Znieslawienie dla polskiej prasy

Znieslawienie dla polskiej prasy

INFAMIA ( ZNIESŁAWIENIE ) DOKONANA NA WYDAWCY INFONURT2

Informujemy czytelników INFONURT2 o zniesławieniu dokonanym przez Rade Brokerów Dla Prowincji Ontario i ogłoszonym we wszystkich największych stronach internetowych świata( Tekst znajdziesz na www.reco.on.ca pod nazwiskiem BOHDAN SZEWCZYK lub na GOOGLE oraz innych stronach ) Wasz zniesławiony wydawca wystąpił z pozwem do Sądu w Toronto z wnioskiem o ukaranie winnych. Oskarżony nie przedstawł swej obrony i obecnie Sąd Prowincji Ontario rozpatruje wniosek o ukaranie oskarzonego. Obowiązkiem zniesławionego poza zgłoszeniem skargi do sądu jest działanie zmniejszające zniszczenie jego opinii poprzez bezposrednią interwencję u stron będacych zamięszanych w przestępstwie. Fałszywa informacja o Wydawcy Info2 została opublikowana po Angielsku i po Polsku ( K. Dzikowski, Polskojęzyczna gazeta WIR ) na wszystkich najwiekszych stronach internetowych. Zespół legalny strony ZOOMINFO przyznał się do udziału w tej publikacji i natychmiast w terminie 24 godzin ją usunął. Ponieważ fałszywa informacja została opublikowana w rónych krajach – reakcja stron jest różna w zależności od prawa jakie obowiązuje w tej sprawie. Poniżej załączamy list Do GOOGLE ze szczegółówymi dowodami – czego ta firma wymaga dla usunięcia fałszywego oświadczenia. Jednooczesnie nadmieniamy iż firma GOOGLE przyznała się do udziału w publikacji tego fałszywego oświadczenia.

Bohdan Szewczyk

Wydawca Infonurt2

Canada

BS v RECO Letter to GOOGLE for removing the RECO false statement

Bohdan Szewczyk 30 March 2006

14 Arletta Street

Georgetown

Ontario L7G 3J3

Canada

bszewczyk@yahoo.com

tel/fax 905-873-0961

tel b. 416-680-1000

GOOGLE LEGAL SUPPORT

DMCA Complaints

1600 Amphitheatre Parkway

Mountain View , CA 94043

Fax +1(650)963-3255

Attn.: Legal Support

Re.: Defamation

Please find as follows :

1.Identification of GODLE website

www.google.com

www.google.ca

www.google.de

www.google fr

www.google .pl

www.google.ru

a) in English

[PDF] IN THE MATTER OF A DISCIPLINE HEARING HELD PURSUANT TO BY-LAW NO ...

Książki pedagogiczne, pedagogika, książki akademickie, psychologia ...

b) In Polish

Przyszedł Kupiec do Szewczyka. „Wir” przedstawia ogromne zbrodnie i zbrodniarzy. dla urozmaicenia jednak, popatrzmy na małą szprotkę wśród kanadyjskiej (nie ...

zaprasza.net/a_y.php?mid=5278& &PHPSESSID=d76873169e02eb959717a2ba51f678c7 - 29k - Supplemental Result - Cached - Similar pages

www.google.com

www.google.ca

www.google.de

www.google fr

www.google .pl

www.google.ru

2.My Counties of residences and citizenships are Canada and Poland

3.Informations which violate my rights

a)In English

Format pliku: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - Wersja HTML

BOHDAN SZEWCZYK. Respondent. DATE OF DECISION:. October 3, 2003. FINDINGS:. In violation of Rules 1(1), 1(5), 2, 3, 4, 10 & 45. of the RECO Code of Ethics ...

www.reco.on.ca/PrinterFriendly.asp?WCE=C=62%7CK=2235460 - Podobne strony

b) In Polish

Przyszedł Kupiec do Szewczyka. „Wir” przedstawia ogromne zbrodnie i zbrodniarzy. dla urozmaicenia jednak, popatrzmy na małą szprotkę wśród kanadyjskiej (nie ...

zaprasza.net/a_y.php?mid=5278& &PHPSESSID=d76873169e02eb959717a2ba51f678c7 - 29k - Supplemental Result - Cached - Similar pages

4.Details of the reason that I believe the information indicated above violates my rights creating DEFAMATION. It is also the local law which applies to this case.

Falsity of the RECO statement

Statement was created on false claim made by client Mr. Ed Glanc

Mr. Glance made 3 false complaints :a) One false statement on 21 October 2002 to Mrs. Rachel Smith of RECO- 2 page2 - signed by Mr. Glanc. * In this statement Ed Glace said that B.Szewczyk charged him the commission of 2% - which is not true: Commission for B Szewczyk was paid by the Seller through Listing Broker Johnson & Associates of Georgetown – this option was chosen by Mr. Ed Glanc in Buyer Broker Agreement and secondly confirmed in Purchase and Sale Agreement. Both Agreements were signed by the Buyer Mr. Ed Glanc.

Mr. Glanc knew what he is signing and his contradicting statement to both agreements is a lie.

In Buyer broker Agreement was the note which says that Mr. Szewczyk will pay rebate of 1% - $4,290. To Mr. Glanc. This note is illegal: in accordance to REBBA section 22 and Competition Act C 34 par. 50. Mr. Szewczyk by this complaint is being forced to brake the law – what he refused to do. Whole Buyer Broker agreement was about buying the land and the Buyer bought it. Statement that the Mr. Szewczyk fail to honour his agreement is totally false.

*$500 Mr. Szewczyk’s donation to St Augene de Mazenod Church. Szewczyk advertised in the polish community calendar offer to pay the donation to the Church under construction if the polish client will use his service.. Mr. Ed Glanc lied to Mr. Szewczyk pretending to be polish. He knew the Mr. Szewczyk is not working with everybody and is very selective taking the client. When Mr. Szewczyk was informed by RECO about displeasure of the client in this matter – the name Ed Glance was immediately removed from this donation- see attached letter hereto, and confirmation of the church. Mr. Ed Glanc and RECO still- till today – 3 years after the fact of location of the name of Mr. Ed Glanc is removed from the projected church board. It is important to say that this information never was made public by Mr. Bohdan Szewczyk and Church . RECO continue this subject and put it in its false statement into its public web site as well as: AOL. GOOGLE, ZOOINFO. This internet pages cover whole world and are interactive. Gentleman - Mr. Glanc repeat the lie or lied himself about the story that other Gentleman got the copy of the cheque of donation to the same church. It is the lie: Mr. Szewczyk never represented the Gentlemen - Mr. Miroslaw Stachowski. Mr. Szewczyk represented his wife Mrs. Aleksandra Stachowski who bought the property known as 9691 Eighth Line in Georgetown. Never any donation to church was made in this transaction. In contrary to this lie - Mrs. .A. Stachowski delivered to Mr. Szewczyk “thank you “letter which is hereto attached. Mr. M. Stachowski at that point was acting as her guardian because of her health condition caused by car accident. As Such he misplaced her funds and is actually under litigation and he is replaced by new guardian, Mrs. .Irena Dmytrenko, TD Canada Trust bank manager in Stoney Creek.

* Mr. Ed Glanc confirmed receiving the exclusive listing to sell his property with reduced price for real estate service to be made by Mr. Szewczyk. Mr. Ed Glanc did not make any statement that he did not wish to sell it. It is only one think true: see hereto attached picture of his residence and listing and listing letter from listing broker about the neighbour property, which was shown to Mrs. Glanc to give them the idea about the value of their property. * In this complaint Mr. Ed Glanc never complaint about the way he signed Buyer Broker Agreement or the way he was informed about the professional relationship Buyer – Broker in General.

c) Second false Statement to RECO – with no dates – 2 pages- is not signed by Anticipated Evidence - File # 25055 dated

Mr. Ed Glanc

This complaint is written in 1st person - was not signed by Mr. Ed Glanc.

This is pure result of coaching the client Mr. Ed Glanc by RECO.

*Mr. Ed Glanc stated the he wanted to buy the property for $450,000 which is a lie. He asked for the property of ca 20 AC with the plane landing strip of 2000 feet., for $400,000 of vacant land or with the buildings for $700,000. Mr. Ed Glanc bought is 88 AC for $429,000 – four times more than he asked for. The land was to be horse farm so the river and already drilled well with confirmed good drinking water is a bonus.

The value of the property when bought was well over $550,000 and now is around $1,000,000 Neither Ed Glanc nor RECO never mention about quality of this purchase which better than perfect. – see attaché hereto the market information on the subject property. Statement made by Ed Glance and RECO that B Szewczyk did not consider the best interest of the client is a false .

* Mr. Ed Glanc lied about commission offered to him by Mr. Szewczyk. Mr.Ed Glanc by not signing the Buyer broker Agreement till the last moment black mailed Mr. Szewczyk to get the money. Shearing the commission Broker with Client as rebate is illegal – REBBA and Competition act – what was explained earlier.

* As was mentioned earlier – Client Ed Glance did not signed the Buyer broker agreement , which was presented to him at first meeting on 3 rd day of may 2002 ,to force M r. B. Szewczyk to commit unlawful act and paid him the rebate.

* Mr. Ed Glanc lied that he was not informed about disclosure of role. When B. Szewczyk began verbal explanation he was stopped with the statement that his father is retired real estate broker and they know this staff. B.Szewczyk delivered to Mr. Glanc written flier made by Toronto Real Estate Board .- and also about tat flier Mr. Ed Glanc lied saying that he did not get anything in witting.

*Mr. Ed Glanc lied saying that he knew nothing about selling his house – see attached the copy of picture of his house made in May 2002 and the listing with the letter of listing agent of the neighbour property , 3996 Garnetwood Chase

d) Third false statement/letter is directed to Mr. Tim Snell of RECO

This complaint was made in July 7 , so 1 month after book of documents was closed and sent to me and the Panel. In this letter Mr. Ed Glanc stated : “ please find attached changes and answers “ - and by this obviously confirming the fact of being coached by Mr. Tim Snell – the layer working as permanent staff of RECO.

Again the client is saying that he is spending too much for the farm of 88 AC when on initial meeting on 3rd of May 2002 was ready to pay the same money for 20 AC ! Next Mr. Ed Glanc is describing the total false story of Mr. Szewczyk RE agent offering him money to buy this property through reduction of commission The reduction is supposed to be not to the Vendor but to him to the buyer in the form of rebate. It never happened – it was the client Mr. Ed Glanc who by refusing to sign the Buyer Broker Agreement black mail Mr. Szewczyk to get part of the commission. In existing situation Mr. Ed Glanc always could do this transaction with other Buyer Broker leaving Bohdan Szewczyk out of this transaction. The Buyer broker Agreement is really for RE agents the only protection against dishonest clients. Unfortunately in this case it was not enough .

All this false complaints were defended by Mr. Szewczyk but the RECO , itself issued next allegation statement totally ignoring the defence.

Allegation statement File # 0250055

All this statement was relied on the false complaints made and presented above by Mr. Ed Glanc and RECO as a coach. The following are shown all points which are false :

6- RECO repeats the lie of Mr. Ed Glanc about negotiating the price . Just to remind : Mr. Ed Glanc is buying 88 AC of land for almost the same price which he initially offered for 20 AC!

7. RECO lies that the Buyer broker agreement was presented to Mr. Ed Glanc on 11 June 2002 when in fact was presented to him on 3rd May at the first meeting and Ed Glanc kept refusing to sign it till June 11.2002!

8 The note about rebate was drafted by Mr. Ed Glanc and his father , former Real Estate broker, and Mr. Szewczyk just was forced to write it because “ if you do not sign it somebody else will do so “. It is illegal to pay any rebate in Canada

9. This paragraph is a creation of RECO . Even client Ed Glanc did not lie so well. All relationships in this transaction as well as Buyer Broker agreement was presented to Ed Glanc in writing on the 3rd day of may 2002. The way it was done was explain above.

12. Although the payment of rebate is illegal - RECO do not bother to look at REBBA section 22 and Competition Act par. 50 This is also obvious the fact when RECO is considered itself as institution being above mentioned the law.

13. Rebate – see above. 12

14. $500 donation - It was Mr. Ed Glanc who was pretending to be the polish and it cause the confusion . To satisfy Mr. Ed Glanc the dedication of the donation was designated to different name - immediately when the complaint was filed – November 2002 – still RECO presented in to the Panel t on Octoer 3 2003 , and keep it on the board of all international web sites till to day - already 3 years- although this problem do not exists anymore. Listing for the client Ed Glanc property was delivered as agreed before – proof of action in May see picture and the letter to Listing broker attached.

15. Szewczyk fulfilled his obligation to Polish community at large as he promised in his ad in the Polish calendar – see ad attached hereto.. Szewczyk never said that it is the part of “rebate”.

This suggestion is made by RECO - Plaintiff consider it as pure malicious behaviour of RECO

16, Note in the Buyer Broker Agreement about “rebate is illegal. Again this suggestion made by RECO is malicious. RECO repeat the lie made by Ed Glanc about the listing For Sale their property – again see attached picture and letter of the Listing Broker.

17. RECO as enforcer ( Part of the MOB) demand that the “rebate ‘ ( part of his commission ) MUST be paid- what means to brake the law -see REBBA section 22 and Competition Act C-34 par. 50

Summary of allegation: It is totally false statement.

Mr. Szewczyk is alleged to have breached the following rules :

RULE 1. ETHICAL BEHAVIOUR –

Client Ed Glanc bought property in 2002 June 88AC vacant land- which is 4 times more for the same money – ca $400,000 !( He was willing to pay that money for 20 AC !) RECO STATEMANT IS FALSE.

Client never complaint about this in his original complaint -October 21 2002 or in his statement of Claim to Small Claims Court. It appears in the following complaints which he made after being coached or written by RECO

RULE 2 . PRIMARY DUTY TO CLIENT.

Again the client bought the property for the price below market ( $500,000) and listing ( $449,000) value.

TO DAY VALUE OF THIS PROPERTY IS WELL ABOVE $1,000,000 – see attached market information. RECO STATEMENT IS FALSE.

Client never complaint about this in his original complaint -October 21 2002 or in his statement of Claim to Small Claims Court. It appears in the following complaint which he made after being coached or written by RECO

RULE 3. DISCLOSURE OF ROLE :

RECO STATEMENT IS FALSE

RULE 4. WRITTEN REPRESENTATION AGREEMENT.

Mr. Szewczyk presented the agreement at 1st meeting ( PROOF – SEE THIS AGREEMENT – IS ATTACHED !) - made it in practical possible time – in case of being black mailed by the client Ed Glanc- at the time of signing by client final offer. PLEASE KEEP IN MIND THAT THIS AGREEMENT IS PRIMARY FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE BROKER. IT IS THE ONLY PROTECTION AGAINST DISHONEST CLIENT WHO CAN ALWAYS MOVE HIS TRANSACTION TO OTHER REAL ESTATE AGENT.

RULE 6. WRITTEN TRANSACTION AGREEMENT.

CREATIVE RECO DID NOT SEE AGREEMENT OF PURCHASE AND SALE KEEPING IT IN HAND !. RECO STATEMENT IS TOTALLY FALSE.

RULE10. MISREPRESENTATION AND FALSYFICATION

This is exactly what RECO did : presented false complaint , and misrepresented the facts – even more – demonstrated its suggestions suppositions, and indications about things which never happened .

Client ED GLANC never complaint about this in his original complaint -October 21 2002 or in his statement of Claim to Small Claims Court. It appears in the following complaint which he made after being coached or written by RECO

45.MEMBERS FINANCIAL RESPOSIBILITY. Client ED GLANC complained only about getting “rebate” – which in accordance to Canadian Law - illegal.( REBBA SECTION 22 and COMPETITION ACT C-34 , PAR. 50 )

Client Ed Glanc bought 88 AC for the same money as he was willing to pay for 20 AC – ca $400,000. The market value of this land was at the time of buying above $500,000 and is to day over $1,000,000! Statement of RECO is contradicting reality of this transaction and is FALSE.

THIS FALSE ALLEGATION STATEMENT – FILE # 025055 WAS MADE AND SIGNED BY JOHN BURNET , MENAGER OF COMPLAINTS COMPLIANCE AND DISCIPLINE OF REAL ESTATE COUNCIL OF ONTARIO , Dated on 5 of June 2002.

RECO repeated all this false information in it’s statement and added the following :

RECO made derogatory remarks as :

“ Certain indywiduals ( presumably doctors ) “ when Family doctor Mrs . Jakubowska is not only a doctor but also has Phd - scientific degree.

“RECO concluded that Szewczyk representation to Buyer Mr. was an inducement to Buyer”- when in reality the Buyer was the one who black mail Szewczyk to get part of the commission. ( Mr. Ed Glanc bought the vacant of 88 AC over $100,000 below market in July 2002 and to day in March 2006 this land is comparable to properties being on asale over $1,000,000.00)

c) RECO , contrary to the true facts of this perfect transaction concluded : “ Szewczyk’s treatment of the client was both unprofessional and unethical. RECO has proven all of its allegations against Szewczyk. Instead of accepting responsibility for his actions, and fulfilling his contractual and financial commitments to Buyer,Szewczyk attempted to revise history to his own advantage to (a) absolve himself of his responsibilities,, and (b) benefit himself in the future by trying to exect from his client (i.e. Buyer) an exclusive listing agreement which his client never agreed to. “ In reality Client Mr. Ed Glanc changed his mind deciding not to sell his residence and began to lie that he never planed to do so ( facts of his wish to sell his residence are presented in the Superior Court of Justice in Toronto, Canada)

Please be advised that :

* RECO officers not only made his defamation on your web page also duped the Panel and Registrar to make wrongful decisions .

* Bohdan Szewczyk acting as the Plaintiff filed the Statement of Claim In the Superior Court of Justice in Toronto Canada file No.CV-297-852 . Real Estate Council of Ontario acting as Defendant is in default. The motion For the Summary Judgment is served and the second hearing date is established.

Please also be advised that I Bohdan Szewczyk am acting following the advice of the expert on Defamation who suggested to me to reduce the damage made to my business and my reputation in the world wide community .

*RECO Statement is published on internet world wide in a permanent form

*RECO statement referred to me per my name BOHDAN SZEWCZYK which was repeated in very vindictive way 119 times when other names ( See below ) are covered up.

*RECO Statement is defamatory to me : it lowers my estimation of right thinking member of society, it expose me to ridicule , it not only injured my real estate business by killed it and also made assassin of my character.

I am asking you for this reason to remove immediately RECO false statement from all your web sites and all others who cooperate with you.

RECO officers and people involved in creation of this false documents :

1.DAVID ROSSI

DIRECTOR of RECO

Acting on the payroll of Re/max professionals and RECO

2.Timothy Snell

In -home Legal Counsel

All - creating false documents and coaching the client.

And sabotage of the pre hearing conference

RECO

3.Wendy Pettit

Compliance/Mediation Officer

CCDD of RECO

All - creating false documents and coaching the client.

4. Michael W. Collins

Commercial Broker

Prudential ELFA Realty

372 Queen Str E. Brampton

Tel. 905-453-0114

(Sabotage the pre hearing conference – by refusing to show

B. Szewczyk real value of transaction)

Out of RECO

Client

Ed Glanc 4006 Garnetwood Chase

Mississauga , Ontario L4W 2G8

Tel 905-629-2116

The Advocate's Devil ( ADVOCATUS DIABOLI)

by Alan M. Dershowitz-a professor at Harvard Law School

?hat do you do if you are a defense attorney -- and you suspect your client is guilty? From Alan M. Dershowitz, one of America's most celebrated legal tacticians.

Letters to a Young Lawyer

The best defence :

*Almost all charged people – included most of my clients – in fact are guilty . The attorney job is to represent the guilty people – and if it is possible – to pull them out of justice hands.

*The attorney’s job – particularly when he is representing the client who is guilty as charged – is to use all legal ways to cover up “all truth”

Organized Crime and Other Unlawful Activities

( Under the umbrellas of franchise RE/Max , RECO and Insurance Company)

The Re/Max professionals and Re/Max Atlantic Canada acted contrary to COMPETITION ACT C -34 pr. 45 removed from the market other Real Estate companies.: Re/Max Renown, owner Mrs. Harper, Re/Max Nice and Re/Max Supreme , owner Mr. Latini , and others which include this case of Real Estate Broker Bohdan Szewczyk . In case of Mr. Bohdan Szewczyk they used RECO to removed him from the market and did it by using their representative of Re/Max professionals and also the Director of RECO ,Mr. David Rossi

Re/Max franchisee were removed in the following way :

Re/Max Atlantic Canada and RE/Max Professionals collecting money as AD Funds and use them to survive the decline of the market. The victims were supporting the oppressor. The franchisees went broke and most of real estate salesman moved to Re/Max Professionals which in effect has now ca 500 agents in 5 offices. The Franchisor, Re/Max Atlantic Canada Owned by Mr. Polzler eliminated from the market its own brokers franchisees- multiplying the potential of Re/max Professionals , owned by his daughter Mrs. Pamela Alexander. . The matter of illegal use of Ad Fund was exactly presented in the case in Superior Court of Justice ,Ed Murphy v Alexander and Re/Max Atlantic file No. C 18735/92 , judge Bellenghem , Order on March 1 , 2003 as well as in Court of Appeal in Toronto File No. C 37638 Panel of judges : LABROSSE, ABELLA and CRONK ,order on 10 of June 2004 . In none of this judgments the eliminating of competitors from the real estate market was noticed. Although the group of people ( Mr. Polzler , owner of Atlantic Canada , His daughter Pamela Alexander and actually joined by Mr. D. Rossi are acting and were acting over 15 years ) are involved in conspiracy against competitors and they were never challenged in the court of law. These people are called “ white collar criminals “ are so clever that even their victims did not know that they and their business were destroyed illegally. ( proof of using AD FUNDS the way which not allowed by contract can be seen in two papers : letter of chartered accountant, John H. Dell to Mr. Ed Murphy and Letter of Re/Max International , USA, To Mr. Frank Polzler Re/Max Ontario Atlantic Canada.- attached hereto) Having information ( from the case of Mr. Ed Murphy) how the AD FUNDS are used and to defend themselves against illegal competition of Re/Max Professionals - other Re/Max brokers as franchisees – refused to pay this funds to franchisor. In accordance toinformation rom Mr. Ed Murphy - :RECO came to the picture ( Dir. David Rossi ) , forcing them to pay under the threat that the franchisees licences shall be suspended ! RECO is interfering the business and acting as illegal enforcer to collect money for Re/Max . ATLANTIC. Canada

Breach of Human Constitution wrights by RECO

RECO did not consider the defence of Plaintiff Bohdan Szewczyk. In the time of hearing - The Plaintiff was sick due to complication after the surgical operation of his ear. During this operation his throat was also hart and he could communicate speaking. The Plaintiff ‘s family doctour , Phd Jakubowska opinion was ignored . RECO called Mrs . Jakubowska . who has PHD degree as – presumably to be a doctor- suggesting the Panel unimportance of the person ant her letter and making impression that the letter is not real.. As a result the Plaintiff was not allowed to defend himself n4either durin hearing nor to make the appeal.

Demage made by RECO to the Plaintiff

Business of the Plaintiff , Bohdan Szewczyk Real Estate Broker is completely destroyed . Fourty two years of work , as Expert in engineering and 18 years in Real estate in Canada came to the end. Reputation and his honesty is destroyied and the damage is beyond repair. False statement , vicious and vindictive attack on the person of the Plaintiff , Bohdan Szewczyk . His name is repeated in this statement 119 times ! This statement is placed on the internet systems of : GOOGLE, AOL, ZOOMINFO , - available on the whole world in two languages English – RECO and Polish- made by Publisher of Polish paper WIRunder the title : Przyszedł kupiec do Szewczyka”. This placement on internet constituted the widest possible dissemination of griewous allegations of professional misconduct that were to be tested in a court of law. Their comment were made in language that portrayed the respondent in the worst possible way. This was neither necessary nor appropriate in the exisrting circumstances( Dispute between Cleient Mr. Ed Glanc and Plaintiff was about $4,900) While it is not necessary to characterize thr Plaintiff Bohdan Szewczyk’s conduct as amounting to actual malice , it was certainly hogh – handed and careless and exceeded any legitimate purpose the publication may have.served. Prior to the commencement of the hearing of the complaint in the pre – hearing meeting RRECO was aware of the falsity of the allegations. RECO not only was coaching the client but even created part of it.

Competition Act in par. 45 says :

45. (1) Every one who conspires, combines, agrees or arranges with another person

(a) to limit unduly the facilities for transporting, producing, manufacturing, supplying, storing or dealing in any product,

(b) to prevent, limit or lessen, unduly, the manufacture or production of a product or to enhance unreasonably the price thereof,

(c) to prevent or lessen, unduly, competition in the production, manufacture, purchase, barter, sale, storage, rental, transportation or supply of a product, or in the price of insurance on persons or property, or

(d) to otherwise restrain or injure competition unduly,

is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years or to a fine not exceeding ten million dollars or to both.

And also in Remedies for Organized Crime and Other Unlawful Activities Act ,2001 S.O . Chapter 28

Purpose

1. The purpose of this Act is to provide civil remedies that will assist in,

(a) compensating persons who suffer pecuniary or non-pecuniary losses as a result of unlawful activities;

(b) preventing persons who engage in unlawful activities and others from keeping property that was acquired as a result of unlawful activities;

(c) preventing property from being used to engage in certain unlawful activities; and

preventing injury to the public that may result from conspiracies to engage in unlawful activities. 2001, c. 28, s. 1.

50. (1) Every one engaged in a business who

(a) is a party or privy to, or assists in, any sale that discriminates to his knowledge, directly or indirectly, against competitors of a purchaser of articles from him in that any discount, rebate, allowance, price concession or other advantage is granted to the purchaser over and above any discount, rebate, allowance, price concession or other advantage that, at the time the articles are sold to the purchaser, is available to the competitors in respect of a sale of articles of like quality and quantity,

(b) engages in a policy of selling products in any area of Canada at prices lower than those exacted by him elsewhere in Canada, having the effect or tendency of substantially lessening competition or eliminating a competitor in that part of Canada, or designed to have that effect, or

(c) engages in a policy of selling products at prices unreasonably low, having the effect or tendency of substantially lessening competition or eliminating a competitor, or designed to have that effect,

is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years. PART IV

CONSPIRACIES THAT INJURE THE PUBLIC

Definitions

12. In this Part, “injury to the public” includes,

(a) any unreasonable interference with the public’s interest in the enjoyment of property,

(b) any unreasonable interference with the public’s interest in questions of health, safety, comfort or convenience, and

(c) any expenses or increased expenses incurred by the public, including any expenses or increased expenses incurred by the Crown in right of Ontario, a municipal corporation or a public body; (“préjudice causé au public”)

“property” means real or personal property, and includes any interest in property; (“bien”)

“public” includes any class of the public; (“public”)

“unlawful activity” means an act or omission that,

(a) is an offence under an Act of Canada, Ontario or another province or territory of Canada, or

(b) is an offence under an Act of a jurisdiction outside Canada, if a similar act or omission would be an offence under an Act of Canada or Ontario if it were committed in Ontario, whether the act or omission occurred before or after this Part came into force. (“activité illégale”) 2001, c. 28, s. 12.

Attorney General’s proceeding based on conspiracy

13. (1) In a proceeding commenced by the Attorney General, the Superior Court of Justice may make any order that the court considers just if it finds that,

(a) two or more persons conspired to engage in unlawful activity;

(b) one or more of the parties to the conspiracy knew or ought to have known that the unlawful activity would be likely to result in injury to the public; and

injury to the public has resulted from or would be likely to result from the unlawful activity. 2001, c. 28, s. 13 (1).

Real Estate and Business Brokers Act

R.S.O. 1990, CHAPTER R.4

22. No action shall be brought for commission or for remuneration for services in connection with a trade in real estate unless at the time of rendering the services the person bringing the action was registered or exempt from registration and the court may stay any such action at any time upon motion. R.S.O. 1990, c. R.4, s. 22.

RECO violated the statute

Real Estate Council of Ontario (RECO)

The Real Estate Council of Ontario (RECO) administers the Real Estate and Business Brokers Act. In addition to administering the Act, RECO has its own By-laws, which have been used to accomplish consumer protection objectives and allow RECO to provide effective regulation of the real estate profession.

Under the act, all brokerages, brokers and salespersons in the province of Ontario must be registered with RECO. Members of RECO accept a Code of Ethics that defines the conduct upon which they must do business in Ontario. RECO can lay charges under the statute, and its Registrar has the authority to propose to revoke or put conditions on a registrant. RECO has a complaints, compliance and discipline process to ensure that effective action is taken in instances where a RECO member has acted unethically manner.

On March 31, 2006, a new Real Estate and Business Brokers Act, 2002 will come into force, replacing the current Real Estate and Business Brokers Act. The new Act will modernize legislation in the real estate sales sector and improve protection for consumers.

There are currently more than 45,000 registrants in Ontario and staff process about 500 transactions per week. RECO'S VISION IS:

Public trust in the real estate marketplace.

RECO'S MISSION IS:

To provide a regulatory environment that earns the full confidence of consumers, registrants and government.

The Real Estate Council of Ontario administers the Real Estate and Business Brokers Act (REBBA) on behalf of the Ontario Ministry of Government Services. RECO's mandate is twofold:

To administer the regulatory requirements of the real estate industry as set down by the Government of Ontario

To protect consumers and members through a fair, safe and informed marketplace.

In addition to administering the Act, RECO has its own By-laws, which have been used to accomplish certain consumer protection objectives pending future real estate act reform and allow RECO to provide effective governance of the real estate profession.

Under the Act, membership in RECO is a condition of registration. All registrants are therefore required to adhere to the terms and conditions of membership in RECO.

RECO is governed by a 12-member Board of Directors , which includes nine elected representatives from the profession and three ministerial appointees to represent consumers, business and government. RECO delivers services through the structure outlined in the organizational chart.

Operating revenues are derived from registration fees. RECO operates on a not-for-profit basis, with any excess revenue invested into improvements in compliance, public information and accessibility, education and technology.

5. My contact :

Bohdan Szewczyk

14 Arletta Street

Georgetown

Ontario L7G 3J3

Canada

bszewczyk@yahoo.com

tel/fax 905-873-0961

tel b. 416-680-1000

For enquiries related to RECO publications, media relations and special events.

communications@reco.on.ca

6.2 .1 in Polish

www.wir.ca , redakcja@wir.ca

owner/publisher Krzysztof Dzikowski

5-2325 Hurontario Str

Mississauga , On L5A 4K4

Canada

tel 905 – 281- 2174

WIRTUALNA POLONIA - Statement is linked to www.wir.ca

www.wirtualnapolonia.com - it is linked to yahoo

6.2.3 http://www.zaprasza.net/ -it is linked to yahoo

I have a good faith belief that the information specified above by RECO is not permitted by applicable law

I swear , under penalty of perjury , that the information in this notification is accurate

REGARDS ,

9 Bohdan Szewczyk