我到假释委员会上诉,要回国

字体 -

下面是我的上诉书。

September 13, 2015

Mr.   Denis Jolette and the appeal board

Vice-Chairperson and the board

Appeal Division

Parole Board of Canada

410 Laurier Avenue West 
Ottawa , Ontario 
K1A 0R1

Fax: (613) 941-0543

Dear  Mr.   Denis Jolette and the board

I am writing to appeal APR board decision on July 20, 2015 for  2 out of the 3 special conditions  and one normal condition.

First,  to avoid person, no direct and indirect contact to all my investors, which is not reasonable and violate laws and acted without jurisdiction and beyond its jurisdiction.

Secondly,   not in a position of responsibility, paid or unpaid, for the management of finance  or investments for any other individual, charity, business or institution due to the nature of your offence  which is failed to exercise its jurisdiction;

Thirdly . To stay in the country,  this is unreasonable for an international public figure.

All conditions are preventing me from carrying my obligations and responsibility legally and make money to pay the fine in lieu of forfeiture and to pay back all my investors and the community, which is not in the public interest, it is also making unnecessary restriction to prevent me to integrate into society, it is not protect the society, contrary to the subsection 101 (d) of the CCRA .

The Parole Board of Canada’s Appeal Division contributes to the quality of the PBC’s decision-making process, and to the openness, professionalism and accountability of conditional release decisions.

The role of the Appeal Division is to ensure that:

·         The law and Board policy are respected,

·         The rules of fundamental justice are adhered to, and

·         The Board’s decisions are based upon relevant, reliable and persuasive information.

An offender or a person acting on behalf of an offender may appeal a Board decision by sending a written notice stating the grounds for the appeal (as well as supporting documents) within two months after the original decision. The appeal is conducted by way of a file review.

The Appeal Division has jurisdiction to reassess the issue of risk to reoffend and to substitute its discretion for that of the original decision makers, but only where it finds that the decision was unreasonable and unsupported by the information available at the time the decision was made.

The ground to appeal:

1.       The board’s decision is acting without due process and it took everything from the CSC recommendations for 2 of the 3 special conditions, I told Mr. Rae Jason, the manager of assessment and intervention at Beaver Creek Institution that he has no jurisdiction to specified some of special conditions for my full parole to restrict me like that and I shaw him the law. He did not listen and acted as he can anything he wants.

2.       The board ‘s decision is unreasonable given all of the information available and that the board erred in law by failing to consider the viability of less restriction option consistent with public safety. Contrary to subsection 101 (b) of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act (CCRA), the board failed to consider the states reasons of  the sentence judge on Feb. 1, 2013.

3.       In that regard, I’d like to  refer  to his reasons  for sentence that he has no jurisdiction to prohibit me from being employed, or being a volunteer in any capacity that involving having authority over money or valuable security of another person pursuant to section 380. 2 (1) . as was discussed during the hearing, section 380. 2 was not proclaimed in force until 2011. Mr. Tang committed his offence between January 2006 and March 2009. Section 11 (i)  of the Charter of rights and Freedoms guarantees that every person found guilty of offence shall benefit from the lesser punishment if punishment had been varied between the time of the offence and the time of sentencing. Since the prohibition order under Section 380.2 is not a punishment to the offence of fraud committed in 2009, the court does not have jurisdiction and the crown, accordingly, withdrew its submission.  

4.       I am in a legal and regulated industry, dependent on the government and banks, people are sophisticated and professional, nothing I did is crime and I am a financer.

5.       I respectfully submit that the APR board erred in giving me unlawful and unreasonable special condition to my full parole to prohibit me from  being in a position of responsibility. 

6.       In the other my special conditions, the APR board decided that I have to avoid persons that no direct and indirect contact to all my investors, which is unreasonable and violate laws and acted without jurisdiction and beyond its jurisdiction.

7.       It is reasonable to order me not to trade or invest for investors, that is the jurisdiction of OSC.

First condition is to avoid persons, no direct and indirect contact to all my investors, which is not reasonable and violate laws and acted without jurisdiction and beyond its jurisdiction.

Most of my investors are my friends and member s of a family, they are ordinary people and the public , the CSC and PBC have no jurisdiction to restrict me to contact them or them to contact me, it could not be reasonably supported in law and a full parole release is defined in section 99 of the CCRA means the authority granted to an offender by the board to be a t large during the offender’s sentence.

On April 20, 2010 on my bail conditions,  The crown  gave me the same condition in order to effectively destroy my defence and  secure conviction, later on October 17, 2011 the  Superior Court of Justice pre-trial judge  Justice Ian Nordheimer  told the crown that it was wrong and had to be corrected. The crown restricted me to contact crown witnesses for the purpose of justice, but to restrict me  to contact all my investors directly and indirectly, the judge think it was unreasonable, malicious and it was obstruct of justice.

He told the crown that the crown and the court has no rights to do that.  Justice Ian Nordheimer  said that a little difficulty with a blanket order which seems to preclude somebody from contacting a whole raft of people who have nothing to do with this prosecution.

It may was reasonable to put order to preclude me from contact victims if the board wants, I only have a few who have been asked to be victims or claimed to be and been made victims by the authorities, I do not want to contact anybody who do not want me to contact.  I do not want any troubles either  from troubled person or authority.  

Most of my investors want to contact me and I want to contact them to repair damages and restore what we lost.  But they are afraid of authority because of the language barrier and legal knowledge.  It is your policy and policy of CSC to encourage restorative justice and facilitate and encourage offender(s) to contact victims to restore and repair damages.  

Investors wrote me lot of support emails and letters before police got involved on January 13, 2010 and we had very constructive meetings and restorative plans, that is the public interest and

The board fail to observe the principle of sentence that is to promote reparations for harm done to the victims or the community; and to promote a sense of responsibility to offenders and acknowledge of the harm done to the victims and to the community.

It is reasonable to restrict offender to contact their associates and co-accusers, or criminals, it is not reasonable even to restrict offender to contact victims unless the victims indicated that they do not want to be contacted.  I think it is CSC has a policy and restorative program that is encourage contact.

I respectfully submit that the CSC and APR board failed to consider the viability of less option consistent with the public safety and make the offender easy to integrate into society.

I also respectfully submit that the board erred in law by failing to consider whether a release condition preventing me from taking responsibility for my investors and the community. In that regard, I ‘d like to refer the appeal division to subsection 101 (d) of the CCRA which requires that the Board make the least restrictive determination consistent with the protection of society. The Board had an obligation to consider whether supervisory condition would sufficiently minimize the risk that I may present on full parole.

In that regard, I argue that the Board had no information to suggest that I would be unwilling or unable to comply with any supervisory conditions.

During the last 6 years, I have not breached any bail conditions, committed any prison disciplinary infractions, I further submit evidence that my investors and community support me  and believe my innocence and want to help me and restore and repair damage and come back to the society.

The condition to stay in the country is unreasonable

I am an international, public figure and have a strong family and business ties; I have lot of opportunities and obligations. 

I have been punished and suffered cruel and unusual for something I did excellent and has the highest moral standard because I did not have a lawyer, not because I committed any crime for the last 6 years. I am not only obligated to the Canadian government and to my Canadian investors and the justice, I also have substantial number of international investors, I am also obligated to my Chinese investors and investors around the world. I have to explain to them what had happened and why here in Canada.    

I have strong family tie in China, I lost a few important family members including my father and father-in-law in the last 6 years and I have no chance and opportunity to show my respect and responsibility to them because of the malicious prosecution of the authorities and restrictions on me.

I came to Canada to co-operate with the authorities voluntarily and fully from China, the Board failed to consider my good behave and good conduct and a good corporate citizens and character.    

Other information available to the board in my file and at the hearing reveal as follows:

 

1.              The book, “Chinese Warren Buffett”, the King of 1% weekly return

2.              `I tried my best to run a legitimate business and I hired a very big law firm Tetrault McCarthy LLP, Toronto to register my business with OSC and registered successfully on January 22, 2008.

3.              I also registered my business and hedge fund in Texas, USA in 2008

4.              I had an office at 130 Adelaide Street West, in core financial district, downtown Toronto, which is in front of OSC and back of TSX exchange building.

5.              I respected authorities and registered both in USA and Canada.

6.              I am always cooperating fully with OSC, police and the court, CSC and PBC

7.              I have no criminal record.

8.              I was convicted maliciously without lawyers and legal representations.

9.              I am highly educated, have many respected careers including as a university teacher, research scientist in all my life and have highest ethnic and moral standard.

10.       I am a high profile and well known which is lethal to fraud and to commit any fraud.

11.       My investors are not the general public, it is a special group and ethnic, accredited, exemptible to regulations, and most of them do not want and do not need the authority to protect.

 

12.       When we had problems because of financial crisis, I called investors’ meetings and informed the public

13.       When I was ordered to cease trade since March 18, 2009, I followed the order. When I want to trade and my investors wanted me to trade, I brought a motion to the OSC and authority to apply and ask order to lift the cease trade order.

14.       When my application was denied, I did not want to trade.

15.       When I wanted to trade or my investors wanted me to trade, we asked a lawyer if we could go other jurisdiction to trade legally, he told me and my investors on Oct. 25, 2009 at the meeting, we can go, then we went to Hong Kong where we are not restricted and could trade legally.

16.       When police wanted me, I came back right away to face the charge and arrest, I surrendered myself to the detective at the airport after back to Toronto.

17.       I had a bail and released on conditions on April 20, 2010. Since then I never breached my bail.

18.       I even got a bail after my conviction for 4 months on street.

19.       I do not want to run, escape and give up and  look like a criminal, I want to fight for my name and my investors and for the justice.

20.        I have overwhelming of records and evidence to prove my innocence regardless of what the authorities did to me.

21.       When I disagree with the law and court, I apply for court order and seek legal remedies in court.

22.       I have reported to have positive use of my time while incarcerated.

23.       I have good police reports while I was on bail for years.

24.       I no longer need promotion and individual investors.

25.       My business relies on the government and banks and brokerages. Without government, I was effectively disabled and suffered severely.  

 

After having reviewed the above relevant information in light of the legal criteria set out in section 102 of the CCRA as well as the guiding principles set out in section 101 of the CCRA, the appeal division would find the board ‘s conditions is unreasonable. Rather, the available information before the Board supports the conclusion that I have no risk to re-offend and can safely managed in the community.

 

Relief sought

Order to remove the special conditions and restriction as follows:

 

First, to avoid person, no direct and indirect contact to all my investors, which is not reasonable and violate laws and acted without jurisdiction and beyond its jurisdiction.

Secondly,   not in a position of responsibility, paid or unpaid, for the management of finance  or investments for any other individual, charity, business or institution due to the nature of your offence  which is failed to exercise its jurisdiction;

Thirdly . To stay in the country,  this is unreasonable for an international public figure.

 

Refer to the decision that Parole Board of Canada grants Robert Latimer right to travel outside country, I think that is right and welcome decision. I think the board failed to consider my circumstance and obligations to grant me the right to travel outside the country.

 

“The appeal division is satisfied that … in view of the Federal Court decision of Sept. 14, 2014 … a further delay in relieving you from adhering to the condition would be unfair,” members of the appeal division wrote.

The ruling says Mr. Latimer, 61, need only notify his parole officer in writing before he leaves the country. He must include the destination and how long he will be away.

I respect and welcome many of your division reverse decisions on Robert Latimer on Feb 27, 2008 for his full parole and March 03, 2015 for his travel permission, those are very encouraging and respectful, impressive.   

I respectfully submit that all you need in my case is my full disclosure and transparency and full report and full compliance, not full restrictions, that is the public interest.

Truly yours,

Weizhen Tang 

分享博文至:

    目前没有评论

发表评论