The extradition hearing was now only a month a way and in reading through the few submissions made by Gilmour, Client X noticed a handful of factual errors. Gilmour had submitted all three of his boilerplate filings on their deadline dates, making it a rush job every time. As a result he confused times, dates, and places, and omitted many important details. Although he was instructed not to file anything without a preview and approval by Client X, this instruction was basically ignored. One typical example is that in his letter to the FBI Director, Gilmour wrongfully cited X’s dates of employment at American Financial Group as 1997-1998 when in fact previous affidavits of X stated the true dates of employment as 1994-1996. Such errors if left uncorrected could totally deflate an defense strategy. Gilmour was instructed to correct his errors or he would not receive another payment. Although he said it was “no problem” the corrections were never made. American Financial Group would be a significant part of X’s defense to prove the extradition request wad bogus and politically motivated. This will explain: https://americanfinancialgroupfraud.wordpress.com

Clent X requested and then finally had to demand an hour of Gilmour’s time to ensure a witness list was drafted and all parties were subpoenaed in time to attend the hearing. Erling Ingvaldsen would be called to document the Nelson drug gang operation as an insider and how Client X came to know and be recruited by Nelson and how X reported the huge operation. He would also testify how he was present when Steve Finta, (Nelson’s recruiter and front man) boasted about taking out a contract on Client X in 1995, two years before Nelson got busted with a load of cocaine in Regina, Canada. Solicitor Marshal Drukarsh, Nancy Cameron from Amnesty International, Juan Pablo Sanchez, X’s wife, and even a 20 year veteran Toronto cop named Abraham Bailey would be called to testify about an attempt on the life of Client X while in Canadian custody as per his affidavit below. And of course X himself would be called to introduce the video and audio recordings and other documents showing and proving a 20 year history of whistle blowing and imminent danger if he would return to America. Him and his wife along with Drukarsh would also testify about what RCMP Superintendent Ben Soave had told them, and about the surprise visit they received in Canada from a Russian mobster. This was all carefully scripted as part of Client X’s defense at the extradition.

But most important of all, Gilmour was instructed by Client X to make the court aware that no charging documents had ever been produced and Canadian extradition law requires them in order to proceed with an extradition hearing. The absence of these vital legal documents and that of an indictment would be a glaring neon alert sign to the court that the extradition was a fraud.

Immigration expert Marshal Drukarsh would testify about the Immigration detention ruse used to pressure and coerce “cooperation” from Client X and how verbal promises of protection from the U.S. Attorney were never put in writing. Keep in mind that Al Chalem enjoyed “protection” 24/7 from the FBI when he “cooperated” and was under their surveillance when he was murdered. Drukarsh’s two sworn declarations summarize some of his would-be testimony. They are contained in the Law Society complaint for review. The verbal pledge of protection Marshal was given came from AUSA Ron White. Others that offered the same verbal protection to Client X and other attorneys were Tanya Hill and FBI SA John Marley, the lead investigator on the AL Chalem murder case until being replaced by Danielle upon his retirement.

The two men then reviewed all the documentary evidence that would be presented including affidavits and medical reports Gilmour “was in the process” of getting that would prove the abuse and torture Client X sustained the last time he was in federal custody. This would include statements from Erling Ingvaldsen, Ty West, Gary Betzner, and a local dermatologist who was an expert on scar tissues (Walter Cohen), But for reasons Gilmour never explained, he was not able to obtain these documents in time for the hearing, just like the law suit Client X filed against his former employer AFG. Client X was able to obtain what Gilmour did not, but only after the hearing took place (see http://whyunclesamhatesbruce.blogspot.com) Only two days before the hearing did Gilmour admit he was unable to obtain these documents claiming that the authors “were making themselves unavailable”. Strangely Client X had no problem in getting the documents, but not in time for the hearing. Gilmour had a month to procure them, but failed to do so. Was this deliberate or simple negligence? Gilmour was also supposed to arrange the testimony of Nancy Cameron from Amnesty International who would testify to receiving the two page report of murder and torture in U.S. prisons from Client X. Gilmour failed in this regard as well and Client X had to serve the subpoena himself one day before the hearing.

At the hearing, Gilmour arrived with a body modification. He had about 3 six inch stainless still pins protruding from each of his hands, and explained he just had some “minor surgery”. Whatever he had done to his hands was painful, because he found it necessary to gulp down quite a few yellow percosetts before and during the 2 hour proceeding.

But strange things began to occur during that hearing. First when Ingvaldsen was testifying he began talking about government crimes he was part of, namely the Nelson drug smuggling ring and was to testify how there was a contract taken out to murder Client X that Nelson’s partner (Steve Finta) had boasted about. Ingvaldsen was stopped by the judge who said they would take a recess for lunch and resume testimony afterward. But when the hearing was resumed, Erling was not allowed to continue his testimony despite protests from Client X. Although former Toronto detective Abraham Bailey was called to testify, Gilmour did not make any effort to Call Marshall Drukarsh, Client X, the wife of Client X, nor any other witness that he was instructed to call! During a brief recess, Client X demanded that all the witnesses, including himself be called. Gilmour said he would do so.

But when the proceedings resumed, the Judge asked Gilmour to give his closing comments and Gilmour did not say he had 5 more witnesses to call including Client X himself and began with his closing arguments! At this point Client X was both angry and alarmed that the bulk of the exculpatory evidence that would prove the extradition request was a ruse was not being introduced and no demand to see the mandatory charging documents was being made. He immediately raised his hand and asked to address the court which is an undeniable Charter Right. The transcripts show he made this request three times and was denied three times! DUE PROCESS OF LAW AND CHARTER RIGHTS WERE BEING DENIED with the help of Justice Dunnet. Client X then wrote a one page note and attempted to pass it to the judge (also reflected in the transcripts contained in the law society complaint at http://gilmourlawsocietycomplaint.wordpress.com) But Gilmour took the note from his client and instead of giving it to the judge as instructed, put the note into his pocket. Here is an actual copy of that note:

As Client X was growing more angry and animated the Judge rushed to conclude the hearing without every letting the person sought or 4 other witness testify as per the witness list submitted to the court. Every accused has the constitutional charter right to testify on their own behalf and address the court. Gimour made no effort to enforce these rights on behalf of his client, nor did he make a single objection. The only question that remains today in 2015 – Was this general incompetence, negligence, or by deliberate design. Whatever conclusion you arrive at, justice was denied beyond any shadow of doubt.

As you might imagine, there was one helluva an argument between Gilmour and X after the show was over and Gilmour justified his inactions by falsely claiming he wanted “to save his aces for court of appeals”. Unfortunately the laws of Canada and Ontario only let you appeal what was presented in the lower courts – not what wasn’t said. The law society complaint digs deeper into this issue.

After the extradition hear fiasco, and after being asked to help cheat another client named Vic Richards out of his $20,000,000 patent, and all the other odd incidents he experienced with Solicitor Gilmour, Cleint X had finally decided he might do better with a new attorney. But not before Bill “asked” and then “told” him to buy his old piece of junk car (a five year old Mercury Marquis) for $2,500 so he did not have to split the money with his law firm. Client X thought it would end their relationship on a friendly note if he acquiesced. He did not need another car. Their family already had two vehicles, and truly only needed one. At the time Client X did not have a drivers license to legally transfer the title so he asked his wife, a native Canadian to handle the matter. Copies of the title transfer and related affidavits are found in the law society complaint with 27 other exhibits at http://bruceslawsocietycomplaint.wordpress.com

Now Client X wanted his files and evidence back from Gilmour. 80% of the paperwork, evidence was created/obtained by Client X. Still, Gilmour would decide to hold them hostage which forced Client X to seek assistance and a court order from the courts and Chief Justice McMurtry. The friendship and trust between lawyer and client was at an end. Now Solicitor Gilmour would show his true colors. He made a direct attempt to extort Client X for more money. He demanded that his wife sign on as a cient and sign a security agreement. Client X said that would not only be illegal but unethical and even Justice Moldaver commented that it was not appropriate, and any such security or retainer agreement should be obtained at the beginning of an undertaking, not after you are removed.

As you will note in sworn affidavits in the Law Society complaint (exhibit section) Gilmour made it clear that if Client X did not meet his demands, he would file a false claim in Ohio saying that he was retained by Client X’s wife and take her home there as payment – knowing full well that Client X was under two different court orders not to leave the Province of Ontario. To fully grasp the wicked scheming mind of this lawyer, see http://ohiocourtroomcorruption.blogspot.com where he did not hesitate to perjure himself. Keep in mind that there never once existed any retainer agreement nor any legal instruction from Client X wife.

A veteran law professor would later take a long holiday weekend to review the transcripts and case of Client X would tell him “You were duped with the old Trojan horse trick”. Was the good professor correct?