the case, Mr. Pink said, “I am a man of honour and integrity” and that his word “meant something”.
Anderson and Fraser indicated that there was an upcoming court date scheduled in Bridgewater Provincial Court for Jeff Fraser. Mr. Pink indicated that he had helped the Bridgewater Crown Prosecutor’s son in the past and that he was a good friend of Crown Prosecutor Lloyd Tancock. Mr. Pink said he felt it would not be a problem to get an extension of time for Jeff Fraser’s court appearance. Mr. Pink made one telephone call and Crown Prosecutor Lloyd Tancock just so happened to immediately pick up the other end!
Mr. Pink had shown, although Anderson and Fraser still held reservations, that he was well respected and known. They wondered if perhaps he could be the lawyer they had been searching for.
Things did improve, as Mr. Pink promised, and he seemed able to manage the bewildering lists of charges and court dates for at least two months after that first meeting on March 10th. 2007. Also, he told Anderson and Fraser that he had made contact with Lawyer Star and that they had decided to work together as a team on Jeff Fraser’s case.
Mr. Pink required a large retainer. Ten thousand dollars! Jeff Fraser was working for a courier company at the time. Mr. Fraser’s employer, who seemed to have a great interest in the case, secured the retainer with Mr. Pink. At least, this is what Anderson and Fraser were told.
Mr. Fraser’s co-worker informed him that Mr. Pink was in the process of negotiations with Lloyd Tancock, Crown Prosecutor, on the charges against Jeff Fraser.
This was completely against Mr. Fraser’s best interests! He was shocked! Jeff Fraser immediately spoke to Mr. Pink, who acknowledged that he was indeed trying to negotiate a plea bargain with the prosecution. Jeff Fraser did not wish to negotiate nor did he want Mr. Pink to negotiate a plea bargain of any kind whatsoever on any of the trumped-up charges with the Crown Prosecutor!
Jeff Fraser was then left with no choice but to dismiss Mr. Pink from the case, as he was not acting in his client’s best interests. Mr. Pink was not used to being fired and he asked to be reconsidered. Request denied!
Time was already getting short, so Jeff Fraser could not have his so-called lawyer conspiring against his best interests. Fraser needed a lawyer who actually did what he promised and lived up to his word!
On June 17, 2007, when Mr. Fraser, accompanied by Mr. Anderson, went to the Bridgewater Provincial Court for the trial, Mr. Anderson observed that both Lawyer Ferrier and Lawyer Pink were present in court that day. When they saw Mr. Anderson, both men looked very sheepish and could not meet his eyes.
When Lawyer Pink breezed into the courtroom and realized that Mr. Anderson was there, he seemed startled and turned as if to leave but found his way to the door blocked by other attendees. He then turned back, sat down abruptly, and stared fixedly at the floor between his. At no point did he meet Anderson’s or Fraser’s eyes, nor did he acknowledge their presence in any way.
* * * * * * * * *
Referral letter from reach Ability
Tony Anderson and Jeff Fraser had arranged an appointment with Halifax lawyer Victor Goldberg on the same afternoon they met with Mr. Pink. The appointment with Mr. Goldberg was March 20, 2007, at 2:30 PM. This appointment was primarily for Mr. Anderson’s case against irregularities in his personal Royal Bank VISA account, and other matters affecting AFM Management Limited and Spotless Cleaning and Maintenance.
Mr. Goldberg was referred to Tony Anderson after he requested legal assistance through reachAbility, a benevolent organization devoted to “equality for people with disabilities”. Such organizations are helped by professionals who wish to make contributions to society.
Mr. Goldberg seemed to take little interest in what Mr. Anderson had to say. He tried to convince Anderson and Fraser that what had happened to them was common in business. When Anderson and Fraser suggested that perhaps someone within the Registry of Joint Stock Companies had deliberately changed and falsified their company records within the Registry books, Mr. Goldberg appeared to take this as a direct insult!
He immediately jumped up, talked to his assistant, and then took us into another office. He showed Anderson and Fraser, like one would show preschoolers and in the most patronizing tones, the information about AFM Management and Spotless Cleaning and Maintenance which was on file in the Registry of Joint Stock Companies. His assistant came back and spoke to Mr. Goldberg, who then said to Anderson and Fraser that he “had never seen anything quite like this”, and that it was “an easy fix” to put AFM Management and Spotless Cleaning back to rights.
Mr. Goldberg instantly switched his attitude and began to use words of an extremely defensive nature. His body language implied that he wanted to terminate the interview immediately, and he refused to discuss anything further to do with the Joint Stock situation. He also refused to talk about any other item of business, and made it abundantly clear that he wanted to end the interview right away, and wanted us to leave his office immediately.
Anderson and Fraser specifically asked of Lawyer Goldberg why did these seemingly false entries happen in the first place? Who was responsible, how was it done, and why? Mr. Goldberg would not hear them out any further. Mr. Anderson asked him if he had any integrity, respect for the truth or knew how to stand up and fight. Mr. Goldberg became very upset, stood up, and acted like he was on some kind of medication. It seemed as if he was having a convulsion. Why would reachAbility send someone to such a man? He had shown absolutely no compassion or sense of justice, and seemed unable to help anyone.
Anderson and Fraser were by now both exhausted. They told him “This meeting is over!” They were not going to sit there and be insulted, patronized and treated like preschoolers! As a matter of fact, as they got to the elevator, another client with a dog were standing by the front counter. The poor little dog decided he didn’t like what he had heard either, and left a large yellow stain on the rug to show his opinion of Mr. Goldberg’s firm.
Anderson and Fraser later did some further research and discovered that Mr. Goldberg sat on the Board of Directors of the Registry of Joint Stock Companies. Would this in some part explain his most unusual behavior
* * * * * * * * *
By early May, 2007, Tony Anderson still had not been able to retain a lawyer to deal with the irregularities in his Royal Bank VISA account.
A close friend of Tony Anderson, who also referred Mr. Pink, had a cousin G. Caines, a corporate lawyer. Mr. Caines could not take the Visa case due to a conflict of interest. However, Mr. Caines did recommend Craig Garson from the Halifax law firm Garson-Pink, who was one of the top corporate lawyers for this type of case.
Tony Anderson was aware that Mr. Garson’s rates were $450 per hour, which Anderson would have paid if Lawyer Garson could have resolved the Royal Bank VISA case.
When Tony Anderson contacted Mr. Garson’s office, he mentioned that his friend Jeff Fraser had Joel Pink as his lawyer. Lawyers Pink and Garson shared a penthouse suite together.
Mr. Garson seemed very reserved and nervous during the initial conversation. What was the most surprising was his obvious disinclination to accept the case. He did not even know the facts at this point. Mr. Garson had indicated he would contact Mr. Anderson and let him know if he would accept the case.
Three days went by without a call. Tony Anderson contacted Mr. Garson’s office to enquire if he was going to take the case. Mr. Anderson was able to speak only with Lawyer Garson’s assistant, who of course did not have any answers whatever. After several more days passed, Tony Anderson contacted Mr. Garson’s assistant again to find out what was happening. She responding by saying she would have him Mr. Garson return the call. An hour latter, she called back and indicated that Mr. Garson would not be able to take the case.
She offered no explanation why he could not take the case, nor did Mr. Garson at any time return Anderson’s calls in person. Why?
* * * * * * * * * *
A small glimmer of hope occurred when Tony Anderson and Jeff Fraser were referred to a Musquodoboit lawyer named John MacIsaac. The referral was made by the Liberal Caucus of Nova Scotia. They tried to offer Anderson and Fraser some sort of help.
This was another of those emergency “My mother-in law died” lawyers. His e-mail below speaks for itself. His e-mail address no longer works,
Anderson and Fraser keep asking the same questions: what is so terribly wrong that lawyers make excuses not to see us nor offer any assistance? Does a blacklist exist? Who controls it? How do they exercise power and control over the lawyers of Nova Scotia?
----- Original Message -----
From: John Macisaac
To: mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com
Sent: Thursday, February 15, 2007 10:12 PM
Subject: Friday Night Meeting Change
Good evening Tony / Jeff
I have been trying to reach Jeff, but all I keep getting is your voicemail. I am unable to commit to Friday's nights meeting. Their has been a Family Emergency and I have to leave late tonight and will not be home until Monday. I regret this inconvenience. I realize that this is getting frustrating for you both. But please, hold in their. I so want to meet you both. I will contact you Monday to set up another time to meet. Perhaps Monday night will work for us both. Again, please except my deepest apologies. I have been told such positive information about you both. Lets make this work so you can both more your lives forward.
John Macisaac, LL.B, M.A., B.A.
During the last conversation that Mr. Burke had with Mr. Fraser, he was in the process of setting up a meeting with Provincial officials about AFM Management and Spotless. He also was quite concerned about securing a retainer for his services. Mr. Fraser secured a $3,500 retainer in order for Mr. Burke to continue. At that time, Mr. Anderson was out of town on a business trip.
All seemed to be proceeding well. After Mr. Anderson returned, Mr. Burke started to make excuses that he could not commit to meeting both Mr. Anderson and Mr. Fraser at the same time. The relationship quickly deteriorated.
What about the e-mail above? Scotiabank’s Liverpool branch knows he exists because they transferred a $3,500 retainer to him. Yet, Mr. Burke does not recall it ever happened! A year later, the money was still in the Scotiabank, and the money transfer had never been cashed!
Yet the Scotiabank branch in Liverpool would not refund the money even though it was confirmed it was transferred and never cashed! One thing both Lawyer Star and Lawyer Burke have in common is that retainers confirmed by the banks have never been seen by either man! Yet the money lies there in limbo to this day and Anderson and Fraser cannot get it back!
Anderson and Fraser learned later, from a list of names of Jehovah’s Witnesses members, that Mr. Burke is a practising member of the Jehovah’s Witnesses. This would explain Mr. Burke’s bizarre behaviour..
From: Burke & MacDonald
To: Tony Anderson ; Jeffrey Fraser
Sent: Thursday, May 24, 2007 12:03 AM
Subject: Thursday's Meeting
I just wanted to follow up my conversation with Jeffrey this evening. It is unfortunate, but, due to a death that happened suddenly within my family, I will be out of the office until Monday. My Partner, David MacDonald, will be filing in for me until then. I will do my best to be back to meet with you both on Saturday afternoon. I look forward to finally meeting you both. I have met Jeffrey on a number of occasions, and have been told much about you Tony. Jeffrey speaks very highly of you. I know we can form a lasting relationship. From what I have been told so far, We could be looking at making some new law and precedence with the evidence I have seen from your partner Jeffrey. I must get ready to leave now,
Looking forward to getting back and meeting you both,
Patrick Burke Q.C.
* * * * * * * * *
Jeff Fraser relates this tale of how he was badly let down by a pair of untrustworthy Nova Scotia Legal Aid lawyers.
“My last hope was Legal Aid Lawyer Barry Whynot. There were two months left before my trial in Liverpool Provincial Court in June, 2007, on a list of false charges. On April 21, 2007, I went back to Barry Whynot, a Bridgewater Legal Aid lawyer in hope that he could help me.
When I went back to Mr. Whynot, after all else failed and I was still unable to get a lawyer to represent me, I naturally figured he would help me out after what he did before. (See section on Barry Whynot above.)
I naturally assumed Mr. Whynot would do the right thing. He did so in the past. He worked with me and he did so very well in negotiating the court systems. He understood my case well, reviewed all the evidence in detail and felt he could beat the case. He was the only lawyer who I felt had acted on my best behalf and I had no reason not to trust him.
I gave Barry Whynot my Court Instructions (See instructions) in writing for him to give to Robert Chipman, who was the Legal Aid lawyer in Liverpool, and the man who would represent me in the Liverpool Provincial Court in June, 2007. These instructions to Mr. Chipman were concise and very clear as to how he was to proceed with my case in the court. I specifically wrote that I wanted to plead Not Guilty to all charges.
I was not present in Liverpool Provincial Court that day because I was scheduled to be at work. Mr. Whynot and Mr. Chipman told me that I did not have to be present in court that day, and that they would look after everything. Oh, boy! They certainly did!
For some unknown reason, Mr. Chipman took it upon himself to enter guilty pleas on my behalf to some of the charges, which was totally against what I had instructed to be done. I was absolutely unaware this even happened.
Later, but still in June 2007, because of Mr. Chipman entering these guilty pleas, Barry Whynot then accepted a plea bargain on my behalf with Crown Prosecutor Lloyd Tancock and I ended up sentenced to house arrest and Barry ran away.
I learned the next day that my Provincial Court case was reported in the Halifax Chronicle-Herald and on Radio CKBW in Bridgewater. I was working that day, and I heard it on the car radio. I nearly ran off the road! I was in shock! I wasn't even in the courtroom when this happened? Why did the court break the Public Trust? Why did the lawyers break the public trust?
The Provincial Ombudsman
- Monday September 2007
- Monday September 2007
Tony Anderson and Jeff Fraser went to visit the Nova Scotia Provincial Ombudsman to enquire how the Nova Scotia Justice Department’s investigation was proceeding. The Ombudsman made the initial commitment and promise, went into his office and that was it!
No call, no nothing! In fact, the Ombudsman’s phone was disconnected! The president of Caterpillar Atlantic did try to help. He actually called Mr. Ombudsman on behalf of Anderson and Fraser, but couldn’t get anyone. He even had his lawyer call on their behalf, but with no avail. He was the only one in the Province of Nova Scotia who offered to help them.
NOTE: Jeff Fraser was released September 4th and Judge Anne Crawford retired two weeks later.
* * * * * * * * *
We have spoken in some length with the Ottawa Commission for Police Complaints. This was one of the last emails that were sent to them and their response is below. We have not received a response back from Ottawa this year. Where did they disappear to? No one has showed up and talked to us!
This was wrote on Sunday, December 16, 2007
Commission for Public Complaints Against the RCMP
Attention: Mrs. Marg Collicut, Chair
For Your Most Urgent Attention: Police Harassment Continues!!!
As a follow up to the letter we sent your office on Tuesday December 11, 2007, there has been a new development. I will not go into the particulars of the charges, but today, Sunday December 16, 2007, the Bridgewater Police Department issued and served to me a Notice to Appear, on January 16th next. The charges, which are of course totally fabricated, have been laid under sections 334(b)ii, 733(1)cc & 355 (b)(ii)cc of the Criminal Code.
Here is the irony of this. I was told by your Department, that should such harassment keep occurring, there would be a legal representative assigned to us from your department to handle such matters. As of today, we have still received absolutely no word of any action by your department to appointment legal counsel to us.
My business partners and I consider this latest attack by the Police has put me personally into a harmful and potentially very dangerous situation. I do not wish to spend Christmas in jail, and these people are fully capable of doing this to me! Also, I submit the timing of the serving of the charges has been done with deliberate malicious intent!
(Note: Hard copy has been forwarded by Canada Post.)
Subject: RCMP Ottawa
Date: December 10, 2007 12:41 AM
Subject: RCMP Ottawa
To whom this may concern,
I am writing this email as a follow to a conversation I had on November 30 with XXX XXXX. We spoke concerning case #/s I18165XX, I14402XX, I95989XX, I44131XX, I68439XX, I19541XX, I51181XX, I88684XX & I55641XX. I was also provided with a Lawyer assigned to these cases, XXXX XXXXX.
I wanted to confirm that the information is factual, and inquire as to when it is that the above mention lawyer would be in contact with us. It
has been a week now since we spoke last, and I would appreciate it If you would please send me confirmation via email.
This situation has been on-going for close to 2 years now. We have not been able to find any help or representation during this time. We all
feel that their has been many people and organizations involved in the case who have made many commitments & promises, but, to date, delivered nothing. We are left here in the dark, while this situation continues to deteriorate and worsen. So far nothing that we can see is moving. We are still being victimized and continue to be harassed from the local police. We live in a small rural town and their isn't much in the way of support around here. We need action and we need answers. So far all we have herd is words. We would appreciate some type of commit on your part. We need someone to help us now. 2 years is long enough.
Phone 902-XXX-XXXX, Cell 902-XXX-XXXX
tank for all your assistance,
|From: Admin [firstname.lastname@example.org]
Sent: Monday, December 17, 2007 2:18 PM
Subject: Fw: Jeffrey Fraser to RCMP Ottawa XXXXX
We have received your letter and Email(s) dated December 11 & December 17. XXX XXXX will be away until January 7, 2008. However, I have reviewed the information received, and have forwarded a copy to the investigator responsible for your case number(s). I have also forwarded a copy to the Law office responsible for your complaints and they have acknowledged your concerns. they have assured me that someone from their office is going to contact you by weeks end, and they will be in contact with the Bridgewater Police Department concerning these charges.
I sincerely hope this helps and wish you all the best in this complex case.
Public Complaints against the RCMP
Department of Justice Canada
One day in July, 2007, a woman identifying herself as Beatrice Miller called Tony Anderson and Jeff Fraser on the telephone. Initially she spoke to Tony Anderson and shortly asked for Jeff Fraser.
She spoke to Jeff Fraser for over two hours. She said she was fully committed to getting the appeal process started to deal with the false charges that had been brought against Mr. Fraser by the Crown Prosecutor at the Bridgewater Justice Center.
She said she would “take a run down from Ottawa” in a couple of weeks to meet with Messrs. Anderson and Fraser.
And then, nothing! Everything went South! No return calls! No nothing! Just like Houdini, she disappeared!
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Friday, July 27, 2007 5:24 PM
The Department of Justice works to ensure that Canada’s justice system is as fair, accessible and efficient as possible. The Department helps the federal government to develop policy and to draft and reform laws as needed. At the same time, it acts as the government’s legal adviser, providing legal counsel and support, prosecuting cases under federal law, and representing the Government of Canada in court.
The Department’s responsibilities reflect the double role of the Minister of Justice, who is also by law the Attorney General of Canada: in general terms, the Minister is concerned with the administration of justice, including policy in such areas as criminal law, family law, human rights law, and Aboriginal justice; the Attorney General is the chief law officer of the Crown, responsible for conducting all litigation for the federal government.
Department of Justice Canada
In conclusion, the list below represents the many people Anderson and Fraser have gone to besides the above. Many good quality friends and well-connected members in the community couldn’t shake the earth to help. They all tried but either couldn’t get help for Anderson and Fraser, or they were just too afraid
Retired Supreme Court Judge, Hiram Carver
MLA Queens - Vicki Conrad
Seaside Seniors Home
Medical Society of Nova Scotia
Dental Society of Nova Scotia
Bridgewater Chamber of Commerce
Town Councillors throughout the South Shore
South Shore Mayors
Bridgewater Mall Management
Eastside Business Development
South Shore Kennel Association
South Shore Fire Departments
CBC News Local and National
Every paper in Atlantic Canada
Many private sector business throughout the South Shore
Family and friends and their associates tried for lawyers in four different counties with no avail.
Freedom of speech is the concept of being able to speak freely without censorship. The right to freedom of speech is guaranteed under international law through numerous human rights instruments, notably under Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, although implementation remains lacking in many countries. The synonymous term freedom of expression is sometimes preferred, since the right is not confined to verbal speech but is understood to protect any act of seeking, receiving and imparting information or ideas, regardless of the medium used.
People Stand Up Website Copyright Statement
The content on this website is protected by the copyrights of People Stand Up or the copyrights of third parties and used by agreement. No part of any of the content of this website may be reproduced, distributed, modified, framed, cached, adapted or linked to, or made available in any form by any photographic, electronic, digital, mechanical, photostat, microfilm, xerography or other means, or incorporated into or used in any information storage and retrieval system, electronic or mechanical, without the prior written permission of People Stand Up or the applicable third party copyright owner.