Intrepid Global's Hamouth is on "fishing expedition"
2007-11-08 19:44 ET - Street Wire
by Mike Caswell
West Vancouver promoter Rene Hamouth is on a fishing expedition to obtain confidential police records, the Attorney General of Canada says. Government lawyers made the statement last month as they asked a judge to dismiss a lawsuit that Mr. Hamouth launched in 2004 over allegedly improper police surveillance.
They said Mr. Hamouth filed the suit solely to obtain information from CSIS and the RCMP that would be otherwise unavailable to him. The judge did not dismiss the suit, but ordered Mr. Hamouth to provide more particulars of his complaint.
Hamouth's lawsuit
In 2004, Mr. Hamouth filed a lawsuit in B.C. Supreme Court which alleged that government agents bugged his house. His TV, VCR, Internet and phones were misbehaving as a result of surveillance, he said. His suit named as defendants the Attorney General of Canada, the Municipality of West Vancouver and Grant Churchill, the chief constable of the West Vancouver Police.
To listen at the Hamouth residence, Mr. Hamouth said government or police agents trespassed on his property at 2608 Finch Hill, West Vancouver, where he lives with his wife and three children. They caused damage to his heating, ventilation and plumbing, he claimed. As a result, he had to disconnect his Internet, fax, cable and satellite systems, which interfered with his business.
In addition, Mr. Hamouth said police drove by his home to "blatantly disclose" that they were watching him. They also followed him as he went shopping and contacted his bank, the Hong Kong Bank of Canada, and told somebody that he was under investigation over his financial affairs.
Before filing his suit, Mr. Hamouth said he received letters advising him that he was under investigation by CSIS and the West Vancouver Police, and that they had collected information on him. In response, he requested copies of that information, but neither the police or CSIS would oblige.
Mr. Hamouth said the investigation was baseless. He sought damages for breach of privacy, trespassing, defamation and interference with his banking relations.
Hamouth asks government for information
A key issue in the case has been information Mr. Hamouth asked the government to provide.
In a 2005 interrogatory, he asked for full details of any surveillance police conducted on him, including dates, times and identities of the officers. He also sought information on the dates and times that police entered his residence to place listening devices.
In addition, Mr. Hamouth asked for copies of any video tapes or photographs of him, along with the dates and locations they were taken. He sought copies of police warrants and supporting materials that authorized the surveillance.
Judge says no
The government refused to hand over the information, so the matter went before B.C. Supreme Court Justice Thomas Melnick, who ruled against Mr. Hamouth.
In a civil matter, a judge may only open sealed surveillance data if it was improperly obtained. For this to happen, Mr. Hamouth had to show that the police fraudulently obtained a warrant. Mr. Hamouth's lawyer complained that there was no way to know if the warrant was fraudulent or not, because the government had not provided it.
In reply, the judge said Mr. Hamouth's recourse is to demand affidavits showing that proper disclosure took place, or to conduct an examination for discovery under oath.
In the same decision, the judge also threw out Mr. Hamouth's interrogatories. He said they were too broad and the government was not required to hand over authorized surveillance, particularly if it pertained to a current investigation.
The judge said Mr. Hamouth can refile his interrogatories, and he instructed the Attorney General to provide the names of those in government to whom the requests should be directed.
Motion to dismiss
After that ruling, which was handed down in November, 2006, the case was mostly dormant until this October, when the government applied to have it dismissed for lack of prosecution. Government lawyers argued that the lawsuit was "nothing more than a fishing expedition" to obtain confidential information.
They said Mr. Hamouth's statement of claim made generalizations about the government's misconduct "without pleading sufficient material facts" to permit a proper defence. The Attorney General has asked for such particulars, but Mr. Hamouth has not responded.
Even getting documents from Mr. Hamouth was difficult, the government complained. When defence lawyers requested copies of materials Mr. Hamouth said he would rely on in court, they were only produced after motions of contempt were prepared.
"Despite the passage of nearly three years ... this litigation has not progressed as far as a basic exchange of documents among the parties," the government said. Mr. Hamouth is a "sophisticated and frequent litigator in this Court" who understands his obligations. Although his lawyer, David Taylor, withdrew in March, he is aware of the usual progress of a case, the government claimed.
The defence complained it had been "put to great expense by being compelled to continuously bring applications before the Court in order to obtain responses to their most basic requests."
Judge says get on with it
At a motion hearing held Oct. 12, the judge did not dismiss the case, but he did order Mr. Hamouth to produce some documents and to attend an examination for discovery. He gave Mr. Hamouth 30 days to provide particulars of his case.
In addition, the judge said Mr. Hamouth must attend a discovery on Dec. 11 in West Vancouver. If he fails to attend, the action will be stayed unless he can persuade the judge otherwise.
The Attorney General is represented by Lisa Laird of the Department of Justice. The trial, if it happens, is scheduled for next June.
Hamouth sues West Vancouver Police
In an unrelated suit, Mr. Hamouth sued the West Vancouver Police in 2006 over a traffic stop. He said an officer pulled him over to harass and intimidate him, and he sought damages for abuse of police power and wrongful detention.
The police department denied any wrongdoing, and said Mr. Hamouth was following an officer who subsequently pulled him over and checked his licence.
That case is scheduled for trial by jury on Nov. 19.
Hamouth's latest company
Mr. Hamouth's most recent stock promotion -- he prefers to call himself a financier -- is Intrepid Global Imaging 3D Inc., formerly Mangapets Inc. The company claims to be developing holographic imaging technology.
Mr. Hamouth was the company's chief executive officer until this February, when he resigned. According to regulatory filings, he owns 1.2 million shares of the company.
The company closed at $3.50 (U.S.) on Wednesday.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reader Comments - Comments are open and unmoderated, although libelous remarks may be deleted. Opinions expressed do not necessarily reflect the views of Stockwatch.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"2608 Finch Hill, West Vancouver"
Nice house, Rene.
geocities.com TOP 10 MLS* SALES IN BRITISH COLUMBIA IN 2000
* Multiple Listing Service 1. $7.9 million 3820 Sunridge Whistler - January 2. $6.3 million 5240 Marine Drive West Vancouver - February 3. $5.3 million 3019 Point Grey Vancouver - July 4. $5.25 million 2608 Finch Hill West Vancouver - February
Aweel, the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) will thank him for his handsome contribution to the CRA's (and our) coffers, as he will of course have followed "Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s".
Fortunately, in Canada, the CRA leaves God to look after, "and unto God the things that are God’s”.
Posted by halcrow @ 2007-11-08 20:19
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
read the filings. the holograph deal fell apart (ZERO money raised, of course) as did the mangapets deal itself. They now apparently are doing a satellite deal (LOI announced but not followed up). Again, any bets on this 'deal' folding up like the last 1, no 2, no 3, 4? 5? 6? has hamouth ever actually CLOSED a deal? I mean, seriously, a financier? even the financing for the kid's birthday party fell apart. why? couldn't cover the 67 dollar cheque.
Posted by insider @ 2007-11-09 00:46
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
this 'financier' couldn't finance the frosting on the birthday cake.
Posted by insider @ 2007-11-09 00:49
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Add a new comment
Name (required)
Email (optional)
Homepage (optional)
Note: this information will be made public along with your comment
Comments:
|
