Kumar(s): The Hammer Comes Down

[eric]

OK, time to talk about the Kerslake AVAP situation. It has significance because Kumar claims it as a victory and also allowed him to string his victims along for a little while longer. So what does AVAP mean? IANAL, let's parse it out- “apparently vexatious applications or proceedings” is what it translates to. Roughly it's a means to clear out the “dog ate my homework” actions which take up too much court time, and on the surface, have no chance of success. Here's how the process works:

A letter requesting CPN7 should be no more than a line or two, since the defect in the pleading should be evident on its face. If further explanation is required, the parties may want to consider other procedures available under the Rules
1. The letter should enclose a copy of the impugned pleading or commencement document
2. If the party is alleging the pleading is a collateral attack or res judicata, then they should also include a copy of any previous written decisions, pleadings or orders that support this. However, if the party is attaching multiple decisions, the defect might not be evident on its face and CPN7 may not be the appropriate procedure.

Also:

Further, the fact that a litigant may have previously filed vexatious pleadings does not automatically mean that the present pleading would also be vexatious. Pleadings must be assessed on their own right to determine whether they are vexatious

With respect to Mr. Kerslake I'm stuck with what the Kumars have posted. Kerslake owed money to various creditors and started the typical Kumar action – prove I have to pay you and since my credit rating is tanked you owe me bucks. He had a credit card with Capitol One and they started the AVAP process.
https://docs.google.com/document/d/17Wj ... it?tab=t.0
I do not have knowledge of what the important few lines before were. This was the response:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1W2a ... it?tab=t.0
tldr – This is not OPCA, ChatGPT tells me so:
https://www.publicwatchdogcomplaintline.ca/general-4
The Court said, OK, we won't dump the action, Mr. Kerslake can proceed to court. Keep in the back of your mind that the AVAP process, contrary to what the Kumars are claiming, does not mean they are right, it's just they are not definitely wrong and let's go to court.
I am guarding my remarks here, since someone who shall remain nameless, with far more legal expertise than myself, and has personal knowledge of the situation, has their own opinions. Here are the possibilities – the Court made a mistake, Kerslake's actions should have been dumped immediately. Option #2 – I don't have the origional letter from Capital One. They may have said “this action is OPCA”, instead of “this argument was presented in Courtereille and failed miserably”. Option #3 – the Court made a tactical decision. We have four or more actions going on with similar arguments. If we proceed with an inevitable failure they can't make the argument in the future. In any case, it does not mean that Kumar crowing about “his argument is not OPCA” is a victory. Hints as to what happens when I talk about the omnibus decision of Bonnville #3 when everything crashed and burned for the Kumars and their victims.

[yycparalegal]

I can add some context in respect of what happened after the Kerslake AVAP decision.

Agreed, the AVAP Decision doesn't say this action is clearly not an abusive action, it simply says its not suitable for the abridged process under CPN7. But that Counsel is not precluded from taking action to correct deficiencies under rule 3.68. What that means is, I'm not going to do this basically by way of desktop, but there is nothing stopping AMEX from bringing a summary dismissal application, which they did. AJ Summers later dismissed the Kerslake v Amex action and granted summary judgment in the Amex v Kerslake action. A review of the transcript shows that AJ Summers agreed with Counsel for Amex, the Kerslake v Amex action was an OPCA action and suitable for summary disposition.

I don't want to go too deep here in light of the Kerslake and Kohut v Kumars Actions.

[eric]

I don't want to go too deep here in light of the Kerslake and Kohut v Kumars Actions.

Thanks for the up date. Since much of the Kerslake actions aren't on Canlii I had to rely on what the Kumars had posted (getting sick of listening to them on youtube, now I just skip forward to when they show a document). I have been purposely running a month or two behind so I can see what the reactions have been to the various Bonneville actions. I will content myself with talking about Bonneville #3 and a few snide remarks about their defense in the two actions you are involved in.

[yycparalegal]

Based on the defense, I'm not entirely certain that they (the Kumars) are aware of the Summers decision

[eric]

They're aware of the Summers decision from what I can tell from their youtube videos. It's sort of "how come we have another judge who says we're wrong". Either they're confused or more likely they're trying to push the narrative for public consumption that there is some vast conspiracy involving Judge Neilson, banks, assorted lawyers, and credit reporting agencies. Kevin Kumar did the same thing back in 2016 except it included RECA, Alberta Land Titles, the CBC, and a "hired thug and harasser" (yours truly). Some career advice - don't get into the hired thug and/or harasser business, the pay really sucks.

[yycparalegal]

I mean in one of the paragraphs they accuse me of conspiring with Mr. Justice Neilsen to defame them, so there is that.

[yycparalegal]

And yet another update. Pleadings to follow, seems the Kumars have now brought defamation proceedings against me in the BC Supreme Court.

[eric]

Sorry, my fault, should have warned you of that. It's part of their playbook. Waaay back when I was dealing with them my lawyer advised me they would sue me for various things, on his advice I never responded to various stuff on social media and also here by them. They sued some of us in their fake "King's Court". They reported me for criminal harassment to the RCMP in Vernon. Interestingly enough, literally within the hour, a person walked into the same station and supplied information to the RCMP for criminal fraud so my potential harassment charge never went anywhere, instead they went to court. IANAL but I suppose you can always use the defense of truth.

[yycparalegal]

Hey no worries, not exactly surprised by this turn of events.

[eric]

I read their Statement of Claim (cost me 12$). So, because you had the temerity to post court proceedings which are publicly available to anyone who can use Google and maybe pay a few bucks for a deep dive that is somehow defamatory and they want 500 K$ to compensate for their hurt feelings. I noted that they have lost at least one customer (victim) - too bad, so sad, etc. Since you're not a lawyer I'm not sure if the rest of their claim has any merit. Kevin at least has been vex-litted in Alberta, I'm not sure if that is applicable in BC is another factor. Final thought, dollars to doughnuts, their claim was AI generated from what I can see - the summary at the end is the tell.

[wserra]

Does Canada (or do any individual provinces) have the equivalent of what the US calls anti-SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation) statutes? They're quite useful in situations like this. In a nutshell, a frivolous suit brought to shut someone up (or punish them for speaking) is not only subject to immediate (pre-discovery) dismissal, but will result in the award of costs and lawyer's fees to defendants. Good stuff. Most US states now have them.

[stompinggrounds]

Not sure if BC has something similar, and it's not directly anti-SLAPP, but Alberta as Civil Practice Note 7 (CPN7) which is often used if a legal proceeding is utter trash. It's actually a decent threshold to get it to count as CPN7, but it does come into play when OPCA tactics are used, and is Alberta's way of tossing useless lawsuits, often involving standard freeman stuff like foisted unilateral agreements, money for nothing schemes, etc. Haven't read the pleading yet, so don't know if it's OPCA based or not

[yycparalegal]

Morning all. BC Does have a process under rule 9-5 of the Supreme Court Rules, it's not quit as aggressive as CPN 7 in Alberta but it should do the trick.

[eric]

Here's a link to the Kumars' Statement of Claim: (hope it works)

Just my thoughts - For ten plus years Kevin Kumar has striven to project a "no fail" method of beating the banks. Previously he was protected through artificial personae such as Ty Griffiths, or various middlemen employees. For example, it was Elliot or Manji as employees, or Ty Griffiths who lost court cases. He sort of gets upset when he has to take personal responsibility.

[wserra]

Thanks, eric.

The reaction of this US lawyer: Most of it is nonsense. The one part that isn't - assuming, of course, that the facts back it up, which in the case of these guys is a sizable assumption - consists of the allegations of professional malpractice / conflict of interest. If you engage someone to consult on a professional matter who then, after accepting the engagement, acts against you, the engaging party, in a related matter - well, that is arguably actionable. There are other issues, but it doesn't sound like a SLAPP.

Of course, I have no idea if that is in fact the case. In addition, I strongly suggest that anyone personally involved in the matter not elaborate on their position here. Except the Kumars, of course. They should feel free to shoot their scamming mouths off.

[yycparalegal]

So I kind of left this alone until I had more filings. Today we filed the response, application to strike and affidavits in support.
https://www.mcdonaldparalegal.ca/_files ... 9f1392.pdf
https://www.mcdonaldparalegal.ca/_files ... 9d32cf.pdf
https://www.mcdonaldparalegal.ca/_files ... 9b4365.pdf
https://www.mcdonaldparalegal.ca/_files ... 884c6d.pdf
Here's to hoping the links work

Application is set down for January 20, 2025 at the Vernon Court, we will of course be seeking to appear via teams on that day.

[eric]

Thanks for the information. I will try to remember to put my pants on and observe on January 20. On another note, within the past few days I have discovered that Colton has been attempting to recover from his victims when they default on his promissory notes. One of them is interesting - "Pay the note or I will sue you, but if you will be a witness for me on January 20 I will make it worth your while". I'm not going to name the victim since he spoke to me in private, he can come forward in this forum if he wishes.

[yycparalegal]

I'm wondering out loud, and maybe Eric it would be good to get your thoughts. given the depth at which I think this rinse repeat situation may grow to, it might make sense to break out the new stuff into a new sub thread dedicated to the united we stand people dot com matters?

[wserra]

Today we filed the response, application to strike and affidavits in support.

Not a Canadian lawyer, but those appear quite professional. Nice work.

it might make sense to break out the new stuff into a new sub thread dedicated to the united we stand people dot com matters?

If that's the consensus - Burnaby? - not a problem. Let me know at which post to start, and what the title of the new thread should be, and I'll take care of it.

[eric]

I concure, let's split it out. I would suggest a short statement at the beginning about those interested in further information start here, etc. For a start point I would go for my posting on 27 September 2023 about Courtoreille. That's the case that got the Alberta Courts to become interested in the Kumars as an ongoing pseudolaw scam, rather than lopping them off individually. Either that or start with Bonnville #1 on 21 June 2024
***** edited to correct dates