Inconvenient Truth in Legal Land

Les Raketti 11/27/2007

________________________________________________________________________

An Inconvenient Truth:

It is inconvenient to acknowledge me as a human being because I exist outside of any legal determination.

les raketti – November 28th, 2007

Inconvenient Truth in Legal Land – a letter to a lawyer representing CIBC VISA.

November 27th, 2007

Ross,

In response to your email reply November 27th, 2007 to my earlier email dated November 26, 2007

Thank you, for stating your position. I appreciate the clarity, I will be just as frank and address your contentions. For the record I did identify myself by my given name and my family name as I did during the Hearing for Execution as we are both aware.

In the first instance, I was acting in the belief there is a difference between who I am and the legal name of the named defendant – I always have been acting as its agent. If in answer to the direct question as to whether I was the defendant – I could only answer by not committing perjury. Are you suggesting I should of said something I do not believe?

In the second instance I only identified myself by my given name and by my family name – I was never asked whether or not I was the defendant and yet it was determined after fifteen minutes of intensive questioning that ‘LESLIE RAKETTI’ as the named defendant did not show up much to my surprise. What does that tell me?

Now you tell me what is going on and why I was grilled with seemly irrelevant questions for fifteen minutes such as: How did I travel here [to the hearing for execution]?; What kind of car do I drive? Do I have identification in my pocket? Does [a particular street address] have any meaning for me? Where do I live? Where do I sleep? Is this not leading the witness and for what purpose I ask? I did ask that question during the hearing for execution upon which the proceedings came to an abrupt halt. I would really love to hear your answer here as I didn’t get an answer then.

Prior to this I may of suspected there was a difference between who I am and the legal entity derived from my name which is why I tested the court. I never dreamed that these experiences would prove it so succinctly, not once but twice.

As for contesting the Judgment your second paragraph says it all – I came to the same conclusion – a Panel of Judges upon review would never fault their peer for the reasons you state. Why would I waste my time in so frivolous an exercise.

Speaking of ‘frivolous’ CIBC in my first letter to them in January of 2003 failed to address serious allegations against them based on documentation from credible experts who have previously acted as legal witnesses in banking matters. If that is ‘frivolous’ let us call the term for what it is, a blanket statement for ‘inconvenient truth’.

CIBC had opportunity to correct or challenge those assertions in my first letter to them in January of 2003 but in failing to do as requested, I could only assert that the allegations there in are true and therefore the client contract agreement was constructive fraud. What else could I conclude? I am not a Banking expert but I do recognize avoidance of awkward issues when it occurs. Does not avoidance and non-contestment always imply acceptance and tacit agreement? Is this not how the CIBC client agreement comes into effect, if not challenged – by tacit agreement?

I challenged CIBC and presented CIBC with information that implied the CIBC client contract agreement was fraudulent having become aware of that information. Correct me if I am wrong but do I not have an obligation to remove myself from any activities should I suspect it is fraudulent? Did I not direct CIBC to close my account by registered letter in January of 2003?

CIBC had plenty of opportunity to correct any fault or misunderstandings I may of had. As they failed to directly address the issues by implication the allegations could only be perceived to be true voiding the client agreement contract. CIBC had opportunity to address the issues point by point they did not. They are in dishonor. You are aware of that and you were warned not to get involved and still it was your choice to proceed to bring a dead issue into the court.

In my email letter sent earlier today I was trying to give myself and CIBC a way to save face – that option is still open. At every step of the way CIBC have taken a very hard line on this as if to imply they are taking the high road on this – but angels they are not (I sure hope you are not doing any overtime on this – [this is in reference to the CIBC class action suit where a CIBC Bank employee is currently suing CIBC for unpaid overtime]). Forgive the levity this is quite serious, I am only asserting my rights here and what I believe to be true. So be it for now.

Thank you for your frankness and clarifications.

Les Raketti
agent for LESLIE RAKETTI

All rights reserved.