reputation | Dishonest And Unethical Lawyers

Witness Exiled In China Due To Incompetence & Evil Of Lawyer, Solicitor William Gilmour? – Part 6

Posted on September 9, 2015September 10, 2015 by nonfiction4all

The final stab in the back of Client X by his former lawyer William Gilmour is perhaps the most painful. Although there is no way to prove the following theory without a polygraph test, of both Gilmour and Client X, it is submitted for consideration that Gilmour’s lack of legal competence or deliberate design sabotaged the extradition defense of his client X, in a way that would benefit his wallet, not only through the fraudulent billing but the acquisition of his client’s former childhood home, $50,000 doll collection owned by his mother, but also by what he found in the two safes in the Ohio home. The prejudice to his client’s case caused by his acts and omissions was irreversible and ultimately caused Client X to seek temporary sanctuary in China, that he converted to a permanent ban from Canada. How did Gilmour accomplish this and why?

At one time Clent X and Gilmour were good friends that attempted a couple of business ventures together and had even contemplated an almost-legal multi-million venture together overseas using the contacts of X. When X finally won his freedom and before tension arose over the extortion attempt, there was a window of perhaps nine months where the two men confided in each other. They dined and drank together at a local strip joint and visited Big Brute Motorcycles, a company which was going to make them wealthy. It was during this time that X was with Gilmour when he had to surrender his firearms to the police as part of his plea bargain following his arrest for child abuse. It was also during this period when Gilmour had lunch with X at a Sushi restaurant on Richmond Avenue in Toronto and had too many double martinis and confessed many of his past illegal activities while employed as both a police officer and RCMP officer. The confession arose due the nature of the conversation between the two men about the plea bargain system that let guilty people walk free and innocent people get locked away for crimes they did not commit. Both men shared their first hand knowledge of this fact.

This conversation lasted for more than 2 hours, and during this time was when Gilmour admitted his past life as an undercover narcotics cop and RCMP Mountie and how he accidentally shot an unarmed teen in the back in a remote part of Canada (X seems to recall that it was either Yellowknife or Whitehorse, or some equally remote location) He also talked about his free access to drugs, massive corruption, and an affair he had with a murder victim named Jeanette Kelly. Before this time, client X never heard about the Patrick Kelly case since he was working as a regional marketing manager for a Fortune 500 company far away in Miami at the time.

During this drunken conversation Gilmour admitted committing some serious crimes that he really should have kept to himself. But words once spoken, are like bullets fired from a gun. Neither can be taken back. Although this conversation made Client X uneasy about his lawyer, he had no choice at the time to keep him since had had no extra funds to hire a new attorney. He decided he would keep Gilmour’s secrets to himself as the crimes confessed were over 15 years old. One thing is certain… Patrick Kelly was telling the truth all along. He did NOT murder his wife. Gilmour had inside knowledge and claimed he was “close personal friends with the real killer – all my life”. Eventually, Client X would write a letter to Kelly in prison relating to this conversation after learning that key prosecution witness Dawn Taber had recanted her “eye witness” account of the murder that put Kelly in prison for 20 plus years. See: http://www2.canada.com/vancouversun/story.html?id=a10691d7-d9cf-47f2-ae47-eb66920bddd6

But when you fast forward to 2004 when tensions between the two men were high, those past sins were brought up in the heat of an argument and Gilmour flat out threatened to kill Client X or his family if those sins were ever revealed. Seeing Gilmour’s close connections with the Peel Police and those at Tom Davis Courthouse X decided he would remain silent, especially since he had no witnesses nor recordings of what was said at that Sushi restaurant. Suffice it to say that some of what he confessed would get Gilmour locked away for more than 10 years in prison if ever proven in a court of law.

As explained in detail at the link below, after Client X’s charges were dismissed in America and he returned to his family in Canada in December of 2007 his first order of business was to appeal the dismissal of the Law Society Complaint and file an a criminal complaint for extortion against Gilmour with the police, He decided to do it right after the holidays in 2008. But the Law Society refused to advise him how to appeal the decision, and a young rookie cop at the Peel Police station was not allowed to process the criminal complaint by a duty sergeant who was not ashamed to say he was a friend of Gilmour’s.

If your remember from Part 2 of this series, Gilmour had a private talk with the visiting FBI agent, and soon after made a sudden trip to Florida (where both Atty. Stephen Finta and corrupt FBI agent Terry Nelson resided) It was learned that Gilmour also made a visit to Panama where he had no legitimate clients, and it is Panama where Finta and Nelson did much of their secret banking. You can connect your own dots, Read http://whyunclesamhatesbruce.blogspot.com to understand this photo below and how Client X was forced to leave Canada and take what was supposed to be a 3-6 month round-trip to China.

While Client X was in China, Gilmour devised a clever plan to keep his secrets safe in China and avoid a sure assessment hearing, law suit, and possible criminal prosecution when X returned to his family in Canada. He would use his buddies at the Peel Police department who would not even know they were being used. He filed a false police report claiming that Client X called him from China to threaten his life in 2010. In Canada any person who threatens the life of another commits a felony crime and a foreigner who does so is not admissible to enter Canada! Only a lawyer would know about such a law, and Gilmour used it to keep a potential witness and certain litigation out of Canada. His brilliant strategy has kept Client X and his wife and 2 children separated since the false police report was made. As always, Client X offers to take a polygraph to prove this “death threat” was fabricated by Gilmour.

Thus concludes the short version outlining the legal skills and personal character of Solicitor Gilmour (assuming you read Parts 1-5.) as experienced by Client X. Hopeflly not all of his clients had similar problems. He is welcome to rebut and in the past he has relied on partners of his own law firm to lie for him, although one of those partners refused to do so and apologized to Client X for the misconduct of Gilmour. See part V about David Dash who coincidentally, helped X’s wife with the closing on her home when we first moved to Canada. Dash advised X that he was doing everything possible to remove Gilmour from the firm. Apparently he succeeded because Gilmour left a few years back following the Revenue Canada audit he caused with his billing fraud.

Client X is still stranded in China hoping someone in the world will care enough about genuine justice and help reunite his family. He has been married to his Canadian wife for 17 years and their two young sons would like their father back home with them in Canada. Client X still offers to take and pass a polygraph. In the past 4 RCMP officials and two Immigration Canada officials, along with Solicitor Marshal Drukarsh have validated his truthfulness and some of these officials did so while being recorded.

The above comments are solely those of the author and he speaks for no other third party. The above is factual information related to case no E-19-00 in the Superior Court of Ontario. All comments above are submitted in accordance with the freedom of speech provision of the Charter Rights without prejudice nor malice in the interests of true justice, legal reform, and public awareness. Details of these matters can be found in the actual complaint filed with the law society at http://bruceslawsocietycomplaint.wordpress.com. Like 95% of all law society complaints, this one was also dismissed, but not a single 1 of 19 eye and/or expert witnesses were every contacted/interviewed by the Law Society and the victim was never provided the name of the investigator (if there really was one) nor a copy of any related report, nor instructions on how to appeal the decision to dismiss. The exhibits in the above complaint speak for themselves. The author attempted to file a police report against solicitor William Gilmour in 2008 but the Peel Police Department whom he represents refused to process it. Background on Client X can be found at http://whyunclesamhatesbruce.blogspot.com To see how the Law Society handled/mishandled the complaint against this solicitor you can visit this link below. There is no way of knowing how many other people have filed complaints against Mr. Gilmour because the Law Society simply won’t tell you. http://lawsocietyofuppercanada.wordpress.com

Lawyer William Gilmour of Ontario Swipes Home Of Client – Stolen with false claim and perjury? – Part 5

Posted on September 7, 2015September 8, 2015 by nonfiction4all

Solicitor David Dash and Client X both loved baseball. Both played and coached it as children and adults. Their love for baseball always provided a topic of conversation even when tensions were high with Prouse Dash and Crouch, where Gilmour once practiced law. David was a VERY honorable man, and before succumbing to leukemia, apologized for the misconduct of William Gilmour. His words were few but meaningful. He claimed that he had never really fully trusted Gilmour but since he had offered to install the firm’s IT network, CRM, and billing system which saved the firm a small fortune he gave him a chance to prove himself. Only after Gilmour was arrested on August 14, 2001 did he really look into Gilmour’s background. He said he was “not happy” with what he found and invited Gilmour for a “sit down” right after Revenue Canada knocked on their door with a demand to audit the firm because of Gilmour’s billing system that generated “too many irregularities and questions”. He said Gilour admitted his “dark side” which he said Gimour insisted was “ancient history.” David’s health was not good and apparently getting worse. He said the reason for the call was to ask if a quiet and private resolution to the dispute with Gilmour could be worked out with mediation. I am not sure how or why, but Dash claimed Gilmour owed the firm some money and my case was a “sore spot” with Gilmour and some of the partners, including himself. How the conversation ended is not important, but I did accept David’s apology . He claimed he asked Gilmour to quietly leave the firm. Gilmour no longer works for Prouse, Dash, and Crouch so I assume David prevailed.

But David’s passing had no effect on Bill who promptly generated a fake bill for some $250,000 more than two years after he was terminated from the case, and following some last minute extortion attempts served both Client X and his wife with a fraudulent claim. He could not ever produce any retainer or other agreement showing anyone ever agreed to pay him any hourly fee. So how did he pull of the feat of grand theft? Just the way he actually threatened he would…http://ohiocourtroomcorruption.blogspot.com As you can see from this link and the exhibits of the Law Society complaint, Gilmour either successfully bamboozled Judge Janet Burnside in Cleveland, Ohio, or Gilmour successfully found a lawyer in Cleveland who was close friends with Burnside. Either way he was successful – until the Ohio Court of Appeals disagreed. If one takes the time to review the transcripts of the original hearing, the comments of Judge Burnside indicates that she presumes Client X to be a derelict criminal even though he has not been indicted nor convicted. Would she speak the same way about someone not involved in an extradition hearing? Like most lawyers and regular people, she clearly assumes that anyone being arrested and facing extradition, must be guilty of something and her comments certainly betray her bias beyond any doubt. Read the transcripts and be your own judge of this. If she was not biased she would have no reason to deny the video link testimony requested by Client X.

She conveniently overlooked the perjury of Gilmour who testified that he never signed any retainer or any agreement with Client X yet he was embarrassed when this document above was produced bearing his own signature and post-sign editing (another indication of his below par sense of ethics), She also ignored the sworn statements of three credible eye witnesses who Gilmour admitted that had given Client X a flat rate fee and payment plan, and that the wife of Client X was NOT his client. See these sworn statements at http://filmourlawsocietycomplaint.wordpress.com as the first 4 of 27 exhibits.

In her defense however, Judge Burnside was never told that Client X was not indicted and there were not even any charging documents, Nor did she ever get to see the sworn Private Investigator report of Ed Reiken or law society complaint. The true background of the case was hidden to paint a very convenient picture for the plaintiffs. Despite being a native-born Ohio buckeye whose father was very well known and respected in Parma and sports circles, Client X was made out to be some fly by night con artist. It is so easy to presume in a courtroom when the accused is not present to object and have his /constitutional right to address the court. In fact, Judge Burnside was never was even told any of the following about Client X who was in fact:

An honors graduate of Padua Franciscan High School
An 7 year Red Cross volunteer first aid, cpr, water safety, and life-saving instructor
An HRS certified AIDS counselor volunteer in Florida
An honorably discharged military veteran who voluntarily enlisted during the Vietnam War
A former Salvation Army volunteer house parent in Miami
A former Fortune 500 Executive with Carrier Air Conditioning (UTC subsidiary)
The founder and elected Chairman of the Ramey Community Council in Puerto Rico
A little league baseball and kids soccer coach both in America and Canada
A pilot
A former air traffic controller
A registered organ donor
A certified PADI Scuba Instructor
Received personal commendation from President Clinton in 1997 for volunteer AIDS works
Founded the American AIDS Alert Association in Miami
A former U.S. Treasury agent
A former Department of Justice INS officer
A whistle blower for over 20 years
A political prisoner for 38 months
A university graduate with bachelor degrees in Business Administration, Politiccal Science & Public Administration

15708514-mmmain

Likewise, Janet Burnside was never told WHY Client X was not present in her courtroom – that two court orders in Canada prohibited X from leaving the Province of Ontario. One order was issues by the Ontario Superior Court and the other by Immigration Canada. If Client went to Cleveland for this trial his refugee claim in Canada would be void and he would not be allowed to reapply. Gilmour was well aware of this legal conundrum and is precisely why he filed his claim in Ohio and not in Ontario where he easily could have done for less money. This was a deliberate effort to exploit and subvert the law. Client X’s own attorney in Cleveland was an elderly guy who admittedly dropped the ball in not bringing all of the above to Burnside’s attention on court record although he mentioned some of it in his written filings. It is what is spoken at trial that counts most in legal proceedings.

Of course Judge Burnside would not be told about Gilmour’s own arrest and prosecution for child abuse, nor would she learn of his checkered past with the RCMP.

Even though Burnside’s decision would be overruled by the Ohio State Court of Appeals, Gilmour had one last trick up his sleeve. See: https://persecutingwhistleblowerswithamericancourts.wordpress.com/tag/bruce-gorcyca/

Is Justice Now Extinct An Endangered Species in Canada? It is already extinct in America.

Part 4 Of 6 – Solicitor William Gilmour – Toronto’s Most Devious Lawyer?

Posted on September 5, 2015September 23, 2015 by nonfiction4all

The extradition hearing was now only a month a way and in reading through the few submissions made by Gilmour, Client X noticed a handful of factual errors. Gilmour had submitted all three of his boilerplate filings on their deadline dates, making it a rush job every time. As a result he confused times, dates, and places, and omitted many important details. Although he was instructed not to file anything without a preview and approval by Client X, this instruction was basically ignored. One typical example is that in his letter to the FBI Director, Gilmour wrongfully cited X’s dates of employment at American Financial Group as 1997-1998 when in fact previous affidavits of X stated the true dates of employment as 1994-1996. Such errors if left uncorrected could totally deflate an defense strategy. Gilmour was instructed to correct his errors or he would not receive another payment. Although he said it was “no problem” the corrections were never made. American Financial Group would be a significant part of X’s defense to prove the extradition request wad bogus and politically motivated. This will explain: https://americanfinancialgroupfraud.wordpress.com

Clent X requested and then finally had to demand an hour of Gilmour’s time to ensure a witness list was drafted and all parties were subpoenaed in time to attend the hearing. Erling Ingvaldsen would be called to document the Nelson drug gang operation as an insider and how Client X came to know and be recruited by Nelson and how X reported the huge operation. He would also testify how he was present when Steve Finta, (Nelson’s recruiter and front man) boasted about taking out a contract on Client X in 1995, two years before Nelson got busted with a load of cocaine in Regina, Canada. Solicitor Marshal Drukarsh, Nancy Cameron from Amnesty International, Juan Pablo Sanchez, X’s wife, and even a 20 year veteran Toronto cop named Abraham Bailey would be called to testify about an attempt on the life of Client X while in Canadian custody as per his affidavit below. And of course X himself would be called to introduce the video and audio recordings and other documents showing and proving a 20 year history of whistle blowing and imminent danger if he would return to America. Him and his wife along with Drukarsh would also testify about what RCMP Superintendent Ben Soave had told them, and about the surprise visit they received in Canada from a Russian mobster. This was all carefully scripted as part of Client X’s defense at the extradition.

But most important of all, Gilmour was instructed by Client X to make the court aware that no charging documents had ever been produced and Canadian extradition law requires them in order to proceed with an extradition hearing. The absence of these vital legal documents and that of an indictment would be a glaring neon alert sign to the court that the extradition was a fraud.

Immigration expert Marshal Drukarsh would testify about the Immigration detention ruse used to pressure and coerce “cooperation” from Client X and how verbal promises of protection from the U.S. Attorney were never put in writing. Keep in mind that Al Chalem enjoyed “protection” 24/7 from the FBI when he “cooperated” and was under their surveillance when he was murdered. Drukarsh’s two sworn declarations summarize some of his would-be testimony. They are contained in the Law Society complaint for review. The verbal pledge of protection Marshal was given came from AUSA Ron White. Others that offered the same verbal protection to Client X and other attorneys were Tanya Hill and FBI SA John Marley, the lead investigator on the AL Chalem murder case until being replaced by Danielle upon his retirement.

The two men then reviewed all the documentary evidence that would be presented including affidavits and medical reports Gilmour “was in the process” of getting that would prove the abuse and torture Client X sustained the last time he was in federal custody. This would include statements from Erling Ingvaldsen, Ty West, Gary Betzner, and a local dermatologist who was an expert on scar tissues (Walter Cohen), But for reasons Gilmour never explained, he was not able to obtain these documents in time for the hearing, just like the law suit Client X filed against his former employer AFG. Client X was able to obtain what Gilmour did not, but only after the hearing took place (see http://whyunclesamhatesbruce.blogspot.com) Only two days before the hearing did Gilmour admit he was unable to obtain these documents claiming that the authors “were making themselves unavailable”. Strangely Client X had no problem in getting the documents, but not in time for the hearing. Gilmour had a month to procure them, but failed to do so. Was this deliberate or simple negligence? Gilmour was also supposed to arrange the testimony of Nancy Cameron from Amnesty International who would testify to receiving the two page report of murder and torture in U.S. prisons from Client X. Gilmour failed in this regard as well and Client X had to serve the subpoena himself one day before the hearing.

At the hearing, Gilmour arrived with a body modification. He had about 3 six inch stainless still pins protruding from each of his hands, and explained he just had some “minor surgery”. Whatever he had done to his hands was painful, because he found it necessary to gulp down quite a few yellow percosetts before and during the 2 hour proceeding.

But strange things began to occur during that hearing. First when Ingvaldsen was testifying he began talking about government crimes he was part of, namely the Nelson drug smuggling ring and was to testify how there was a contract taken out to murder Client X that Nelson’s partner (Steve Finta) had boasted about. Ingvaldsen was stopped by the judge who said they would take a recess for lunch and resume testimony afterward. But when the hearing was resumed, Erling was not allowed to continue his testimony despite protests from Client X. Although former Toronto detective Abraham Bailey was called to testify, Gilmour did not make any effort to Call Marshall Drukarsh, Client X, the wife of Client X, nor any other witness that he was instructed to call! During a brief recess, Client X demanded that all the witnesses, including himself be called. Gilmour said he would do so.

But when the proceedings resumed, the Judge asked Gilmour to give his closing comments and Gilmour did not say he had 5 more witnesses to call including Client X himself and began with his closing arguments! At this point Client X was both angry and alarmed that the bulk of the exculpatory evidence that would prove the extradition request was a ruse was not being introduced and no demand to see the mandatory charging documents was being made. He immediately raised his hand and asked to address the court which is an undeniable Charter Right. The transcripts show he made this request three times and was denied three times! DUE PROCESS OF LAW AND CHARTER RIGHTS WERE BEING DENIED with the help of Justice Dunnet. Client X then wrote a one page note and attempted to pass it to the judge (also reflected in the transcripts contained in the law society complaint at http://gilmourlawsocietycomplaint.wordpress.com) But Gilmour took the note from his client and instead of giving it to the judge as instructed, put the note into his pocket. Here is an actual copy of that note:

As Client X was growing more angry and animated the Judge rushed to conclude the hearing without every letting the person sought or 4 other witness testify as per the witness list submitted to the court. Every accused has the constitutional charter right to testify on their own behalf and address the court. Gimour made no effort to enforce these rights on behalf of his client, nor did he make a single objection. The only question that remains today in 2015 – Was this general incompetence, negligence, or by deliberate design. Whatever conclusion you arrive at, justice was denied beyond any shadow of doubt.

As you might imagine, there was one helluva an argument between Gilmour and X after the show was over and Gilmour justified his inactions by falsely claiming he wanted “to save his aces for court of appeals”. Unfortunately the laws of Canada and Ontario only let you appeal what was presented in the lower courts – not what wasn’t said. The law society complaint digs deeper into this issue.

After the extradition hear fiasco, and after being asked to help cheat another client named Vic Richards out of his $20,000,000 patent, and all the other odd incidents he experienced with Solicitor Gilmour, Cleint X had finally decided he might do better with a new attorney. But not before Bill “asked” and then “told” him to buy his old piece of junk car (a five year old Mercury Marquis) for $2,500 so he did not have to split the money with his law firm. Client X thought it would end their relationship on a friendly note if he acquiesced. He did not need another car. Their family already had two vehicles, and truly only needed one. At the time Client X did not have a drivers license to legally transfer the title so he asked his wife, a native Canadian to handle the matter. Copies of the title transfer and related affidavits are found in the law society complaint with 27 other exhibits at http://bruceslawsocietycomplaint.wordpress.com

Now Client X wanted his files and evidence back from Gilmour. 80% of the paperwork, evidence was created/obtained by Client X. Still, Gilmour would decide to hold them hostage which forced Client X to seek assistance and a court order from the courts and Chief Justice McMurtry. The friendship and trust between lawyer and client was at an end. Now Solicitor Gilmour would show his true colors. He made a direct attempt to extort Client X for more money. He demanded that his wife sign on as a cient and sign a security agreement. Client X said that would not only be illegal but unethical and even Justice Moldaver commented that it was not appropriate, and any such security or retainer agreement should be obtained at the beginning of an undertaking, not after you are removed.

As you will note in sworn affidavits in the Law Society complaint (exhibit section) Gilmour made it clear that if Client X did not meet his demands, he would file a false claim in Ohio saying that he was retained by Client X’s wife and take her home there as payment – knowing full well that Client X was under two different court orders not to leave the Province of Ontario. To fully grasp the wicked scheming mind of this lawyer, see http://ohiocourtroomcorruption.blogspot.com where he did not hesitate to perjure himself. Keep in mind that there never once existed any retainer agreement nor any legal instruction from Client X wife.

A veteran law professor would later take a long holiday weekend to review the transcripts and case of Client X would tell him “You were duped with the old Trojan horse trick”. Was the good professor correct?

Solicitor William Gilmour in Toronto, Ontario – A Lawyer To Avoid?- Part 3

Posted on September 3, 2015September 23, 2015 by nonfiction4all

Client X hired you for only two reasons Bill. You told him that you had worked 5 extradition cases in the past and because of your RCMP and courtroom “connections” you were able to win stays for 2 of them. (You knew this was a lie, but X had no way to know the truth – that you only had one extradition case where you persuaded your client “Cashbreath” to voluntarily surrender himself and abandon his extradition fight – AFTER you collected your fees) This is like a painter collecting money to paint a house and then after collecting the money, tells the owner that a paint job could wait another year or two. The other reason you were selected by Client X is because as per the sworn statements of eye witnesses Arnold, Sanchez, Stone, and X contained in the Law Society complaint, you agreed to work for a flat fee and accept monthly payments. This is well documented in the Law Society complaint filed against you by Client X. See http://bruceslawsocietycomplaints.wordpress.com (Exhibits Sections)

Although it took you a few months to explain your real “RCMP connections”, while intoxicated, you originally came across as mostly believable to X and all your talk about hiring a private investigator, getting a polygraph test arranged, and getting a video deposition from Canadian John Pierre Gonyou and an affidavit from Ty West and Michael Mansfield made X believe you were passionate about his case, especially after you sent that video tape of the corrupt FBI Agent Terry Neslon to FBI Director Mueller, and Senators Clinton and Biden. Surely they would want to know that a corrupt FBI agent was smuggling or $1Billion of drugs (street value) every year into Canada. You were talking a great game, but strangely you changed your attitude after the 4 agents came to visit and you took your sudden holiday to Florida. See the exhibits in the Law Society complaint for a copy http://bruceslawsocietycomplaint.wordpress.com. When you were in Florida you were instructed by your client to pick up his legal files from Attorney Arnoldo Velez in Miami (Coral Gables) which contained a copy of his contract with American Financial Group since one of the FBI agents was trying to deny that he worked there for two years. Although you agreed to do so, you later said you “forgot”. Eventually Client X proceeding pro-se would get the statement from Mansfield and files from Atty. Velez. Although you did get the statement from Ty West (CBS News Investigator), you got it AFTER the extradition hearing when it became inadmissible even though he offered to cooperate 6 weeks before the extradition hearing. Some people say the ball was dropped deliberately, while others say it was common negligence. Either way, the damage done to Client X was the same.

When you were contacted by reporters from the New York Times, Toronto Sun, USA Today, and Ottawa Citizen, it took you over a month to tell Client X about the interview requests – why? Then when he asked you for the names and numbers of the reporters, you claim you did not keep them because YOU “made a decision not to talk with the media”, although you did manage to give your own statement to Tom Godfrey at the Toronto Sun without the knowledge nor consent of your client. Client X would later receive this letter from Ottawa Citizen reporter Paul McKay in 2003…

No polygraph exam nor private investigator materialized even though you were collecting your payments from X every month. You suddenly “misplaced” the handwritten letter received by X from Canadian John Pierre Gonyou confirming what took place offshore with the unregistered Enron shares, and that X’s role was only as an introducing party between buyer and seller. You also manage to misplace the original death threat note found on X’s family car that had fingerprints on it. Why did you give the police a copy and not the original Bill? https://pierregonyou.wordpress.com/category/john-pierre-gonyou/ Even though Gonyou agreed to give a video deposition, you kept postponing the date (3 times) and then word came that Pierre suddenly died of an ostensible “drug overdose” (someone shot him up with enough heroin to kill King Kong).

You also manage to forget your pledge to document the previous torture sustained by Client X the last time he was in custody or the requesting state and how they once even tried to frame him for an attempted murder in Florida and were foiled by 5 alibi witnesses in the Everglades, 4 of whom were complete strangers.You are also given a copy of the report Client X filed with Amnesty International in Toronto only a few days before his Mississauga home was stormed and he was arrested. You vow to get a sworn declaration from Bonnie, Savannah, and Nancy Cameron, but you put that on the back burner as you are assured your Client X has zero chance of remaining in Canada. https://afewthoughtsfrombruce.wordpress.com/2014/07/29/american-citizens-are-tortured-on-american-soil-for-years-an-shameful-fact/

You probably figured out that that nothing you did or didn’t do would change the sealed fate of your Client X Bill, but you kept accepting monthly payments. When X instructed you to return the check received from Mikhail, the Russian mobster that the Canadian and American feds insisted was behind the death threats and the murder of Al Chalem, you ignored him and deposited the money into your account. Then you even called the godfather of Client X’s son to solicit more money without even telling X. Is this ethical in your judgment? Refer to the sworn statement of Charles Arnold in the Law Society complaint.

Then your client gives you some “great news”. He met with MP Paul Szabo who after seeing the Nelson video, believes there is foul play involved and offers to help. The MP wants to meet with you to review the files and offer some suggestions. Strangely you say you are “too busy” and refuse to meet with MP Szabo. Why?

Sensing the end was near you began getting desperate for more money and started contacting victims of American Financial Group trying to sell the confidential legal files/statements of Client X without his knowledge nor consent. Eventually Client X will learn the truth about this after he receives the below fax from Atty.Luis Konski in Florida, but by then he has already terminated your services.

Today while you enjoy the good life in Ontario, Client X is stuck exiled in China, separated from his wife and children for six years due to one of your most dirty tricks. And although it was a clever move to keep the two witnesses whose testimony could get you imprisoned and disbarred, both are willing to be deposed under oath and pass a polygraph test. So far the Law Society has covered for you, but eventually the truth will find its way to the surface. http://whyunclesamhatesbruce.blogspot.com

TO BE CONTINUED…

Part 2 – The Solicitor William Gilmour Lawyer Saga Continues In Brampton, Ontario. Ineffective Assistance Of Counsel? You decide.

Posted on September 1, 2015September 3, 2015 by nonfiction4all

Today was a very bad day for you Bill Gilmour. Someone reported you for punching your 10 year old son in a mall parking lot and the police have arrived. Even though you explain that you represent the Peel Police department, and you just got their Chief acquitted of a contempt charge and working to get their colleagues acquitted of police brutality charges, the crowd insists that you be arrested. After all your son is less than half your size and weight. In fact you are a giant guy of 6’2” and 260 pounds at the time and can barely fit in the police car after they put handcuffs on you and take you to the police station jail to be processed. Child services is called to interview your son. Yes, August 14^th, 2001 was a very bad day for Bill Gilmour who claims to be “the best connected criminal defense attorney in Toronto.”

But when you get to the station you ask to see a friend who gives you some advice and calms you down. You are just hoping this does not get to crime reporters at the Toronto Sun or you will lose half of your clients for sure. You will need a lawyer who the Brampton judges all know and like. You know them all yourself, but not all of them are your friends. You choose the right solicitor and he knows the schedule of the judges and knows how to shop for the right one.

Meanwhile client X is wondering where you are. You had an appointment with him and you did not show up. You decide not to tell anyone about your arrest unless they mention they heard about it first. Surely X will have no way to know – he is still in maximum security lockdown after just receiving news the American government issued an extradition warrant but no indictment or charging documents.

The police release you on your own recognizance and you immediately instruct your lawyer to work out a quick plea agreement to keep child services from filing more charges against you or opening an investigation. You are lucky to get seen by the right judge – a very good friend of your lawyer and you agree to get anger management counseling and surrender your firearms to the police if the adjudication is withheld and the court filed is sealed. The arrest record will still show up, but you figure nobody will ever know about it. You dodged a career-ending bullet. Now you won’t have to move to Windsor to start a new life after all. One day you will regret drinking too much and confessing all of the above along with your affair with a murder victim named Jeanette Kelly, and plans to cheat another client (Vic Richards) out of his patent worth over $20,000,000 to Client X. For now you are wondering how the FBI found out about your arrest and why they are calling you. (Note: Vic Richards owns Big Brute Motorcycles in Mississauga)

In January of 2001, you arrange for a meeting with the FBI to meet Client X because you claimed they agreed to “make a deal” that would guarantee the freedom and protection of Client X if the feds got the information about murder victim Al Chalem that they wanted. You agree to record the 2 days of meetngs, but when 4 agents show up at Metro West Detention Center instead of the two you were expecting, you are called outside of the meeting room and talk privately with one of the agents after Client X already signed a proffer agreement that you said you would also sign as a witness. But after your private discussion with the FBI guy, you realize that if you remain as a witness, you will no longer be allowed to legally represent X and your billing (income) would come to an end. Perhaps the FBI didn’t want you present anyway. You decide to leave and scratch your name off of the proffer agreement. Ethics be damned – money is more important to you. You left your client alone with the interrogators and even took your digital recorder with you!

You finally get around to visiting X and do not mention your “bad day at the office”. But by now you learned that X used Solicitor Marshal Drukarsh for the extradition bail hearings you promised the FBI you would be “unavailable” for. Madame Justice Garton is confused why Client X has a criminal attorney yet his Immigration lawyer is handling the bail hearings that set a record – 4 days of hearings. Luckily, Drukarsh was astute and identified 3 lies made by the Crown’s chief witness, a Toronto cop that finally admitted, all of his information was “second-hand” and originating from a single FBI agent who refused to come to Toronto and testify under oath. Client X was granted bail, yet he was still not released from maximum security custody. Days, and then weeks passed, and YOUR client X was still jailed. You told client X that his detention was an Immigration matter and you could do nothing.

But then you were informed by Client X that Immigration Canada Adjudicator William Willoughby decided that Client X was wrongly detained and issued him a “Voluntary Departure Order”. Yet days and weeks later he was still detained and demanding that you file a writ of habeas corpus. Tom Godfrey from the Toronto Sun and the New York Times called you to arrange an interview with Client X but you do nothing to arrange the interviews. Why? Client X was told to “voluntarily depart” Canada and Madame Justice Garton already granted bail weeks ago. Client X instructs you to file a writ of habeas corpus. Instead of following his instructions as the Code of Ethics and professional procedure dictates, you reply to X with this remark “There is no point in filing a habeas motion that no judge will agree to hear.” But yet you have the audacity to ask him for another payment.

Client X now senses there is something wrong with you and files his own hand-written pro-se habeas corpus and sends it to the clerk of Superior Court. Within ten days Client X is standing before Chief Justice Patrick LeSage. The duty counsel and X wife are present along with the court reporter and a handful of law students. Client X is allowed to tell his story and mention his whistle-blowing history as a U.S. government law enforcement official and employee of American Financial Group. The judge indulges X and even hears about the murders of Al Chalem, Pierre Gonyou, Cliff Baxter, and Scotty Galin. After one hour, the Judge has only three questions for the Crown…

Did this man make any false statements just now before me?
Do you have any charges pending in Canada or any indictment against this man?
Why is he being jailed at this time?

The first two questions were answered with two “No”s and the Crown’s reply to the last question was “I really don’t know.” Your client X offered to take a polygraph exam to the Chief Justice who replied “That won’t be necessary. I have read your motion and your exhibits and have no reason to disbelieve you. I will look into this situation tomorrow and I will continue this matter until next week. Hopefully we will not have to meet again.”

Within five days Client X, without any assistance from you Solicitor Gilmour was finally released from 10.5 months of illegal maximum security detention after suddenly getting an “Emergency Hearing” from Immigration Canada. At least Chief Justice Lesage is a man of integrity.

To Be Continued…

The above comments are solely those of the author and he speaks for no other third party. The above is factual information related to case no E-19-00 in the Superior Court of Ontario. All comments above are submitted in accordance with the freedom of speech provision of the Charter Rights without prejudice nor malice in the interests of true justice, legal reform, and public awareness. Details of these matters can be found in the actual complaint filed with the law society at http://bruceslawsocietycomplaint.wordpress.com. Like 95% of all law society complaints, this one was also dismissed, but not a single 1 of 19 eye and/or expert witnesses were ever contacted/interviewed by the Law Society and the victim was never provided the name of the investigator (if there really was one) nor a copy of any related report, nor instructions on how to appeal the decision to dismiss. The exhibits in the above complaint speak for themselves. The author attempted to file a police report against solicitor William Gilmour in 2008 but the Peel Police Department whom he represents refused to process it. Background on Client X can be found at http://whyunclesamhatesbruce.blogspot.com To see how the Law Society handled/mishandled the complaint against this solicitor you can visit this link below. There is no way of knowing how many other people have filed complaints against Mr. Gilmour because the Law Society simply won’t tell you. http://lawsocietyofuppercanada.wordpress.com

An Ugly Experience With Solicitor William Bill Gilmour of Brampton, Ontario – Part 1

Posted on August 30, 2015September 3, 2015 by nonfiction4all

Imagine you are a lawyer in Canada representing an American accused of stock fraud being sought for extradition. You assume the case must involve millions of dollars and that your client has his money secreted offshore or in bearer bonds with his only blood relative still alive – his wife. You learn that he has three homes and from lawyering for only 5 years you know that most extraditions are a rubber stamp affair. In your mind this guy will be locked away for 10-15 years and you have the opportunity to milk him financially in the interim, especially after you learn the Russian mob has already killed one of his business associates and your new client came to Canada with his Canadian wife and infant son to avoid death threats they were getting in America. Your client Mr. X is a former government agent and informant, just like his dead associate. You assume the Russian hit men will track him to Canada and you will not have to do much work on an actual case. His fate is sealed in your mind. It is only a matter of time before he is either killed – or extradited. Monetarily, a “win-win” situation for you.

The longer you keep him in Canada the longer you can bill him and use his business contacts. You learn that his bogus 10 month immigration hold in maximum security is just a ruse “requested” from the American feds designed to break your client’s will so he will voluntarily return to America and “cooperate” the same way his associate Alain Chalem cooperated – and was found with five bullets in his head less than two years ago. https://norealmystery.wordpress.com/2013/12/03/is-enron-links-the-only-reason-thebrutal-slaying-of-this-fbi-informant-remains-unsolved-after-15-years-you-decide/

When you discover that your client has no criminal charges filed against him in Canada nor America, and that his wife and son are both Canadian citizens and that he entered Canada legally under his own name and he is still being locked up. You know something is very wrong, especially when you learn from Marshal Drukarsh how your client was arrested – by a swat team and an American observer who told all the police – “Nobody touch or talk to him – only the immigration Canada guy”. Drukarsh then tells you that all of his immigration hearings that are supposed to be public have been secret closed door affairs where even his own wife and witnesses cannot attend. You even start to wonder if your new client is a terrorist?!?

If you are going to make money from this guy you have to move quickly because he may never breathe free air again or be “rendered” to another country out of your reach. You visit him after two months and tell him a few lies that you figure he could never disprove and one of them is that your non-existent private investigator just discovered that his wife may be having an affair with a Korean man, and you worry that they may flee to Korea because there is talk that your wife will soon be arrested to put pressure on you “to cooperate”. Your client is now alarmed and worried – just as you wanted him to be. You want to be his life-line, his only hope. So far, he is sucking up your BS and getting much more than worried. You smile.

You wait a few days and then send one of your young new intern lawyers to visit client X with a financial POA you want him to sign. It says that you will be authorized to handle and liquidate any and all of his assets including stocks, bonds, and bank accounts in his best interests. What you don’t know is that client x was just warned about hiring you from another lawyer who has told your client the truth about one of your lies. Client X politely declines to sign your financial POA. Your client who is isolated in maximum security lock-down for almost three months is now confused about you. What does this other lawyer know about you? Maybe it is what you deliberately did not tell your client about your RCMP history?

You decide to send in another, more experienced and veteran lawyer associate named Chris H. who previously employed as a cop, was able to talk people into doing things they did not want to do. Indeed Lawyer Chris did a great PR job on your behalf and tells your client how “connected” you are with the judges and RCMP and confirms that you used to work for the RCMP and you were definitely the right choice of lawyers. Once he has client X believing this he pulls out that financial POA and again client X is asked to sign it. But client X says he never discussed this agreement with you, and therefore again refuses to sign off.

Finally you decide to visit X and get what you want – access to his millions. At your visit you sense he is vulnerable and anxious. You seize this moment to go for the jugular. You tell him yet another lie but this one he will never be able to confirm from jail. You tell him that your private investigator confirmed his wife is in fact sleeping with that Korean guy and he was followed to a travel agency after leaving a hotel with your wife. Client X asks to see photographs. You tell him you will bring them on your next visit but right now, time is critical. You insist that he signs the Power of Attorney now because they could be gone in a day or two with his fortune. Just as you think he believes you and takes the pen you offer him to sign, he looks at you and asks a single question. “What is his name?”

You are caught off guard, and you delay too long with an answer you don’t have. After all if you really did hire a PI you would have a name for this Korean lover. He then asks you what kind of car the Korean guy drives. There is awkward silence, but then he helps you out a bit. “Is it Andy?” You breathe a sigh of relief and smirk inside as you just nod your head. You are great actor if nothing else. X seems crushed and tears fill his eyes. You are sure he will now sign your POA Instead he tells you that his wife does not know where he buried the paperwork. She may run off with Andy but not with his assets. Now you too are crushed, but not as much as you will be when X hires his own P.I. and learns the truth about you and you learn there never were any “millions” to begin with.

TO BE CONTINUED…

The above comments are solely those of the author and he speaks for no other third party. The above is factual information related to case no E-19-00 in the Superior Court of Ontario. All comments above are submitted in accordance with the freedom of speech provision of the Charter Rights without prejudice nor malice in the interests of true justice, legal reform, and public awareness. Details of these matters can be found in the actual complaint filed with the law society at http://bruceslawsocietycomplaint.wordpress.com. Like 95% of all law society complaints, this one was also dismissed, but not a single 1 of 19 eye and/or expert witnesses were ever contacted/interviewed by the Law Society and the victim was never provided the name of the investigator (if there really was one) nor a copy of any related report, nor instructions on how to appeal the decision to dismiss. The exhibits in the above complaint speak for themselves-including an 11 page sworn report from Private investigator Ed Reiken and an a letter from an investigative reporter. The author attempted to file a police report against solicitor William Gilmour in 2008 but the Peel Police Department whom he represents refused to process it. Background on Client X can be found at http://whyunclesamhatesbruce.blogspot.com