Private Sector Act dot Com

[wserra]

Those tracking cookies and such are a necessary part of Kumar's template.

Sure, lots of sites use ads and trackers. But Malwarebytes identifies the first item - "www-creditorcontrol-ca.filesusr.com" preceded by the bug icon - as malware. And it is especially suspicious because it's an executable.

[eric]

"Frog" listed below that is the one that places the trackers. That being said, it's usually blocked by most vanilla browsers with a modicum of security. There is third party software that hooks to frog that hides it from the blockers - that's the malware identified. I haven't got around yet to mirroring Colton's site offline to do a deep dive so I don't know if it's active or not. My ISP gets angry with me when I mirror sites since it's against their terms of use so I have to use a VPN.

[eric]

Just recently there's been another court decision that I believe will finally put a serious crimp in Kumar's business, at least in Alberta. First a couple of background matters to clear up...
In this post is a video of Colton Kumar outside the courthouse in Vernon talking about how he is planning to sue Spring Financial. I made light of him and considered it simply a bluff. I was sorely mistaken....
viewtopic.php?f=48&t=10455&p=294410&hil ... on#p294410
Next background matter to clear up. In this post I gave my opinion that vex-litting Kevin Kumar may not have the desired effect.

So what will be the result of all this? Kumar is left with multiple options I'm afraid. Back in the days when he was working with Derek Johnson he simply never signed anything himself and for court appearances handed his victims a script to read. His other option is to use one of his endless stable of “chosen agents” aka dupes to read his scripts for him. It just so happens that yours truly has the contact information for all of them, even their test scores.

viewtopic.php?p=297292#p297292
To be blunt, Kevin Kumar is running a business through a network of “affiliates” who sell his product and act as intermediaries to creditors. Of course you need to track how your employees are doing generating leads and where they are in their training. I've been keeping this private, but since I suspect it may well come crashing down next month, here's the system he used up until mid 2022. Sales leads, affiliates' contacts, the works. From what I can tell it was almost a MLM scheme.
https://investor.reducemydebtbythousand ... ng/?type=7
Want see how an employee is doing? Here's Rondal Gardner's status: 61 sales leads, 4 affiliates in training, and one who has completed their training. BTW, Rondal Gardner and Martin Van Driel appear in multiple videos.
https://reducemydebtbythousands.com/aff ... 80b6723e5e

So off to the races with the latest court ruling. As a short introduction, the ruling was made in response to a letter sent to the court by the counsel for PC Financial. “What's going on? Kevin Kumar was vex-litted in Courtoreille 2024 ABQB 302. We're getting stuff exactly the same for two our card holders who have defaulted from somebody called Colton Kumar. We're also being sued for 100 K$ each time”
Exactly as I forecast would happen. Kevin Kumar is out of the picture so he gets Colton to do the work.

II.        Colton Kumar
[7]               On June 7, 2024, Counsel for President’s Choice Bank (PC Bank) wrote to me to draw to my attention two Court of King’s Bench of Alberta Actions that involve its client:
•         Claire Bonville v President’s Choice Financial, Court of King’s Bench of Alberta Action No. 2403 01300, Statement of Claim filed January 19, 2024 (Bonville lawsuit); and
•         Sydney Socorro M Davis v President’s Choice Financial, Court of King’s Bench of Alberta Action No. 2401 06187, Statement of Claim filed May 3, 2024 (Davis lawsuit).
[8]               The bodies of the Bonville lawsuit and the Davis lawsuit Statements of Claim are identical, except that the Bonville lawsuit has one additional paragraph, paragraph 8, below:
Statement of Facts relied on:
l.         PC Financial was served a Registered Letter on [date] containing details of a payout arrangement to pay [name’s] debt with PC in Full
2.         [Name] qualified for private financing and had arranged the funds to pay PC in full
3.         Within the PC CardHolder Agreement it states "18.3 Assignment We may sell, assign or transfer any or all of our rights or obligations under this Cardholder Agreement"
4.         Due to the fact PC stated in the Agreement they could sell the right to the agreement at any time [name] requested PC provide Proof of Ownership of the debt to ensure she was forwarding funds to the correct entity in the case that her debt had been sold to a third party
5.         [Name] requested a sworn affidavit from Presidents Choice's chartered accountant that stated they had checked the ledgers and the debt was not sold, simply because the chartered accountant would be the only entity with access to the information in order to make that claim
6.         PC never provided the requested documentation that proves PC still maintains ownership of the rights to [name’s] debt
7.         PC made multiple "Missed Payment" reports even though they were well aware [name] was attempting to pay the debt in full
8.         Claire Served PC a "No Contact" Letter on November 9th
9.         PC continued to harass [name] while she awaited the requested documentation from PC
Remedy sought
10.      All false Credit Reports from [date] forward be removed from [name’s] Credit history
11.      $100,000 In damages for Negligence in the workplace leading to damages, False or Misleading Credit Reporting, and Harassment

and:

The Plaintiffs each claimed that “Colton Kumar” is acting as their representative in the credit card debt dispute, and provided contact information:
•         website: UnitedWeStandPeople.com;
•         email address: UnitedWeStandPeople@gmail.com; and
•         telephone number: (250) 306 1534.

The the judge goes on to discuss how conventional methods to stop these sort of “vigilante” court actions, particularly in Kumar's case, simply haven't worked:

[13]           The current situation with the emerging UnitedWeStandPeople OPCA debt elimination / “money for nothing” scam is even worse. One or more individuals are advertising on the Internet that they have secret techniques that will eliminate debt. That has now led to a large array of different but centrally coordinated litigants entering into the Court apparatus, using parallel techniques and documents, but in separate litigation processes. This litigation debt elimination business is the proverbial hydra with many heads, sprouting from a body that is out of reach.
[14]           The Court of King’s Bench of Alberta has already experienced the effect of such a networked program because in 2010-2014 the Court of King’s Bench of Alberta in the Judicial Centre of Calgary was targeted by one such scheme, that involved Kevin Kumar, personally. As is reviewed in Unrau #2 at paras 205-212, court-mediated attempts to manage this mortgage “Dollar Dealer” scam were a near total failure. The participants, including Kevin Kumar himself, simply outmaneuvered litigation and litigant control by inventing new identities, via “pop up” shell corporations, and what appeared to be pseudonyms, and then “agents” purporting to act on behalf of these actors. Counter-attack litigation, such as the Bonville lawsuit and the Davis lawsuit, were launched at little cost against lenders. Judicial decision makers were also sued, personally. The “Dollar Dealers” went so far as to set up their own fake vigilante court, the “Alberta Court of Kings Bench” (sic), which issued relatively authentic-looking Statements of Claim targeting those who attempted to recover their lost money.

So time for some creative techniques. Let's deal with the two lawsuits first:

[22]           I therefore direct:
1)         The Bonville v President’s Choice Financial, Court of King’s Bench of Alberta Action No. 2403 01300 and Davis v President’s Choice Financial, Court of King’s Bench of Alberta Action No. 2401 06187 lawsuits are stayed.
2)         Claire Bonville has until July 5, 2024 to submit to my office and serve on counsel for PC Bank Written Submissions and/or Affidavit evidence as to why she should not be required to pay to the Clerk of the Court $10,000 in security for costs pursuant to r 4.22 of the Alberta Rules of Court.
3)         Sydney Socorro M. Davis has until July 5, 2024 to submit to my office and serve on counsel for PC Bank Written Submissions and/or Affidavit evidence as to why she should not be required to pay to the Clerk of the Court $10,000 in security for costs pursuant to r 4.22 of the Alberta Rules of Court.
[23]           To be explicit, so Ms. Bonville and Ms. Davis have no misunderstanding, if this Court imposes a security for costs requirement in the Bonville lawsuit and/or the Davis lawsuit, then failure to pay those amounts will:
1)         result in the Plaintiff’s action being terminated;
2)         result in a costs award against the Plaintiff paid to PC Bank as a consequence of PC Bank being the successful party (r 10.29 of the Alberta Rules of Court); and
3)         may result in the Plaintiff being required to pay an additional r 10.49(1) of the Alberta Rules of Court penalty to the Clerk of the Court for engaging in abusive litigation that misuses the Court’s resources.

The next problem is how to deal with the two Kumars.

[26]           The next issue is how to manage the person or persons directing UnitedWeStandPeople. I do not know if Kevin Kumar and Colton Kumar are the same or different people. Kevin Kumar is known to participate in fraudulent schemes in which multiple aliases and alter egos have been deployed: Unrau #2. Representation restrictions were imposed on Kevin Kumar in Courtoreille. It is plausible that Kevin Kumar has simply adopted a new name to evade Court-imposed litigation management steps.
[27]           Following the principle above that meaningful litigation management in these circumstances can only be effected by combining litigation management and financial consequences, I take these steps. Kevin Kumar and Colton Kumar shall by July 5 2024 submit to my office and serve on counsel for PC Bank:
1)         an Affidavit that:
a) deposes the personal mailing addresses, telephone numbers, and email addresses of Kevin Kumar and Colton Kumar;
b) deposes the URLs of all Internet and social media websites operated by Kevin Kumar and Colton Kumar, directly, or indirectly as UnitedWeStandPeople or any other purported debt elimination service; and
c) attaches as exhibits a Canada or provincial government-issued identification document that includes a photograph and date of birth of Kevin Kumar and Colton Kumar;
2)         Written Submissions and Affidavit evidence as to why Colton Kumar should not be subject to the same representative and lawyer activity restrictions imposed on Kevin Kumar in Courtoreille at para 22; and
3)         Written Submissions and Affidavit evidence as to why:
a) Kevin Kumar and/or Colton Kumar should not be made joint and severally subject to pay any costs awards made against the Plaintiffs in the Bonville lawsuit and/or the Davis lawsuit; and
b) Kevin Kumar and/or Colton Kumar have an adequate excuse so that they are not subject to r 10.49(1) of the Alberta Rules of Court penalties for their directing and engaging in OPCA litigation.

Prove you're a real person and not some made up persona such as Ty Griffiths or the myriad of AI generated speakers on your youtube viseos. Send the court enough information about your internet presence that we can shut you down if required. Seriously consider that you may be personally sued.
This paragraph I find interesting. There are other matters that they are involved in. I'm not sure if I have the time right now to make a submission within the next three weeks. Perhaps an email referencing the decision to the appropriate people might be the easiest approach.

[29]           If PC Bank wishes to make Written Submissions and/or provide Affidavit evidence in relation to these security for costs and litigation and litigant management steps in relation to the Bonville lawsuit and the Davis lawsuit, then these should be received by July 12, 2024 Given the unusual nature of the abusive litigation scheme and its distributed character, there plausibly is additional UnitedWeStandPeople litigation ongoing in Alberta Courts, in addition to the five matters that have been identified to date. Other affected parties may also submit Affidavit evidence concerning the UnitedWeStandPeople scheme and Kevin Kumar and Colton Kumar, due also on July 12, 2024.

Anyways, should you so desire you can read it all here.
https://www.canlii.org/en/ab/abkb/doc/2 ... YXIAAAAAAQ

[yycparalegal]

Happy to give a bit of a cryptic update on the Kumar Saga. Two of his victims (both mentioned in the Royal Bank decisions) have brought Actions in the Alberta Court of Justice. for a combination of things including fraudulent misrepresentation, and unlawful means conspiracy. What is perhaps not surprising is that the dispute notes are basically 15 pages of directly attacking the many published written reasons for decision (flowing all the way back to dollar deal scam days.) More updates as they come.

[eric]

I must admit I have been somewhat remiss in updating what is going on with the two Kumars. Last count I believe we're up to Bonneville #3 and a Davey (sp?) appeal. The actions you mentioned must be from someone not mentioned in the various Bonneville decisions. I would love a copy of one of them.

[yycparalegal]

Hi Eric, I sent you a DM. some of my favorite hightlights from the dispute notes:

"the 2014 memorandums were an abuse of process intended to slander Kevin Kumar"

now note. I am not a lawyer, but
"The Plaintiff (sic) Lawyer is pushing a narrative given to him by Neilson's (sic) bogus memorandums while participating in a conspiracy involving Judge Neilson (sic) and several other bank lawyers"

and of course, these two actions are in the Alberta Court of Justice.
"the Rules of the Supreme Court of Canada (SOR/2002-156) section on affidavits...."

[eric]

OK I seem to have gone around in a circle and confused everyone including myself. So here's what I shall report in the next few days. Short Summary - all of the Kumars' recent court cases have been rolled up into one decision known as Bonneville #3 which has resulted in various victims owing their creditors and them, plus the Kumars, owing the Court. A couple of odd asides - a failed appeal by one of the victims and a court decision (Kerslake) that the Kumars are relying on in their defence. Next point... a couple of the victims are sueing the Kumars. I will be putting the claims up on Google docs for public perusal. Mods - I need a ruling. Although court documents are open to the public, these include home addresses of the parties involved. As per quatloosian policy shall I do some redaction first?

[Burnaby49]

As the Canadian moderator I'd say yes, exclude them. Home addresses are irrelevant to the story.

The only times I can recall publishing litigant's addresses were when the address was an integral part of the story itself. Naomi Arbabi comes to mind. She sued a condo neighbour regarding changes to the neighbour's unit making their residences a critical component of the lawsuit.