公眾籌款故事和計(jì)劃書及特色土雞養(yǎng)殖商業(yè)計(jì)劃書

唐煒臻的籌款故事和計(jì)劃書宗旨是利用公眾資金和資源撥亂反正，避免司法欺詐，爭(zhēng)取司法公正和公道，恢復(fù)唐煒臻的名譽(yù)和地位，為投資人奪回?fù)p失，恢復(fù)和利用唐煒臻的知名度和榜樣作用。TheMissionistousethe“ChineseWarrenBuffett”andmycasetoraisefundtohirelawyersandotherprofessionalstofightagainstmaliciousprosecutionandprotectthecharterofrightsandfreedomsforCanadianandbettertheWorld.Thefundraiser,WeizhenTang,isa

Visionary,Inspiring,Insightful,Truthful,Honest,Respectful,TrustworthyPersonwiththeHighestmoralstandardandLeadership,Determination,Dedication,ResponsibilityandInnocent,AManwithexcellentCharacterandIntegrity.

AFinancialBusinessmanandalltimetrueFinancialleaderforthePeopleandfortheWorld.Apublicspeaker,voiceandpowerforinvestorsandpeople,neverhasintentiontodefraudanyone.

Peopleandthemediacallmethe“ChineseWarrenBuffett”,the

kingof1%,IhostedtwoNorthAmericanChineseWealthSummits,ahugesuccessin2009andlookedlikeWorldSummitandonlybetterandmoreeffectiveandefficient,IhostedthreeChineseannualNewYearGalainConventionalcenter,downtown,Toronto,thebestever,EverybodylovedourshowsandIproposeda1%weeklyinvestmentreturnandconductedroadshowtodemonstratedandattractinvestors,everybodylovedtobuymymarketmaker1%theoryandpractice,IdemonstratedwhatItradeandhowItradeandwhentotrade,Peopleinvested60milliontomeinthreeyears,allinvestorswerebyaccreditedinvestorsonly.Wheneverybodylostmoneyinthefinancialcrisisof2008and2009,Ididnotloseandpositionedtoprofit,butforcedtoclosebyOSC,theOntarioSecuritiesCommission.

WeizhenTangwasthefirstChineserunformayorofTorontoinCanadaandhasahugesupport,IamThefirstpeoplewhochargedfraudrunformayorinthehistorysinceIamaanti-fraudandhavemajorityinvestorssupport.IstrategicallyengineeredandsponsoredapeacefulandfriendshiprallyinOttawainApril13,2008,goteverybodyexcited,Iamahistorymakerandnewsmakerallthetime.

IdonatedmoneyfordisasterrelievesforearthquakeandothernaturaldisasterandIlovetodonateandhelppeoplewhoingreatneedwhenIwasingoodtimeandpositiontodoandhadlotofsuccessfulstory.

Thefundraiseris

anaturalleaderemergedfromthefinancialmarketsandsociety,Iamfrompeople,forthepeopletobettertheworld.

ToHelppeoplerealizedreamsismydream.Allyourdreamsaremydream.

MyGoalistomake1%returnaweekinthefinancialmarket,anysizeandanywheretobecometherichestmanintheworldlikeWarrenBuffetttoleadandtohelppeoplewhoneedthemoneyandneedhelpthemost.Ilovetomakeanddonate

Specialties:RealTimeForexTradingandReliableandProfitableandValuableinbusinessandlife.FinancialSummitandWealthBuildforyou,PublicSpeechesonpoliticiansandfinanciersandpeopleandWealth2008and2009financialTsunamicostinvestorsallovertheWorldpanicandterrified,myinvestorswerenotexemptorimmunetothecrisisandwelostmoneylikeeverybodyelse,butwelosttheleast.

Iwasfalselychargedfraudandwrongfullyconvictedover$5000fraud.

Iamanordinaryperson

andexpertinthefieldofinvestmentandfinancialmarket,butIhavenoknowledgeandexperienceofthejudicialsystemandlawsociety.AfterIwasinvestigatedandchargedfalselyandconvictedwrongfullyandIhavenoname,reputation,nopeople,nomoneyandnolawyersandnorepresentations.AfterIwasconvictedandsentenced,IhavebeenforcedtolearnthelawandCanadianlegalsystemandappealfrommyconviction.MyappealgoestoTheSupremeCourtofCanada,theHighestCourtinthecountry.Ineedyourdonationtowinmylegalwarandbattles,thefollowingiswhatIsubmittedtoSupremeCourtofCanadaforyourreferenceandIhavesomesolidgroundstoappealandwin.NOTICEOFAPPLICATIONFORLEAVETOAPPEAL TAKENOTICEthattheApplicant,WeizhenTangwillapplyforleavetothisCourtpursuanttosection40oftheSupremeCourtActfor:1.AnordergrantingleavetoappealtothisCourtfromthedecisionoftheCourtofAppealforOntario(Doherty,Hourigan,HuscroftJJ.A)withrespecttotheconvictionappealdatedJune25,2015andthedecisionoftheCourtofAppealforOntario(Sharpe,Hourigan,Benotto,JJ.A)withrespecttothesentenceappealdatedOctober5th,2015bothsetsofJusticesupholdingtheconvictionbeforeJudgeandJuryoftheapplicantobtainedonOctober30,2012andsentenceimposedonFebruary1,2013byJusticeO’MarraoftheSuperiorCourtofJusticeofOntario.2.And,ifnecessary,anordergrantingleavetoappealtothisCourtfromthedecisionoftheHonourableMadamJusticeGillesseoftheCourtofAppealforOntario,datedSeptember11,2014inwhichsherefusedtograntanorderforprovisionofstatefundedcounselwithrespecttoconvictionwhileallowingtheprovisionofstatefundedassistancewithrespecttosentenceonly,togetherwithanorderextendingtimeforaperfectedapplicationoftheleaveapplicationpursuanttosection59oftheSupremeCourtAct;untilthedispositionoftheMotionforprovisionofstatefundedcounseltoassisttheapplicantinperfectingthisapplication,andfurtheruntilanorderfortheprovisionoftheCourtofAppealRecordinthismatteratstatecosthasbeenissued.AndsuchfurtherorotherorderthatthesaidCourtmaydeemappropriate.ANDFURTHERTAKENOTICEthatinsupportofthisapplicationwillbereadtheReasonsforJudgmentoftheHonourableJusticesoftheCourtofAppealforOntarioasindicatedabove,ReasonsforSentenceofJusticeO’MarradatedFebruary1,2013,theReasonsforJudgmentoftheHonourableJusticeNordheimerdatedSeptember29,2011dismissingtheapplicant’sRowbothamapplicationforstatefundedcounsel;thedecisionofJusticeLibmanoftheOntarioCourtofJusticequalifyingthecrown’switnessasanexpertwitnessasaforensicaccountant,andallthematerialscontainedintheApplicationforLeaveandsuchfurtherandothermaterialasselfrepresentedapplicantorcounselifoneisappointedmayadviseandthisHonourableCourtmaypermit.ANDFURTHERTAKENOTICEthatthisapplicationforleaveshallbemadeonthefollowinggrounds:(i) theApplicants’constitutionalrightstoafairtrialandtomakefullansweranddefencehavebeendeniedasaresultofthedenialbythecourtsbelowtogranttheapplicanthisapplicationforprovisionofstatefundedcounselgiventhecomplexityofthecaseandhislackoflegalknowledgeandinabilitytocross-examinewitnessesandputhisdefenceeffectively.(ii) thelearnedJusticeserredinlawinstatingthattheapplicantdecidednottochallengethecrown’sexpertwitnesswheninfacthehaddonesoatthepreliminaryhearingbuthisincompetenceandineffectivenessmadeitimpossibleforhimtopreventtheexpertfrombeingqualifiedandattrial,hewasadvisedthatAmicuswouldbemoreeffectivebutAmicuswasalsoineffectiveandincompetentinadditiontoignoringtheinstructionoftheapplicanttochallengethequalificationsoftheexpertastheexpertfeltthattheexpertwasamereaccountandnotaforensicexpert,letalonequalifiedtogiveanopiniononfinancialinvestments.(iii) thelearnedJusticeserredinlawintheirreasoningthattheevidenceandopinionoftheexpertwasharmlessorbenign,itwasthetestimonyoftheunchallengedexpertthatswayedthejury.(iv) thelearnedJusticesdidnothavebeforethemtheproposedfreshevidenceabouttheincompetenceandineffectivenessofAmicuswhichrenderedthetrialunfair.(v) thecircumstancesofthecasearesuchthatthelackofrepresentationoftheapplicantandfurtherhisbeingassistedbyineffectiveandincompetentAmicus,whodidnotadvicewhatsoeveraboutthenumerouspotentialmotionsthatwereopentotheapplicantfortheeffectivedefenceofthechargesrenderedthetrialunfairandrunscontrarytothetenentsoftheruleoflawinCanada. DATEDatToronto,this24dayofNovember2015.____________________________WeizhenTang17SilkCourtRichmondHill,OntarioL4B4A4Tel:(416)886-8715

MEMORANDUMOFARGUMENTPARTI:STATEMENTOFTHECASE1. TheApplicant,WeizhenTangwaschargedwithfraudandconvictedbeforejudgeandjuryonOctober30th,2012.2. TheApplicanthadnocounselatthepreliminaryhearing,trialorintheCourtofAppeal,serveforDutyCounselattheCourtofAppealontheissueofconvictionalone. - AffidavitofApplicant3. Theapplicanthadappliedforstatefundedcounselthroughouttheprocessbuthewasdeniedthisrequest. - AffidavitoftheApplicant.4. ThetranscriptofthepreliminaryhearingdisclosesthattheApplicantrepeatedlyraisedtheissuethatheneededalawyerashedidnotknowhowtoaskquestionsanddidnothavelegalknowledge. - AffidavitofApplicant5. TheApplicantwascommittedfortrialandwasfromtimetotimeassistedbyAmicusCurieaattrial. - AffidavitofApplicant.6. TheApplicantallegesthatAmicusCurieawasincompetentandineffectiveaswellanddealsatlengthwiththisaspectofthecase.TheAmicusmissedtheopportunitytoadvisetheapplicanttobringanumberofcrucialmotionsandapplications;Amicusdidnotfullygraspthetheoryorevidenceofthedefence;theAmicusdidnotchallengethequalificationsofthecrownexpertdespitebeinginformedbytheApplicantthattheexpertwasatbestamereaccountantbutnotaforensicexpert,ifhewasaforensicexpert,hewasstillnotanfinancialinvestmentexpert;theAmicusdiscouraged,infactadvisedtheApplicantnottocallcharacterwitnesses;theclosingaddressdidnotfullyexploretheissueofmensreaandmanyotheromissionsorcommissions. - AffidavitoftheApplicant.7. Theapplicantallegesthatnooneseemstohavereadthepreliminaryhearingtranscriptwhichdisclosedthathecouldnotdothetrialcompetentlywithouttheappointmentofcounsel,courtsaboveassumedhehadcompetentlycross-examinedwitnesseswhenthatwasnotthecaseorcourtsassumedhedeliberatelydidnotchallengethequalificationsoftheexpertwitness. - AffidavitoftheApplicant.8. TheApplicantisseekingleavetointroducenewevidenceonthisleaveapplication.9. TheApplicantalsoseekstheappointmentofcounseltoperfectthisleaveapplication.10.TheApplicantalsoseeksanorderfromthecourtfortheprovisionoftheCourtofAppealRecordinthisleaveapplication. - AffidavitofApplicant.10. TheApplicantisonwelfareandcannotaffordtoretaincounselorpayforthetranscripts. - AffidavitofApplicant.11. TheApplicantisselfrepresentedonthisleavetointroducefreshevidence. PARTII-ISSUESANDTHELAW12. ItissubmittedthattheApplicantwasdeniedhisrighttoafairtrialbecausehewasdeniedcounsel,wasself-representedandthisself-representationwasincompetentandineffective,resultinginamiscarriageofjustice.14. ItissubmittedthatfurtherthattheAmicusCurieawhoassistedhimfromtimetotimeduringthetrial,wasincompetentandineffective,leadingtoafurthermiscarriageofjustice.15. Anaccusedinacomplicatedcriminaltrialwithseriousconsequencesthathasretainedcounselisentitledtotheeffectiveandcompetentassistanceofthatcounsel. Thestandardshouldbenolessiftheaccusedisself-representedorisassistedbyAmicusCuriea.InthiscasetheApplicantwasself-represented.Amicuswasappointedtoensuretheapplicantgotsomeassistance.TheconductandassistanceofAmicusshouldnotbeofalesserstandardthanthatofanycounselorcounselrepresentingtheaccused.IfanythingitmustbemoresubjecttoscrutinybecauseAmicuswasappointedinrecognitionofthefactthattheaccusedpersonhasnolegalrepresentation. - R.v.Silvini(1991),68CCC(3d)25116. Ineffectiverepresentationcanbecastaseither:(i)aCharterviolationpursuanttosubsection24(1)oftheCharteror(ii)amiscarriageofJusticepursuanttos.686oftheCriminalCode.ThereisnoneedtoframetheissueasaCharterissuepursuanttoabreachofss.7&11(d)oftheCharter.InGarofoli(1988)41CCC(3d)97at152MartinJ.A.stated:Ishouldaddthat,apartaltogetherfromconstitutionalconsiderations,if,inanycase,thecourtconsideredthattherewasarealpossibilitythatamiscarriageofjusticehadoccurredduetotheflagrantincompetencyofcounselwewouldbeentitledtointerveneunders.613(1)(a)(iii)ofthecode. Section613(now686)readsasfollows:686.(1)Onthehearingofanappealagainstaconviction[...],thecourtofappeal(a)mayallowtheappealwhereitisoftheopinionthat...(iii)onanygroundthattherewasamiscarriageofjustice - R.v.Garofoli(1988),41C.C.C.(3d)9717. Counsel’sperformanceistobemeasuredagainstastandardofreasonableness,assessedobjectively.Strategicortacticalconsiderationswillbegivenconsiderabledeferencetotrialcounsel.Eachcaseistobedecidedonthefacts.HeretheApplicantwasself-representedandwasclearlyincompetentaswasAmicusCurieawhowasn’thiscounselbutwastheretoassistinanycase.18. InR.v.Joanisse(1995)102C.C.C.(3d)35(OCA)andR.v.White(1997)114CCC(3d)225(OCA),thecourtdecidedthatthestepstoestablishineffectivenessofcounselare:1) Theappellantmustestablishthefactsonwhichtheclaimofincompetenceisbased.Theappellantmustproveonthebalanceofprobabilitiestheallegedactsoromissionsoftrialcounsel.Whentheclaimofincompetenceisfirstraised,appellatecourtwillreceivefreshevidencesupportingthefactualfoundationoftheclaim.Additionalinformationshouldinclude(ineitheraffidavitortranscriptoforalevidence)trialcounsel’sexplanationfortheallegeddeficiencies.2) Theappellantmustestablishthattherepresentationprovidedbytrialcounselwasincompetent.Appellantmustshowthatacts/omissionsoftrialcounselwereunreasonableandfellbelowexistingprofessionalstandardsofreasonableskillandjudgment(seeRulesofProfessionalConduct)3) Theappellantmustestablishthattheincompetentrepresentationresultedinamiscarriageofjustice.Anappellantestablishesprejudicebyshowingthatthereisareasonableprobabilitytheverdictwouldhavebeendifferentiftrialcounselhadnotbeenincompetent. - R.v.Joanisse(1995),102C.C.C.(3d)35 - R.v.White(1997),114C.C.C.(3d)22519. InGarofoliMartinJ.A.saidatpp.151-2(quotedwithapprovalinR.v.Sauve(1997)121C.C.C.(3d)225(B.C.C.A.):“...wherethedefendantallegesthattheincompetenceofcounseldeprivedhimoftheeffectiveassistanceofcounsel,thedefendantmustshow,inadditiontothelackofcompetenceonthepartofdefensecounsel,thatthereisareasonableprobabilitythat,butforcounsel’sunprofessionalerrors,theresultofthetrialwouldhavebeendifferent.InStricklandv.Washington,104S.Ct.2052(1984),JusticeO’Connor,deliveringtheopinionoftheCourt,saidatp.2064:‘a(chǎn)convicteddefendant’sclaimthatcounsel’sassistancewassodefectiveastorequirereversalofaconvictionordeathsentencehastwocomponents.First,thedefendantmustshowthatcounsel’sperformancewasdeficient.Thisrequiresshowingthatcounselmadeerrorssoseriousthatcounselwasnotfunctioningasthe“counsel”guaranteedthedefendantbytheSixthAmendment.Second,thedefendantmustshowthatthedeficientperformanceprejudicedthedefense.Thisrequiresshowingthatcounsel’serrorsweresoseriousastodeprivethedefendantofafairtrial,atrialwhoseresultisreliable.Unlessadefendantmakesbothshowings,itcannotbesaidthattheconvictionordeathsentenceresultsfromabreakdownintheadversaryprocessthatrenderstheresultunreliable.’(Emphasis[ofMacfarlaneJ.A.])....“Shealsosaidatp.2068"‘...Thedefendantmustshowthatthereisareasonableprobabilitythat,butforcounsel’sunprofessionalerrors,theresultoftheproceedingwouldhavebeendifferent.Areasonableprobabilityisaprobabilitysufficienttoundermineconfidenceintheoutcome. (Emphasis[ofMacfarlaneJ.A.])“TheprinciplesetforthinStricklandv.Washington,supra,canusefullybeappliedinthisjurisdiction.” - Garofolisupra.20. InJoanisse,J.A.Dohertystatesatp.64that“areasonableprobabilityliessomewherebetweenamerepossibilityandalikelihood.” - Joanissesupra - R.v.Sauve(1997),121C.C.C.(3d)22521. InR.v.B.(L.C.)(1996)104CCC(3d)353(O.C.A.),thecourtalsoquotedfromStricklandaboveatp.2066:Aconvicteddefendantmakingaclaimofineffectiveassistancemustidentifytheactsoromissionsofcounselthatareallegednottohavebeentheresultofreasonableprofessionaljudgment.Thecourtmustthendeterminewhether,inlightofallthecircumstances,theidentifiedactsoromissionswereoutsidethewiderangeofprofessionallycompetentassistance.Inmakingthatdetermination,thecourtshouldkeepinmindthatcounsel’sfunction,aselaboratedinprevailingprofessionalnorms,istomaketheadversarialtestingprocessworkintheparticularcase.Atthesametime,thecourtshouldrecognizethatcounselisstronglypresumedtohaverenderedadequateassistanceandmadeallsignificantdecisionsintheexerciseofreasonableprofessionaljudgment. - R.v.B(L.C.)(1996),104C.C.C.(3d)35322. Thedeferencetobeshowninanexaminationofcounsel’sperformancereferredtoinR.v.Kelly(1992)15W.C.B.(2d)254(O.C.A.)whereDohertyJ.A.said(quotedwithapprovalinStrauss(1995)100C.C.C.(3d)303(B.C.C.A.)):Theincompetenceoftrialcounselcanaffordagroundofappeal.Itis,however,onewhichshouldberaisedonlyafterthemostcarefulconsideration.Thereisastrongpresumptionthattrialcounselperformadequatelyandtheonusrestsontheappellanttodemonstratethatcounsel’sconductfellbelowthestandardofcompetence. - R.v.Kelly(1992),15W.C.B.(2d)25423. InR.v.Joanisse(1995)102CCC(3d)at62(OCA);thecourtreasonedthat:Counsel’sfailuretomeetcompetencestandardsdoesnotautomaticallyleadtoareversalofaconviction.Theultimatepurposeoftheappellateinquiryisnottogradecounsel’sperformance,buttodeterminewhetheramiscarriageofjusticeoccurred...Ifcounsel’sincompetencerenderedtheverdictunreliableortheprocessunfair,thentheappellanthasdemonstratedthathereceivedineffectiveassistanceresultinginadenialoftherighttoafairtrialandmiscarriageofjustice.24. ItissubmittedthattheApplicant’saffidavitwhichconstitutesnewevidenceclearlyestablishesthattheself-representedapplicantwasincompetent,andsowasAmicus.Amicusadvisedanddiscouragedtheapplicantfromcallingcharacterwitnesses;Amicusdidnotadvisetheapplicantwhocouldn’taffordexpertwitnessestocallsuchwitnessesdespitebeingtoldcategoricallybytheapplicantthattheapplicantneededtocallexpertwitnesses;theAmicusdidnotadvisetheapplicantonthevariousmotionsthatcouldhavebeenbrought;theAmicusdidnotmentioninhisclosingaddressdespitebeingremindedbytheapplicantthattheapplicantwasfacingthecurrentfinancialtsunamiwhichaffectedhisoperationslikesomanysimilarfinancialinvestmentoperations;theAmicusdidnotfullybringoutthedefenceoflackofmensrea;Amicus’saddresstothejurystartedoutalmostlikeacaricatureoftheapplicant;theAmicusdidnotassisttheapplicantintryingtohavethevideoofFebruary27,2009excludedfrombeingadmittedasitwasmoreprejudicialthanprobative,infacttheamicusduringpre-chargeconferencesubmittedthatthatvideoshouldbeenteredforthetruthofitscontentsinrelationtowhattheapplicantwassayinginthevideoandsomanyotheromissionsandcommissions.25.ItissubmittedthatthecombinationofboththeincompetenceandineffectivenessoftheselfrepresentedapplicantandAmicus,resultedinanunfairtrialandthereforeamiscarriageofjustice.TheChiefJusticesoftheSupremeCourtofCanadaandOntario,aswellasmanyotherjudgesandformerChiefJusticeandAttorneyGeneralforOntario,HonourableRoyMacMurtryhavestatedthatselfrepresentedapplicantsarethefaceofnewinjusticesinCanadaorwordstothateffectthattheypresentanewandintractableproblemforboththecivilandcriminaljusticesystems.Theissueofselfrepresentedapplicantsandthespecificproblemstheyposeisanissueofnationalimportance.26.JusticeCoryoftheSupremeCourtofCanadastatedinR.v.S.(R.D)[1997]S.C.J.No.47atpara.91that,“Asystemofjustice,ifitistohavetherespectandconfidenceofitssociety,mustensurethattrialsarefairandthattheyappeartobefairtotheinformedandreasonableobserver.Thisisafundamentalgoalofthejusticesysteminanyfreeanddemocraticsociety”.Theapplicantheredidnotgetafairtrialasaselfrepresentedapplicantinacomplexcase,assistedbyAmicuswhowashimselfineffectiveandincompetent.27.Recognisingtheseriousnatureofthefairnessissueincriminaltrials,theSupremeCourtofCanadahasdirectedtheCourtofAppealtocarryoutitsdutytoensurethattheappellanthadafairtrialandifnottoactdecisivelytoreverseanyunfairness:R.v.Caccamo(1975)21C.C.C(2nd)257atp.265(SpenceJ);R.v.C(M.H)(1991),63C.C.C(3d)385atp.394.(McLachlinJ.asshethenwas).28.Anunfairtrialisamiscarriageofjustice.McIntryeJoftheSupremeCourtofCanadastatedinR.v.Fanjoy(1985),21C.C.C(3d)312pp.317-18that,“Apersonchargedwiththecommissionofacrimeisentitledtoafairtrialaccordingtolaw.Anyerrorwhichoccursattrialthatdeprivestheaccusedofthatentitlementisamiscarriageofjustice”.29.SelfrepresentationandtheincompetenceandineffectivenessofboththeselfrepresentedapplicantandAmicus,includingtheomissionsandcommissionsofAmicusalludedaboveandintheapplicant’saffidavitinthiscasecombinedtoresultintheunfairnessofthetrialasalreadystated.DohertyJ.oftheCourtofAppealforOntariowroteinR.v.W(W.),(1995),100C.C.C(3d)225atpp.234-5,that“Ifanaccuseddoesnotreceivetheeffectiveassistanceofcounselattrial,theadversarysystemcannotfunctionproperly,theappearanceoffairnesssuffers,andthereliabilityoftheverdictiscalledintoquestion.Ineffectivelegalassistanceattrialmayresultinamiscarriageofjusticenecessitatingthequashingoftheconviction”.30.Itissubmittedthataselfrepresentedaccusedinthiscase,becauseofhisincompetenceandineffectivenesswasnomatchwithanexperiencedcrownattorney.Theadversarialsystemwasskewed.Amicusconstituted“l(fā)egalassistance’’albeitofaverylimitednaturebutthatassistancewasalsoineffectiveandincompetent.31.Itisofnationalimportancethataselfrepresentedaccusedbeaccordedafairtrialinthecontextofanadversarialcriminaljusticesystemwhichexistsinafreeanddemocraticsociety.32.Fromthepreliminaryhearingwhereitbecamecleareventothejudgeandsamecrowncounselwhoconductedthejurytrial,thattheapplicantwasincapableofcross-examiningwitnessesnecessitatingthepreliminaryhearingjudgetotrytoassisttheapplicantatlongstretchesoftimebycross-examiningthewitnesseshimself(thetrialjudge)tothetrialproper,itcannotbestatednowthatthejusticesystemdidnotknowthatthetrialwouldbeunfair.TheapplicantbroughtseveralRowbothamapplicationsincludingintheCourtofAppeal,allofwhichweredenied,serveforthesentenceappeal.TheapplicantexercisedduediligenceintryingtoensurethathegotafairtrialbybringingRowbothamapplicationsthroughoutincludingtothisHonourableCourt.33. TheAppellanthasmettheproceduralrequirementforthereceiptofnewevidence.FreshevidenceintheformofanAffidavitwilloftenberequiredinordertopermitthecourttorealisticallyconsiderthecompetenceoftheself-representedApplicantandAmicusinthiscase.Thequestioniscanitbereceived?34. S.683(1)oftheCriminalCodestatesthatanappealcourtcanreceiveevidenceifitisintheinterestsofjusticetodoso.Ifevidenceofferedis:1. Withrespecttoanissuerelevanttoadeterminationmadeattrial,thetest setoutinR.v.Palmer(1979)50C.C.C.(2d)193(SCC)andreiteratedin Stolarv.TheQueen(1988)40C.C.C.(3d)1istobefollowed. 2. Freshevidencedirectedtoanissuenotlitigatedattrial:Thecourthasjurisdictiontoentertainbotharguments,asitisintheinterestsofjusticethattheAppellantbegivenanopportunitytoadducefreshevidencetosupporthis/herclaim.TheuseoftheapproachfromR.v.W.(W.)(1995)100CCC(3d)225(OCA)isrecommended. - R.v.W(W)(1995),35OR.(3d)78235.However,incaseswheretheallegationisincompetenceofcounsel,andthereforeamiscarriageofJustice,theregenerallyisnoneedforfreshevidence.AFFIDAVITOFWEIZHENTANGTOADDUCEFRESHEVIDENCEAffidavitofWeizhenTangI,WeizhenTang,ofthecityofRichmondHill,theProvinceofOntario,MAKEOATHANDSAY:Iamtheapplicantinthismatterandassuch,Ihavefullknowledgeofthematterssworntointhisaffidavit.Iamcurrently57yearsold.IwasbornonSeptember2,1958.IamaCanadiancitizen.IhavebeenaCanadianCitizenforthepast18yearsandIhavecalledCanadamyhomefor23years,startedmyownbusinesssince1995.Iamaself-taughtbusinessmanandworkingforthepublicandpublicinterest,noharmtothepublic,IbecameapublicfigureandoneofthemostwellknownChinesecommunityleadersbecauseofmyhardworking,leadershipandgoodcharacter.Igavemyownmoneytomyinvestors,nottakeordefraudmyinvestors.UntiltheconvictionforonecountoffraudonOctober30th,2012,Ihadnopriorcriminalrecord.ThisaffidavitisinsupportofmyapplicationtoadduceextraandfreshevidencewhichwasnotlitigatedfullyorevenpartiallyatthePreliminaryHearing,SuperiorCourtofJusticeandtheCourtofAppealforOntario.ThisaffidavitalsoanswerssomeofthestatementsmadebytheJusticesintheSuperiorCourtofJusticeandintheCourtofAppealwhichhavesofarnotbeansweredorexplained.ThecoreoressenceofmyconvictionIbelieverelatedtomybeingselfrepresentedandwithoutmuchoranylegalknowledgeatal