Exhibit No. 27: Mr. H. Litowitz' letter to Law Society
In Chapter IX: The Legal Juggernaut following my Illegal Internment. I did not write a lot about Mr. Gomery, my lawyer at that time and presently a "respectable judge" in Canada. This letter clearly expresses my indignation and disgust with the justice system and the lawyers involved in my case. Mr. Gomery promised me -- I recorded it on a tape -- that he would "settle" my case in a "few weeks," but did nothing for two and a half years.
"It is irresponsible and unethical," wrote Prof. Gall in his The Canadian Legal System, "for a lawyer to fail to respond to a telephone call from his client, to fail to keep an appointment, to not meet work deadlines anticipated by his client, to refuse to answer written communication of his work. Moreover, it is, as Orkin indicates, grounds for disbarment to intentionally conceal material facts from a client or to falsely represent to a client the progress of an action."
Mr. Gomery was not the only lawyer who did not want to bring my case to court. From the initial lawyers, Rusko and Goulston, to the final lawyers -- Selig and Wolofsky, their attitudes were the same. I hired - and paid other lawyers in Toronto to serve exclusively as intermediators. Not only were my calls and letters (like those of my friends) ignored, but more astonishing is the fact that the former lawyers even disregarded their own colleagues! Was it carelessness or a well orchestrated frame-up? Mr. Gomery is now a judge, and praised as the best judge in Canada! If he is the best, what could we expect from a judge like Mr. Boudreault and the lawyers that I had!
My friends and I notified the Quebec Bar many times about my lawyers' inefficiency, but our efforts were fruitless.
Here is the letter about Mr. Gomery:
| ROSE, PERSIKO, ARNOLD AND TAUB Barristers and Solicitors Suite 1906 ____________________ Post Office Box 12 Toronto-Dominion Tower Toronto-Dominion Centre Toronto, Canada M5K 1A8 Refer to H. Litowitz
11-04-1979
Dear Sirs, Re: Risto Delev Receipt is acknowledged of your letter of April 9, 1979. Briefly the facts surrounding this client are as follows: Mr. Delev was recommended to this office by a client and the writer met with Mr. Delev in May of 1978. At that time Mr. Delev discussed his pending Quebec litigation with the writer and asked that the writer attend with him to meet with his Quebec lawyer, Mr. Gomery at some future date to be arranged by Mr. Delev. Mr. Delev contacted the writer on August 17, 1978 to advise that a meeting with Mr. Gomery had been set up at the Chelsea Inn on August 18. The writer met with Mr. Gomery and Mr. Delev on that date between the hours of 9 a.m. to 11 a.m. Briefly Mr. Gomery explained the reasons for the delay in having Mr. Delev's case heard in the Quebec Courts. The writer's function was to answer any questions which Mr. Delev may have had during the meeting and this function was fulfilled. Briefly Mr. Gomery advised that the Quebec Courts were quite backed up and it would be quite some time before the case would be heard. Mr. Gomery was not willing to give an exact time for the hearing of the case, but upon being pressed by Mr. Delev suggested that December 1978 or January 1979 would be the earliest possible moment. Mr. Delev also in that meeting, stressed to Mr. Gomery the hardship which he was encountering because of the delay and asked that the case be heard earlier. Mr. Gomery advis! ed that he had spoken to the Chief Justice on an informal basis and the Chief Justice had advised that a Motion for a speedy trial would not be successful. Subsequent to this meeting, Mr. Delev again contacted the writer and requested that a letter be forwarded to Mr. Gomery requesting that the Motion for early hearing be brought, notwithstanding Mr. Gomery's opinion that same would not be granted. A letter was therefore forwarded to Mr. Gomery on September 19 requesting that he contact Mr. Delev to prepare for the said Motion. Mr. Delev again contacted the writer on October 4 and advised that he had not received a reply from Mr. Gomery. Accordingly, a further letter was forwarded to Mr. Gomery October 4 requesting that he attend to the matter of contacting Mr. Delev. On October 19 the writer spoke with Dr. Littmann and Dr. Littmann suggested that the writer forward a letter from Dr. Littmann outlining the serious consequences arising out of the delay in the litigation process. The writer then wrote to Mr. Gomery once again, on October 19 and enclosed a letter from Dr. Littmann as noted above. Once again the writer requested that the litigation process go forward as soon as possible and requested a date when the Motion would be set down for early hearing. On October 24 a further letter to Mr. Gomery was forwarded by the writer enclosing a medical report on Mr. Delev from Dr. Vujnovic. Notice should be taken at this point that several telephone calls were made to Mr. Gomery in Montreal and upon each occasion Mr. Gomery was not available. Some of the dates for these telephone calls were October 24, 1978, October 26, 1978 and October 31, 1978. Messages were left upon each and every occasion and these messages were not returned. However, the writer did reach Mr. Gomery by telephone on November 3, 1978 and briefly discussed the case situation with Mr. Gomery. At that time he promised to prepare the necessary documentation in order to bring an application for an earlier hearing and suggested that it would take approximately ten days to two weeks to have the documentation prepared and forwarded. An agreement was reached that he would forward the documentation to the writer's office and the writer would assist in explaining the documentation to Mr. Delev and having it duly sworn and return to Mr. Gomery. A further letter was forwarded to Mr. Gomery on November 10 confirming his agreement and requesting that the documentation be forwarded as quickly as possible. Subsequent to that correspondence various attempts were made to reach Mr. Gomery by telephone without success. The last attempt was made on November 28, 1978. Accordingly, a further letter was forwarded to Mr. Gomery on November 29 requesting that the documentation be prepared once again. The writer spoke with Mr. Delev on December 12 and advised him that there was nothing further that could be done by the writer to assist and a suggestion was made to Mr. Delev that his doctors forward letters to Mr. Gomery explaining the circumstances. During this telephone conversation the writer also advised Mr. Delev that any further assistance would be rendered if necessary. Nothing further was heard from any of the parties involved until April 2 when Dr. Vujnovic contacted the writer and requested once again that the writer correspond with Mr. Gomery requesting an u-date of the status of the matter. To date no response has been received to that correspondence. At this point the writer wishes to make it quite clear that Mr. Delev's complaint is not directed against the writer in any respect but rather solely against the conduct of Mr. Gomery. Also on the date of this correspondence Mr. Delev has contacted the writer advising that he has complained to the Law Society of Upper Canada regarding Mr. Gomery's conduct and has arranged to attend at the writer's office within the next week to discuss any further course of action which should be taken. I trust that I have responded to your query in adequate detail and should you require any further assistance or information I will be pleased to render same. Yours truly, ROSE, PERSIKO, ARNOLD AND TAUB Sgd. H. Litowitz |