Sunday, September 11, 2005

 

768 CHAVALI REPLY TO RESPONSE IN SUPREME COURT OF CANADA TALK.

HAROLD C FUNK THE VOICE OF THE VOICELESS SEPT 12-15 2005

205 GLADSTONE AVE APT 46 OUT ON MONDAY-FRIDAY TEL(613) 235-0617 OTTAWA,COMMENT:http://thevoiceless.blogspot.com FAX(613)235-5573 ONTARIO K2P OY5 http://www.thebeatonthestreet.ottawa.on.ca

DEAR HEAD OF NATION http://politheft.blogspot.com CHAVALI REPLY TO RESPONSE IN SUPREME COURT OF CANADA TALK: THE ONLY RESPONSE THAT THE RESPONDENTS MADE WAS THAT ON TWO OCCASIONS THE CHAVALIES REQUESTED THE SUPERIOR COURT TO ALLOW THEM TO OBTAIN AN ORDER TO PROCEED TO TRIAL & WERE TURNED DOWN ON BOTH OCCASIONS. MORE OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE BY THE JUDICIAL CROOKS. THE APPLICANT CHAVALIES REPLIED IN PART TO THE RESPONSE THAT THE RESPONDENTS THE LAW SOCIETY OF UPPER CANADA, LAWYERS PROFESSIONAL INDEMNITY COMPANY, NELLIGAN POWER, GEORGE CATY, ROYAL TRUST CORPORATION OF CANADA, TALBERTS THAT THEY:

(1) NEVER DENIED ANY OF THE APPLICANTS FACTS & LAW.

(2) NEVER DENIED THE CHAVALIES RIGHT TO HAVE THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA ADJUDICATE ON THEIR CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION.

(3) NEVER DENIED THE RIGHT OF THE CHAVALIES TO HAVE A TRIAL AFTER 16 YEARS- AFTER 12 SUPERIOR COURT JUDGES ORDERED TRIALS.

(4) NEVER RESPONDED TO THE APPLICANTS

(i)CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION

(ii) THE NEW EVIDENCE IN THE BILL OF COSTS.

(iii) NEW FREEDOM OF INFORMATION EVIDENCE

(iv) THE FORENSIC ACCOUNTING EVIDENCE OF DR ROSEN & ASSOCIATES SHOWING DIRECT THEFT OF $12.MILLION+­-THAT ALLOWED THE POWERS OF SALE TO BE USED FOR THE THEFT OF

$57 MILLION OF THE CHAVALI PROPERTY NOW VALUED AT 175 MILLION+­-ALL OF THIS NEW EVIDENCE HAD NOT BEEN BEFORE THE COURT OF APPEAL OR THE 2 JUDGES THAT REFUSED TRIALS TO THE CHAVALIS UNDER SECTION 140 OF THE COURTS OF JUSTICE ACT.

THE RESPONDENTS DID NOT DENY

(i) THAT THEY WERE PARTICIPANTS IN THE BREACH OF THEIR STATUTORY JUDICIAL DUTIES.

(ii) FRAUD

(iii) VIOLATIONS OF THE CANADIAN CRIMINAL CODE UNDER SECTIONS 21,122,126,139,264,319,322,336,341,347,348,366,368,380,429,482,68 6.

(iv) VIOLATIONS OF SECTIONS 4,5,12,13,33,51 OF THE LAW SOCIETY ACT R.S.O. 1980,L.8.

(v) THE ILLEGAL SEARCH AND SEIZURE AND AUCTION OF THE APPLICANTS PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING BUSSNISS. ASSETS

(vi) THE UNLAWFUL SEARCH & SEIZURE AND AUCTION OF PERSONAL HOUSEHOLD FURNITURE AND BELONGINGS.

(vii) DESTRUCTION OF PERSONAL BELONGINGS OF APPLICANTS & OTHERS.

(viii) VIOLATION OF SECTION 178 OF CANADA BANK ACT AND COMPITITION ACT.

(ix) THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF ONTARIO AND CANADA HAVE NOT DENIED THE VIOLATION OF OUR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS TO A FAIR TRIAL

(x) THE THEFT OF OUR 34 PROPERTIES IN OTTAWA THE NATIONS CAPITAL

(xi) BRIBING OUR LAWYERS

(xii) UNJUST ENRICHMENT

(xiii) UNLAWFUL THEFT OF TRUST MONEYS

(xiv) CRIMINAL BREACH OF TRUST

(xv) CONSPIRACY TO DEFRAUD THE CHAVALIES

(xvi) DELIBERATE FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH COURT ORDERS (xvii) FRAUDULENT COURT ORDERS TO DENY OUR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO A FAIR TRIAL FOR 16 YEARS.

(xvii) OBSTRUCTING JUSTICE FOR 16 YEARS

(xviii) OBSTRUCTING JUSTICE BY USING COST ORDERS AFTER REFUSING THE CHAVALIES RIGHT TO PROVE THEY WERE IMPECUNIOUS (WITHOUT ASSETS).

(xix THE RIGHT OF THE CHAVALIES TO HAVE THE CONSTITUTION QUESTION ADJUDICATED ON IN THE SUPERIOR COURTS.

JUDGE NORDHEIMER WAS PREDJUDICED

(i) IN REFUSING TO ALLOW THE CHAVALIES TO CROSS EXAMINE 24 WITNESSES TO PROVE THEY HAD A GOOD CASE.

(ii) IN NOT ALLOWING THE CROSS EXAMINATION OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF ONTARIO.

THE REMAIDER OF THE EVIDENCE OF THE CHAVALIES REPLY CAN BE SEEN AT http://thevoiceless.blogspot.com LETTER NUMBER 768.

PEACE

HAROLD C FUNK T0:192 HEADS OF NATION.LETTER NO:768 E-MAIL ON.

Response to the application for leave to appeal

Court File No. 31006

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA (FROM THE SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE FOR THE PROVINCE OF ONTARIO and THE COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO)

BETWEEN:

REDDY RAJAGOPAL CHAVALI, REDDY KRISHNAVENI CHAVALL REDDY VENKATA SUBBARIMI CHAVALI, SADANA CORPORATION LTD, VABEdI 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. Applicants (Applicants)

-and­

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 COL= TALBERT

Respondents (Respondents)

RESPONSE OF THE RESPONDENTS THE LAW SOCIETY OF UPPER CANADA, LAWYERS' PROFESSIONAL INDEMNITY COMPANY, NELLIGAN/POWER~ GEORGE GATY, AND ROYAL TRUST CORPORATION OF CANADA (punmant to Rule 27, Rules of the Supreme Court of Canada)

Nelligan O'Brien Payne LLP Banister; & Solicitors 1900-66 Slater Street Ottawa, ON KIP 5111

Allan R O'Brien (613) 231-8224 (613) 238-2098 (fax) Solicitors for the Respondents LSUC, LPIC, Nelligan Power, and Royal Trust

Agents for the Solicitors for the Respondent George Gaty allan.obrien(@nelligan.ca

Reddy Rajagopal Chavali Reddy Krishnaveni Chavali 1260 Broadview Avenue Toronto, ON M4K 2T4 (416) 467-7388

(416) 467-7388 (fax) Applicants

Dr. Reddy Venkatasubbarami Cbavali 359 Kent Street

Brookline, Massachusetts, USA 02446

(617) 734-5015 (tel) Applicant

APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL

1. ORDER OF MR. JUSTICE NORDHEIMER

PART I - STATEMENT OF FACTS

24. On April 18, 2005, Mr. Justice Nordheimer dismissed the Applicants' application for leave, pursuant to s. 140 of the Courts ofJustice Act and the order of Cumming, J., to bring a motion in the Ontario Court of Appeal. That motion would seek an order to set aside that Court's

December 16, 1998 decision upholding the order of Mr. Justice Cumming. Reasons of Nordheimer, J., Tab 11, p. 265-267, Leave Application

25. Mr. Justice Norheimer found that the Applicants did not meet the test for leave set out in

s.140(4) of the Courts of Justice Act.

Reasons of Nordheimer, l., Tab 11, p. 268-269, Leave Applica 'on

26. The Applicants' companion application for leave to bring a motion to rescind the original order of Mr. Justice Cumming, and for rescission of that order, is still pending (Court File No. 02-CV­240436CM2).

Reasons of Nordheimer, J. Tab 11, p. 268, Leave Application

PART II - QUESTIONS IN ISSUE

27. Does this Court have jurisdiction to hear this appeal?

28. Is there any question involved that is by reason of its public importance, or of such a nature or significance as to warrant decision by this Court?

PART III - STATEMENT OF ARGUMENT

29. An appeal lies to this Court from any final or other judgment of the highest court of final resort in a province in which judgment can be had in the particular case sought to be appealed to the Supreme Court.

Supreme CourtAct, RS.C. 1985, c. S-26, s. 40

30. The Courts of Justice Act provides that no appeal lies from a refusal to grant leave to proceed or

other relief in an application made by a person against whom an order has been made under

section 140. It is submitted that, by specifically excluding a right of appeal, the Ontario

legislature has attempted to limit endless and vexatious appeals from section 140 applications for

leave, and bring some finality to the process.

Courts ofJusfice Act, RS.O. 1990 C. c-43, s. 140(4) (e)

31. The only question before Mr. Justice Nordheimer was whether he ought grant leave to these Applicants to bring a motion to the Court of Appeal.

32. The grounds for the Applicants' intended motion to the Court of Appeal were that there was new evidence and that there had been fraud.

Notice of Application, Respondents' Response, Tab 2

33. Section 140 of the Courts of Justice Act provides that leave shall be granted only if the Court is satisfied, first, that the proceeding sought to be instituted or continued is not an abuse of process and, second, there are reasonable grounds for the proceeding.

Ferenezi v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., [2004] O.J. No. 4434 (S.C.J.)

34. It is submitted that Mr. Justice Nordheimer cited the statute and stated the test for leave correctly. Tab 11, p. 268-269, Leave Application

35. The test for admission of new evidence is as follows:
(i)The evidence should generally not be admitted if, by due diligence, it could have been adduced at trial;
(ii) The evidence must be relevant in the sense that it bears upon a decisive or potentially decisive issue; -

(iii) The evidence must be credible in the sense that it is reasonably capable of belief', and

(iv) The evidence must be such that if believed it could reasonably be expected to have affected the result.

R v. Palmer, [1980] 1 S.C.R.759

(36) Mr Justice Nordheimer made a finding that some of the alleged fresh evidence was available to the applicants before the appeal. He found that the balance of the fresh evidence was irrelevant to the issue before the Court of Appeal , namely whether Justice Cummings had correctly concluded that the manner in which the Chavalis had been conducting their litigation was vexatious.Tab 11,p,269, Leave application

37. Mr. Justice Nordheimer also found that since there had been no decision of a lower court on the constitutionality of section 140, the Court of Appeal would not entertain such an argument as a basis to set aside its earlier order. He noted that that issue would be determined in the Applicants' pending application for leave and to move to rescind the order of Cumming J.

38. The test for leave to commence or continue an action pursuant to section 140 is clearly stated and has been further defmed by jurisprudence. The test to adduce new evidence has been stated by this Court. An appeal of the decision of N&. Justice Nordheimer would not raise any question of such public importance as to warrant hearing by this Court.

2. JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF APPEAL

PART I - STATEMENT OF FACTS

39. As noted above, the Applicants also belatedly seek leave to appeal from the judgment of the Court of Appeal, which upheld the order of Mr. Justice

Cumming declaring the Applicants vexatious litigants.

40. The role of the Court of Appeal was, as stated by Mr. Justice Norheimer, to determine whether

Justice Cumming had correctly concluded that the manner in which the Chavalis had been

conducting their litigation was vexatious such that an order should be made against them

pursuant to section 140 of the Courts ofJustlce Act.

41. At paragraph 3 of the Court of Appeal endorsement, the panel found that Cumming, J. `concluded fairly that the various proceedings under review were vexatious. Endorsement of the Court of Appeal, Tab 28, p. 684, Leave Application

PART II - QUESTION IN ISSUE

42. Is there any question involved that is by reason of its public importance, or of such a nature or significance, as to warrant decision by this Court?

PART II STATEMENT OF ARGUMENT

43. The crux of the Applicants' argument is that section 140 of the Courts ofJustice Act is unconstitutional and violates section 7 of the Charter. The Applicants contend that denial of access to the Courts amounts to the deprivation of their economic security of person.

See pp. 894 and onwards of the Applicant's Memorandum of Fact and Law, Tab 36, Leave Application.

44. Cumming J. stated in his reasons that the section 140 order "does not deny the Applicants access to the Courts. Rather, the order puts the Court in control of the process." Cunning, J. Tab 26, p. 660 Leave Application

45. Without arguing whether section 140 infringes any section of the Charter, it is submitted that the Court's control of access by way of section 140, and similar Canadian legislation, is a reasonable limit that can be demonstrably justified per section 1 of the Charter.

46. However, the reasons from below indicate that these issues were not argued at the Court of Appeal, nor even before CSmrming, J. Therefore, there is no decision of the Court of Appeal on this issue to review. There appear to be no decisions where the constitutionality of section 140 and the similar provisions in other provinces was considered. Therefore, there are no conflicting decisions for this Court to consider.

Endorsement of the Court of Appeal, Tab 28, Leave Application

Reasons of Cumming, J, Tab 26 Leave Application

  1. This Court has spoken on economic security of the person. The proposed appeal herein would only be an application of law already established by this Court and would not make new law.

See, for example, Gosselin v. Quebec (Attorney General), 2002 S.C.C 8

See also Chaoulli v.Quebec (Attorney General), 2005 S.C.C 35

PART IV-SUBMISSIONS ON COSTS

  1. These respondents request that costs follow the result and that any costs payable be assessed in the ordinary course.

PART V - ORDERS SOUGHT

49. For these reasons, these Respondents request an order:

(i) Dismissing the motion for an extension of time to apply for leave to appeal the decision of the Court of Appeal dated December 16, 1998;

(ii) In the alternative, dismissing the application for leave to appeal the decision of the Court of Appeal dated December 16, 1998;

(iii) Extending the time to apply for leave to appeal, if necessary, and dismissing the application for leave to appeal the decision of Mr. Justice Nordheimer dated April 18, 2005;and

(iii) Granting costs of these proceedings to these respondents.

All of which is respectfully submitted this 26th day of August 2005-09-10

Allan R. Obrien

For the respondents LSUC,LPIC,Nelligan Power. And Royal Trust, and as agents for the solicitors for the Respondent George Gaty.


RESPONSE OF THE RESPONDENTS SAMUEL TALBERT AND COLLETTE TALBERT.

Court File No. 31006

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA (ON APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL FROM THE SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE FOR THE PROVINCE OF ONTARIO)

BETWEEN:

REDDY RAJAGOPAL CHAVALL REDDY KRISHNAVENI CHAVALI, REDDY VENKATA SUBBARAMI CHAVALL 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 DEVELOPMENT LTD.

Applicants and

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

Respondents

RESPONSE OF THE. RESPONDENTS SAMUEL TALBERT AND COLLETTE TALBERT (pursuant to Rule 27, Rules of the Supreme Court of Canada)

PIAZZA BROOKS Barristers & Solicitors 202-309 Cooper Street Ottawa, Ontario

K2P OGS Phone (613) 238-2244 Fax (613) 238-3382

Rick Brooks Solicitor for the Respondents Samuel Talbert and Colette Talbert e-mail: rbrooks@piazzalaw.com

TO: REDDY RAJAGOPAL CHAVALI REDDY KRISHNAVENI CHAVALI 1260 Broadview Avenue

Toronto, Ontario, M4K 2T4 (416) 467-7388

(416) 467-7388 Fax Applicants/Plaintiffs

AND TO: REDDY VENKATA SUBBARAMI CHAVALI 359 Kent Street

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

(617) 734-5015

Applicants/Plaintiffs

e-mail: ramvsrchavali@aol.com

AND TO: Nelligan O'Brien Payne LLP Banisters and Solicitors

1900 - 66 Slater Street Ottawa, ON KIP 5H I Allan R. O'Brien (613) 231-8224

(613) 788-3654 (Fax)

Solicitors for the Respondents The Law Society of Upper Canada, Lawyers' Professional Indemnity Company, Nelligan Power and Royal Trust corporation of Canada E-mail : allen.Obrien@nelligan.ca

PART II - QUESTION IN ISSUE

13. Should these Applicants be granted an extension of time of nearly seven years to bring an application for leave to appeal to this court?

PART III - STATEMENT OF ARGUMENT

14. The Respondents, Samuel and Colette Talbert, adopt and rely upon the Statement of Argument contained in the Response of the Respondents the Law Society of Upper Canada, Lawyers' Professional Indemnity Company, Nelligan/Power, George Gary and Royal Trust Corporation of Canada.

APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL

1. ORDER OF MR JUSTICE NORDHEIMER

PART I-STATEMENT OF FACTS

15. On April 18, 2005, Mr. Justice Nordheimer dismissed the Applicants' application for leave, pursuant to s. 140 of the Courts of Justice Act and the order of Cumming, l., to bring a motion in the Ontario Court of Appeal. That motion would seek an order to set aside that Court's December 16, 1998 decision upholding the order of Mr. Justice Cumming.

Reasons of Nordheimer, J., Tab 11, p. 265-267, Leave Application

16. Mr. Justice Norheimer found that the Applicants did not meet the test for leave set out in s.140(4) of the Courts ofJustice Act.

Reasons of Nordheimer, J., Tab 11, p. 268-269, Leave Application

7. The Applicants' companion application for leave to bring a motion to rescind the original order of Mr. Justice Cumming, and for rescission of that order, is still pending (Court File No. 02-CV-240436CM2).

Reasons of Nordheimer, J. Tab 11, p. 268, Leave Application

PART II - QUESTIONS IN ISSUE

18. Does this Court have jurisdiction to hear this appeal?

19. Is there any question involved that is by reason of its public importance, or of such a nature or significance as to warrant decision by this Court? n

PART III - STATEMENT OF ARGUMENT

19. The Respondents, Samuel and Colette Talbert, adopt and rely upon the Statement of Argument contained in the Response of the Respondents the Law Society of Upper Canada, Lawyers' Professional Indemnity Company, Nelligan/Power, George Gaty and Royal Trust Corporation of Canada.

2. JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF APPEAL

PART I-STATEMENT OF FACTS

21. As noted above, the Applicants also seek leave to appeal from the judgment of the Court of Appeal, which upheld the order of Mr. Justice Cumming declaring the Applicants vexatious litigants.

22. The role of the Court of Appeal was, as stated by Mr. Justice Norheimer, to determine whether Justice Cumming had correctly concluded that the manner in which the Chavalis had been conducting their litigation was vexatious, such that an order should be made against them pursuant to section 140 of the Courts of Justice Act

23. At paragragraph 3 of the Court of Appeal endorsement the panel found that Cumming, J. concluded fairly that the various proceedings under review were vexatious'.

Endorsement of the Court of Appeal, Tab 28, p. 684, Leave Application

PART 11 - QUESTION IN ISSUE

24. Is there my question involved that is by reason of its public importance, or of such a nature or significance, as to warrant decision by this Court?

PART III -STATEMENT OF ARGUMENT

25. The Respondents, Samuel and Colette Talbert, adopt and rely upon the Statement of Argument contained in the Response of the Respondents the Law Society of Upper Canada, Lawyers' Professional Indemnity Company, Nelligan/Power, George Gary and Royal Trust Corporation of Canada.

PART IV -SUBMISSIONS ON COSTS

26. The Respondents Samuel Talbert and Colette Talbert request that costs follow the result and that any costs payable be assessed in the ordinary course.

PART V- ORDERS SOUGHT

27. For these reasons set out herein, the Respondents Samuel and Colette Talbert request an Order:

(i) Dismissing the motion for an extension of time to apply for leave to appeal the decision of the Court of Appeal dated December 16, 1998;

(ii) In the alternative, dismissing the application for leave to appeal the decision of the Court of Appeal dated December 16, 1998;

(iii) Extending the time to apply for leave to appeal, if necessary, and dismissing the application for leave to appeal the decision of Mr. Justice Nordheimer dated April 18,2005; and

(iv) Granting costs of these proceedings to these Respondents.

All of which is respectfully submitted this 26" day of August, 2005.

Piazza Brooks Barristers &Solicit 202-309 Cooper Street , K2P OG5 (613) 238-2244

(613) 238-3382 (Fax) Rick Brooks,

Solicitor for the Respondents Samuel Talbert and Colette Talbert

RELY TO THE RESPONSE BY MR AND MRS CHAVALI AND DR RAM CHAVALI.

COURT FILE NO:31006
         IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA 
               (ON APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL
FROM THE         SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE FOR THE
PROVINCE OF ONTARIO)
BETWEEN
REDDY RA.IAGOPAL CHAVALI, REDDY KRISENAVENI CHAVALI,
REDDY VENKATA SUBBARAMI CHAVALI, SADANA CORPORATION
LTD., VAHINI HOLDINGS LTD., MERU HOLDINGS LTD., 715048
ONTARIO LTD., 715040 ONTARIO LTD., KSHAMA CORPORATION,
LYON LAURIERDEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, NIKOLAUS WOLF and
LYON LAURIER PLACE DEVELOPMENT LTD. LAURIER PLACE
DEVELOPMENT LTD.
Applicants
 
THE LAW SOCIETY OF UPPER CANADA and
LAWYER'S PROFESSIONAL INDEMNITY COMPANY,
NELLIGAN/POWER,  GEORGE GATY, ROYAL TRUST CORPORATION
OF CANADA, PEAT MARWICK THORNE INC., SAMUEL TAL13ERT
and COLETTE TALBERT -               Respondents
REPLY OF THE APPLICANTS TO THE MEMORANDUM OF ARGUMENT
OF THE RESPONDENTS THE LAW SOCIETY OF UPPER CANADA,
LAWYERS' PROFESSIONAL INDEMNTTY COMPANY, NELLIGAN
POWER, ROYAL TRUST CORPORATION OF CANADA AND AGENTS
FOR THE SOLICITORS FOR GEORGE GATY
REDDY RAJAGOPAL CHAVALI REDDY KRISHNAVENI CHAVALI 
1260 Broadview 
Toronto, Ontario M4K 2T4 Tel - 416) 467-7388
 
and
DR. REDDY VENKATASUBBARMI CHAVALI 359 Kent Street
Brookline (Boston), Massachusetts U. S, A- 02446
Tel : (617) 734-5015 Applicants/Plaintiffs
 
TO:          The Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada
AND TO:               Nelligan O'Brien Payne, Barristers &
Solicitors 1900-66 Slater Street, Ottawa, Ontario KIP
5H1
Allan O'Brien Solicitor for the Respondents The Law
Society of Upper Canada, Lawyers' Professional
Indemnity Company, Nelligan/Power, Royal Trust
Corporation of Canada and Agents for the solicitors
for George Gary
AND TO:               Piazza Brooks Barristers & Solicitors 202-309
Cooper Street Ottawa, Ontario K2P OG5
Rick Brooks Solicitor for the Respondent Samuel
Talbert and Colette Talbert.
 
1:The Respondents Law Society of Upper Canada,
Lawyers' Professional Indemnity Company,
Nelligan/Power, George Gary and Royal Trust
Corporation of Canada 
(1) never denied any of the Applicants facts 
(2) never denied our  Right to have our Constitutional
question adjudicated on by the court 
(3) never denied our Right to have a Trial after 16
years, after over 12 Judges ordered Trials, 
(4) and have not responded to the Applicants' 
               (i) Constitutional question 
               (ii) the New Evidence in the Bill of Costs, 
               (iii) New Evidence from the Privacy Commission
under the Freedom of Information and Privacy Act of
Ontario , and 
               (iv)the Forensic Accounting from Dr. Rosen &
Associates 
           all the new Evidence that has never been
before the Ontario Court of Appeal.
Application record Tab 2-7 Pages 7-246
1.            As they have done for 16 years, the
Respondents/Defendants, including the Attorney General
of Ontario/agents, have not denied 
 (i) that they were participant's in the breach of
their Statutory duties,
(ii) fraud, 
(iii) unlawful possession of the Applicants'
assets, 
(iv)various violations of the Canadian Criminal
Code under sections 21, 122, 126, 139, 264, 319, 322,
336, 341, 347, 348,366, 368, 380, 429, 482, and 686,
and 
(v) violations of sections 5.4,12, 13, 33 and 51
of the Law Society Act R.S.O. 1980,L.8; 
(vi) the unlawful Auction of our Professional
Engineering business assets, 
(vii) unlawful Auction of the personal
belongings of the Applicants and others, not exigible
under Execution Act, R.S.O. 1980,c.146, s. l, s.2,
s-3, s.4,sA5;
(viii)  destruction of personal belongings of
the Applicants and others;
(ix) violation of s.178 Canada Bank Act
R.S.c.B-1; Section 50 and 79 of the Competition Act
R.S.C.c.C-34; and sections 3,10 and 15 of the Crown
Liability and Proceedings Act;
(x) The Attorney General of Ontario and the
Attorney General of Canada, have not denied the
violation of our Constitutional Rights guarantred
under the Preamble, sections 1, 2(b), 7, 8.12, 15,
24(1)(2), 32, 51 and Sections 92(13)(14)(15) of the
Constitution Act 1867 to 1982, sections 1(a)(b), 2(e)
ofthe Canadian Bill of Rights;
(xi)  theft of our 34 properties worth over $57
Million in 1989 and now have a value exceeding $175
Million
Respondents Record Tab. 4 pages 45-47
2 The Attorney General of Ontario and the
Respondent Law Society and other respondents have not
denied 
(i) their member lawyers dishonestly and with
fraud on the Court on January 10, 1994, conspired
between My O'Brien of Nelligan Power representing all
the defendants and James Morton acting for the
Plaintiffs/Appellants, by unlawfully without our
consent having him grant unlawful consent to
possession of  our property and unlawful Sales,
(ii) unlawful search and seizure, 
(iii) unjust enrichment,  
(iv) unlawfully having trust funds of the
Applicants in Lawyers/Lawfirms Trust account and 
(v)unlawful misuse of the Trust funds, 
(vi) criminal breach of trust, 
(vii) Conspiracy to defraud, 
(viii) disobeying Court orders by member
lawyers, 
(ix) fraud of member lawyers who alleged they
represented Dr. Ram without a retainer and without his
authority, 
(x) deliberate failure to comply with the Rules
of Service on Dr. Ram Chavali of the Cummings motion ,
resident of U.S.A., 
(xi) questionable conduct in legal proceedings
using fraudulent  tactics calculated to delay our
trials for 16 years, 
(xii) distort and obfuscating evidence 
(xiii) forensic excesses, 
(xiv) discovery abuse, 
(xv) obstruct justice and wearing down Applicants
through frustration and costs all Example of
misconduct of Lawyers as Officers of the Court as set
out in our Application record Pages 101-107
4. Applicants action before the Supreme Court of
Canada is
(A) To have the Supreme Court of Canada make a
decision on the Constitutional question that was
before Mr. Justice Cummings during the March 12-13,
1998 motion to have us declared frivolous and
vexatious and that was before Mr. Justice Nordheimer on
June 15, 2003 and April 18, 2005, who said he could
not make a decision on it as it was not before Mr.
Justice Cummings when in fact it had been. The
Constitutional question deals with whether section 140
Courts of Justice Act [CIA] is unconstitutional or the
manner of Applying it is Unconstitutional , which goes
to the heart of this case, now that the Applicants
have not been allowed a Trial for 16 years.
See Application No. 02-CV-240696CM1 and Application
02-CV-240436CM2 before Mr. Justice Nordheimer 
    The second Application 02-CV-240436CM2, the
Applicants refused to respond to because of the
prejudice of Judge Nordbeimer as follows:
(i) In not allowing the Applicants to examine 24
witnesses to prove they had a valid case under section
140CJA after he had ordered that the Applicants had
the right to examine 9 witnesses which was not
appealed to the court of appeal by the respondents. 
(ii) Mr. Justice Nordheimer refused to allow the
Applicants the right to examine Charles Hamick,
Ex-Attorney General of Ontario [AGO] for his (1)
conspiracy in dealing with 42 lawyers and
(2) having Conference call with Judges and lawyers
without our being present  and 
(3) providing Consents under s.140 CIA, with
documentation in a fraudulent application  of the
respondents that was not allowed under section 140 of
the Courts of Justice Act and 
(4) violating the attorney generals own directive of
February 10, 1998, as set out in the Bill of Costs of
the Law Society of March 29, 1999. Mr. Justice
Cummings had allowed costs for a one and half day
motion to the Applicants and then one year later the
Bill of costs was served on the Applicants Mr and Mrs.
Chavali but not on Dr. Chavali, detailing the evidence
of the Applicants in 57 pages of their fraudulent
application to the AGO that is not allowed by section
140 CIA. The new evidence is that of the respondents
and is credible evidence of acts of the respondents as
the 57 pages was prepared by the respondents and is
set out in detail.
(iii) Mr- Justice Nordheimer also refused to allow the
Chavalis the right to cross-examine the
Respondents/lawyers' on their affidavits.
(iv) Mr. Justice Nordheimer refused to allow the
Applicants' Notice of Cross-Motion dated June 12, 1993
formerly returnable on August 26, 1993 at 10 a.m.
during September, 2003 with respect to the Application
numbers 02-CV-240436CM2 and 02-CV-240696CM1, to prove
the Applicant Chavalis were impecunious further
proving his prejudice against the Applicants.
(v) The $192,031.51 fraudulent costs served on the
Applicants Mr and Mrs. Chavali but not on Dr. Ram
Chavali, who was not served with the Consent under
s.140CJA of the AGO and the Application Record before
Cummings on March 12-13, 1998, as proved in the Bill
of Costs [Application record Pages 177-234 before
Nordheimer J.], is part of the $350,000 in costs that
the Respondents say Mr and Mrs. Chavali have not paid.
In fact the full amount of $350,000 costs have been
granted against the Applicants for actions undertaken
after the order of Cumming J. was made on March 30,
1998. The Bill of costs was not before the Court of
Appeal or before  Archibald J. and was not argued
before Coo J. Mr. justice Coo gave his prejudicial
ruling after he was made as a defendant in the
Applicants' Federal Court Action A-643-00 on May 21,
2000, which reflected his  discrimination.
(vi) The Respondents obtained a Judgment of Mr.
Justice Nordheimer in the Application 02-Cv240436CM2
on August 29, 2005, in the absence of the Applicants,
iu which Mr. Justice Nordheimer is using costs once
again as a weapon to dismiss the Application, after
not allowing Applicants' cross-motion to prove the
Applicants Mr and Mrs. Chavali  are impecunious.
(vii) In the event that the application that we did
not respond to was dismissed by Judge Nordheimer the
respondents sent a letter on August 19, 2005, via
Courier to the regional Senior Justice Winkler-- the
intent of which is to close off every Avenue of Leave
to Appeal to the Court of last resort the Supreme
Court of Canada. [Attached hereto is the said letter
and the Applicants response as annex to this reply].
The intent of the Respondents letter to the Regional
Senior Justice is to win the motion even if they lose
the motion. Just another part of their fraudulent
activities that the Respondents have followed for 16
years in having the Courts deny the
Applicants'/Canadian Citizens' Constitutional Right to
a fair Trial
5. In the Applicants Previous Applications to the
Supreme Court of Canada for Leave to Appeal in 1994,
1996, 2002 the Applications were decided under
administrative law and as jurisdictional issues but
not with regard to the  Constitutional question and
the Constitutional validity of a.140 CJA and the
manner of applying the same was not presented earlier
and were decried even though a majority of the
fraudulent activities of these Judicial Parties were
in the Applications.
      In this Application for Leave-- the further
fraud set out to be heard is set out  in o the new
evidence of 
(i) 57 pages of the Respondents and 42 lawyers 
cost order of March 29, 1999,
(ii) New Information from Privacy Commission
under Freedom of Information and Privacy Act between
year 2000 and 2002, 
(iii) Forensic Accounting showing no trace of
mortgage proceeds from $9 Million, $2.425 Million,
800,000.00 mortgages proceeds plus proceeds from a
$500,000.00 and a $200,000.00 mortgage, and 
(iv) the Constitutional question of Right to a
fair Trial for 16 years.
6. Respondents never denied the fact that Cumming .I's
Order of March 30, 1998 was not based on  the evidence
and law and every statement was wrong and not
supported by the evidence as presented by the
Applicants in their Affidavit of December 17,
2004[Application Record Tab.4 Pages 126-152)
7. Notwithstanding the fact that the Applicants did
not have Leave to Appeal to the Court of Appeal which
cannot be obtained under section 140 CJA , the Ontario
Court of Appeal  heard the Appeal based on Equity and
we ask this Honourable Court in Equity to grant Leave
to Appeal even though the majority of the Parties are
judicial authorities.
8. The Respondents and certain Judges have exhibited a
pattern of protecting the Law Society of Upper
Canada[LSUC], Lawyers' Professional Indemnity Company
[LPIC] and their member lawyers and the Attorney
General of Ontario [AGO].
9. Once again the Respondents have provided the Court
with a large red herring dealing with the decisions of
judge Archibald and Judge Coo that have no bearing on
the questions at issue but which just prove that we
made two applications under section 140 of the courts
of justice act and were denied which shows the pattern
of the judges in protecting the law society of upper
Canada and its insurers and other judges who had no
legal right to protect the JUDICIAL AUTHORITIES. The
Applicants believe the intent of the Respondents is to
further wear  the applicants down under stress,
fatigue, procedural pressures and further procedural
tactics using power and politics to cause the deaths
of the applicants mrs chavali being 75 and mr chavali 
  .
10. Disclosure Obligation were generally violated by
the respondents with the assertion of privileges even
after the Court of Appeal ruled our cases should go to
trial and the failure to disclose information by the
Ex-AGO, Charles Hamick/employees/agents delayed this
Appeal appeal by four years and the further delay of
setting hearing dates by Judge Nordheimer delayed the
appeal for another 3 years three years. In essence
seven (7) years of intentional delay is attributed to
the Respondents and the AGO.
11  The AGO was in conflict of interest as a defendant
in Action 96-CU-114359 dated November 15, 1996 [Mr and
Mrs. Chavali v. AGO, LSUC and LPIC] and failed to act
in "good faith" as a Public Guardian. AGO's duty to
insure the Public that the Consents under Section 140
of the Courts of Justice Act are not being used for as
organized fraud and obstruction of Justice in
violation of Rights of the applicants guaranteed under
the Charter. Charles Harmick, AGO, servants of the
Crown committed "actionable wrong" Roncarellt v.
Duplessis (79591 S.C.R. 121(S.C.C) Johnson v.
Pedlar/19211 A.C. 261 at 271
12. The Charter applies to enactment-legislation that
in section 140CJA in two ways. Firstly Legislation may
be found to be unconstitational on its face because it
violates a Charter Right and is not saved buy s. l of
the Charter. Secondly, the Charter may be infringed
not by legislation itself, but by the actions of
delegated decision-maker in applying it and the manner
of applying it. The legislation now remains valid but
a remedy for the unconstitutional action may be sought
pursuant to s.24(7) of the Charter
Eldridge v. B.C.(A.G.) 1997 3 S.C.R.624 at 626
 
13. Issues
1. Are the members of Law Society and other
respondents  allowed and licensed to commit fraud on
the Court and the Applicants in order to cause
irreparable damage and loss of life, liberty and
security to their clients/ Applicants in order to save
Law Society of upper Canada and Judges and the
Attorney General of Ontario who all made fraudulent
orders for the last 16 years.
2. Does the Law Society of upper Canada and Judges 
have statutory mandate to harass and violate the
Constitutional Rights of the clients of their member
lawyers and litigants like the Chavalis that go to
them for Justice?
3. Do the Law Society of Upper Canada and the 42
Lawyers set out in the Bill of costs  have a statutory
mandate to  make a fraudulent application to the
Attorney General of Ontario under section 140 of the
Courts of Justice Act the evidence of which is set out
in the bill of costs that can be used to stop a trial
by the Appicants sanctioned by a Judge of the Superior
Court of Ontario in violation of our Constitutional
Rights under s.l,s.2(b), s.7, s.8, s.12, s.15,
s.24(1.), s.52
   4 Is the delay of 16 years for the applicants to
have a trial  caused by the delaying tactics of the
Respondents reasonable?
5 does the supreme court of Canada have the
jurisdiction to make a decision in all our cases based
on the fact that in equity it can consolidate all our
cases as a result of the chavalies lack of trust in
the Judicial system after a delay of 16 years?
 
Court File No. 31006
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA (ON APPLICATION FOR
LEAVE TO APPEAL FROM THE SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE FOR
THE PROVINCE OF ONTARIO)
BETWEEN
REDDY RAJAGOPAL CHAVALI, REDDY KRISHNAVENI CHAVALI,
REDDY VENKATA SUBBARAMI CHAVALI, 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 DEVELOPMENT LTD. LAURIER PLACE
DEVELOPMENT LTD.
Applicants
-and
THE LAW SOCIETY OF UPPER CANADA and
LAWYER'S PROFESSIONAL INDEMNITY COMPANY,
NELLIGAN/POWER, GEORGE GATY, ROYAL TRUST CORPORATION
OF CANADA, PEAT MARWICK THORNE INC., SAMUEL TALBERT
and COLETTE TALBERT 
Respondents
REPLY OF THE APPLICANTS TO THE MEMORANDUM OF ARGUMENT
OF THE RESPONDENTS SAMUEL TALBERT AND COLLETTE TALBERT
REDDY RAJAGOPAL CHAVALI REDDY KRISHNAVENI CHAVALI 1260
Broadview Avenue
Toronto, Ontario M4K 2T4 Tel: 416) 467-7388
 
and
DR. REDDY VENKATASUBBaRMI CHAVALI 359 Kent Street
Brookline (Boston), Massachusetts U.S.A. 02446
Tel:(617)734-5015 
Applicants/Plaintiffs
 
TO:          The Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada
AND TO:               Nelligan O'Brien Payne, Barristers &
Solicitors 1900-66 Slater Street, Ottawa, Ontario Kip
5H1
Allan O'Brien Solicitor for the Respondents The Law
Society of Upper Canada, Lawyers' Professional
Indemnity Company, Nelligan/Power, Royal Trust
Corporation of Canada and Agents for the solicitors
for George Gaty
AND TO:               Piazza Brooks Barristers & Solicitors 202-309
Cooper Street Ottawa, Ontario K2P OG5
Rick Brooks Solicitor for the Respondent Samuel
Talbert and Colette Talbert.
THE APPICANTS RELY ON THEIR REPLY GIVEN TO THE LAW SOCIETY OF UPPER CANADA, LAWYERS PROFESSIONAL INDEMNITY COMPANY, NELLIGAN POWER, ROYAL TRUST CORPORATION OF CANADA AND AGENTS FOR THE SOLICITORS GEORGE GATY.
 
 
PEAT MARWICK THORNE INC NEVER PUI IN A RESPONSE TO OUR APPICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL TO THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA. 
 
RESPONSE TO THE RESPONDENTS FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME FOR THE SERVICE OF THE RESPONDENTS RESPONSES.
 

Court File No. '36001 SUPREME COURT OF CANADA

BETWEEN

REDDY RAJAGOPAL CHAVALI, REDDY KRJSHNAVENI CHAVALL REDDY VENKATA SUBBARAMI CHAVALI, SADANA CORPORATION LTD.,

V AHINI 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. LAURIER PLACE DEVELOPMENT LTD.

Applicants

-and­

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

AFFIDAVIT OF

DR. REDDY VENKATASUBBARAMI CHAVALI SWORN ON SEPTEMBER 10, 2005

1. I, REDDY V ENKATASUBBARAMI CHAVALI ["RAM CHAVALI°], of the City of Boston., in the State of Massachusetts, The United States of America, MAKE OATH AND SAY AS FOLLOWS:

2. 1 am a Medical Physician practising in the United States utd I am the son of Reddy Knshnaveni Chavah and Reddy Rajagopal Chavali. I have been residing in the United States since 19 years. I am presently working as an Interventicnal Neuroradiologist/ Brain Surgeon. I am the only Imerventional Neuroradiologist for two major University-based medical centres at boston Massachusetts, U.S.A.

3. I am one of the Applicants, along with others seeking leave to Appeal of the Orders of

Nordheimer J of april 18,2005 and the order of Court of Appeal for Ontario of

December 16, 1998 and the Cumming J. order of March 30, 1998 which are in violation of my Constitutional Rights .

4. I was never served with any material with regard. to the two Consents of the Attorney general dated July 17, 1997 and December 19, 1997 and the Application 98-CV141167 before Mr. Justice Cumming or the ,57 page Bill of Costs of the Law Society of Upper Canada (LSUC)and 42 Lawyers. The application by the Applicants of the Cummings J Application was never intended to be served on me as set forth at Pares 10. 25. 16.30. 32, 35. 36. 37. 38.39.40 in the Bill of Casts between Januarv 7. 1998 through February 12. 1998, In fact Service on me was deliberately avoided. According to the order of Mr. Justice MacPherson, dated January 8, 1998, the Applicants were to serve and file the Notice of Application and the supporting materials on me by Monday, February 9, 1998, and the Hearing of the Application was scheduled for March 12 and 13, 1998. This order was not complied with. Nor was I privy to the documented conference call of January 7, 1998 between Lockwood representing Law Society and Nikolaus Wolf, Mr.and Mrs. Chavali and Mr.Justice MatPlrersion who ordered the application under s. 140 Courts Of Justice Act (CJA) be served by February 9,1998, which also was deliberately avoided by LSUC.

5. Mr. Justice Cumming in the lower Courts erred in law, contrary to the uncontradicted evidence o£ fraud, fraudulent concealment, theft, forgery, and denial of Trials, and furthermore was contrary to the orders of over 15 Previous Judges in violation of fundamental Justice guaranteed under s.7 of the Charter for a fair trial and violation of section 2(e) of the Canadian Bill of Rights. The Respondents ran up a Bill of costs of $350,000 including the Cummings Js application costs of over 192,000.00+- and none of the bills of costs were justified as I was not served with Camming's Application record, in accordance with the Ontario rules of practice.

(6) That the reply of the respondents deals with 2 applications made by the applicants for the right to have a Trial before Mr. Justice Coo and Justice Archibald , which in my opinion are a red herring as they do not reply to the main issues of our Right to have our constitutional question heard with respect to section 140 Courts of Justice Act [CJA] and our right to have a fair and unprejudiced Trial after 16 years. Mr Justice Coo made both errors of law and palpable and overriding errors of fact in determining that I have been represented by jerry levitan, who admitted under oath that he never had any communication with me to represent me either before Judge Cummings on March 12-13 1998 or the Court of appeal on December 16,1998. The clear error of fact and law by Judge Coo has relevance to this application since it is on the s.140 CJA order of Cummings J. of March 30,1998 and the Court of Appeal order of December 16,1998, based on the uncontradicted new evidence.

7 For a physician to be declared by a Superior court Of Ontario a frivolous and vexatious litigant is in fact libellous. The Order of March 30,1998 which states that “ no further proceedings may be instituted by any or all of the respondents , corporations currently or in the future owned or controlled by them, their heirs, trustees, corporate parents, subsidiaries, affiliates, related companies, successors or assigns of any alleged right of action of the respondents or corporations owned or controlled by them, without leave; and (b) all proceedings previously instituted by any or all of the said Respondents are not to be continued without leave.” Is unconstitutional and violates my Rights guaranteed under the Charter and extends even to my children who are American Citizens.

8. With respect to the extension of time by the Respondents, we the applicants consent to that order of extension of time to file their response but wish to advise the Court just as the Applicants in the Cumming Js Application did not have an order to have service out of jurisdiction under Rule 17 rules of Civil Procedure, which would have given me more time to reply, I was not served with an order for service out of jurisdiction together with motion for extension of time herein.

9. However, I want to point out the wrong or false statements in the Affidavit of Anne Marshall of the law firm Nelligan, 0'Brien and Payne dated September 1, 2005. First I nevcr authorized Fedex to leave any packages at my door without a signature(paragraph 12 of Anne Marshalls affidavit). Secondly Paragraphs 3 to 11 are not true and accurate and without a foundation as there was never any confirmation or agreement to attend at Toronto Court on August 29, 2005 before Mr. Justice Nordheimer. This is contrary to the Applicants' letter of August 25, 2005. In fact I was out of the City of Boston with my family between August 27th and September 4,2005. This type of dishonest affidavits and fraud on Courts have been continuing for 16 years to obstruct justice and to deny our Right to a fair Trial.

10. I am advised and verily believe that the Supreme Court of Canada in Equity has the right to make a decision on all of our Superior Court actions. I pray to the Court that it exercises their jurisdiction as after 16 years of being refused a Trial I cannot trust the lower Court to give an unprejudiced decision.

11. I make this Affidavit in response to the Respondents and for the request for the extension of time and for no other improper purpose.

SWORN BEFORE ME at the

City of Toronto, Province of

Ontario, this 11 day

of September, 2005 DR. REDDY VENKATASUBBARAMI CHAVALI (DR. RAM CHAVALI)

A Commissioner, etc.
 
 
 
               


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