Wirick

George Orwell's book "Animal Farm" is about farm animals who decide they can get rid of their human rulers and have a better life ruling themselves. Their revolt against their human owner succeeds.

To guarantee the rights of individual animals a list of commandments was posted on the barn wall. As time passed the pigs, who had became the ruling class due to their intelligence, altered the commandments to allow themselves privileges and power that were initially forbidden. The alterations were never announced. They were always discovered later by the animals who came to look at it after noticing the exercise of those privileges and power by the pigs.

Can we safely say that those sitting in position of power, like the Attorney General, the judiciary and the lawyers make new rules as they go along like the pigs in Animal Farm?

J4Y suggest that with an amount as high as 11,000 lawyers only in the province of British Columbia, the bar are the pigs in animal farm!

The following featured case is an example of the bar having privileges that no other human biengs have:

While acting in the interest of a particular client, -- Tarsem Singh Gill, a Vancouver-based property developer --, Wirick used his lawyer's undertaking to help create a complex web of interrelated real estate financings and sales which did not give the title promised.

Wirick received funds from other lawyers, on his undertaking to convey good title and pay off existing encumbrances - again and again he disbursed those funds to his client without regard to his undertakings.

B.C. real estate practice was set up in a way that, long after a conveyance was thought to be complete, the purchasers' and the financial institutions' lawyers still did not have confirmation of clear title.

The result was that a great many innocent purchasers, who have given good value to purchase homes, find their properties encumbered by undischarged mortgages and under threat of foreclosure.

The biggest creditors were VanCity and HSBC.

It is presumed that the Law Society is still investigating the matter and still does not have an accurate tally of the cost of the Wirick affair, but it is likley to be over 70 milion dollars.

It is also presumed that the Vancouver Police is investigating the fraud by Wirick, which according to Keith Hutchinson, who heads the White Collar Crime Unit, "is by far the largest investigation that the financial crime unit has ever undertaken; not only in terms of money involved but also its complexity and scope".

Wirick conveniently declared bankruptcy in July, 2002 and was disbarred by the Law Society in December, 2002.

Whereas Justice Sigurdson of the B.C. Supreme Court, who was seized to the matter in bankruptcy of Martin Wirick, did find the disgraced lawyer guilty of fraudulent breach of trust, no criminal charges have been laid to date.

In fact, Sigurdson J., instead of ordering a criminal investigation under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act s. 205, has recently decided to release Wirick from bankruptcy under condition he accepts a judgment against him of $500,000 even though Wirick swore in his Statement of Affairs sworn July 9, 2002, that the reason for his financial difficulty was:

"Failing to payout mortgages pursuant to my undertakings, but instead paying monies to my client on his promise to pay out the mortgages but who failed to do so".

The undertaking of Wirick for being assigned as a bankrupt is as follows:

"I, Martin Keith Wirick, do swear that this statement is to the best of my knowledge a full, true and complete statement of my affairs on the 9th day of July 2002 and fully discloses all property of every description that is in my possession or that may devolve on me in accordance with s. 67 of the Act."

The statement above was sworn before Mr. Bruce B. Gandossi, a member of the firm SANDS & ASSOCIATES, who is the Trustee in Bankruptcy of Martin Wirick.

Such undertaking, follows the principle of the Skalbania case (R vs. Skalbania [1997] S.C.C.), wherein mens rea --intent-- no longer is a prerequisite to find an accused guitly of fraud.

Nelson Skalbania was first acquitted by the trial judge at the British Columbia Supreme Court but at the BC Court of Appeal, Madam Justice Rowles over turned the lower court decison by concluding:

"I find that Mr. Skalbania was at all material times the controlling mind of Prime Realty Limited, to whom Mr. Gooch's cheque was paid. I find that Mr. Skalbania through Prime Realty applied Gooch's money for a purpose other then that directed by Mr. Gooch".

And at the Supreme Court of Canada level, wherein the lawyer for Nelson Skalbania was Peter Leask Q.C. --who has been appointed this year as a B.C. Supreme Court Judge-- dismissed the appeal and affirm the conviction.

This means that:

"The mens rea of that offence does not require proof that the accused "subjectively intended to act dishonestly", as various older Canadian cases and English cases had suggested. Rather, the mens rea of fraud was said to consist of "subjective awareness that one was undertaking a prohibited act (the deceit, falsehood or other dishonest act) which could cause deprivation in the sense of depriving another of property or putting that property at risk. If this is shown, the crime is complete".

The Supreme Court of Canada agreed with Rowles J.A. on the issue of intent.

R vs. Skalbania

Remarkably however, even though Wirick acknowledged that he received funds on his undertaking to use the money to discharge encumbrances on title in a real estate transaction, that he breached his undertaking to pay out the encumbrances and that the breach of his undertaking was professional misconduct, Christopher Ramsay of FRASER MILNER CASGRAIN LL.B, for the B.C. Law Society in the matter of the Bankruptcy of Martin Wirick, failed, or deliberately failed to argue the Skalbania case, leading any reasonable person to conclude that the B.C. Law Society is more interested in protecting Wirick than seeing justice done.

Accordingly, the Wirick matter has called into question the value of a lawyer's undertaking - one of the foundation stones of professional practice.

Since Wirick has been disbarred, a senior, retired lawyer, who practiced for almost 50 years, has been on the Wirick trail to get him criminally charged under the Criminal Code.

Following are some letters the lawyer delivered by mail to the Provincial Attorney General, the Chief of Police and the RCMP:

1. Letter to Chief of Police Jamie Graham from the lawyer, dated May 20, 2004;

Four different articles was attached to the correspondences to the Chief of Police:

a) Lawyer in fraud prove now a pet food baker Vancouver Sun

b) Legal fraud largest ever for commercial crime unit Vancouver Sun

c) Law Society's special fund provides payouts to victims Vancouver Sun

d) Canada, a haven for dirty money, conference told Globe and Mail

2. First letter to the Attorney General of BC Wally Oppal;

3. Second letter to the Attorney General of BC Wally Oppal dated August 19 2005

4. Letter from the Attorney General of British of Columbia in reply to the lawyer's letter, dated August 19, 2005

5. Letter from the RCMP Commercial Crime Section in reply to the lawyer's letter, dated Feb. 6, 2006

6. Letter to Sands Associates Trustee in Bankruptcy dated May 8 2006

7. Letter from Sands Associates in reply to the lawyer's letter of May 8th

8. Third letter to Attorney General of B.C. Wally Oppal dated July 24 2006

9. Letter to City Manager of City of Vancouver dated August 20 2006;

10. A Company Search was made by the lawyer and it appears that the new director of Koko's Gourmet Pet Food Ltd is Sharon Alexis Novak, who may be the new wife of Martin Wirick.

Question is:

Will Wirick ever pay, in terms of restitution, for the crimes he committed and most likely continues to commit?

Or would the Law Society of B.C. rather pay for Wirick's crime simply because they do not want other names of other lawyers involved with the Wirick scam to be also discovered and subsequently charged criminally?

And what about the Vancouver Police White Collar Crime Unit, are they waiting for the B.C. Law Society to give them the permission to criminally charge Wirick?

Or is the RCMP and VPD failing in their duties to charge the real criminals in this country?

One thing is certain, lawyers like Wirick are not in any way uncommon. As the lawyer wrote in one of his letters to the Provincial Attroney General, "in researching my records, which are not exhaustive, I found the following members of the bar, as they then were, had also missapropriated client trust funds":

Bilhar Singh Koonar;

James Edwin Marks;

Jennifer Yew Ajec Tse;

Jill Mary Black;

Michael Custance;

William John Graham;

Jonathan Oldroyd

In year 2004, a benchers meeting at the Law Society of B.C. was held and one of the issues that were to be voted on was was whether a new rule should be added in the Professional Conduct Handbook for lawyers, concerning criminal conduct and fraud.

Law Society Minute meeting

One of the benchers, Ian Donaldson, who is now a life bencher for the LSBC, was concerned about the words"ought to know" in paragraph 6 of the amended Chapter 4. Mr. Donaldson had said it was an important phrase with specific meaning, which amounts to liability.

It was agreed to refer the matter back to the Ethics Committee. And in 2005 paragraph 6 of chapter 4 of the Professional Conduct Handbook was amended, wherein it states:

6. A lawyer must not engage in any activity that the lawyer knows or ought to know assists in or encourages any dishonesty, crime or fraud, including a fraudulent conveyance, preference or settlement.

Finally, page 11, number 19 of the law society minute meeting, the benchers allegedly dealt wiht the Martin Wirick investigation and Special Compensation Fund which was allegedly discussed in Camera.

In Camera basically means held in secrecy. Why would the benchers at the Law Society hold the Wirick matter in camera?

Martin Wirick investigation and Special Compensation Fund claims

Accordingly, the Law Society of B.C. who is collecting yearly fees from their 11,000 members, should not in any way investigate their own members. The job of investigating a lawyer who committed fraud should be done by an outside body, since the law society's only interest is to cover up members who are playing loose with the law such as it was with Martin Wirick.

A good example on how the courts in Canada are lenient with those who are convicted of fraud. Recently an accused by the name of Michelle Buckart was sentenced by the Provincial Court for 18 months in prison. Ms. Buckart had been an employee of TD Canada Trust for over fifteen years, rising to a management position in customer service. She stole $81,400 from her employer between March 2003 and March 2004. Ms. Buckart's lawyer appealed the decision.

And the B.C. Court of Appeal --- Justice Allan Tackray, supported by Chief Justice Finch and Justice Mary Southin --- overturned the lower court decision by saying that:

"The will of parliement and the intent of the criminal Code is to ensure prison is the punishment of last resort".

Justice Thackray further adopted the following:

"Conditional sentences provide an important alternative, and are often appropriate for less serious or non-violent offences.

A safe and just society requires that we do not incarcerate people unless it is necessary and that we trust our judges to find the least intrusive sanction appropriate to the offence and offender once they have heard all the details of the particular case".

R vs Buckart [2006] BCCA

Had Buckart for example been a bank robber, the court would have imposed jail time, but given that Buckart held a position of trust. like lawyers do, the penalty is often minimal. Often times, in such cases, the Crown prosecutor fails or deliberately fails to ask the court for restitution of all the money stolen by the person who held a fiduciary position.

In effect, this lack of action not taken by the authorities in Canada especially when one of their own commits a crime, brings us back to the Pharisees in the Bible, the ones who were claimed by Jesus as hypocrites;

Jesus said the Pharisees were hypocrites for two reasons:

The first was that they self-righteously condemned the behaviour of others while doing worse things themselves.

The second reason was that they knew that Jesus Christ was the Messiah, but some of them opposed Him anyway, for their own political reasons.

In effect, the Pharisees were quite happy that they were not like other men. They truly believed they were above reproach. The Pharisees were religioulsy addicted to every jot and title of the law, except when it came to them, they would not apply the law. They would look for people as candidates to become their disciples, if found worthy. They were committed into growing their sect.

With 11,000 lawyers plus, J4y would suggest that the sect is growing, not necessarily with competent lawyers, but more like incompetent and deceitful lawyers.

Two thousand years ago, Jesus' was able to pierce the cleanliness of the Pharisees self-righteous facades, disquieting them as He exposed their superficiality and the emptiness of their hearts. Today, we appeal to God to come again and save those poor souls, who have lost their way.

In essence, not only those like Martin Wirick need saving but the entire Canadian system needs saving as well!!!!

The pigs on the animal farms have been having too much fun at the expense of all others.

Wirick Discipline Hearing

Mortgage and Bankruptcy Fraud

Money Laundering