Saturday, August 27, 2005

 

764 CHAVALI LEAVE TO APPEAL TO THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA TALK

HAROLD C FUNK THE VOICE OF THE VOICELESS AUGUST 29 TO SEPT 1,2005

205 GLADSTONE AVE APT 46 OUT ON MONDAY-FRIDAY TEL (613) 235-0617

OTTAWA. http://thevoiceless.blogspot.com FAX (613) 235-5573

ONTARIO K2P OY5 http://www.thebeatonthestreet.ottawa.on.ca

DEAR HEAD OF NATION http://poliblog.blogspot.com

CHAVALI LEAVE TO APPEAL TO THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA TALK:

SEE: http://politheft.poliblog.com LETTER 740:1-19 THE CORRUPTION OF THE JUDICIAL SYSTEM OF CANADA IS BEST EXEMPLIFIED BY THE CHAVALI CASE.

ARTHUR AULT A LAWYER WITH GOWLINGS IN OTTAWA CONSPIRED WITH KENNY NG AND FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS ETC TO STEAL 34 PROPERTIES WORTH 57 MILLION OWNED BY THE CHAVALIES IN 1989. GOWLINGS DO GOVERNMENT OF CANADA WORK. ARTHUR AULT WAS DISBARRED BY THE LAW SOCIETY OF UPPER CANADA AND WENT TO JAIL BUT NOT FOR THIS THEFT: KENNY NG A CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT IN ANOTHER CASE HAD HIS LICENCE REVOKED FOR THEFT. THE VERY BASIS OF LAW IN CANADA IS THAT AN AGGRIEVED PLAINTIFF HAS THE RIGHT TO A TRIAL BEFORE AN UNBIASED JUDGE WITHIN A REASONABLE TIME. THE CHAVALIES HAVE NOT BEEN ALLOWED A FAIR TRIAL FOR 16 YEARS AND DEFENDANT JUDGES, THE LAW SOCIETY OF UPPER CANADA & LAWYERS & THE ONTARIO MINISTER OF JUSTICE ETC CONSPIRED TO STOP ALL TRIALS INCLUDING USING SECTION 140 OF THE COURTS OF JUSTICE ACT TO SAY THE CHAVALIS CLAIMS WERE FRIVOLOUS AND VEXATIOUS TO THEM. AFTER NO TRIAL FOR 16 YEARS THE CHAVALIES HAVE ASKED THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL AND TO HEAR THE CASE AND MAKE A JUDGEMENT THAT ALL COURTS HAVE REFUSED TO DO FOR 16 YEARS. UNDER SECTION 2B, 15(1), 24(1), 36(1)(A) OF THE CONSTITUTION OF CANADA THE CHAVALIES HAVE A RIGHT TO A FAIR TRIAL AND TO PURSUE THEIR LIVELIHOODS TAKEN BY UNLAWFUL SEARCH AND SEIZURE AND HAVE FILED A CONSTITUTIONAL CLAIM FOR A FAIR TRIAL. BASED ON THIS CASE CANADA HAS ONE OF THE WORST GOVERNMENT CONTROLLED CORRUPT JUDICIAL SYSTEMS IN THE WORLD AND THE ONTARIO RULES OF PRACTICE ARE RULES FOR THE RICH-THE POOR ARE FORGOTTEN. THE INTENT OF THE FEDERAL AND PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENTS AND LAW SOCIETY AND JUDGES ETC WAS TO TAKE ALL THE ASSETS OF MR & MRS CHAVALI AND THEIR LIVELIHOODS SO THEY COULD NOT HIRE LAWYERS. I HAVE HELPED THE CHAVALIES AGAINST THESE CROOKS FOR 5 YEARS AND I NOW AWAIT THE JUDGEMENT OF THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA BASED ON THE FACTS AND LAW BEFORE THEM WHICH ALL LOWER COURTS HAVE FAILED TO MAKE BY FOLLOWING THE BOOK OF JUDGES: THREE DIFFERENT VERSIONS. I SHALL EXPECT THE WHOLE CORRUPT JUDICIAL SYSTEM OF CANADA TO BE CHANGED SO THAT THERE IS EQUAL JUSTICE FOR ALL INCLUDING THE POOR IN EVERY COURT. NOW ONLY THE HYPER RICH CAN GET TO THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA. EVERYONE UNDER THE CONSTITUTION HAS THE RIGHT TO A TRIAL WITHIN A REASONABLE TIME BUT THE RULES OF THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA REQUIRE A LITIGANT TO OBTAIN LEAVE TO APPEAL BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA WILL HEAR THE CASE.

SEE: http://thevoiceless.poliblog.com LETTER NO: 764 10 PAGES+- FOR THE CHAVALI APPLICATION TO THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA ETC. I WILL PUBLISH THIS CASE UNTIL THE CHAVALIES GET JUSTICE AND NOT CROOKED JUSTICE.

I SHALL EXPECT THE ELIMINATION OF:

(1) ALL APPEAL COURTS EXCEPT ONE

(2) ALL ORDERS FOR COSTS

(3) HOURLY RATES FOR LAWYERS

(4) FILING FEE COSTS

(5) ALL MOTIONS

(6) ALL DISCOVERIES

(7) NO WITNESSES TO PROVIDE STATEMENTS BEFORE TRIAL OF THEIR EVIDENCE

(8) BOTH SIDES PAID 10% OR LESS EACH FROM JUDGEMENT

(9) NO ACCESS TO JUDGES BY ANY FORM OF COMMUNICATION

(10) ALL TRIALS BY JURY UNDER A CERTAIN AMOUNT

(11) JURERS ABOVE 7

(12) LEAVE TO APPEAL-FIRST COME FIRST \SERVED

(13) ALL PRESENT RULES OF COURT

(14) GOVERNMENT LAWYERS.

NO BRIBES TO JUDGES ETC.

PEACE

HAROLD C FUNK TO:192 HEADS OF NATIONS. LETTER NO:764 E-MAIL ON

NELLIGAN OBRIEN PAYNE
lAWYERS/PATENT AND TRADEMARK AGENT,ADVOCATS/AGENTS DE BREVETS ER DE MARQUES DE COMMERCE TREVOR MCDONALD, TEL:(613)231-8258, FAX:(613)788-3697
IREVOR.RNCDONALD@NELLIGAN.CA

Attention: Mr. Justice Nordheimer Ontario Superior Court of Justice 393 University Avenue, 10th floor Toronto, ON M5G IE6

Your Honour:

Re: Chavali 02-CV-240436CM2 Our File No. 1500-600, 3298-301

This application is scheduled to be heard on August,.-.29, 2005.

Please find attached copies of a Motion Record'.aud'Factum that wcre;served and filed January 2004. It is not our intention to argue this motion onAugrist 29;2,005. However, it may be discussed and accordingly we provide these copies for your easy reference

Yours truly,

Trevor McDonald cc. the applicants
Ottawa 66 slater
Suite 1900, Ottawu. ON KIP SHI. Tel/Tel: (613) 238-8080, fax (613) 238-2099tdd/ats (613)563 4960 kingston: the woolen mill, 4 cataraqui , suite 202 kingston, ont k7k 17.7 tel (613) 531 7905, fax (613) 531 0857 vankleek hill 86 rue wigh street,p.o. box/c.p. 190,vankleek hill. on koh1 R,0 tel(613)679 2490, Fax/TEl(613)678 3762 ALEXANDRIA: 139 Main South/sud alexandria on koc 1ao Tel/Tel:)613) 525 2396 fax /tel (613) 525 2752

02-CV-240436 CM2

BETWEEN:

REDDY RAJAGOPAL CHAVALI, REDDY KRISHNAVENI CHAVALI, REDDY VENKATA SUBBARIMI CHAVALI, SADANA CORPORATION LTD, VAHINl HOLDINGS LTD.,

- MERU HOLDINGS LTD., 715048 ONTARIO LTD., 715040 ONTARIO LTD., KSHAMA CORPORATION, LYON LAURIER DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION,

NIKOLAUS WOLF and LYON LAURIER PLACE DEVELOPMENT LTD.

ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

-and­

Applicants (Respond

THE LAW SOCIETY OF UPPER CANADA, LAWYERS' PROFESSIONAL INDEMNITY COMPANY, NELLIGAN/POWER, GEORGE GATY; ROYAL TRUST CORPORATION OF CANADA, PEAT MARWICK THORNE INC,, SAMUEL TALBERT and COLETTE TALBERT

Respondents (Moving Parties)
CASE MANAGEMENT MOTION RECORD
OF THE RESPONDENTS (MOVING PARTIES)
THE LAW SOCIETY OF UPPER CANADA,
LAWYERS PROFESSIONAL INDEMNITY COMPANY
NELLIGAN /POWER AND

ROYAL TRUST CORPORATION OF CANADA

Nelligan O'Brien Payne LLP Barristers & Solicitors 1900-66 Slater Street

Ottawa, ON KlP 5H1 Allan R. O'Brien. LSUC #: 015326T (613) 2-311-8224

(613) 2-18-2098 (fax) Solicitors for the Respondents (Moving Parties), The Law Society of Upper Canada and all applicants

ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

BETWEEN:

REDDY RAJAGOPAL CHAVALI, REDDY KRISHNAVENI CHAVALL REDDY VENKATA SUBBARIIvII CI-IAVALI, SADANA CORPORATION LTD, VAHINI HOLDINGS LTD., MERU HOLDINGS LTD., 715048 ONTARIO LTD., 715040 ONTARIO LTD_, KSHAMA CORPORATION, LYON LAURIER DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, NIKOLAUS WOLF and LYON LAURIER PLACE DEVELOP MIENT LTD.

- and -

Applicants (Respondents)

THE LAW SOCIETY OF UPPER CANADA, LAWYERS' PROFESSIONAL INDEMNITY COMPANY, NELLIGANIPOWER, GEORGE GATY, ROYAL TRUST CORPORATION OF CANADA, PEAT MARWICK THORNS INC., SAMUEL TALBERT and COLETTE TALBERT

Respondents (Moving Parties)

CASE MANAGEMENT MOTION FORM

JURISDICTION: matter case managed by the Honourable Mr. Justice Nordheimer.

THIS FORM FILED BY

[x] Moving parties (Respondents to main application):

Lawyers' Professional Indemnity Company, The Law Society of Upper Canada, Nelligan Power, and Royal Trust Corporation of Canada
MOTION MADE ( ) ON CONSENT OF ALL PARTIES

( ) ON NOTICE TO ALL PARTIES AND UNOPPOSED
( ) WITHOUT NOTICE
(X) ON NOTICE TO ALL PARTIES AND EXPECTED
NOTICE OF THIS MOTION WAS SERVED JANUARY 5,2004, BY MEANS OF COURIER. METHOD OF HEARINGNB APPEARANCE- SEE BELOW. TO BE HEARD CONCURRENTLY WITH OR AT THE CONCLUSION OF, THE MAIN MOTION, OR AS SOON THEREAFTER AS POSSIBLE.
DATE JANUARY 13-14,2004 TIME 10:00A.M PLACE
361 UNIVERSITY AVENUE, TORONTO

ORDER SOUGHT BY THIS PARTY
( ) EXTENSION OF TIME SERVE CLAIM/APPLICATION, FILE OR DELIVER DEFENCE
( ) COMPLETE DISCOVERIES
( ) ASSIGNMENT OF PROCEEDINGS TO JUDGE FOR CASE MANAGEMENT
(X) Other relief:

1. an order declaring that the Chavalis are prohibited and restrained from commencing or continuing any action, application, motion, motion for leave to appeal, appeal, or any other proceeding in any Court in Ontario, or seeking leave to commence or continue any action, application, motion, or other proceeding in any Court in Ontario, including but not limited to leave applications pursuant to section 140(3) of the Courts of Justice Act, until they have paid all outstanding costs orders as described in the affidavit of Trevor McDonald, sworn March 20, 2003, as well as all costs ordered with respect ' to the application herein, including all motions therein, in full;

2. in the alternative to (1), an order declaring that the Chavalis are prohibited and restrained from commencing or continuing any action, application, motion, motion for leave to appeal, appeal, or any other proceeding in any Court in Ontario, or seeking leave to commence or continue any action, application, motion, or other proceeding in any Court in Ontario, including but not limited to leave applications pursuant to section 140(3) of the Courts of Justice Act, which relates to the subject matter of the proceeding before Mr. Justice Cumming, the issues dealt with in the order of Mr. Justice Cumming, dated March 30, 1998, or the subject matter of all subsequent proceedings in relation thereto, until they have paid all outstanding costs orders as described in the affidavit of Trevor McDonald, sworn March 20, 2003, as well as all costs ordered with respect to the application herein, including all motions therein, in full;

3. further, and in the alternative, should the order requested in paragraph (2) be granted, that the following terms be included:

i) that any matter that . the Chavalis allege to be unrelated to the aforementioned matters shall be subject to a preliminary review to determine whether the matter should be allowed to proceed, and that jurisdiction to hear any such matter shall be reserved to the Honourable Mr. Justice Nordheimer;

ii) that the Chavalis must file in writing their notice of

application directly to Mr.

Justice Nordheimer, that

such notice must be limited to five pages, and that

upon review of the

application, Mr_ Justice

Nordheirricr will decide whether or not the application will proceed to

an oral hearing; and

iii) that no parry shall be required to respond to the initial notice of application unless ordered to do so by the Court; and

4 an order directing that, should the orders in paragraphs (1) or (2)-(3) be granted, that a copy of the order shall be delivered to the Registrar of every Court in the Province of Ontario;

5. costs of this motion on a substantial indemnity basis; and

6. such further and other relief as this Honourable Coif[ may deem just.

MATERIAL RELIED UPON BY THIS PARTY

[x] this form

[ ] pleadings - Statement of Claim

[x] affidavits - specify below

transcript - specify

[ ] other - specify below

1. the affidavit of Trevor Mcdonald sworn January 5,2005

2. the Affidavit of Trevor McDonald, sworn March 20, 2003;

3. the affidavit of Trevor Mcdonald sworn January 23,2005

4 the application records filed by the applicants and respondents in the within application;

5. the Factum and Authorities of the moving parties; and

6. such further and other material as counsel may advise and this Honourable Court may permit and counsel may advise.

GROUNDS IN SUPPORT OF MOTION

l. the Chavalis have been declared by the Court to be vexatious litigants, pursuant to section 140 of the Courts ofJustice Act, R.S.O. 1990 c. C.43;

2. as a result of the section 140 order, the Chavalis are prohibited from commencing or continuing legal proceedings in an Ontario Court without leave;

3 the Chavalis continue to abuse the process of the Court by bringing meritless and frivolous applications for leave;

4. accordingly, the section 140
order does not provide an
\effective screening remedy against the Chavalis' vexatious
conduct;

5 there are outstanding fixed costs orders against the Chavalis and in favour of the moving
parties in excess of $344,000.00;

6 for over a decade, the Chavalis have been permitted to file friviolous and vexatious proceedings with impunity, as they refuse to pay any costs orders awarded against them;

7. the moving parties have been and continue to be put to great expense in defending these seemingly infinite proceedings;

8. the Court possesses the inherent jurisdiction to make whatever order is necessary in the interests of justice;

9 should the application herein be dismissed, it would be in the interests of justice, fairness, the public interest, and the repute of the administration of justice to order the Chavalis to pay all outstanding costs orders prior to instituting, any further Court proceedings, including further applications for leave;

10. further, and in the alternative, it would be in the interests of justice, fairness, the public interest, and the repute of the administration of justice to implement a more efficient and effective screening procedure with respect to future proceedings initiated by the Chavalis;

11. sections 138, 140, and 146 of the Courts of Justice Act, R.S_O. 1990, c. C.43, as

amended;

12. Rules 1.04, 1.05, 57-03(2), 60.12, and 77 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194; and

13. such further and other grounds as counsel may advise and this Honourable Court may permit.

CERTIFICATION OF LAWYER
I certify that the above information is correct, to the best of my knowledge.

Signature of lawyer _

not certified

Date: January 5, 2004

THIS PARTY'S LAWYER OTHER PARTY'S LAWYER

Name: Allan R. O'Brien No counsel of record FOR the Applicants or Address: Nelligan O'Brien Payne LLP. for the Respondent George Gaty. 1900-66 Slater Street

Ottawa, ON KIP 5H 1 Tel.: (613) 231-8224 Fax: (613) 788-3654

Solicitors for the Respondents, LAWYERS PROFESSIONAL INDEMNITY COMPANY The Law Society of Upper Canada,

Royal Trust Corporation of Canada, and Nelligan/Power

OTHER PARTY'S LAWYER OTHER PARTY'S LAWYER

Name: Rick Brooks Name: Jennifer E. Jolly

Address: Piazza, Brooks Address: Hamilton Appotive LLP

202-309 Cooper St. I Ith Floor, 150 Metcalfe Street

Ottawa, ON, K2P OGS Ottawa, ON, K2P 1P1

Tel.: (613) 238-2244 Tel.: (613) 238-8400

Fax: (613) 238-3382 Fax: (613) 238-4085

Solicitors for the Respondents, Solicitors for the Respondent,

Samuel Talbert and Colette Talbot Peat Maiwick Thorne Inc.

OTHER PARTY'S LAWYER

Name: Anita Lyon

14. Address: Crown Law Office - Civil 720 Bay Street, 8th Floor. Toronto, ON M5 G 2 K1 Tel.: (416) 326-4130

THE ANSWER FILED WITH JUDGE NORDHEIMER FOR THE AUGUST 29,2005 MOTION.

Via Fax (416) 327-5417 and (416) 327-9931

Reddy Rajagopal Chavali

Reddy Krishnaveni Chavali

1260 Broadview Avenue

Toronto, Ontario M4K 2T4

Tel : (416) 467-7388

Fax: (416) 467-7388

August 24, 2005

And

Dr. Ram Chavali

359 Kent Street

Brookline(Boston)

Massachusetts, U.S.A. 02446

Tel : (617) 734-5015

August 25, 2005

The Honourable Mr. Justice Nordheimer

Ontario Superior Court of Justice

361 University Avenue, 3rd Floor

Toronto, Ontario M5G 1T3

and

The Honourable Mr. Justice Winkler,

Regional Senior Justice,

361 University Avenue

Toronto M5G 1T3

Dear Sirs:

Re: Court File number 02-CV-240436CM2 and 02-CV-240696CM1; Order of Nordheimer J. is under appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada; hearing for August 29, 2005 as for both the above Application, the material has been one and the same – Mr. Justice Nordheimer has gone through it once.

1. The documentation and material evidence is one and the same and identical for both the Applications 02-CV-240696CM1 [leave to proceed to the Court of appeal to set aside the Court of appeal’s order of December 16, 1998, denied by Mr. Nordheimer J.], and the Application 02-CV-240436CM2 [to rescind the Order of Cumming J.]

2. Setting aside an Order of Cumming J of March 30, 1998 and rescinding the same order has the same effect at the end.

3. Mr. Justice Nordheimer obstructed the evidence to be produced by examining witnesses, after advising that the Applicants had right to issue Summons and then revoking his order and suggesting .

4. Mr. Justice Nordheimer denied the Applicants Leave Application 02-CV-240696CM1 to proceed to the Court of appeal to set aside the order of December 15, 1998 on April 18, 2005, which has been appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada by getting Leave to Appeal under the Court file number 31006.

Case Management Judge

5. There is no order granting the Honourable Mr. Justice Nordheimer to be the Case Management Judge as ordered by any Court under section 14 and 76 of the Courts of Justice Act and Rule 77 of the Rules of Civil Procedure

6. On the other hand on December 13, 2002 the Honourable B.A. Blair, the then Regional Senior Justice wrote a letter to the Applicants at Toronto and Boston stating that “Experience tells us that matters of this nature require more than two hours to be dealt with. In Toronto , matters requiring more than two hours are not placed on the motions/ applications list automatically. Instead, counsel and /or the parties are required to speak to a Case Management Master or a judge in order to set a timetable for the steps leading up to argument of the matter, if necessary, and to fix a date for the hearing.

Accordingly, I would ask you to make arrangements with Mr. Lockwood (who I understand represents defendants in these proceedings and to whom I am sending a copy of this letter), to meet with the Honourable Mr. Justice Nordheimer, who is the Judge in charge of Long Motions, and motions/applications, to make such arrangements. Justice Nordheimer may be contacted through his Assistant, Gloria Hollingsworth, at (416) 327-5301.”

Mr. Justice Robert Blair’s letter of December 13, 2002 is attached herewith, authorizing Mr. Justice Nordheimer, the Judge setting time and dates for the long motions/ applications .

7. That Mr. Justice Nordheimer therefore has no jurisdiction to hear this motion as a Case Management Judge

8. Neither Mr. Justice Blair as the senior Regional Justice for Toronto, nor any other Judge appointed Mr. justice Nordheimer to be the case Management Judge for the two Applicants. There is no such order. Mr. Justice Nordheimer took upon himself as was conducting through out an extended and unnecessary period of almost three (3) years of our retired life.

9. We attended on December 18, 2002, before Mr. Justice Nordheimer to have him set a date for long motions. Mr. Justice Nordheimer stated in his order that he was not the Case management Judge and never referred this application to a Judge to be heard. Without giving any reasons whatsoever, vacated the Trial of action [Chavali et. al v. Nelligan/Power, Allan O’Brien, et. al.] scheduled by the Honourable Justice Wilkins. This is a clear violation of our Rights guaranteed under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

10. Attached hereto an application to the Supreme Court of Canada for leave to Appeal on the order of Mr. Justice Nordheimer of April 18, 2005, which has been allowed to file under the Rules of the Supreme Court of Canada under Court File number 31006.

11. The Application record on this motion has been served for Leave to Appeal on June 29, 2005. Similar application on March 30, 1998, made before Cumming J., on the Consent of Charles Harnick, Ex-Attorney General of Ontario in order to stop our right to have a fair Trial under s.7 of the Charter.

This Application to the Supreme Court of Canada dated June 29, 2005 deals with the denial of the Constitutional Rights of the Applicants to a fair Trial and the Respondents/Defendants have to file their response latest by August 29, 2005.

12. With respect to the Costs the Respondents had a cross-motion to be declared impecunious on April 6, 1992 and that motion was adjourned Sine die to be brought on 4 days notice and Mr. Justice Nordheimer as purported and improper Case Management Judge refused to allow us to bring back that motion to prove to the Court that we are impecunious because of the Defendants. Mr. Justice Nordheimer in fact without any lawful authority obstructed our right to Justice, just as the Applicants for this order are obstructing our right to justice before the Supreme Court of Canada.

13. For 16 years the Respondents have obstructed Justice and are once again are attempting to obstruct the Courts of Canada being the Supreme Court of Canada and the Ontario Court has no Jurisdiction to stop the Supreme Court of Canada from hearing our Leave to Appeal.

14. We brought a Motion before Mr. Justice Winkler to disqualify Mr. Justice Nordheimer in the name of Justice. Mr. Justice Winkler wanted the motion to disqualify only in writing but not in a open Court. Mr. Justice Winkler, contrary to the evidence, did not grant the motion to disqualify and assured that Nordheimer was not and will not be biased. The Applicants sent a reply to Mr. Justice Winklers decision on March 31, 2005, stating that it was a wrong decision and there was not only bias but denying and obstructing the Chavalis to get the evidence by cross examinations, acting against the rules of procedure and against the intent of s.140 Courts of Justice Act and discrimination by Mr. Justice Nordheimer and was acting contrary to the oath of Judge’s office under s. 80 of the Courts of Justice act. We are still of the same opinion and Nordheimer is prejudicial and partial and not fulfilling his duty under the Oath of Office of a Judge.

In similar situations with integrity and honesty, Mr. Justice Farley and Mr. Justice Laskin disqualified themselves to hear our case at the request of the Defendants/Respondents. This is contrary to the position taken by Mr. Justice Nordheimer. For the sake of appearance of Justice, Mr. Justice Nordheimer should not hear any of the Applicants’ proceedings.

15. Mr. Justice Nordheimer’s decisions of June 25, 2004, December 2004, April 18, 2005 are extra judicial as he deliberately avoided to see the documentary evidence of fraud and obstruction of Justice and fraud on Court on January 10, 1994 by Mr. O’Brien of Nelligan/Power, defendant and now solicitor for the Law Society of Upper Canada, Lawyers Professional Indemnity Company, Royal Trust corporation(Mortgagee) from whom Mr. John P. Nelligan himself and his associates fraudulently and improvidently purchased the Applicants properties and unjustly enriched themselves among other things misused the trust funds of the Applicants kept in their Trust Account, against the law.

16. Mr. Justice Nordheimer’s decisions are in complete violation of Rights guaranteed under s.2(b), s.7, s.12, s.15, s.24 and s.52 of the Canadian Constitution.

17. Mr. Justice Nordheimer’s decisions are error in law by his deliberate failure to accept the evidence, obstruction of obtaining evidence, and not being partial to the victims of fraud by favouring the Law Society of Uppewr Canada and Lawyer’s Professional Indemnity Company.

defendants O”Brien of Nelligna/Power, Royal Trust Corporation ,etc. For the past 16 years Respondents misused the court resources and time to subvert Justice using their power and politics and friendly judges, and wasted our retired life and resources. As Officer of the Court, after committing fraud on Court, Mr. O’Brien finds himself amused with Mr. Coo.J’s prejudicial statement made, contrary to the several other Judges who ordered Trials of our actions, while he was made as a Defendant in the Federal Action filed by us during the year 2000.

18. Mr. Justice Nordheimer’s decision was not to allow Constitutional Issue. The Constitutional question was before Cumming J. on March 30, 1998, and he did not make decision. First part of conspiracy that the Judge was supposed to hear that was Constititutional question brought before Cumming J and his obligation to make decision , which was not done.

19. Under these conditions there should not be any hearing on August 29, 2005 before Mr. Justice Nordheimer to avoid obstruction of Justice. The hearing, unilaterally planned by Mr. O’Brien and Mr. Justice Nordheimer for August 29, 2005, is on the same subject matter and same material, under Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada and should not proceed.

20. We appreciate your understanding and Rights of the Applicants guaranteed under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Reddy Rajagopal Chavali

Reddy Krishnaveni Chavali

1260 Broadview Avenue, Toronto, M4K 2T4

Applicants

and

Dr. Ram Chavali

359 Kent Street

Brookline(Boston) Massachusetts, U.S.A. 02446

Applicants

cc: Supreme Court of Canada Fax: (613) 996-9138

cc: Mr. Justice Winkler, Regional Senior Justice, Toronto Fax: (416) 327-9931

cc: Mr. Justice Nordheimer, Superior Court of Justice , Toronto Fax (416) 327-5417

cc: Madam Justice Heather Smith, Chief Justice, Ontario Fax: (416) 327-5358

cc: The Honourable Madam Chief Justice McLachlin, Ottawa, Fax: (613) 996-3063

and Canadian Judicial Council Fax: 998-8889

cc: Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada Fax: (613) 990-7255

cc: Attorney General for Ontario, Toronto,(416) 326-4181

cc: Allan O’Brien /Trevor McDonald Fax: (613) 238-2098/(613) 788-3654

cc: Eric Appotive Fax: (613) 238-4085

cc: Roderick P. Brooks Fax: (613) 238-3382

cc: Anita Lyon , Attorney General for Ontario Fax: (416) 326-418

Nelligan0'BrienPayne

lawyers/Patent and Trade-Mark Agents Avocats/Agents de brevets et de rnarques de commerce

Allan R. O'Brien, Tel: (613) 231-8224, Fax: (613) 788-3654, allan.obrien@nelligan.ca

August 19, 2005

The Hon. Mr. Justice Warren K. Winkler Regional Senior Justice

Office of Toronto Regional Senior Justice Courthouse

361 University Ave., 6th Mr. Toronto, ON M5G 1 T3

Dear Mr. Justice Winkler:

Re: Reddy Rajagopal Chavali et al. v. T y Court File No. 02-CV-240436CM2 Our File No. 1500-600

The application is scheduled to be heard by the Honorable Mr. Justice Nordheimer on August 29, 2005. Justice Nordheimer was assigned to case manage this application as well as a companion application (Court file no. 02-CV-240696 CM1) IN DECEMBER 2002 by former Regional Senior Justice Blair. The application is for rescission of an order made by the Honourable Mr. Justice Cumming on March 30, 1998. Cununing Js order, which, was made pursuant to section 140 of the Courts of Justice Act, declared the applicants to be vexatious litigants, and stayed numerous proceedings that they had commenced. '~; section 140 orDER was upheld by the Ontario Court of Appeal. .

We are writing to provide notice that, should the current application be dismissed, we will be requesting that Justice Nordheimer be assigned to all future applications for leave that are filed by the applicants, in order that he may conduct a preliminary review to determine whether the application should be permitted to proceed.

By way of background, the proceedings that are the subject of the current application date back to the late 1980s. The applicants, Mr. Reddy Rajagopal Chavali, Mrs. Reddy Krishnaveni Chavali, Dr. Reddy Venkata Subbarimi Chavali ("Dr. Chavali"), and their various corporations (hereinafter collectively

OTTAWA: 66 slater. Suite 1900, Omwa, ON Kip 514 1, TebT61: (613) 238 8080, Faxlratc.: (613) 238 2098, TDD/ATS: (613) 563 4960 KINGSTON: The Woolen Mill. 4 Cataraqui, Suite 202. Kingston, ON K7K 127, Te)1T61: (613) 531 7905, Fexlrdaec.: (613) 5310857 VANKL.EEK HJU: 86 me High Street, P.O. Box/C.P. 190, Vankleek Hill, ON KOB IRO, TeVrd: (613) 678 2490, Faxrl'616r : (613) 678 3762 ALEXANDRIA: 139 Main South/sud Alecandtia, ON KOC 1 AO, TeYr& (613) 525 2396, Fezlr&c.: (613) 525 2752

referred to as, "the Chavalis"), once owned numerous mortgaged properties. In or about 1989, following defaults on the mortgages, various mortgage companies, banks, other secured lenders and construction lien claimants made claims against the Chavalis. The Chavalis then commenced actions against the mortgage companies and banks, and against some of the lawyers that had been retained thereby. Subsequently, the scope of the Chavalis' actions was expanded to include claims against numerous other parties, including their own lawyers, judges, the Canadian Judicial Council, Her Majesty the Queen, the Law Society of Upper Canada, and the Lawyers' Professional Indemnity Company. Between 1989 and 1997, the Chavalis were involved in nineteen actions in which they were either plaintiffs or plaintiffs by counterclaim.

In 1998, the Respondents herein brought an application pursuant to section 140 of

the courts of justice Act to have the Chavalis declared as "vexatious litigants", and to

have the numerous ongoing proceedings stayed. By order dated March 30, 1998, the

honourable mr justice cumming granted the order ("the section 140 order"). The

section 140 order providedthe the chavalis are prohibited from instituting any new

Court proceedings .or continuing any of their previous proceedings without leave of

the court .

The purpose of the section 140 order, as stated by Justice cummings was to provide a screening device and gatekeeper", to ensure that actions with a plauseable claim would proceed, while vexatious proceedings by the Chavalis would be thwarted thus enabling the court to control its process. Justice Cumming stated in his reasons that the effect of the order would be that the abuse of process and chaos seen in the proceedings to date will be brought under control. A copy of judge cummings order is attached hereto

Unfortuneately, the intended result has not been achieved . Instead the chavalis have been able to circumvent the intent of the section 140 order by bringing vexatious and volu,imous applications for leave, as well as numerous interlocutory proceedings proceeding within those applications. These subsequent proceedings have raised the very same issues that were the subject of the section 140 application, and the various underlying proceedings that were stayed pursuant to justice cummings order.For example

in 1999, the Chavalis brought an application for leave to institute an action against various respondents or, alternatively ,for an order to rescind the order of mr justice Cumming.That application was heard by Mr. Justice Co on April 17,2000 . Mr Justice Coo dismissed the Chavalis' application, holding as follow
am satisfied that the litigation for which leave is sought to institute orcontinue is an abuse of process in the clearest sort. The significant and keycause of action been presented in almost identical terms again and again over the years in an almost never-endingstream relying on section 140(3). Finality of these claims has been sought to be declared by the Superior Court, our Court of Appeal on a number of occasions and twice on leave refusals- by the Supreme Court of Canada. Members of the trial court have spoken uniformly of the lack of merit of the claims. All of this has not deterred the applicants in their seemingly inflexible pursuit of the unsupportable...it is abundantly clear that the section 140 order has not proviced the intended level of protection against the chavalis vexatious conductin the current application,the chavalis are seeking leave to appeal to bring an application to rescind the march 30,1998 order of the honourable mr justice cumming. The respondents herein have requested that the application be dismissed on the grounds that , inter alia, it is yet another vexatious proceeding, and constitutes an abuse of process. We have filed a motion on behalf of the respondents that, should the current application be dismissed, an order be made preventing the chavalis from bringing any further Court proceedings including applications for leave, until all of the outstandingcost orders that have been awarded aganst them in favour of the respondents havebeen paid. Currently, the total of these cost awards is in excess of $350,000.00. The respondents are also requesting that Justice Nordheimer be assigned to conduct preliminary review of all future applications for leave by the chavalis, to determine whether or not they fall within the terms of the order, and should therefor be stayed pending payment of the outstanding cost orders. The respondents are requesting that a copy of the order be sent to the Register of every Court in Ontario.

Given that the jurisdiction for the assignment of judges is delegated to the Chief Justice or Associate Chief Justice, and Regional Senior Judges pursuant to the courts of Justice Act and that such authority may be granted to a Judge of the Superior Court of Justice pursuent to sections 14 and 76 thereof, we will be requesting that, should the application be dismissed, Judge Nordheimer be granted the authority to seize himself of all future leave applications filed by the Chavalis in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice or Divisional Court.The basis for this request is that given the long and complicatedhistory of these proceedings, the complexity of the issues, the voluminous materials that the Chavalis routinely file, and often confusing nature of those materials it would be an efficient application of judicial resources to have one Judge, who is familiar with the issues and the history of the proceedings to review future leave applications.For example in the current application, the Chavalis have filed four volumes of materials containing well over 1000 pages, as well as supplementary materials and a notice of constitutional question. Should the application be dismissed there is nothing in the current section 140 order that would prevent from continuing to file similar applications raising the same issues. In fact there is every reason to believe, based on their previous conduct, that they will do just that. It is therefore necessary to impose a further screeing procedure, in order to ensure the proper administration of justice and to enable the court to retain control of its proceedings.Furthermore, given the tremendous cost to the respondents, and the strain on the resources of the Court, that occur when the Chavalis file a new proceeding, the respondents will be requesting that Justice Nordheimer place limits on the lengthg of future leave applications and that the respondents not be required to respond to such applications unless and until the application has successfully passed through the initial screenig process.

Following receipt of the decision of Mr. Justice Nordheimer on the application, we will contact you to advise of the result. At that time, depending on the outcome of the application, we will be seeking directions from His Honour with respect to the hearing of our motion.

Yours truly,

O'Brien ~

Encl. - motion record &reasons of Mr. Justice Cumming

cc: Reddy Rajagopal Chavali &. Reddy Krishnaveni Chavali - Dr. Reddy Venkatasubbarami Chavali

- Eric M. Appotive - Rick Brooks

- Anita Lyon, Attorney General for Ontario

Fax (416) 327-5417 and (416) 327-9931

Reddy Rajagopal Chavali

Reddy Krishnaveni Chavali

1260 Broadview Avenue

Toronto, Ontario M4K 2T4

Tel : (416) 467-7388

Fax: (416) 467-7388

August 26, 2005

And

Dr. Ram Chavali

359 Kent Street

Brookline(Boston)

Massachusetts, U.S.A. 02446

Tel : (617) 734-5015

August 26, 2005

The Honourable Mr. Justice Winkler

Regional Senior Justice

Ontario Superior Court of Justice

361 University Avenue, 3rd Floor

Toronto, Ontario M5G 1T3

Dear Honourable Mr. Justice Winkler:

Re: Court File numbers 02-CV-240436CM2 and 02-CV-240696CM1 Reddy Rajagopal Chavali et al v. The Law Society of Upper Canada, et. al Order of Nordheimer J. is under appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada; hearing for August 29, 2005 , the material has been one and the same for both the Applications- Mr. Justice Nordheimer has gone through it once.

1 We refer you to our Application for Leave to Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada , Court File number 31006, which application is self explanatory. The Respondents have until August 29, 2005 to respond.

2. Dr. Ram Chavali has not been served with the material in this motion to be heard by Mr. Justice Nordheimer according to the Rules of Practice. The letter in the form of a Case management has been mailed and received by us only on August 24, 2005, i.e. to be heard on August 29, 2005.

3. Mr. Justice Nordheimer was never appointed a Case Management under Rule 77 . He had only authority to direct our matter as a Judge in charge of arranging long motions/Application s as per the directive of Mr. Justice Robert Blair, the then Senior Regional Justice. Attached the letter of Mr. Justice Robert Blair of December 13, 2002 and the first conference call of Mr. Justice Nordheimer December 18, 2002, in which he clearly wrote that he is not the Case management Judge. He had no jurisdiction to hear any of our case but he did which is not according to the Case Management law set under Rule 77.

4. Mr. Justice Nordheimer has no jurisdiction to hear the same material under appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada, especially when he gave an order on April 18, 2005, which was on only written submissions without a law and without referring to the evidence before him. This type of obstruction of justice was brought before your Honour in the form of a motion to disqualify Mr. Justice Nordheimer. Your Honour assured us on February 7, 2005 that he is not and will not be biased.

5. The Ontario Court has NO jurisdiction to hear the case when under appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada. No Court in Ontario has authority to stop the highest Federal Court in Canada, the Supreme Court of Canada from hearing our case. The Respondents have the Right to respond to our Supreme Court of Canada Application under court file number 31006 by August 29, 2005.

6. Mr. Justice Nordheimer has NO jurisdiction to order the Supreme Court of Canada not to hear our Application. The motion herein by the Respondents is a desperate move to stop us from having the Supreme Court of Canada order a fair trial after 16 years, under the Constitution of Canada or make a Judgment that the lower Courts failed to make.

7. The Supreme Court of Canada is the court of last resort and our Application for Leave to Appeal is within the Jurisdiction of the Court.

8. The Respondents are attempting to argue their case before you in their letter of August 19, 2005 sent by Courier to you but mailed to us which was received on August 24, 2005, that you have NO authority under the Rules of practice of Ontario to hear the case. The Respondents have the legal right to respond to our Application for Leave to Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada by August 29, 2005 and have had since June 29, 2005 to respond.

9. The Rules of Practice do not allow a Litigant to argue their case before you, just as section 140 of the Courts of Justice Act[CJA] do not allow litigants to make an Application to the Attorney Genera; of Ontario for a Consent under section 140 CJA but they did without lawful authority and Justice Nordheimer would not allow us to examine the Attorney General for costs of $192,031.51 to prove a fraudulent Application and an intent to defraud us as we were never NOT allowed to reply to the Application before the Attorney general.

10. The Applicants in the motion have obstructed justice for 16 years and are trying to do it again. Mr. O’Brien and his law firm Nelligan/Power never contradicted a 3 page illegal and unprofessional activities including Fraud on Court on January 10, 1994, listed in our Factum (attached herein) before Nordheimer for the Application 02-CV-240696CM1.

11. We request your honour not to allow these People to continue their fraudulent activities.

Dr. Ram Chavali has never been served according to the Rules of Practice in this motion to be heard on August 29, 2005, just as he was never served with the Application before Mr. Justice Cummings.

Yours very truly

Reddy Rajagopal Chavali

Reddy Krishnaveni Chavali

1260 Broadview Avenue, Toronto, M4K 2T4

Applicants

and

Dr. Ram Chavali

359 Kent Street

Brookline(Boston) Massachusetts, U.S.A. 02446

Applicants

Encl: Letter of Mr. Justice Blair of December 13, 2002 and the Conference call endorsement of

Nordheimer of December 18, 2002

- Leave Application to the Supreme Court of Canada Court File No. 31006

- 3 page illegal and unprofessional activities including fraud on Court by solicitors

including Mr. O’Brien and his law firm

- Our letter of August 25, 2005

cc: Supreme Court of Canada Fax: (613) 996-9138

cc: Mr. Justice Winkler, Regional Senior Justice, Toronto Fax: (416) 327-9931

cc: Mr. Justice Nordheimer, Superior Court of Justice , Toronto Fax (416) 327-5417

cc: Madam Justice Heather Smith, Chief Justice, Ontario Fax: (416) 327-5358

cc: The Honourable Madam Chief Justice McLachlin, Ottawa, Fax: (613) 996-3063

and Canadian Judicial Council Fax: 998-8889

cc: Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada Fax: (613) 990-7255

cc: Attorney General for Ontario, Toronto,(416) 326-4181

cc: Allan O’Brien /Trevor McDonald Fax: (613) 238-2098/(613) 788-3654

cc: Eric Appotive Fax: (613) 238-4085

cc: Roderick P. Brooks Fax: (613) 238-3382

cc: Anita Lyon , Attorney General for Ontario Fax: (416) 326-4181

Fax (416) 327-5417 and (416) 327-9931


This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?