Kumar(s): The Hammer Comes Down

[eric]

As promised, this is not really an update on Kevin Kumar but more of a explanation of the process he, or his employees, use when dealing with creditors of those who have fallen into his United We Stand People group. His web site and youtube channel are collated to give the innocent the impression that he always wins and using his methodology you don't have to pay your debts. As Doctor N has mentioned, Kumar and Johnson are one of the few Canadian pseudo law promoters who have been successful in using it as a money making venture.

So let us take a look at how his methodology played out using a recent case. It concerns a Mr. Patrick Courtoreille who owed RBC 14 K$ on his Visa, 17 K$ including costs once it made it to court. The first part of the method is that “every Canadian has the right to appoint a chosen agent to represent them”. Sort of right, however your creditor also has the right to say see ya in court. Kumar's son, Colton Kumar, was the chosen agent and was studiously ignored by RBC's lawyers. In fact, the receptionist even refused to give him the name of which lawyer was handling the case. There's some magic involved that the chosen agent has to speak directly with the lawyer. If they won't speak to your chosen agent it's adult bullying and a violation of your human rights.....
The next part of the method is proving ownership of the debt. The bank must somehow dig up the original signed copy of the loan agreement to prove that they made the loan to him in the first place.
Final stage of the method: - there is a private investor (who may or may not exist) prepared to pay off the debt in total as a lump sum but the bank has to prove they still own the debt because “debts in Canada are bought and sold every day”. This feat can only be accomplished by the bank using a “chartered accountant to go through their books” and produce a signed affidavit.
If you're totally bored, here's links to all the videos Kumar has produced outlining the total travesty of justice with respect to Mr. Courtoreille. There was one more, but he deleted it for some reason. The above is a written summary of two hours of videos anyways so I wouldn't recommend going to the effort.




In the now deleted video he showed the bank's statement of claim, their defence, and enough information that I learned the case was to be heard in Red Deer and that Kumar planned to be there. Roughly an hour's easy drive from me, spend a day in court, take my wife out to dinner somewhere better than what is offered in a tiny rural village. So.... the courts in Alberta, kicked in the butt by Covid restrictions, have discovered that virtual courts are a gift to all, so no good dinner.
Necessary background information – this was a virtual court hearing Rule 7.3 applications. These are where there is no defence to a claim, or the defence has no merit, and the only question is the amount of costs to be awarded. Unlike the usual torpid pace of Canadian courts, it moved along with brutal efficiency, twenty applications in two hours. Electronic filing of court documents and the ability to mute unruly respondents helps as well. The other necessary background information to remember is that Kevin Kumar aka Ty Griffiths has been vex-litted:

 is prohibited from commencing or attempting to commence, or from continuing, any appeal, action, application, or proceeding in the Court of Appeal, the Court of Queen’s Bench or the Provincial Court of Alberta (Civil), on their own behalf or on behalf of any other entity or estate without an Order of the appropriate court in which the proceeding is conducted or to be conducted.

https://www.canlii.org/en/ab/abqb/doc/2 ... ultIndex=1

So off to the races on August 29, coffee in hand, and remembering to wear my trousers just in case I had to turn on my camera, I purposely logged in as myself to Red Deer virtual court to view file number 2310 00279. Members of the public can log in as “observer” but I wished to make a point to Kumar should he show.
I will deal with Courtoreille's case first. Patrick Courtoreille was logged in as himself, no camera, as per the rules. RBC's statement of claim can best be summarized as that he owed 14 K$ on his Visa card as of a certain date, here is the total with penalties and interest. Attached was a certified true copy by a commissioner of oaths of the original loan agreement for the card with Courtoreille's signature. Lawyer for RBC told the judge that Courtoreille, through his chosen agent of course, had indicated that the court proceedings would be recorded and put on youtube. Lawyer stated that the defence was an OPCA 3/5 foisted contract.
Courtoreille is warned by the judge that electronic recording is forbidden. Kevin Kumar speaks on Courtoreille's login and it sounds like he has simply been put on speakerphone. Similarly he asks for the spelling of the lawyer's name – if he was really logged in properly he would have been able to see it. Kevin Kumar is in full frothing at the mouth Ty Griffiths mode. Since notaries/commissioners of oaths have magical powers he can't use the wet ink signature defence. Demands proof of ownership of the debt. “Are you aware that debts are bought and sold every day?”. Mute <click>
Kumar demands a two week adjournment so a chartered accountant can go through the bank's books. Not granted. Mute <click>
Courtoreille has to pay up. Kumar says he wants to appeal, the judge replies you certainly have that right sir.... Mute <click>

Other mildly interesting cases that day... A case of Bitcoin fraud where Party A claims to have been defrauded by Party B so they hired Party C to get their money back. Party C, the hacker, gladly accepted 56 K$ in Bitcoin as payment and never did anything. Here's a hint – if your white hat hacker, instead of being in a darkened room with multiple monitors displaying random hex code, appears in court from the parking lot of a hamburger joint using the free public WIFI, you've probably made the wrong choice of hacker.

Another OPCA respondent plus one who changed their mind – A Mr Patrick Oliver who owed the CIBC 22 K$ in credit card debt. One sentence opening by the bank's lawyer -”this is a sham debt elimination scheme”.Mr. Oliver's statement was classic old school OPCA. He wished to have the account rendered as he was the beneficiary of a trust. The bank should bring the books forward, close the trust, and transfer it to him as an unincorporated corporation. He also had “travel documents in and out of corporations” whatever that means. The judge thought the same as I so Mr. Oliver went on a rant about the court had no jurisdiction over a living human being, the only contract he had was with his creator, and who did the judge swear an oath to? Mute <click> next case, over in five minutes.

Some more cases of no interest and then a friend of Mr. Oliver's since she came into court using his computer or phone. Credit card debt again. One sentence similar to Oliver's opening and then she gave up and admitted the debt. Since she was a senior the judge was sympathetic and told her to get credit counselling so she could work out a repayment schedule

So, Kumar violated his vexatious litigant order, and may have recorded the proceedings. I am not sure of the etiquette of appearing in a virtual court using some sort of conference call without the permission of the court either. Looking forward to an appeal as he claimed he was going to do, or even better, the Alberta courts doing something about vexatious litigants violating their orders.

[Arthur Rubin]

...
Courtoreille is warned by the judge that electronic recording is forbidden.

As an aside, how can you stop someone from recording a virtual court session?

[eric]

In the Canadian system, different courts and different judges have different rules about the use of electronic devices in court and who can record the proceedings. Rough generalization: media with permission can record, public usually not and no electronic devices at all. For a virtual proceeding, and given the fact almost everyone can declare themselves "independent journalists", it is hard to enforce. About all the courts can do is "stern warnings" against rebroadcast on any form of MSM or social media. Real journalists know this because losing accreditation to observe future proceedings may be career limiting. Worst case is contempt of court charges can be expensive, Christopher James got nailed for this since he rebroadcast some of the Parhar proceedings.

[eric]

And Kevin Kumar is perhaps taken this warning to heart. He may also have realized that advertising his presence in the proceedings may have violated his vex lit conditions. He has posted roughly ten more videos regarding poor Patrick's trial with some very poor AI generated figure reading from a script but he is still planning to appeal, speaking as a third party. Damn, now I have to figure out how to find if that is more than idle threats, it's not easy in Alberta (unlike BC) to track that sort of stuff. Here is one of the very amateur clips:

[eric]

Quell surprise!!!! Not like they'll EVER EVER collect it. I wonder if he's going to file anymore dead end lawsuits or send any more threaty emails to people???

Wow, I'm really proud of myself, resurrecting an old post from 6 or so years ago. So what could be the relevance in all this? Anyways, Kumar's parents died a few months back, the estate has gone through probate and all that good stuff. I'm being circumspect here since they weren't involved in his antics. He posted a video, now deleted, claiming he wasn't being treated fairly as a beneficiary. I suspect he deleted it because he realized that the estate is liable for any claims against a particular beneficiary. The case of Anderson, mentioned elsewhere on Quatloos is a good example.

[eric]

Before I go any further in this post I have a couple of things to get out of the way. First of all, and most important, I have to thank someone who made this happen, but must remain nameless because of their employment. Secondly, I have news to report – Alberta is no longer rat free. You will understand why shortly....

Back in September of last year I made a post regarding Kevin Kumar's help and attendance at a virtual proceeding regarding a person who was having problems with their credit card debt.
viewtopic.php?p=296212#p296212
In that post I indicated that his help was probably in violation of a vex lit order made against his alter ego, Ty Griffiths. I'm not sure why Kumar thought he could get away with it. Perhaps, in true pseudolaw fashion he felt that Ty Griffiths was his strawman so the order didn't apply to him. Of course it could be his insufferable arrogance as well, if you've spent any time perusing his youtube videos you might well agree with me.

The matter ground slowly through the Alberta Courts and last Friday Kumar's status was clarified. First his playbook was outlined as a classic OPCA strategy:

II. OPCA Arguments
[5] Part of the evidence submitted by RBC is an Affidavit of Marsha Christensen, sworn on August 24, 2023, that attached communications received by counsel for RBC in the period leading up to the August 29, 2023 hearing. These emails purport to originate from an entity called UnitedWeStandPeople, which is the “Chosen Agent” of Mr. Courtorielle. Here are some of the key elements of those communications:
1)Mr. Courtorielle has designated a Chosen Agent in the Debt Lawsuit, and RBC and its counsel must interact with that Chosen Agent, UnitedWeStandPeople;
2)UnitedWeStandPeople claims that a “Private Lender” will pay Mr. Courtorielle’s debts;
3)Mr. Courtorielle rejects he has any debts, unless RBC provides:
a) an “original wet ink signed loan document (NOT a photocopy)”, and
b) an affidavit from a “... Chartered Accountant verifying the debt was not sold ...”; and
4)neither Mr. Courtorielle or the Private Lender will provide any money unless RBC provides the “wet ink” contract and accountant’s affidavit.

The order includes a lovely summary of his interactions with the courts dating back twenty years.

... In the end, attempts to control this scam and its participants accounted for two thirds of all global court access restriction orders issued by the judicial officers of this Court in Calgary between 2000-2014. I cannot meaningfully assess the amount of time and judicial, staff, and victim resources wasted by these individuals.

And then the hammer comes down:

[20]           Mr. Kumar’s past and current OPCA guru activities, his being incarcerated for contempt after ignoring Court Orders and professional regulation, his promoting money for nothing and debt elimination scams, and his record of abusing lenders and debtors by “playing from the middle” means Mr. Kumar has no legitimate place in the Court of King’s Bench of Alberta, except if he, personally, is a litigant.
[21]           Mr. Kumar is not an appropriate litigation representative or McKenzie friend. Mr. Kumar should have no role in the litigation of other people. I conclude Mr. Kumar should not be permitted to participate in the litigation of other people before the Court of King’s Bench of Alberta.
[22]           Given these conclusions, I make the following Orders:
1.         Kevin Kumar shall only communicate with the Court of King’s Bench of Alberta using the name “Kevin Kumar”, and not using initials, an alternative name structure, or a pseudonym.
2.         Kevin Kumar is prohibited from:
(i)         providing legal advice, preparing documents intended to be filed in the Court of King’s Bench of Alberts for any person other than himself, and filing or otherwise communicating with the Court of King’s Bench of Alberta, except on his own behalf; and
(ii)        acting as an agent, next friend, McKenzie friend (from McKenzie v McKenzie, [1970] 3 All ER 1034 (UK CA) and Alberta Rules of Court, Alta Reg 124/2010, ss 2.22-2.23), or any other form of representation in proceedings, before the Court of King’s Bench of Alberta.
3.         For clarity, Kevin Kumar is entirely prohibited from any further participation in any sense in these actions:
(i)     Royal Bank of Canada v Patrick Courtoreille also known as Patrick John Courtoreille, Court of King’s Bench Action No. 2310 00279 proceeding;
(ii)  Terry Kerslake v Capital One Bank, Court of King’s Bench Action No. 2304 00761; and
(iii)                     Timothy Laurea Kohut v Capital One Services (Canada) Inc, Court of King’s Bench Action No. 2403 08261.
4.         The Clerks of the Court of King’s Bench of Alberta shall refuse to accept or file any documents or other materials from Kevin Kumar, unless Kevin Kumar is a named party in the action in question.

You can read it all here:
https://www.canlii.org/en/ab/abkb/doc/2 ... YXIAAAAAAQ
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. You too can become a chosen agent, just apply here:
https://unitedwestandpeople.com/become- ... /#ref_code#
His most active chosen agent, appearing in multiple videos and complete with his own website is his son Colton Kumar.
https://www.creditorcontrol.ca
Nothing like keeping it in the family.....

[wserra]

His most active chosen agent, appearing in multiple videos and complete with his own website is his son Colton Kumar.

Malwarebytes alarms at the "Qualify Now" page (the fill-in form is the trigger). I won't quote the url to avoid adding to his SEO.

[eric]

Malwarebytes alarms at the "Qualify Now" page (the fill-in form is the trigger). I won't quote the url to avoid adding to his SEO.

Those tracking cookies and such are a necessary part of Kumar's template. He is not just a spreader of pseudolaw and misinformation, he is operating a business. He has employees, leads have to be tracked, and marketing campaigns monitored for results. What you see on his assorted sites is not just advertising, it's a portal to all sorts of other information if you amuse yourself by spidering down through it. "Chosen Agents" aren't just people who believe his spiel, they have to take courses and write tests and that information is there if you know how to look for it. Here's an example - appearing in many of his videos was "Chosen Agent" Rondal Gardner. Rondal wasn't just a believer, he was an employee. Let's take a look at how well he was doing:
https://reducemydebtbythousands.com/aff ... 80b6723e5e
Not bad, he steered 61 people to the site, 5 people started the job application process, and one graduated.

[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.

[yycparalegal]

I just uploaded redacted versions of the pleadings here https://www.mcdonaldparalegal.ca/about-3 Other updates, the matters have been moved to Edmonton and ordered to be tried together.

[eric]

I wouldn't mind the time/date of the trial and if/when it will be virtual. May drive up or spectate virtually.

[eric]

OK, time to get to work as promised. Quite a lot has happened since the court case mentioned above (Bonville v President's Choice Financial, 2024 ABKB 356). For convenience's sake we'll use the same reference as the Court has and call it Bonville #2. In my cups I call it the “Put Up or Shutup” case. Anyways, Kumar, father and son, haven't changed their methodology for ten years since Colton was just a minor in the privatesectoract days
First we need some odd souls to surface in support of them. If you cast your mind back ten years some of them even showed up on quatloos. Kevin has long claimed a “network of 2300 private lenders” who are part of his business. On paper one of them has even showed up on paper on the unitedwestand youtube account. I present to you one Basilios Lolos who Colton said had signed an affidavit claiming to have the cash to pay out the loan. Basilios has a private corporation: https://ised-isde.canada.ca/cc/lgcy/fdr ... d=14801563. An impressive CV on Linkedin: https://ca.linkedin.com/in/basilios-lolos-1a3677320
An instagram account with AI generated pics of him living the rich lifestyle (scotch and cigars for breakfast) https://www.instagram.com/basilioslolos/ One problem with Basilios, not a single bit of internet pocket lint. No reference to him on social media, references from old school chums or workmates, etc. Even Kevin Kumar, when he was masquerading as Ty Griffiths, had a little bit. Probably a fake.

Next in the Kumar playbook: claim innocence. This website appeared shortly after Bonville#2 and was generated by Colton. https://www.thegreatmatrixescape.com For the low low sum of $900 and the first chapter of the course as a freebie you can learn how to escape from under the thumb of the big banks and as a side note, skip out on your debts. Note he is careful to say that they are not providing legal advice, it will come up later Just ignore the fact that Kevin appeared in court virtually for Courtoreille. File in the back of your head this statement “We will teach you how to escape the matrix using AI methods”.

Annnd of course we need to attack our enemies. So we need another site that appeared at roughly the same time. Want to earn some money? https://www.publicwatchdogcomplaintline.ca

Use The Dropdown Menu To Explore Several Public Investigations On Canadian Unethical Bank Lawyers & Send The Complaint Attached To The Specific Investigation You Are Interested In To Be Entered Into A Monthly $500 Give Away 

Anyways, the whole site is a list of various lawyers and judges who have annoyed the Kumars and a bunch of letters to send them to say that you are annoyed as well. The preface section is interesting however. https://www.publicwatchdogcomplaintline.ca/general-4 Remember I said something about AI above? Here ya go, an entire page generated by ChatGPT in defence of the Kumars. At bottom of page

ChatGPT Fact Check and Sources Click To Read Third Party Fact Check & Sources

If you bother reading them they are just a list of the prompts he threw into ChatGpt. “ChatGPT using MY(purposeful caps) prompts says I'm not an OPCA litigant, and you don't have to pay your debts.” The preface section is the exact stuff his victims have used in court. The Kumars would have been better served to use ChatGpt, or Google, as a learning tool to understand the phrase "Intimidation of a Justice System Participant" + Alberta.

Time for a break, still have to do the Kerslake AVAP, the Davis Appeal, and Bonville #3....

[eric]

OK, time to go through a couple of court cases that are necessary background before I get into the suits against the Kumars. First let's talk about the Davis Appeal. I've allready talked about 2024 ABKB 356 . Roughly speaking it was a decision that put a stay on proceedings until certain actions were completed.

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.

Well, Ms. Davis didn't like that.

On June 18, 2024, the Acting Chief Justice of the Court of King’s Bench found that the applicant and others had been caught up in a groundless “debt elimination scheme” advanced by one Colton Kumar who purported to represent the applicant in court: Bonville v President's Choice Financial, 2024 ABKB 356. The resulting order stayed the applicant’s action pending submissions and/or affidavit evidence as to why she should not be required to pay $10,000 in security for costs, failing which her action would be terminated. She was to file any such submissions or affidavit evidence by July 5, 2024.

She decided to appeal that decision, was late, but tried anyways.

The Notice of Appeal indicates the following ground of appeal: “the decision is unreasonable or not supported by evidence”. The following relief is claimed: “all false credit reports from February 5, 2024 forward be removed from [the applicant’s] credit history; $100,000 in damages for negligence in the workplace leading to damages, false or misleading credit reporting, and harassment”. This is the relief claimed in the applicant’s King’s Bench action.
[12]           The applicant’s memorandum filed in support of the application to restore her appeal states the merits of the appeal as follows:
•         Our appeal challenges the application of OPCA principles to legitimate requests for debt validation.
•         It questions the legal standards applied to credit reporting and the fairness of the security for costs imposed on us.
•         The appeal seeks to protect the privacy and rights of third parties, Kevin Kumar and Colton Kumar, who were subject to unnecessary restrictions.

The court decided that there was simply nothing to appeal. ABKB 356 was just a procedural action to pause things and give Ms. Davis time to respond why she should not have to pay security for costs. As it happens, she never did make any submissions.
Even worse, she appealed the wrong decision, it would have been better to wait until the other proceedings took place.

In any event, since the June 18, 2024 order was issued the deadline for submissions or affidavit evidence has passed, the security for costs decision has issued and judgment has been granted to the respondent. The applicant has not appealed the security for costs decision of August 20, 2024 - which would have required permission under Rule 14.5(1)(h) - nor the decision of September 16, 2024 striking her pleading and granting judgment on the respondent’s counterclaim. The appeal deadlines for both have passed. Given what has transpired in the King’s Bench action, the appeal of the June 18, 2024 order would have no practical effect on the parties. There is no meaningful relief which the Court could grant on the appeal in the circumstances.

You can read about it here: https://www.canlii.org/en/ab/abca/doc/2 ... ca338.html