We have been preparing. Check your email and I'll ask if Jungle Strike guy or if anyone else can be let in on what actions we are about to undertake.
Can anyone recommend a laywer who could represent us? I do think Kirk Tousaw is a man of intregity and could be up to the challenge and I have also thought of Clayton Ruby.
If we are successful in also removing JW, Fazios, Keven Sharpe, and their phantom administration, then we need a voice, I have found the original incorporating documents that shows the coalition was supposed to be run as a proper deliberative Assembly where the members all get a vote but JW took over and make it a dictatorship, a sole prroprietorship that runs on a street gang mentality. too many expulsions of Steering Committee members shows disfunction. JW muzzled us all and they threatened me when I questioned what I perceived to,be misappropriation of funds and criminal wrongdoing.
JW does not speak for me and I don't believe the Coalition is a proper voice for the medicinal cannabis patients who were led to believe their one and only priority was to Save or Gardens.
When did that priority change? Where is the press release? Why don't we get a vote? Why has his term not come to an end?
My name is Nadine Bews and I am a Left-out and also a forensic auditor who worked for Mellace and spent a great deal of time at his clinic in TO and at his Farm in BC. I am about to publish a full report on my findings which include the illegal production and distribution of cannabis, misappropriation of funds and many other crimes and inconsistencies with the generally accepted principles and procedures of conducting business in Canada. My research has revealed that Mellace is a 'Phantom Administrator of the MMAR PPL/DPL Coalition Against Repeal and my involvement with the Coalition as the Founding Chair and Secretary in-exile of the Coalition has led me to prepare an action against Wilcox, his attorney and their Coalition under Section 467.11 of the Canadian Criminal Code.
I have assembled all of the information and evidence necessary to file an action against Conroy, Wilcox and their Coalition under Section 467.111 of the Canadian Criminal Code under An Act to Amend the Criminal Code and the National Defence Act which was enacted on June 19, 2014 (criminal organization recruitment). 467.111 Recruitment of members by a criminal organization – Every person who, for the purpose of enhancing the ability of a criminal organization to facilitate or commit an indictable offence under this Act or any other Act of Parliament, recruits, solicits, encourages, coerces, or invites a person to join the criminal organization is guilty of an indictable offence and liable. The recital talks about the three basic legal needs of society; the need to protect and defend their rights, liberties and property and the need for a trusting relationship with a lawyer who acts with impeccable integrity and from his highest truth and in the very best interests of his clients...Conroy pulled off his con by
confusing or obfuscating the two solicitor-client relationships. Conroy maintained control over Wilcox at the same time that he empowered Jason with sole authority over the Coalition by establishing a
personal representative solicitor-client relationship with
Wilcox as his sole client in the Allard Action. Then Conroy established a
joint representative solicitor client relationship with
Wilcox under their agreement to have Conroy not only act as the legal counsel for the Coalition but to also be the trustee of the funds held in trust for the Coalition...in my business as a forensic auditor this is called 'conflict of interest' and a 'non-arm's length transaction' and creates the opportunity to form a 'dictatorship' and an atmosphere for abuse of authority and misappropriation of funds,,..it is like getting the fox to guard the hen-house... .The following are illustrations of conduct that may infringe the Professional Code of Conduct::
(i) committing any personally disgraceful or morally reprehensible offence that reflects upon the lawyer’s integrity (of which a conviction by a competent court would be prima facie evidence);
(ii) committing, whether professionally or in the lawyer’s personal capacity, any act of fraud or dishonesty, for example by knowingly making a false tax return or falsifying a document, whether or not prosecuted for so doing;
(iii) making an untrue representation or concealing a material fact from a client, with a dishonest or improper motive;
(iv) taking advantage of the youth, inexperience, lack of education or sophistication, ill health, or un-businesslike habits of a client;
(v) misappropriating or dealing dishonestly with a client’s money or other property;
(vi) receiving money or other property from or on behalf of a client for a specific purpose and failing, without the Code of Professional Conduct client’s consent, to pay or apply it for that purpose;
(vii) knowingly assisting, enabling or permitting any person to act fraudulently, dishonestly or illegally;
(viii) failing to be absolutely frank and candid in all dealings with the Court or tribunal, fellow lawyers, and other parties to proceedings, subject always to not betraying the client’s cause, abandoning the client’s legal rights or disclosing the client’s confidences; and
(ix) failing to honour the lawyer’s word when pledged even though, under technical rules, the absence of writing might afford a legal defence
