Fraud in Canada

 

Jenifer Woldegabriel v. Regina, BMO

&

Supreme Court

My name is Jenifer Woldegabriel and in 2001 I was arrested and charged with defrauding the Bank of Montreal for over $3 million dollars. This is my effort at a motion for a retrial and I have chronicled my journey through the Canadian justice system.  Here is my story….

The Beginning  – Introduction

I was employed at the Bank for a total of 19 years, holding various posts in the Voice and Data sections of the Communications Department. My last position was a Procurement Analyst from 1990 to 2000.

In 1991 the job processing exploded when all lines of business (31) was amalgamated with the Communications ordering process. Orders escalated from 115 to 400 in first year.

In January of 2001, I submitted my resignation to Mohamed Sharif and left for the U.K for a much needed vacation.  I returned to Canada end of March 2001.

On May 1, 2001 I was followed from my home and arrested at my eleven-year-old son school by Detectives Heather Clark Smith and Wade Alphonso.  I was told by Heather Clark Smith that I was arrested for fraud, there was no arrest warrant.

On May 3, 2001 there was a press conference initiated by Heather Clark Smith regarding offshore accounts in the Bahamas.  This report came from a Kroll investigator by the name of Thomas Cheel.  Sergeant, Rob Napper, followed with a report in the Toronto Sun on same date.

On May 18, 2001, a Mareeva Injunction and an Anton Pillar Order was served by the banks lawyer, Jonathan Baker from the law firm of Teplitsky Colson alleging that a second company by the name of Kalbi Systems had defrauded and embezzled from the bank the total of one million dollars.

On the day I was arrested, Thomas Cheel had allegedly located in the recycle bin, a copy of a tax form for said company that listed $179k as consultation.  There was the insinuation that someone at my home had tried to get rid of incriminating evidence and had disposed of the return. The bank swore they could not locate any records for this company in their receiving area.  Graham O’Neil, handled the investigation. He concluded this too a fraud and added to my charges.

My home was searched by the banks outside counsel, an investigator from the bank, an investigator from Kroll and a retired police detective on May 28, 2001.  No evidence located.  August through December of 2001, I answered all kinds of questions pertaining to my assets over $1k.

Around September 2001, I was given 4 volumes from the Crown, prepared by detectives Heather Clark Smith and Wade Alphonso.

Contents of volumes are as follows…

CHARGES – The Police

There was a total of 18 charges.

  • 1 – Falsification of books – writing on a purchase order (Select Technologies)
  • 2,  6 & 8 – Fraud over $5000. 2000 to 2001 (Select Technologies)
  • 7 , 11 & 17  – Fraud over $5000. 1998 to 2000 (Twisted Pair Cables)
  • 9 & 10  –  laundering. Purchasing property with the proceeds of crime.
  • 18  –  Fraud over $5000. 1993 – 1998 (Kalbi Systems)

For Volumes 1 – 4

Notes on my duties e.g. placing large orders and forwarding invoice for payment; writing on the purchase order.

  • The Police and BMO disclosed the following from the investigation….
  • Home was sold to a family member in February 2001 when Jenifer knew she was being investigated.
  • Mohamed Sharif located other fraudulent invoices regarding goods shipped to Alberta. Intended recipient did not receive any goods. For the Mbanx project.
  • Jenifer bought a house for 199,907.12 laundered from Scotia Bank?????
  • A fax cover page to a Head Office accounting employee said ‘Thank You’, this was suspicious.
  • U.S. Attorney, Mike Guadagno to convene grand jury to indict my sister.
  • Charges against my nephew, who was the director for Kalbi Systems Inc.
  • Speaking to one Ona Weiner of Chase Manhattan Bank.

Early 2002 Roddy Allen, a forensic accountant with Kroll, retained by Teplitsky Colson issued an affidavit with his analysis to Peter Abrahams office.  It contained all of the accounts for the businesses and personal accounts.

May 31 2002, a bench warrant was sought by Suhale Akhtar for my non appearance in court to collect the 5th volume.  I was scheduled for June 7. The judge apologizes.

THE POLICE & BMO FOR VOLUME 5

 Forensics for finger prints and hand writing. All results are Negative.

  • Memo from Errol Hook of TD Canada Trust offering his services as a witness.
  • Corporate security logs of my entry and exit into the workplace by Lorne Allan.
  • Noted that weekend notation on the purchase orders did not correspond to security pass therefore I was caught in a lie.

December 10, 2001, Heather Clark Smith interviews Mohamed Sharif for the first time sine February, 2001. He testifies…

  • I was given too much control because I obtained signatures for purchase orders, ordered the equipment and authorized the invoices.
  • All I had to do was type a valid RFA number on a fake purchase order.
  • I made fictitious companies for my family and on my own time I would type an invoice on standard Microsoft template and forward payment to head office.
  • I had 24/7 access to the workplace and he would keep Heather Clark Smith informed on the proceedings.

Along with the interview pages I am given

Emails from Graham O’Neil to Ron Belanger of corporate Security, Bank of Montreal.

The Banks installation Technicians are interviewed; I have no knowledge who conducted these interviews or when they were done. The technicians were asked to recall what they knew of the three companies in question. There is a 1-page disclosure with all of the 6 locations responses.  This is what would become known as the witness statements.

In September 2002 I was given a total of 16 log books from the receiving area for the Bank by Heather Clark Smith.

LAWYERS

 Fighting the Charges – 1st & 2nd & 3rd lawyers

First lawyer allowed them to search purse and garage not stipulated in order and then filed a notice of defense before a statement of claim was served.

I Retained the services of G. Peter Abrahams for the Civil matter and tried to recruit Elizabeth Nadeau for the criminal trial. There was a waiting period as Peter tried to secure the funds from the raped account from Chase Manhattan Bank.

Peter wrote a letter to request funds, it was never realized but I was not given a definitive answer. I have no knowledge of why the money was not given.  Years later I would see a letter from Jonathan Baker stating I could use the money I stole from the Bank of Montreal.

I could not retain Elizabeth Nadeau.

Peter assumed both functions as criminal and civil attorney.

August – Dec. 2001 spent in answering questions on assets over $1k as per Anton Pillar Order.

Banks outside counsel fights to depose the lawyer who spoke with me the day they attended my property to conduct a search.

I had called Peter Abrahams office when the banks lawyer came to search my property.  Peter Abrahams was unavailable so I spoke to another lawyer in his office.  I was advised to tell the men at the door that I would like to have the police in attendance as I was already criminally charged.  They left the property when I insisted.

The Judge ruled that they could not compel the lawyer but they could ask the questions of me.  This is what would become the bane for multiple threats of ‘Contempt of Court’, and repeated harassment with the same questions over and over with little help from my lawyers.

Preliminary trial set for July 2, 2002.

Sometime in early March, forensic accountant, Roddy Allen from Kroll serves his affidavit with all business and personal accounts.

Peter informs me that the bank would like to make a deal.  I just had to give up my assets and I would not be put in jail.

I decline on the grounds that the bank was not missing any funds and the bank had ordered  and approved all actions I had taken to date.

March 2002, my nephew at the behest of his lawyer deposited all of his invoices, delivery slips and vendor invoices for Kalbi Systems to Ian Roher, senior counsel for the bank from the law firm of TepliskyColson .  They were never seen again. He was asked to witness against me.  Declined. Had no idea I had stolen anything from the Bank.

PRELIMINARY TRIAL

July 2, 2002 with Judge Lipson presiding, Mohamed Sharif is the only witness.

Suhale Akhtar thanks Peter for narrowing the issues, ‘it was only going to a discoverability type issue and the judge would not be required to adjudicate on any issues’.

Peter advised the court that his client knew what he was about to do. He had a narrow issue as to whether the goods were received or not.  He asked if the goods could have been stored in Alberta then shipped to Toronto.

He asked a few questions on the budget but with the same minimum intelligence he exhibited asking the previous questions.

Mohamed testifies to the following…….

  • I helped to create online system
  • I purchased all telecommunications equipment.
  • He discovered Select Technologies after the Christmas holidays.
  • He could not locate the records for Select on the system, he had to ask Head Office for copies.
  • He was co-managing the WEB project with Richard Button.

The Crowns theory of the case ….

  • The companies are fictitious and no services were provided. I gave the money to family members.
  • I bought a home with the money then sold it to a family member when the investigation began.

I tried unsuccessfully for days to convene a meeting with Peter to discuss what had taken place at the preliminary trial but he would not.  I eventually discarded his services on July 9, 2002.

3rd lawyer – August 2002 – September 2003

 I retain the services of Aston Hall as the new criminal attorney. The matter of the funds cannot be handled by Mr. Hall.

I ask for and is referred to one Steven Stauffer for the civil matter.

Our first meeting is on August 13, 2002 in Aston Halls office.

My first two questions to Steven Stauffer are ….

  • Can you stop the civil matter until the criminal case is resolved? YES
  • Can you access the funds from Chase Manhattan for my defense? YES
  • I informed him of the circumstances of the funds located at Chase.
  • There was an agreement that until he could access the funds I would attend his office on Lowther avenue to inform him on aspects of the case.
  • I signed a release for Stauffer so Peter could release my documents.
  • Subsequent visits would take place in one Lawrence Burns office at Stauffer’s direction.

Disclosures given to Stauffer…Kalbi Systems Inc. Evidence

  •  Copies of volume 1 to 4 of police disclosures
  • FBP&S policy and procedures
  • Statement of Claim
  • Purchase orders for Kalbi Systems Inc. (495)
  • All vendor invoices and delivery slips
  • Sections of bank catalogue
  • Purchase order requests
  • Some loose invoices and packing slips
  • In October 02, I add the 16 receiving area logs given by Heather with analysis

Kalbi systems delivered everything the bank said they did not.  Their receiving area logs are severely deficient, not because of delinquency but due to the fact that Data Communications department have a large, locked room where the equipment is delivered. We are then notified by the personnel from the receiving area.

The bank had agreed to the Kalbi operation due to the many problems encountered by technicians and the long delays that ensued when trying to retrofit the 1300 branches nationwide.

The purchase order requests depict who initiated, ordered the equipment and the various stages of approval.

The prices charged by Kalbi are less than those of the manufacturers dealing with the bank.  There was no profit scheme and it can be proven.

In April 2003 the bank issued its ‘Affidavit of Documents’ in the civil matter and it supposedly contained the ‘Paid Vendor Histories’ of all the manufacturing plants.  I advised Stauffer this is where he could verify my statement as to the cost.

Disclosures for the Mbanx project…Twisted Pair Cables Inc.

  • All purchase orders
  • Cheques paid to the various sellers
  • Presentation of Tony Comper
  • Letter signed by Tom Trumphour & Neitha Clarke
  • 1997 Performance review substantiating vendor
  • 1997 performance review alluding to rumors of an extra marital kind
  • Forecast/Budget reports by management
  • Year end reports of RFA’s
  • Invoices from Stonehouse ‘Monies’ project
  • Phone number for project manager of ‘Monies’ project.
  • Email between Graham O’Neil and Ron Belanger of corporate security re Garry Ford.

After the unprecedented session held by Tony Comper about the biggest project the bank was going to undertake, Garry Ford was appointed to project manage.  The RFA was not yet approved and the final total was around 50 million.

I was asked to approach the vendors asking for equipment in advance to start project until RFA was approved.  Total wait time would be about 6 months or so I was told.

I was met with derision. I reported back to Tom Trumphour.

He berated my negotiation skills

He sent someone from outside the department who had expressed an interest in my position so I could explain the functions to them

He assigned two engineers to ‘HELP’ with the catalogue; when I explained that the catalogue could not be fixed that way I was accused of having a death grip on my job.

Finally, he wrote a disgusting, libelous comment on my performance review.

I was also slandered at the sections social day. I could see a marked changed among my peers in the section.

It was hell going to work.

My sick mother noticed the strains and mistakenly concluded she was the reason.

I corrected her and told her the truth.  She offered to help but I rejected the offer.

Things at the office got steadily worse, I had to remove myself from group interaction.

  • I eventually typed a letter on my home computer for her and Tom to sign.
  • She chose the people to buy the equipment from as was her right.
  • The purchase orders registered the ‘Ship to’ address as Alberta even as project installed at a Bloor Street, Toronto, location.
  • The 8% P.S.T saved would fund more equipment. (no P.S.T. in Alberta)
  • First project done this way was the ‘Monies’ project for Voice Communications.
  • A temporary number was given over a year later to charge equipment too. 96-36-050.
  • Over two years later the RFA for Mbanx was given to me. 97-08-004.
  • Nothing was ever charged to this number as the project had flopped and all employees let go.

Disclosures for WEB project – Select Technologies                        

  • 5 signed purchase orders
  • SRAs for WEB project
  • Fixed asset reports generated by Mohamed Sharif daily

This debacle started the actions of the bank and police.

When the WEB project was audited as is customary for every project, Mohamed claimed that he had no idea who the vendor was. Jenifer had done this on her own time and it was fraudulent.

There was no reconciliation of the equipment to dollars spent to approved RFA funds.

There was no inventory database on the system Mohamed approved.

Around October 2002, Stauffer informs me that he cannot access the funds from Chase for my defense.  My sister would have to admit something and ask for the money.

In December Stauffer demanded 10k extra for updating Aston Hall. I did not have the extra funds to give Stauffer.  He suggested he could do both cases.  I was not looking for and did not see that Peters scenario was being recreated. I approached Mr. Hall and told him of my predicament.  He was most gracious and let the matter go.

January 2003, went to courthouse at 1911 Eglinton to ask for all additional disclosures.

The clerk handed me form and advised that my lawyer had to sign it. I reported back to Stauffer who then gave me a letter he had written to the crown asking the same thing and told me not to worry.

April 2003 the civil lawyers again agitated about answering more questions.

I knew now that Stauffer did not stop the civil action.

I was told that if I had answered the questions before I would not have to again.

When I was asked the same questions again and I reported what Stauffer had advised, he then reversed his position and said I had to answer.

Soon after this I was informed that he had to attend some civil motion for $12,000.

In early May I was told he could not be present on June 2 to start jury selection, he offered an alternate lawyer to start jury selection and asked for my permission.

I consented on the premise that he trusted this person.

May 26 I am told by Stauffer we could not go to trial because he did not have all of the crowns disclosures and was not sure he could get them before trial. He handed me a form and said if I wanted to proceed I had to sign it.

I read the form then signed and he went ballistic.

June 2, the other lawyer he had designated was there but did not do jury selection, he adjourned my trial.

The reasons given on the form was totally bogus.

  • Stauffer had written to the crown asking for disclosure he had in his possession.
  • By May 21, 2003 Stauffer was still not certain he had all disclosure, he again wrote to the Crown. Crown did not respond.
  • On May 22 Clark Smith had called to say the disclosures in his possession was seriously deficient and the crown was going to rely on the Roddy Allen affidavit and statements of crown witness.
  • Stauffer wants to bring a motion to exclude the Roddy Allen affidavit but he does not have time. Stauffer has spoken to crown and he may not be in possession of the disclosures until the end of the week.
  • Stauffer could not adequately prepare for trial until he had the witness statements.
  • Stauffer sought instruction from me to adjourn trial and against his advice I told him to proceed to trial.
  • I understand that Aaron Hartnett will be my counsel for the first day of trial.
  • I further understand that upon conviction in this matter the crown will be seeking a lengthy sentence and I could go to prison for several years.

All of June 2003 he avoids me.

July 2003 I write a letter voicing my concerns.

August, he goes back to court and sets a trial date for February 2004.  He advises of deal from crown. I refuse. Stauffer calls multiple times regarding the affidavit of documents he wants me to sign.

August 24, I sent another letter asking for an accounting.

September 18, Stauffer is insisting I attend to sign affidavit of documents and begin discoveries.

Stauffer advises of date October 9 & 10 for discovery.

October 3, I write again asking for a response to my various requests and gave an ultimatum.

October 7, Stauffer advises that all of the funds are finished and I have no money for trial.

November 4, I write again asking for my documents knowing I must get new representation.

I borrow more money from family and retain Christopher Goldson to try and recoup some money from assessment for trial.

Christopher Goldson asks a lot of questions about Laurence Burns then finally informs me that Steven Stauffer is not my Civil lawyer, Lawrence Burns had issued a change of solicitor to the banks lawyer with his name as my civil lawyer, but, it was not registered.  Peter was still my civil attorney of record.

Burns now refuses to return the documents that were never given to him and said I owed him money so he put a solicitors’ lien on documents. I complain to the Law Society; they do not even respond.  Goldson advised that I stop both of them from incurring further bogus charges.

November 7, I received a Criminal & Civil Reporting Letter from Stauffer.

  • The crown and BMO said if you disclose proof of your innocence they will quash the indictment.
  • Crown offers to resolve matter by 80-90 days served on weekends with restitution.
  • Crown said amount is 4 million but two have been recouped.
  • He lays out some of my functions in a deliberately confusing manner.
  • The crown theory is you just stole the money because you had no supervision.
  • There was no evidence of suppliers.
  • Significant profits went to your nephew.
  • The crown would have a hard time and lots of expense to marshal the witnesses.
  • The fraud was awkwardly perpetrated.
  • Stauffer then present two or three alternative defenses that makes no sense.
  • If he presented the purchase orders with Mohamed signature he would simply say it was a fraud.
  • He then presents a different reason for not going ahead with the trial on June 2.
  • He denies the disclosures he received from Peter Abrahams – volume 5, Affidavit of Roddy Allen and the loading dock logs from me.
  • He then calls me disingenuous, said my ‘bald assertions of innocence had nothing to substantiate this’ and basically said I was as guilty as hell.
  • He then offers to present my evidence for free if I would give them to him because he knew my case better than anyone else.

CIVIL MATTER – Stauffer writes…

  • Because of the contempt proceedings had to proceed to discovery. If you had just let Clyne testify contempt motion would go away.
  • You swore affidavit under Peter to say you were innocent and are confident that you will be vindicated. Argued before Sedgewick, questions need to be answered if they are relevant to the contempt motion.
  • As a result, the Bank is now required to proceed with discoveries. You are now required to produce an affidavit of documents. All documents in your possession that have a semblance of relevance to the issues of your action.
  • You must not hold back anything as any documents not disclosed will be unusable in your defense of this action.
  • A draft affidavit was completed a long time ago and you need to attend the office to swear to the truth of its contents.
  • Bank has offered to resolve the matter if you relinquish house and condo (??). Provide Bank with a statutory declaration of your assets.  The bank will not seek a judgment in fraud.
  • If you provide conclusive evidence I will charge you nothing.

 

 4th Lawyer – THE TRIAL

 With no money and no lawyer went back to Elizabeth Nadeau for help.  She does not work with legal aid but a new hire, James Dunda, who articled at Osgoode hall will.

All disclosures given to Stauffer is given to Dunda with the exception of 10 binders given to him by Heather Clark Smith from Kroll.

I have no idea if the binders are ever given to Dunda.

The civil lawyers are once again demanding an affidavit of documents and Judge Matlow decides I must deliver it by February 11.

The affidavit was witnessed but not notarized. I advise Matlow that these documents have been given to Ian Roher since April 2002.

The criminal trial starts on February 16, 2004.

  • Dunda quashes the jury.
  • He dismisses Roddy Allen even though he is not our witness.
  • He quashes the charge related to Kalbi Systems Inc. but leaves in the restitution
  • He subpoenas no witnesses – Garry, Roger, Vendors, Graham O’Neil.
  • He refuses to subpoena the letter of indemnification from CHASE
  • He refuses to subpoena RFA# 97-06-004; 00-35-BAB; 96-36-050.
  • He subpoenaed a fixed asset report and Vendor invoices
  • Dunda told me we should fold the trial on the second day.
  • I insisted that he call the witnesses and introduce the evidence.
  • Dunda told me he had to verify Toms signature on the letter so he would need time, Dunda had this letter from the time I went to him, it was not given at the last minute.
  • He went back to the court room and told the judge he needed time to do something or he might have to recuse himself.
  • The judge grants him the week he asks for.

I acquired 4 performance reviews from a past employee with Toms signatures because I had none. The trial resumed on February 23.

James Dunda tells me he got someone from the internet to authenticate the signature.

I never saw this report. Dunda did not subpoena anything or anyone else.

He presented two pieces of paper at the trial, the letter signed by Tom and my mother and two pages of fixed asset report.

The witnesses were Ron Sawh, responsible for the inventory database of old system.

Ron said he did not know anything of vendors Twisted and Select and he knew nothing of an order for 300 1ft cables.

Tom Trumphour, who was manager at time of Mbanx project said it was his signature on the letter but he did not know how it got there.

Eshan Khan who took over from Ron Sawh could not locate any delivery slips for any vendor during his time.

Fact is, there was no inventory database when Eshan had the post all he had to do was collect the packing slips from the various vendors. He had none to show, not that Dunda asked.

Lawrence Thompson, technician from Alberta said he did not receive any equipment but it could have gone elsewhere.

  • Mohamed Sharif testified he knew nothing of the Vendor, Select Technologies.
  • He could not locate documents pertaining to this vendor at Scarborough location had to send to Head Office for copies.
  • He was co-managing this project with Richard Button.
  • Eshan Khan had destroyed all of the receiving slips for all vendors so he was fired.
  • There was a design flaw in the WEB project.
  • I had signed off purchase orders on the weekend and my pass was not in the system.
  • I had 7 days weekly, 24 hours’ access to the workplace.
  • All of the managers before he came was rubber stamping the orders and no one was checking anything.
  • There were no records to show anything had been received by the bank.

 

I was convicted of fraud and embezzlement by John Jennings with 6 reasons and sentenced to four years in prison. Ordered to pay restitution of 2 million dollars. March 16, 2004.

 

John Jennings said he absolutely could not believe what I had said.

  • He found my testimony unbelievable.
  • It is unbelievable that my mother would fund project just to improve relationship with superiors. (not what was said)
  • Because Dunda did not challenge Tom Trumphour, I had forged his signature on the letter because it was not on the Banks letter head and I had waited for 4 months before I produced the letter. (inaccurate)
  • It was inconceivable that someone from a third world country could finance a Bank of Montreal project when they were just operating a 7-11 type store. (inaccurate depiction & wow)
  • No challenge to Mohamed evidence.
  • Why would anyone wait to collect payment for over a year?
  • Why would I continue to deal through my mother months after the approval had been obtained? (not accurate)

Same day, March 16, I had to appear in civil court before Matlow.   Ian Roher walked in with a copy of the decision by John Jennings and an affidavit witnessed by him to say he had searched and searched and could not locate any documents given to him in April 2002.

Even thought I had fulfilled the letter of the motion to deliver the affidavit of documents.

Matlow fined me $40,000.00 for my extremely reprehensible behavior.

 

THE CRIMINAL APPEAL

Craig Bottomley was the lawyer for the appeal.  I gave him some of the documents and informed him of what had happened during the trial.

He responded by saying if the documents had been present at trial they could not now be introduced.  I believed him and did not investigate further.

The restitution order was rescinded from the criminal case but the sentence stood.

SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION

Lawyer by the name of Khalid Bashk was highly recommended to me by Hyder Masum.

The first day I met this man, he lied to me.

  • He was representing on a motion for conveyance of my home. He told me that if the house was re-conveyed it would not be labeled as a fraud and it would speed up the process. Same sermon Stauffer was preaching.
  • He promised to subpoena the letter of indemnification.
  • A former employee of the bank came forward to swear an affidavit on the internal process, he took notes but refused to notarize the affidavit.

Roddy Allen and Graham O’Neil were deposed in 2006.

Roddy Allen testified to the following

  • Jenifer had a lot of autonomy but he did not know the internal process for her position.
  • Receiving area had no deliveries therefore no equipment delivered
  • He never analyzed the receiving area records
  • Ship to address in Alberta received no equipment therefore none was ordered
  • Jenifer bought lands and house with stolen money
  • Jenifer was greedy
  • She had no reason to order from her relatives, could order directly from manufacturer
  • He had no reason to look at internal controls he had other background information
  • Even after viewing order processing would not change his mind. He had never seen order processing or investigated it.
  • Lots of Shell companies with no money in them.
  • Did not see the need to review the RFA
  • No records comparable to Select, Twisted or Kalbi.
  • Graham O’Neil was his contact in the bank

I visited Navigant offices where Roddy Allan now worked

There were 6 boxes with my name labeled 1,2,3,4,7,9 of 15. Math wise there was 9 boxes missing.

I could not locate the vendor paid histories listed on the affidavit of documents

I could not locate any emails as logged on the affidavit.

There were hand written pages of vendors noted as the catalogue, none that I recognized.

Graham O’Neil did not know who were vendors or customs brokers but the statement that sent me spinning was when he said

I have no Idea if Garry Ford was the project manager I have never spoken to him.

I produced the email between him and corporate security’s Ron Belanger, where he held a very long conversation with Garry and all he said what that Twisted sounded kind of familiar.

Bashk motion for the summary judgment had 4 binders, leaving a lot of evidence out.

I confronted Bashk again on the lunch break about the evidence omitted.

After lunch he informs the judge he had inadvertently left out some documents.

This judge (D.Brown) was beyond ticked off. The information was presented in such a chaotic fashion that I really did not expect the judge to comprehend what was being presented.

Lost the motion.  Abuse of process.

APPEAL OF SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION  

Bashk is preparing for the appeal and I am still asking for the letter of indemnification.

He assures me he would ask for it at the appeal.  I do not believe him.

I go to Osborne Barnwell to ask for advice.  He confirms my suspicions.

I now see Bashk with 20 volumes to file. He is inserting pages in the front of the volumes.

I ask to make copies of the volumes.

Upon inspection I realize the volumes are carbon copies of the banks volumes being filed with the court. Khalid Bashk was inserting his name into the volumes.

I drive to Mr. Barnwells office and beg for his help.  This is October 2007.

Bashk is deposed and admits that he lied to me.

He is in possession of Steven Stauffer’s reporting letters and waving it around.

He is asked about the signed purchase orders he had omitted.

Mohamed Sharif swears an affidavit to say he had signed hundreds of accruals and this would have been one of them.

I gave Osborne an accrual package to show Mohamed was lying.

  

In 2008 before Sharp, Gillese and Cronk Osborne delivered all the information with the evidence for the very first time since I was charged in 2001. He spoke of the obstruction of justice and the destruction of evidence etc.

They decided that I was abusing the process and the other side was not even required to deliver arguments.

SUPREME COURT  

Osborne Barnwell was an accountant and an honest man, he understood the case and could see the injustice done by the legal professionals. He submitted it to the supreme court pro-Bono.

I asked what was the criteria for success and he said it had to be of National Interest.

The case was rejected and as is customary no reason was given.

I am going to stop here for now as all of the civil case was predicated on the nefarious acts executed in the criminal process.

 

SUMMARY 

This communication is directed at the Prime Ministers office; the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court; Attorney General of Ontario and the Member of Parliament for my region.

In the article, Jenifer Woldegabriel vs. Regina, BMO & the Supreme Court I have listed statement of facts regarding my 16-year fight for a fair trial.

I retained lawyers with 99% of them colluding to obstruct justice.  What is even more alarming is that judges are seemingly involved in this scenario.

The statement of facts outlines the 3 million dollars the Bank accused me of stealing.

For all 3 projects Graham O’Neil affirms that no equipment was ever received and the money was stolen by me.  The receiving area has no entries; this is the proof.  He knew this was a lie and he continued to lie under oath.

Peter Abrahams was the first trier of facts and the first person I observed trying to obstruct justice. We never discussed the case in any detail.

At the preliminary trial he spoke about the budget,

Asking inane questions about the storage of the Mbanx project in Alberta.

He removed Kalbi from the case.

The erroneous testimony given by Mohamed Sharif was not refuted.   

I discovered years later that Peter Abrahams had written a letter to the Banks lawyers before the preliminary trial advising that his client was willing to make a deal with them.  If he had done that with the civil matter, logic dictates that he had also done this with the criminal matter.  As the rest of this matter unfolded I realized that Peter had assumed control of both matters for a reason.

The next lawyer was Steven Stauffer and the very same thing to a greater extent reoccurred.

After our August meeting in 2002, I was fairly certain things would proceed in an orderly manner and I felt confident when Stauffer assured me he could stop the civil matter and get me the funds for my defence.

In October 2002 Stauffer reneged on the promise to obtain funds.

I obtained a loan from my brother and Stauffer told me to make cheque payable to Peace Burns Halquiw & Manning.

A few weeks later he would ask for a further $10,000 knowing I did not have it.

I would unthinkingly move the criminal matter to him.

Same move as Peter, he now has both matters.

He requested that cheque be made payable to him.

Between November 2002, and April 2003 I am pushing for all disclosures.

No problem he assures me, he has written to Akhtar and we will get the documents.

April 2003 he has to attend civil court to answer 12 questions.

I question his action to stop the civil action until criminal is complete.

Reading the questions, I realized that it had nothing to do with the Anton Pillar Order and most of them had been answered previously.

I now had to attend another information session.  I was informed by Stauffer that if I had answered the questions before I would not have too again.

Not true.  I had to answer again.

May 26, 2003 Stauffer informs me that he did not have all of the disclosures from the crown.  We cannot go to trail.

My trial is put off without my consent.

July I start asking for an accounting.

August 2003, Stauffer goes back to court to set a new date for the criminal trial.

He informs me of a deal offered.

Soon after, Steven Stauffer started insisting that I must submit an affidavit of documents before my criminal trial.  October is set for discovery.

Steven Stauffer was the one who informed me that it is in the constitution that you have the right not to self incriminate.  This was the reason he had given me why he could get the civil trial put on hold until the criminal had been completed.

In fact, if the criminal case had proceeded and my evidence had been disclosed the civil case would be moot.

On October 3rd, I issued an ultimatum to Steven Stauffer, to release my documents or I would take the matter to the law society.

Steven Stauffer informed me I had no money to go to trial.  I would discover through new help that Steven Stauffer had conspired with Lawrence Burns to divest me of funds. $40,000, that had been paid to Peace Burns…. was supposedly to retain Lawrence Burns as my civil attorney.

Burns had issued a ‘Change of Attorney’ without my consent or knowledge and had now put solicitors’ lien on the documents I had given to Steven Stauffer.

The letter between Tom and my mother was not in his list of disclosures.

He further decided that the purchase orders for Select Technologies signed by Mohamed Sharif would be deemed a fraud and as such was of no value.

He then changed the story of the adjourned trail to say that he tried to get the date changed from June 2 to 3 but he could not and therefore put off the trial.

He changed the testimony in the statement of claim saying that Kalbi was just a for profit company.

He refused to subpoena project manager of Mbanx Project even though he had an email indicating he would shed light on the matter.

Steven Stauffer  had removed all of the exculpatory evidence.

He ended with an alleged condo I was supposed to give up with my house.  I never owned a condo.

In 2011 Lawrence Burns lost his license to practice law.  Apparently he was being investigated since I had alerted the Upper Canada law Society of his indiscretions but they never action-ed my complaint.

James Dunda brought the case home by topping Stauffer.

I gave to James Dunda the same evidence that was given to Steven Stauffer with the exception of the 11 or 13 binders given to him by Heather Clark Smith.

The binders were based on the Roddy Allen affidavit.

Dunda quashed the charges for Kalbi but left in 1 million in restitution.  He refused to introduce the exculpatory evidence for Kalbi and the other two companies.

You are already aware that he called no relevant witnesses, refused to subpoena the letter of indemnification among other things and at trial he disclosed two (2) pages. Only 2.

He quashed the Jury.

He dismissed the forensic accountant even though he was the Crowns witness. All of the exculpatory evidence was listed in Roddys’ affidavit.

All of the exculpatory evidence was then destroyed.

Here is a transcript of the recording from the Law firm of Elizabeth Nadeau/James Dunda, when I requested the return of my documents.

“Jenifer Woldegabriel it’s Elizabeth Nadeau calling.  I received your letter jenifer.  Your file has been called and sent to storage so what I need you to do is be a little bit more specific as to what documents you want for the appeal period.  We destroyed a fair bit of your file so if you want to let us know exactly what it is in writing and we will call up the file from storage.  There will be a fee for this and it is payable in advance. So if you would just send me another letter with what documents in particular you are looking for, we will get working on that.  Thanks. Bye, bye.”

I will give you one guess as to what evidence was destroyed.  Yes, you are right, all the invoices, courier slips etc.

This was a law-firm that had sent a judge to the Supreme court.

The politics of Judge John Jennings was displayed without fear of reprisal. Jennings was so confident in his ability to discriminate with no accountability.

The Canadian Constitution reads that no one shall be discriminated against due to his or her origins but he did it.

In his reasons for conviction he misquoted every bit of testimony.

I never sought to improve anything with my bosses and never testified to any such thing.  Who would want to be friends with someone calling you a slut?

His knowledge on the banks accounting practices were nil.  Going from one fiscal year to the other entails an accrual of funds.  Delaying payment contributes no evidence of wrong doing.

I never said we operated a 7-11 type store. The transcripts are here.

He was right to question Dundas’ lack of questions to everyone, I too have a lot of questions but of course he labelled me as the cause.  James Dunda knew he was deleting all of the exculpatory evidence. This had been done so many times before.

When he told John Jennings he might have to recuse himself it is my opinion he was getting cold feet.  He knew what he was about to do.

John Jennings drew adverse inference from my nationality therefore his assessment of my credibility could not be impartial.

I also found it quite coincidental that john Jennings would speak of forged letter.  Steven Stauffer said the same thing of another letter. He also mentioned that I should have disclosed to the Crown this letter a long time ago.  Was he referring to the Anton Pillar Order?  I was not aware that I had to disclose any criminal disclosures to the Crown. Did Jennings have prior knowledge of this case before he sat down?

His discernment as a judge finding credibility was all based on his personal biases.

John Jennings biased decision was to trickle down to Judge Matlow who levied $40,000 for my extremely reprehensible behavior. Ian Rohers’ misrepresentation of the facts in his witnessed affidavit adds to the furor.  Ian Roher had been given the same exculpatory evidence in March 2002, but of course it disappeared without a trace.

The Detective Heather Clark Smith and the Kroll investigators are inextricably linked in their falsifying and exclusion of exculpatory evidence.

In 2001 on the day of my arrest, the detective initiated a press conference and reported in the Toronto Sun that numerous offshore accounts were discovered in the Bahamas.  Thomas Cheel of Kroll and Associates was the investigator on the job.

This was libelous defamation.

I fought to access these disclosures but was continually denied by the attorney Generals office; Office of the privacy commission and all of my counsels.

November, 2009, The Torontonto Star reported a story on an ex Kroll Investigator falsifying documents from Bahamian banks for Canadian lawsuits.  Here was another Kroll Investigator, Thomas Cheel, adhering to that pattern of deceit.

I carefully read the volumes that Heather Clark Smith had submitted and came to the conclusion that she was depending solely on the banks employees and the forensic accountant for her information.

E.g. The banks employees testified that no equipment was logged at the receiving area and without knowing the process or what could have been in the logs she proffers 16 logbooks as evidence.  There was never any attempt to analyze the logs or make sense of the information.

Heather Clark Smith in her interview with Mohamed would ask a question. What is an RFA? The answer was a totally inadequate. He did not explain what an RFA was, what it contained or even what was its function but she accepted without clarification.

In the binders given to Steven Stauffer, of course Kalbi Systems was removed.

It seemed that if I sneezed it was a secret signal to someone that I was running   away.  Quitting my job meant I was running.  Selling my home to a family member was the action of a guilty person.

When all of the speculation failed they threw their lot in with the others to lie and supressed the evidence.

I supposedly purchased a house from Scotia bank for $199,907.12. This was classified as money laundering.  I never dealt with Scotia Bank in any way. This was another fallacy from the police files.

Here is the reality. Every project including the WEB project is audited on a monthly, quarterly and yearly basis and by none other than the section and project manager.  Both titles for WEB project belonged to Mohamed Sharif.

It was very painful working for Mohamed Sharif, he was destroying my health and good nature.

Mohamed Sharif was a micromanager and from end of 1998-2000 he created havoc with my position.

  • Would query my every trip from my desk
  • My holidays were denied and I had to get the department manager involved.
  • February 1999 he revoked my access to the workplace from 24/7 to Monday thru Friday 7 a.m. to 7p.m.
  • Revoked access to the communications equipment room.
  • Same month he paid a visit to head office with 4x$100. Gift certificates and directed the staff that they were no longer to speak with me on the phone, I could only communicate in writing.
  • He gave the function of raising purchase orders to another employee.
  • At the banks fiscal year end when the volume of orders increased he would pass the purchase order processing back to me as the other employee could not work the longer hours this entailed. When the rush was over the job would revert to the other employee.
  • At this same Mohamed was creating a new online system for the purchase orders. I gave to them the old programs written by one Steve Knaack. The co-worker did all of the testing.
  • June of 2000, the co-worker asked that he remove the function from her as she was unable to continue with the workload. He passed the function back to me with the new system.

There was no audit trail; no inventory database and the vendor database is a dark hole and it cannot be printed.  The few reports listed on the system does not give accurate results. Mohamed can print reports from the head office database.

January 2001, I quit my job to pursue other interests I had developed that promised a more lucrative return and peace of mind.

The employees from Kroll that I dealt with was in a class all their own.

Employees from Kroll was Roddy Allen – forensic accountant; Thomas Cheel – investigator; Chess Somers – investigator and Stephen James Berkley Roger – computer forensics.

Roddy Allen generated his first affidavit on March 2002. It contained all transactions for the three companies involved along with personal accounts for myself, mother and nephew.

 Roddy Allen appeared not to follow protocol when investigating a procurement fraud.  He allegedly refused to consider the internal process even though he had requested the process for the receiving area.

He made statement of facts about my position but testified that he did not know what my job entailed.

He knew what Graham O’Neil had sworn in his affidavit was false but he too like Steven Stauffer sought to change the facts to an illegal profit scheme.

In 2003 when the affidavit of documents was issued there were line items such as ‘Paid History of Vendors’, ‘Emails’ and Catalogue.  On examination there were no such documents.  There were also 9 boxes missing. I believe this would be classified as forensic fraud.

He refrained from using the vendor paid history to show that the prices charged by the companies were less than those of the manufacturers who dealt with the bank.

I was greedy and stole money for family members for the Mbanx project but he never once confirmed that the project was installed and operational or where the equipment and money came from.  

Thomas Cheel discovered fake account in the Bahamas just like his co-worker who is now incarcerated for the same offense in the U.S.   He was adhering to an established pattern of fraud. This was the same investigator who discovered the tax return in the recycle box.

Chess Somers was of the same ilk.  He was present for the search of my home and a letter that had been missing for days from the dinning room table was discovered by him in no other place but the recycle box.

Stephen James Berkley Roger was a truly impressive computer forensic technician. Member of Ontario Chapter of the High Technology Crime Investigation Association.  He dropped names like Alan Brill, Lee Curtis, Mark Menz, Jason Paroff and Michael Menz, former internationally recognized experts in the field of forensic investigation.  He was employed with Kroll since 1996.

There were two hard drives taken from my home. One belonged to me and the other to my nephew and he dubbed system A & B. In his affidavit he waffles about maybe what he found or maybe what he did not find on system B.  However, on System A he had found nothingIn actual fact he had crashed system A which was my computer and where the letter to Tom Trumphour resided.  How does one crash a system by copying from one hard drive to another?

 

Let me reiterate. This was the team advising the Police and Crown and retained by the banks outside counsel.

 

The Crown, Police, Forensic accountant; 3rd, 4th Lawyer along with Judges did not want to openly acknowledge the internal process. The portrayal of my autonomous reign with the bank as my personal piggy convinced everyone I could take money at will and dispense it to whomever I wanted. I had so much control and no one supervised me.

Even if I ran the bank here are the bank personnel who would have to collude with me to steal this money.  The line of business manager; the Vice President; The Section Manager (Yes this would include Mohamed Sharif); Installation Technicians.

 

I never once heard anyone ask if the projects were installed and operational.

 

Here is the internal process.

INTERNAL CONTROLS FOR EQUIPMENT PROCUREMENT

1991-1998 Dec.

 

  • The Bank has 32 lines of business. Initiative to maximize profit by way of project with business case.
  • The Planning section in the communications department provides Capital and expense costs to the line of business manager via a document called N02
  • RFA (request for authorization) is submitted to the Vice President of that line of business by the line of business manager for authorization. The project must realize a profit within 2 years.
  • Signed RFA is sent to communication data engineering manager. He assigns a project manager to manage that project.
  • Project manager in data communications will issue an N99 which is a network drawing with the equipment to be ordered and installation schedule. Copy is filed with the installation technicians. The data communications manager and the data projects manager coordinates the installation schedule.
  • Data communications manager institutes budget and forecast as per the agreed installation dates against the RFA $ value.
  • Communications project manager issues a Purchase Order Request in accordance with N99 and submits to jenifer for processing.

This was the content of Peter Clarks’ affidavit.  Sworn 2007. This is the process that Khalid Bashk refused to notarize.

N.B. the $ value of the RFA only has a padding of about 1 or 2% above cost of equipment. Mohamed Sharif is aware of this process; it is incorporated into his procedures.

2006 & 7 Khalid Bashk pulls the same stunts and airs the same phrases. ‘You will not be charged with Fraud’.  He removes the Kalbi and Mbanx evidence; removes purchase orders with Mohamed’s signature and refuses to notarize the affidavit of Peter Clark with the internal process; refuses to subpoena the letter of indemnification.

I lost the summary judgment motion on ‘Abuse of Process’.

I asked Bashk to appeal and he lied again about getting the letter of indemnification for me.

He would use the information from the banks lawyers and insert his name in the front and back and this was the information he was going to file on appeal.

I begged Osborne Barnwell for help and finally, after seven years my evidence makes it into a court of Law.  The judges, Sharpe, Gillese and Cronk do not want to hear it.   It did not even take them 30 minutes to decide and Ian Roher did not have to present his side of the motion.

Included in Osbornes motion was Mohamed Sharif explanation for his signature on the purchase orders.

Mohamed issued an affidavit claiming he had signed hundreds of accruals and he could have missed these in the crowd.

Package for accruals supplied to show this was a lie.  The practice was discontinued in 1994 or 95 and the signature was not on the purchase order but on a cover page.

SRA for Select Technologies

Fixed asset report from Mohamed Sharif with Select prominently displayed.

Affidavit witnessed by Ian Roher saying he knew nothing of documents given in April 2002.

Examiners document with said transactions listed in March 2002 given to Ian Roher.

The memo between Graham O’Neil and Ron Belanger of Corporate security recounting extensive conversation he had with Mbanx project manager.

Excerpt from deposition from Graham O’Neil denying he ever spoke to project manager or even knew who project manager was.

This project was installed at a Bloor Street location and paid for from a temporary project. Purchase orders attest to this fact.

Abuse of process was the reason for a successful summary judgment motion.  Are case laws just slapped around willy-dilly because I am not a law student I would not understand it?  Who exactly was abusing the process and trying to stop whom from collecting?

When Osborne was not successful in Superior Court he applied to Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court does not think this is of national interest.

In my humble opinion this is an international disgrace!

Did we just have Truth and reconciliation? Is this just a one-time thing?

Am I a slave again living in the 1600’s when my property that I have worked and paid for and it’s being confiscated because it can be done whether or not it was legal and lawful?

No one stole anything from the Bank, you see their witness lying in black and white; the police, lawyers and investigators are obstructing justice also in black and white; there is theft, perjury, manipulating evidence and the list goes on.

There is no other way to describe this case than lawless.

You call me a liar and convict me of fraud based on fraud.  You gave me the most advance class in lying, cheating and stealing.

There is this officious attitude of deliberate indifference. Ever so often there is an apology to some other race for atrocities done to them.  The next week it’s business as usual until the next 20 years when someone else apologizes.

Is truth a thing of your past?  This is Police and Crown colluding with others to suppress evidence to win cases!

You have a bunch of marauders with judicial support.  They are stealing their clients blind and no one has the courage or conviction to do the right thing.

This is my motion for a new trial.  This is your jurisdiction, fix this.  Please Fix this now.  I should not have to chase you to get what already belongs to me, this is slavery all over again.   Give me back what was stolen from me, I want what is mine. Please fix this.

Here is what must be done. A new trial must be held with the following judges –Judge Janet Simmons and judge Susan Herrel.

In the years I spent in your courtrooms only two judges ever made an impression.  Judge Janet Simmons had the courage to tell Ian Roher his abrasive behavior would not help him in her courtroom and to let him know that every piece of document in her possession was looked at unlike the three judges I dealt with in superior court.

Judge Susan Herrel was not a part of the corrupt clique.

When Osborne Barnwell went on a week trip to his homeland to bury his brother the Banks lawyers chomped at the bit to get a matter into the court before he came back. That judge gave them what they wanted and passed the comment that every time this case should have ended Mr. Barnwell found something new to come up with. I doubt if she knew anything much of the case.

The week that Mr. Barnwell came back another matter was returned to court and Judge Susan Herrel was presiding.  She offered to hear the matter from the previous week because she had time but the same David Altshuller who could not wait the week before declined her offer.

The letter of indemnification must be disclosed with no redactions or missing pages.

There must be access to the stolen funds for my defense.

Let us bring everyone and sort out this mess.  All vendor and personnel to be subpoenaed etc.

I will answer your questions a thousand times.

Let us get to the truth. Examine the evidence for all three companies and see if the fraudulent conveyance was a real possibility or was I just going about my business?

Did anyone gain huge profits from the Bank and if not what was the explanation?

Why was the equipment really shown as Ship to Alberta?  Was the evidence I had enough for Steven Stauffer to subpoena documents and witnesses to corroborate the truth or did he do the unthinkable?

Was James Dunda given incentive to suppress my evidence and why did they destroy my evidence?

Who removed the money from Chase Manhattan Bank? Was it the bank or someone in the Attorney Generals office?

What happened to the nine boxes and the items on the affidavit of document?

I want my name cleared. You have to decide whether you are going to take lawful control of your environment.  I have sent this communication to 4 offices. You all possess the ability to move this matter in the right direction.

Do you have the courage to take up this matter? WHO will do WHAT WHEN?