REQUEST OF REFUSAL EXPLANATION：ADDITONAL

REQUEST OF REFUSAL EXPLANATION：ADDITONAL

To: Mr. Jean Labreche forward to Claude Simard, Commissioner

1200, route de l'Église, RC-20, Sainte-Foy (Québec) G1V 4Y9
Telephone: [phone], Toll-free number: 1 877 237-7897, Fax: [phone]

 

My File No.: 06-0744

 

Dear Commissioner:                                                                                               

 

There are to import points have to mention:

 

First point: The commissioner mentioned the refusal also based that there is no new evidence come out, which is totally not true. For the case with Enza Martuccilli and Qingrui He related with my restaurant Sawatdee, the situation always moving on even when MUC Police refused to use my evidences to continue with the criminal court since 1998:

 

Till year 1998 August once Hours Magazine published my story, and finally Enza Martuccilli showed at criminal court on September 1998, both suspects only illegally ran my business a less a year; but since MUC Police decided without my evidence to close the case, the crime is growing, which you may see the three civil case acted (it already mentioned with previous letter recently), since MUC Police refused to take any action to stop them even just from these three civil cases already proved the crime.

 

Moreover, one of the suspects was never brought to criminal court for justice; even after a few years late, recently I found by my own for the both suspects and where the my assets they were hidden, but MUC Police continually refused to take any action. With MUC Police the unbelievable thing was refused to take action to due their duty when I reported where Enza Martuccilli was since she is under criminal court arrest order from 1999.  

 

Then look back the case with Bank of Montreal related with my new project Opium Thai Oriental Cuisine:

 

There were no any evidences brought to MUC Police attention, and the evidences also never used by MUC Police what so ever; since MUC Police refused to correct the mistakes they made; also refused to look at over the proofs and evidences. Therefore, the commissioner used for such previous case (since there was no case opened) or according the MUC Police report (since there was no report) is not applied.  

 

Second point: The commissioner ever thought his decision is infective for the citizen life, fair justice and public interests since this is final; also, the commissioner never mention what the citizen’s rights and what is the next step in order for the citizen to get back fair justice after the final refusal letter from the commissioner. Does the commissioner ever thought how possibly to resolve the worst situation as mine in order to let justice done fairly after his final refusal?

 

Above mentioned is referred to my previous letter of Revision additional that I sent on the October 8^th 2006 to the commissioner. 

 

Respectfully yours,

 

Peter Z Pan                                                                                                                   

 

2006-10-31