Term Life Insurance Blog: January 2006

Saturday, January 14, 2006

Fw: From Robert Neil Clark - identity victim - Section #1

Robert Neil Clark    -vs-    Equifax Canada and The Bank of Nova Scotia

#1 - Statement of Case - complete

#2 - Questions 10/90-01/94 - complete

#3 - Questions from 01/94 to 11/98 - complete

#4 - Questions from 09/00 to present - almost complete

#5 - 178 known Errors on 19 reports how many unknown errors on 30 more reports - complete

#6 - Financial Losses - complete

#7 - Case studies, public support documents, other supportive evidence, etc. - still gathering

#8 - Closing Arguments - still in rough draft. It will be complete A.S.A.P.



Case No. 01-CV-211325

Appeal Court File No. C42139

Court of Appeal for Ontario



1(a) This is an extraordinary case and difficult to condense into 30 pages, given the complexities of putting events in a chronological timeframe; (i) pinpointing when �credit report (�errors�)� first attached themselves to Robert Neil Clark�s (�RNC�) credit report; (ii) discovering that these errors existed in the first place (with much embarrassment and being, unknowingly, a victim of identity theft); (iii) informing or hearing from various banks, lending institutions, financial corporations, credit card issuers and credit reporting agency (�CRA�) of these errors; (iv) trying to get someone in authority at The Bank of Nova Scotia (�BNS�) and Equifax Canada Inc. (�EFX�) to acknowledge that the errors were due to their negligence; (v) engaging with the unprepared and inadequate legal counsel Enio Zeppieri (�ENIO�) and Zeppieri & Associates (�ZEP�); (vi) trying to get BNS and EFX to take full responsibility in make all necessary corrections to RNC�s credit report; (vii) removing all discriminating �red flags� that signal a �bad� credit risk to loan officers, etc.; (viii) getting BNS and EFX to offer their sincere apologies to RNC, his wife, Roxane Odette Brunet-Clark (�ROC�) (and their family, Erika, age 11, and Melissa, age 10), for the pain and suffering caused to them; (viv) getting BNS and EFX to offer their sincere apologies to all financial institutions displaying BNS�s and EFX�s false and discriminating credit report  information on RNC. (x) and finally, getting BNS and EFX to make restitution to RNC for the past 12 years that his life had been profoundly and severely affected by this case.  RNC pleaded for seven years to have the corrections completed before he was forced to the justice system.


To conclude 1(a), the credit report errors have repeated themselves over and over again. With many years of the faulty credit reporting a �beginning� date for these errors has not defined. No conclusive facts have been determined as to which of the Defendants initially created the errors. How did �some� of Robert James Clark�s (�RJC�) �bad� credit reporting get attached as errors to RNC�s credit reporting history (which happened �sometime� before RNC�s first printed record of investigation 12 years ago in Jan. 1994) (and the compounding of said errors in RNC�s credit reporting history). The errors have, unfortunately, invaded RNC�s past, present and future (with all the privacy issues implicated). It is necessary to bring to light the facts of BNS�s and EFX�s entire credit reporting history as it relates to BNS, EFX, RJC and RNC.


1(b) This case involves �identity theft�. The identity theft was created by BNS and/or EFX after their first investigations in 1994, if not earlier as discussed later in this factum, and unknown to RNC at this time, was EFX�s communication(s) with BNS. These two �trusted� financial corporations failed in their several investigations throughout the years to clear RNC from any of BNS�s or EFX�s errors (severally or combined) and in failing to do so, the errors compounded and impacted RNC�s life dramatically: (being denied loans for personal or business ventures, stealing RNC�s identity, invading RNC�s privacy, causing great personal embarrassment to RNC, ROC and family, causing financial hardship (i.e. loss of past, present and �potential� future income), and resulting loss of health and lifestyle over the lengthy passage of time. Including financial losses this created onto RNC�s former business partners.


1(c) This case is a trail of �evasive answers, untruths and cover-ups�. EFX did not admit to any of their past investigations. For almost five years, RNC asked EFX, �Who was making these errors?� EFX would not tell RNC anything. RNC accidentally found out �the truth� about BNS�s involvement in Nov. 1998 - a full 58 months after the first EFX investigation. RNC contacted BNS for the first time in Nov. 1998 thinking that the errors would finally be corrected - �once and for all�. BNS has not admitted to the poor way that they conducted the handling of the several delinquent loans of RJC, and over the past 12 years, they have applied numerous �bad� credit ratings to RNC�s credit reporting history and as a result, perpetuated and compounded the errors throughout the many years.


1(d) This case involves a �conspiracy� between BNS and EFX. EFX has not talked about or released or submitted any documentation as evidence with regards to the two investigations started by RNC�s first two complaints: 1994 SPECL 481AA488 CONSUMER INTERVIEW; and 1995 SPECL 481AA96 CONSUMER INTERVIEW, respectively. EFX is hiding �the truth� because they will not release the requested evidence. Is there not a law protecting the courts from corporations that attempt �to break or bend� the law to suit their own needs - �Contempt of Court�, perhaps? RNC�s credit report complaints follow the same timeline as RJC�s �bad� credit ratings and the soon-to-follow �bad� credit reporting history that will �most likely� be submitted as evidence by BNS. Throughout the discoveries, BNS accused EFX �for taking the �bad� credit reporting history information from BNS� and �for recording the �bad� credit ratings on RNC�s credit report�. Throughout these discoveries, EFX accused BNS of �feeding the �bad� credit reporting to EFX� and �the errors would be all BNS�s responsibility�. RNC�s credit reporting history had more errors in it than RJC had BNS �bad� credit ratings due to compounding �bad� credit errors. EFX put their own �bad� credit rating on RNC�s credit report in a worse reporting spot than BNS did - so that �red flags� automatically went up each and every time that RNC�s credit reporting history was pulled (i.e. when RNC applied for a loan or a credit card). EFX applied a fee of $106.73 as a �bad� debt from collections to RNC�s credit report in the Public Records section in Aug. 1996, and in Nov. 24, 1998 and in Nov. 13, 2000 (and who knows on what other credit reports between these dates without the missing requested credit reports as evidence to prove otherwise). These debts belonged to RJC and not RNC. EFX made credit reporting errors even after contact with the rightful owner of the �bad� debts, RJC (there was a second display of a �bad� debt for $135.00 for Gravenhurst Cable on the same day as EFX�s inaccurate recording of the $106.73 debt belonging to RJC that EFX placed on RNC�s credit report). This led RNC to believe that EFX knew a lot more then they were willing to share. EFX must have more records on the [R9�s] in their possession from the various collection agencies and Public Records involved. After all, credit rating agencies are supposed to be accurate �reporting authorities� and meticulous �record keepers� so that financial corporations may rely on them whenever they need to access people�s credit reporting histories. Each time a person�s credit reporting history is checked by a bank, financial institution, credit card company, a new �item� is added. This has severely affected RNC�s life and his ability to earn a living. RNC simply cannot apply for a business or personal loan without retelling his entire credit reporting history and explaining about all the errors that appear on it.


1(e) There seems to be �collusion� between the defendants, BNS and EFX. Both have hidden the facts of their many mistakes in making and displaying the errors. They belittled RNC�s claims: (i) that they make the necessary corrections to all the errors that they�ve created; (ii) that RNC�s credit reporting history be �sponged clean� with no �red flags� popping up; and (iii) that they make compensation to RNC for pain and suffering and for loss of income, time and costs spent in bringing this case to court. They blamed RNC for bringing this claim to court when RNC was simply looking for �the truth� and was forced to get justice to seek �the truth�. BNS and EFX even blamed RNC for having �common� first and last name - going so far as to suggest twice, that RNC change his name! BNS and EFX blamed RNC for past and present personal finances. And when none of that worked, BNS and EFX blamed each other instead themselves - for all the years their mistakes kept the errors re-occurring on RNC�s credit reporting history. When RNC took this case to Enio Zeppieri (�ENIO�) in Jan. 2001, RNC decided that it would be �best to take both Defendants through the same court because it would be the only way to get BNS and EFX to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth�. BNS and EFX should have been very upset with each other from �day one� of the re-occurring and compounding errors. RNC expected to win his case. RNC won! However, RNC was not awarded costs from the two Defendants. RNC was unable to clearly tell about the disruption to his life that both BNS and EFX caused by their faulty credit reporting on RNC�s credit reporting history. This was not allowed to happen as the Defendants� lawyers walked into court �arm-in-arm�. The Honourable Justice Day (�Learned Judge�) asked, �if the Defendants were adversarial?� but the Defendants replied, �that they were not�. RNC was completely shocked at this turn of events. RNC expected a whole lot different. RNC expected to see the Defendants� lawyers engage in the �professional mudslinging� as had been displayed during the discoveries (blaming each other for the errors). There was collusion, no doubt!




2(a) There is much evidence that has not been submitted, incorrectly submitted and/or purposely omitted by the Defendants and their lawyers. The lawyers for the defence were Martin Sclisizzi for BNS and Stephen Schwartz for EFX. ENIO (and ZEP) was the former lawyer (and law office) for the Plaintiff. RNC questions the validity of verdict regarding the decision and costs that were rendered, as there were so many errors, untruths and omissions. It seemed that Learned Judge did not know who or what EFX was, nor what an important role EFX plays in people�s financial lives, in most business ventures and in the granting of credit in the lending industry. Even after an explanation about EFX by the Defendants� lawyers, Learned Judge was left with a �puzzled look on his face�. This puzzled look grew more common as the trial moved forward (while Learned Judge became completely confused and blindsided by the Defendants� misleading positions, the lack of evidence submitted supporting �the truths� of BNS�s and EFX credit reporting accuracies and their �twists and turns� away from their explanations, followed by their attacks on the Plaintiff�s lifestyle.


2(b) Several times throughout the five-day trial, Learned Judge stated that he was "suffering from a senior's moment". This made RNC and ROC quite nervous, as RNC now had absolutely no confidence left in the court�s ability to listen to, and comprehend, all the facts and be able to see through the Defendants� evasive tactics. RNC was shocked on how the evidence was �loosely� presented and/or �omitted� from questioning in court by all the parties� lawyers. Learned Judge had no chance to complete a fair investigation that would accurately portray a full grasp of the discrimination and defamation of character created by the errors on RNC�s credit report. Learned Judge would not be able to determine �how and when� the errors kept repeating their existence on RNC�s credit report; why they were not being corrected (from the multiple faulty investigations) throughout the lengthy segmented timeline. RNC was not allowed to state his case fully. RNC thought justice would eventually prevail �seeing through Defensive fog�.


2(c) Learned Judge failed to see through the defendant�s �smoke screen� of lies, evasions, collusion, conspiracy and cover-up that hid �the truth� of EFX�s 1994 and 1995 �so-called� investigations and their failure to correct all the errors accordingly, and with their communications with a Royal Bank of Canada (�RBC�) employee. A third episode began with EFX�s 1996 investigation and correction �failure�, and with their communication with a Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce (�CIBC�) employee. A fourth episode started in 1998 with the discovery of more errors by a Canada Trust (�CT�) employee. RNC begged this CT employee to see the computer screen, which displayed the sources of the errors because neither EFX, RBC nor CIBC would give RNC any information about the errors. In the office of CT, RNC communicated with EFX about the ongoing errors and EFX promised RNC that they would fix the errors immediately. RNC told EFX that BNS was the now known suspect of creating the errors and the major source of RNC�s credit reporting history errors. On Jan. 12, 1999, EFX communicated with BNS and investigated RNC�s claim of errors but apparently they were faulty in their investigation(s) and they disagreed with RNC�s plea of innocence, once again. How could RNC protect himself without EFX�s corrections and without their acknowledgement that there were errors to be corrected and that they were the displayer of these errors? This also includes the credit reporting error EFX made themselves on RNC�s Public Records.


2(d) RNC hoped to believe that the Defendants' years of conspiracy had not �conscripted the Learned Judge in this litigation in any way� because this verdict was based on inaccurate and incomplete testimonies by BNS and EFX. And, if it did not, then RNC would have to allude to the fact that Learned Judge was incompetent with his �senior moments� and his total lack of understanding of what had transpired during the past 10 years of RNC�s credit reporting history and the repeated identity theft of RNC�s identity and defamation of character that RNC had suffered at the hands of BNS and EFX. RNC waited three years for a trial (Dec. 2000 - Dec. 2003); then six months for a verdict (Jun. 2003); then three months to have a meeting on costs (Oct. 2003 - which RNC was not allowed to attend); and another six plus months for the verdict on the aforementioned costs (Apr. 2004). Learned Judge belittled this whole situation and referred to everything as just "an error and lack of duty to correct the error" instead of deciding that there were other issues to consider such as �multiple compounding errors, invasion of privacy, defamation of character, discrimination, untruths, conspiracy, cover-ups and collusion by both BNS and EFX. Learned Judge had no idea how important this case would become (i.e. Bill No. 38 - An Act to amend the Consumer Reporting Act) and how it can now be used as precedent for many cases involving �common� ordinary consumers with similar credit reporting errors. Learned Judge seemingly belittled the seriousness of RNC�s case as a punishment for RNC taking this matter to court and �wasting� the court�s time. RNC questions the cost decision as delivered by Learned Judge. RNC won his case, a case for which RNC spent 12 years of his life endeavouring to get his credit reporting history corrected but there are still errors showing up on his credit report to this day.  RNC is a victim and has sought relief in the court and in turning to the justice system. RNC could not accept any settlement less then half of the known legal costs, so far!


2(e)(i) RNC has made several claims against RNC�s ex-counsel (and law office), ENIO (and ZEP). RNC felt totally betrayed and completely let down by the efforts and/or lack of efforts of RNC�s legal team of representatives. RNC felt that ENIO and ZEP did not treat RNC, ROC, the case, the legal system or Learned Judge with the respect deserved. RNC felt that he had been so badly misrepresented and mistreated by ENIO and ZEP that it has distorted the whole case and this has been unfair to RNC to properly piece together all the timelines and evidence in order to display the multiple compounding errors (and to show defamation of character, discrimination, untruths, conspiracy, cover-up and collusion) and also the withholding of investigations and evidence from the court, etc. RNC faced many roadblocks throughout the 12+ years, now RNC is including, ENIO and ZEP for doing very little investigations of the facts in order to gain any supportive evidence that would have been needed or available to them. ENIO did not pay attention to most of the facts of evidence that were discovered. Therefore, BNS and EFX escaped paying for their mistakes and their committing identity theft. In addition, Learned Judge was not fully apprised of the entire case history nor did he seem to know how it had affected and impacted RNC�s life and the lives ROC and their family. ENIO and ZEP did more harm then good to RNC.


2(e)(ii) ENIO lied to RNC from the first meeting. [Lie #1] ENIO said, "I will take on your case - pro-bono - but, I would need a few thousand dollars to pay for disbursements, so that they do not come directly out of my pocket!" RNC thought that sounded fair and as it was all that RNC could afford to pay, RNC paid ENIO and ZEP $5,998.92 from May 23, 2001 to Jun. 7, 2002 (for any costs that might already be incurred). [Lie #2] ENIO told RNC that he �would take on this case personally because of the depth and scope of the case - and to keep the costs down�. [Lie #3] ENIO agreed to file the claim immediately. ENIO then stalled, filing the claim until five months later. To quote ENIO, �I am waiting for the results of another court case�. As it turned out, ENIO completed RNC�s claim on May 23, 2001 which happened to coincide with the first payment asked by and given to ENIO and ZEP by RNC. ENIO was only waiting for RNC�s money and not �for the other claim� as ENIO had kept telling RNC. [Lie #4] ENIO told RNC that RNC �could not have a jury in a civil case�. RNC found out that civil cases could have a jury in special circumstances. RNC believed that this case was one of those special circumstances from the start of the re-occurring erroneous credit reporting history (which involved many details and a lengthy timeline regarding the Defendants� involvement). RNC was being told �lie after lie� by ENIO from the very beginning. [Lies #5, Fraud and Theft] By Mar. 2002, EFX would not release RNC�s credit report for display for The Toronto Dominion Bank (�TD�) nor would they give a copy to RNC (as per a letter received from Adrianna Moukas of EFX). Because RNC could not get his credit report, RNC pleaded for help from ENIO, but it took ENIO almost five more months before ENIO set up RNC�s and ROC�s second mortgage. RNC supplied a list of creditors and ENIO agreed to pay off the $24,000.00 outstanding that RNC had in debts - that would leave ENIO $2,000.00 to go towards his costs. On Aug. 12, 2002, ENIO fraudulently �misdirected, misappropriated and stole� (�theft�) all of the $26,000.00 from the 2nd mortgage monies that were directed to go to RNC�s other creditors, and gave RNC and ROC nothing to use to pay their debts as planned. Both RNC and ROC argued for a week with Theresa Morris and Rose Serino (ZEP) and finally with ENIO about the theft of the funds. ENIO decided to return only $5,000.00 to RNC, and stated to RNC "take this money and pay off your creditors". At this point in time, RNC was forced to accept anything that was offered in order to satisfy his outstanding debts (even though this amount of money was only approximately 20% of the outstanding debts that had been agreed upon and would be paid off). RNC felt financially like �a hostage� with that first $6,000.00 paid to ENIO. RNC could not afford another $21,000.00 on top of that, so RNC decided to �bite his tongue�, stayed quiet about the theft of the funds and kept ENIO on the case as his legal counsel (as he could not afford to retain another legal counsel) even though RNC�s faith in ENIO was completely gone. RNC did not trust ENIO at all. ENIO never called any of the witnesses from BNS or EFX that RNC thought would be crucial to this case and/or to the timeline of errors (i.e., RJC, Cheryl Clark, the branch manager who signed on Oct. 18, 1993, W.M. Hovey and many more witnesses�) ENIO made very little attempt, if any, at making requests or subpoenas for retaining crucial evidence and/or supporting evidence from the Defendants and/or from any necessary witnesses to complete the timeline and to gather all �the truth� about BNS�s and EFX�s repetitive �identity theft� of RNC. RNC investigated and gathered most of the evidence on his own. RNC had to request several times for all records of RNC�s financial history from The Royal Bank of Canada (�RBC�) and the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce (�CIBC�). Each time, having to explain RNC�s entire credit reporting history and errors and the reasons that RNC needed the information as evidence in an attempt to correct the errors. Both banks (as indicated above) repeatedly ignored RNC�s many requests. RNC told ENIO several times about the lack of co-operation by the banks but ENIO did nothing to obtain their records to use on behalf of his client, RNC. RNC never received anything (to this day) because the banks did not want to get involved (anymore than they already were). [Lie #6] On Jul. 30, 2004, RNC and ROC received a consent form and claim against RNC and ROC. RNC telephoned ZEP immediately and demanded to speak to ENIO to question why there was a claim against RNC and ROC. ENIO would not speak to RNC or ROC. Rose Serino (ZEP) only wanted to schedule a meeting for any communication with ENIO. RNC and ROC did not want to go to any more costly meetings and to listen to any more of ENIO�s lies, so RNC and ROC argued with Rose Serino on several occasions (ongoing for about two weeks) before RNC and ROC finally �caved in� and scheduled a meeting with ENIO. On Aug. 22, 2004, RNC and ROC had that meeting with ENIO. ENIO �conned/tricked� RNC and ROC into signing the consent form for a judgment. ENIO told RNC and ROC that ENIO would hand in this judgment and consent form to Learned Judge on Oct. 14, 2004 at a scheduled meeting to be held on costs. ENIO also told RNC and ROC that �ROC should sign the documents so that just in case something happened to RNC, ROC would still be entitled to any costs awarded by Learned Judge�. ENIO told RNC and ROC that this was his �plan� to show Learned Judge that if RNC did not win anything for legal costs, then ENIO would file a $40,631.00 claim against RNC. ROC only attended the meetings with her husband, RNC, because RNC could not trust ENIO or ZEP due to his past dealings with ENIO and ZEP. [Lies #7, Fraud] The next day, Aug. 23, 2004, ENIO (or a ZEP associate), filed the $40,631.00 claim and a consent for judgment. This was done without RNC�s knowledge - and this was not according to the �plan� as had been stated previously to RNC and ROC at the meeting with ENIO the day before. RNC and ROC did not know that ENIO would keep on lying to RNC and ROC, even after they caught ENIO lying and the theft of their 2nd mortgage funds and RNC�s and ROC�s creditors monies. Throughout the period RNC retained ENIO and ZEP, RNC made sure that ENIO (done usually through conversations with Rose Serino (ZEP)) was quite aware of how unhappy RNC was with ENIO and ZEP � especially since the �Pearl Rombis (ZEP) discoveries disaster� - and subsequently, by the theft of RNC�s and ROC�s 2nd mortgage funds.


2(e)(iii)(a) After being passed �back and forth�, RNC insisted that Pearl Rombis (ZEP) take all the documents regarding RNC�s loss of business and the loss of a new business venture with RNC�s business partners. These documents contained evidence of these two businesses: �RnR-Online.com� and �ProlineSportsbook.com�, the activities of both businesses, the documents from the new business and the financial records of the original business RnR-Online.com (showing the previous two years of earnings for 1999 and 2000, the past three years of losses and the projected potential losses of the business and RNC�s personal income for those years and still counting). (b) RNC could not figure out why it was such a challenge to submit any documents to ENIO and/or ZEP. A few weeks later, RNC received the same bundle of documents back with a yellow sticky note asking, [FIC]�is this relevent?� RNC was confused by ENIO and ZEP and RNC felt like ENIO and ZEP did not care about anything that RNC had to say with regards to his financial history. RNC always left the office of ZEP extremely upset and frustrated about the lack of concern for �any of RNC�s facts�. (c) RNC claims that Pearl Rombis (ZEP) made several crucial mistakes during her sudden unprepared appearance (replacing ENIO?) on behalf of RNC�s litigation on Mar. 15, 2002. Pearl Rombis (ZEP) was suddenly fired/let go by ENIO, shortly after making these mistakes, �suspectedly� for her behaviour and for her poor conduct during the discoveries held on Jun. 3, 4 and 10, 2002. Pearl Rombis (ZEP) was gone without notice given to RNC (sometime after Jul. 2, 2002). Pearl Rombis (ZEP) asked very few questions from RNC�s list of questions to ask at the discoveries. (d) Pearl Rombis (ZEP) allowed Martin Sclisizzi (BNS) and Stephen Schwartz (EFX) to trick RNC and thereby gained six extra days to prepare (before the originally non-scheduled Day 3 of the discoveries). Pearl Rombis (ZEP) allowed Martin Sclisizzi (BNS) to restart with more questions on Day 3 of Discovery (Martin Sclisizzi (BNS) said, �Mrs. Rombis did not officially close my end of the discovery�). Even though, at 4:25 p.m., Martin Sclisizzi (BNS) claimed that he would be finished by 5 p.m. on Day 2 of Discoveries and that Stephen Schwartz (EFX) would start Day 3 of Discoveries. Martin Sclisizzi (BNS) finished at 5:10 p.m., and therefore, Martin Sclisizzi (BNS) should have been done - and Pearl Rombis (ZEP) should have ended Martin Sclisizzi�s (BNS) discovery right then as RNC thought he was done. (e) It seemed that now Pearl Rombis (ZEP) had become the brunt of (ZEP)�s jokes and comments. RNC did not expect to see and hear that sort of behaviour from RNC�s counsel (ZEP) or, in fact, from any legal associate or law office staff member.


2(e)(iv) Avril Hasselfeild (ZEP) took over the case from Pearl Rombis (ZEP) on or just before Dec. 2, 2002. RNC never was given a choice of legal representation from (ZEP), it was always ENIO�s decision who he appointed, besides himself, to take over this case. Avril Hasselfeild was let go from RNC�s case seven months later (about Jun. 2, 2003) (shortly before the pre-trial on Oct. 17, 2003). This was the second (ZEP) lawyer to have taken over RNC�s case, when originally ENIO had stated that, �he would look after the case himself to keep costs to a minimum� (another of ENIO�s many lies to RNC).


2(e)(v) On Oct. 17, 2003, the day of pre-trial, RNC was introduced to a third lawyer, Lora Olsthoorn (ZEP). RNC was told that Lora Olsthoorn (ZEP)  would be taking over from Avril Hasselfeild (ZEP) and would be attending to RNC�s case throughout the court proceedings. RNC and ROC only had two or three meetings with Lora Olsthoorn (ZEP) leading up to the trial (that was to be held during the week of Dec. 15 to 19, 2003). In the morning of the first day of trial, Lora Olsthoorn (ZEP) telephoned RNC and stated that she �was sick� and that she �would not be able to attend the trial today�. Lora Olsthoorn (ZEP) also stated that she �would be at court to continue on Tuesday�. Lora Olsthoorn (ZEP) never showed up on that Tuesday, or any of the days of trial, and RNC has not seen or heard from Lora Olsthoorn (ZEP) since (another lie of the many told to RNC by ENIO, ZEP and Lora Olsthoorn (ZEP)).


2(e)(vi) On Dec. 15, 2003, upon arrival at the courthouse for the first day of trial, RNC was introduced to Gregory Gryguc (ZEP), the fourth ZEP lawyer to represent RNC. RNC was told by ENIO that �Gregory Gryguc (ZEP) would be filling in for the day for the sickened Lora Olsthoorn�. (ZEP) RNC had only ever seen Gregory Gryguc (ZEP) once - very briefly - in ENIO's office (way back at the very first meeting in Jan. 2001). RNC had no desire to have an �unprepared� lawyer represent RNC and once again RNC was extremely let down, lied to and very disappointed in ENIO and ZEP for the �juggling of lawyers� throughout RNC�s case. RNC was never given a fair chance to have proper legal counsel or to be represented entirely and consistently by ENIO (and RNC never got to discuss the case history in its entirety with just one lawyer). This confusion ultimately destroyed RNC�s faith in obtaining the justice he was seeking. RNC had wished that he never retained ENIO and ZEP and regrets not taking losses and firing ZEP earlier.


2(e)(vii) RNC adds Rose Serino (ZEP) to the case, for her participation, for her improper conduct towards a client RNC (and ROC), for her many lies and evasions and for her not wanting to reveal the submitted legal costs to RNC (also, for her playing �stupid� when ZEP received the cost decision) and for her constant �deflections� of communications urgently needed by RNC and/or ROC during crucial periods of time. These conversations usually ended up with requests to speak to ENIO immediately but RNC was usually told that ENIO �would call RNC back�. ENIO usually never did. Rose Serino (ZEP) has told this particular untruth many times. RNC told Rose Serino (ZEP) to stop lying to RNC when she said that ENIO would call RNC back. Rose Serino (ZEP) was caught lying several times, therefore, Rose Serino (ZEP) demonstrates herself to be totally untrustworthy and very unprofessional.


2(e)(viii) Lastly, RNC adds Theresa ? (ZEP) to the case for conspiring with ENIO�s in the theft of RNC�s $26,000.00 (second mortgage money / funds to pay off debts). The �plan� which was written, submitted and agreed upon by ENIO and RNC was that $24,000.00 would go to pay off RNC�s outstanding debts and that $2,000.00 would go to ZEP to pay for costs. On Aug. 12, 2002, ENIO decided to take all of the $26,000.00 and gave RNC nothing for RNC�s outstanding debts. Both RNC and ROC argued for a week with Theresa ? (ZEP), Rose Serino (ZEP) and, finally, with ENIO about the theft of the 2nd mortgage funds. RNC told Rose Serino (ZEP) that RNC considered this to be �downright theft� and that ENIO was going against his words of �taking this case on a pro bono basis� and �only needing a few thousand dollars for disbursements/costs� as stated in RNC�s first meeting with ENIO. RNC had no way to fire ENIO and ZEP without losing the entire $27,000.00 paid to ENIO and ZEP and the $26,000.00 second mortgage balance for a total of $53,000.00. RNC could not afford another lawyer. It seemed that RNC had to take whatever ENIO dished out next. Theresa ? (ZEP) knew the theft of funds was wrong and that it was not the agreed upon �plan of the financing of the second mortgage�, therefore, Theresa ? (ZEP) also acted very unprofessionally under the dictatorship of ENIO.


2(f) The key to this Factum lies in the many unanswered questions regarding the entire credit reporting history of RNC and RJC and others with credit reporting errors. RNC has many unanswered questions that should have been answered by the Defendants� documentation from their �so-called� investigations. The questions come mostly from the submitted evidence but most of the questions were omitted or never asked by RNC�s former lawyer ENIO. RNC has since discovered more questions while examining both ends of the �ever-growing timeline�. All of the questions need answers to fully complete the �timeline of credit reporting history� of the errors that have repeatedly travelled on and off RNC�s credit report. The answers will allow Learned Judge comprehend the whole story as it relates to corresponding submitted evidence, verbal (�hear-say�) evidence, non-retained evidence and/or non-submitted evidence. With this investigation, Learned Judge should have been able to see through the Defendants� �smoke screen� of untruths, evasive answers, excuses and no comments on the past investigations: (1) 1994 with EFX and RBC; (2) 1995 with EFX and RBC; (3) 1996 with EFX and CIBC; (4) 1998 with BNS, EFX, CT and CIBC; and finally, (5) in 2000 with the BNS, EFX, the BNS Ombudsman William Bailey, CIBC and Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations (�MCCR�). A thorough investigation is needed to fully understand the details of RNC�s past credit reporting history problems. An examination of every date listed below is needed to be able to discover: (1) When exactly did these �bad� credit ratings first attach themselves to RNC�s credit report? (2) How many different �bad� credit ratings were attached to RNC�s credit report? (3) How many times did each �bad� credit rating appear on RNC�s credit report? (4) Why did the �bad� credit ratings re-appear after their �so-called� correction? (5) Why has obtaining the evidence to seek �the truth� from BNS, EFX, RBC and CIBC been so difficult? RNC claims, �it�s a conspiracy to hide �the truth� of their conduct, severely and jointly�. A �conspiracy� followed by �collusion� among the Defendants to not tell the entire story behind BNS�s and EFX�s involvement since the first �bad� credit rating created by RJC and that somehow attached itself to RNC�s credit report. The evidence dates RJC�s payment delinquencies to RJC�s original BNS loan opened in Jan. 1991. RJC�s BNS loan payments became delinquent and were eventually abandoned, until RJC�s BNS loan was transferred to another BNS branch and re-opened in Feb. 1993. Atleast since then, some of RJC�s �bad� credit ratings seemed to �disappear and re-appear� on RNC�s credit report. RNC claims that his credit report has been affected by RJC�s �bad� credit ratings many times, even before RNC�s first complaint with EFX. RNC was told that he had �bad� credit once or twice before but RNC never complained until Jan. 1994 when a RBC loan officer said to RNC, �you should correct this problem before it comes back to haunt you�. Therefore, RNC tried to fix the errors with his first complaint to EFX about the errors on RNC�s credit report. Now, more then 12 years later RNC is still trying to rectify this problem and clear RNC�s name from all past errors displayed to all financial lending industry involved in this case in any way. RNC�s begs the court�s indulgence and asks the Court of Appeals for Ontario for its help in protecting and preventing RNC and family from anymore of BNS�s and EFX�s harmful errors, mistakes, lies, evasions, collusion, conspiracy and cover-up of all the facts.


[Note:  This Factum will next show dates and facts and be followed by questions for the Defendants, etc.] � [SECTION #2]