Weizhen Tang ‘s investors want to know how to Mr. Tang make their money back?

OSC made our investors lost their money and investment and destroyed their asset and we are fight with the authority.

The first is the idea of correct, correct way of thinking to produce positive energy and wealth, the wrong way of thinking and negative thinking to destroy Wealth.Now there is a club called the Wealth Wisdom of fee training, so that people set a correct concept and way of thinking, I think investors need the right ideas and positive energy.

Second, Weizhen Tang is determined to win the war of justice, Weizhen Tang has been done in-depth investigation and research, there must be faith and confidence that we could win the war of Justice. Our Investors ‘help is icing on the cake.

The third is the money, I only need 250,000 to retain a good law firm to win the lawsuit to make million dollars in no time.

Big law firms and Lawyers stole and defraud us about two million dollars and we could easily ask them to tens of million dollars because they are theft over million from us and they have to pay punitive damages.,

If we win and we will, there will be tens of millions of wealth and power.

All the evidence and cause is behind us and The current situation and timing of Weizhen Tang case are very favorable to our investors .

August 9, we are going to the Court of Appeal against the TD bank to hundreds of thousands.

The law and book of authorities behind our battle

1.                                   Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce v. Credit Valley Institute of Business and Technology, [2003] O.J. No. 40 (S.C.J.)

2.                                        Waxman v. Waxman, [2007] O.J. No. 1688 (C.A.) 3. 3. 3.

3.     R. v. Rowbotham (1985), 41 C.C.C. (3d) (Ont.C.A.)  

4..      R. v. Nason, 2014 ABPC 33

The recent decision of the Alberta Provincial Court in R. v. Nason has the potential to expand the availability of Rowbotham orders. In Nason, the defendant is charged with provincial or regulatory Securities Act offences. If convicted, he is exposed to substantial fines and the risk of incarceration. On February 14, the trial judge accepted the defendant’s argument that, in order to obtain a fair trial, he required the assistance of a specialized securities lawyer (just not a “criminal lawyer”) at a cost that could be $50,000. He stayed the prosecution until state funding is paid into the securities lawyer’s trust account for the defence of the defendant.

5.     R . v. Silvini (1991), 68 C.C.C. (3d) 251 (Ont.C.A.)

The Supreme Court of Canada has directed the Court of Appeal to carry out its duty to ensure that the appellant had a fair trial and if not to act decisively to reverse any unfairness: R. v. Caccamo (1975) 21 C.C.C (2nd) 257 at p. 265 (Spence J); R.v. C (M.H) (1991), 63 C.C.C (3d) 385 at p. 394. (McLachlin J. as she then was).

6.    R. v. Kelly (1992) 15 W.C.B. (2d) 254 (O.C.A.)

The incompetence of trial counsel can afford a ground of appeal. It is, however, one which should be raised only after the most careful consideration. There is a strong presumption that trial counsel perform adequately and the onus rests on the appellant to demonstrate that counsel’s conduct fell below the standard of competence.

7.   Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce v. Allen [2012] O.J. No. 284 2012 ONSC 588

8.    Danyluk v. Ainsworth Technologies Inc., [2001] 2 S.C.R.R.

August 16号 ,we are going to Superior Court of Justice against the big law firm Gowlings WLG Canada LLP for 440,000 。

Should Gowlings Account be taxed

Should Gowlings Account be taxed given that they have drained my account over the years purporting to represent the investors whom they don't know and whose investments accounts they don't know. Even the investors don't know that Gowlings represents them. Gowlings does not have any retainer letters from any investors. They cannot show in the dockets if they even have dockets, what if any work they have done. They cannot show any interview notes with any investor. Yet they have seized illegally to hundreds of thousands of my money. They ought to be taxed. They ought to be reported to the Law Society of Upper Canada, they ought to account to somebody. Most important they ought to return my money.

Any court appointed lawyer has to inform the client about the appointment and to work diligently for that client. The client has to agree to be represented by that law firm appointed by the judge. It is not automatic. At least the client must know who is representing them. The issue now is, Gowlings adjourned the case in order to find out which are their investor clients and what investments were involved. But what have they been doing all these years not knowing who their clients are and the amount of investments each deposited. The dockets may only deal with the suits filed, how about work done on their clients on their clients' instructions. Do they even have instructions. This is Frantz Kafka. Lawyers draining money without knowing who their clients are and without receiving any instructions from the purported clients. This is a miscarriage of justice.

They could have made all arrangements with their clients before the Motion date which they knew about long before.

This month the total amount to fight for is over $700,000.