To recap and update for those who have already read it, Jim tells "investors" that he has $168 million in a foreign bank, frozen by the Patriot Act. In exchange for them sending him funds for alleged fees and fines, he promises them a staggering 760% interest for just a couple of weeks' use of their money.
A fool and his money are soon parted, and this is no exception. He hasn't paid anyone a red cent, although he sent out an email at the end of the year that everyone would be paid within a month. Several months later, he claimed that the payment had been sent to the wrong account by his cohort Jeanne. Interestingly enough, Jeanne sends money to the wrong place all the time, if Jim Norman is to be believed. In the interim, a Canadian court has specifically found as a fact that Jim Norman has lived hand-to-mouth for forty years, and is broke. That I don't doubt, with one exception. Obviously, he didn't tell them about the millions he had collected from people in the United States, and wired to various offshore accounts.
Here's his latest scam. Apparently Jim passed a bad check to Alterna Credit Union, up in the Toronto area. It wasn't just any bad check, either. It was a check written on an account at a Spanish bank, and the amount had been altered from 12 Euros to 500,000 Euros.
That's one hell of an alteration. No way was something like that just a mistake.
The credit union for some reason didn't put a hold on it, and didn't call the Spanish bank to confirm funds. However, in their defense, Jim had this account since 1999 in the name of his company, Thrum Records, so they probably figured, what the hell. Bear in mind, they couldn't have put a hold on it long enough to find out it was bogus, since it takes so long to find out that kind of information on an international check (which is why Nigerian scammers pull this stunt regularly, and their victims get stuck holding the proverbial bag). Now, he had never had anywhere near that much money in that account, but then again, most people who have an account that long aren't going to come in out of the blue with a counterfeit check. I'm guessing he had a fish tale for the teller as well - probably something along the lines of how some Spanish investor was investing into his business, or else that they had bought distribution rights to his New Age crap CDs.
The credit union sued him when they found out the check was counterfeit. However, in the meantime, Jim had withdrawn all but $5000 (Canadian) of the money. He bought all kinds of stuff, including a $171,000 Porsche Cayenne (one of the ugliest cars ever made, hands down, and I don't care how much it costs. Ugly is ugly). He sent photos of himself in that car to his investors as proof of his "abundance". He also sent a great deal of it to numbered accounts in Cote d'Ivoire, Africa, which just happens to be one of the scam capitals of the world, and hundreds of thousands to some company in Taiwan.
The Canadian courts are extremely polite, but basically they adjudged that he was full of shit, and probably not all there.
The court's finding on the credit union's Motion for Summary Judgment is reproduced below. I have highlighted some portions to further show you why a Canadian court has agreed that this man was the right choice for the Frickin' 'Tard of the Year Award.
COURT FILE NO.: 05-CV-290223PD2
DATE: 20060209
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
B E T W E E N:
ALTERNA SAVINGS AND CREDIT UNION LIMITED
Plaintiff
- and -
DAVID PHILIP JAMES NORMAN also known as JIM NORMAN, THRUM RECORDS INC. AND DOWNTOWN FINE CARS INC.
Defendants
Robert G. Tanner, for the Plaintiff
Roberto R. Cucci, for the Defendant, Mr. Norman
Brooke Shulman, for the Defendant, Downtown Fine Cars Inc.
HEARD: January 17, 2006
CAMERON J.
THE NATURE OF THE MOTION
[1] The plaintiff moves on December 1, 2005 for Summary Judgment under Rule 20:
(i) a. vesting in the plaintiff title to a motor vehicle currently registered in the name of the defendant David P. J. Norman (“Mr. Norman”) and more particularly described as:
2005 Porsche Truck/V Cayenne Turbo 4, V.I.N. WP1AC29P25LA92028;
b. directing the Sheriff for the City of Toronto to deliver up to the plaintiff or its authorized agents possession of the said vehicle upon payment of any outstanding storage charges or other Sheriff’s fees in respect thereof;
c. in the alternative, directing that the said vehicle be sold and the net proceeds of sale paid to the plaintiff;
d. in the alternative, an Order pursuant to Rule 45.01(2) directing that the said vehicle be sold in such manner and on such terms as are just and that the net proceeds of sale be paid into Court.
(ii) Partial Judgment against the defendants Mr. Norman and Thrum Records Inc. (“Thrum”) in the sum of $69,200.00.
(iii) Amending, if necessary, the Statement of Claim to plead the specific relief requested in paragraph (i) above.
(iv) Awarding the plaintiff costs of this motion on a substantial indemnity basis.
FACTS
[2] On May 5, 1999, Mr. Norman, the president and director of Thrum, applied to the plaintiff Alterna Savings and Credit Loan Limited (then known as “Metro Credit Union”) (“Alterna”) for membership for his corporation Thrum and signed an Operation of Account Agreement including the following terms:
4(b) The Member shall pay to the Credit Union forthwith after demand therefore any indebtedness or liability to the Credit Union in connection with or arising out of the operation of any account of the member together with interest thereon as agreed;
4(c) The Credit Union may charge against the account of the Member the amount of any instrument cashed or negotiated by the Member for the Member or credited to the Member’s account for which payment is not received by the Credit Union. Any expenses incurred by the Credit Union in connection with a dishonoured or unpaid instrument may be charged to the Member’s account.
[3] From the opening of the account until April, 2005 the transactions did not exceed $9,508 nor did the balance exceed $22,601.00.
[4] On April 13th, 2005 Mr. Norman delivered to Alterna for deposit to the Thrum account a draft (“the Spanish draft”) payable to “Thrum Records” in the sum of five hundred thousand Euros (“€500,000.00”) (CDN. $798,950) drawn on the Caja Madrid Bank (“Caja Bank”) in Madrid, Spain. The Thrum account was credited accordingly.
[5] The plaintiff failed to put a “hold” on the funds until the draft was cleared by Caja Bank. The defendant alleges that the plaintiff told the defendant that the Spanish draft had cleared.
[6] Between April 15 and May 5, 2005, Mr. Norman effected withdrawals or transfers of all but $5,324.43 of the funds in the said account, including:
a. cheques payable to Mr. Norman personally for $69,200.00;
b. cheques totalling $171,000.00 payable to Downtown Fine Cars Inc. (“Downtown Cars”) for the purchase of a Porsche automobile in the name of Mr. Norman personally and an additional cheque for $10,000.00 payable to “Totally Wired” for the installation of a sound system therein;
c. a total of US$67,500.00 to a numbered account in Abidjan, Ivory Coast, Africa, and
d. On April 20, 2005 US$220,000.00 or Can $277,768.93 to Lester Lin Company Limited in Taiwan
[7] On May 11, 2005, the Spanish draft was dishonoured by the Caja Bank and on May 11, 2005 was returned as counterfeit, for the reason that the amount thereof had been altered after issuance from €12 to €500,000. The Caja Bank is the second largest bank in Spain.
[8] On May 30, 2005 the plaintiff was advised by fax from the Caja Bank that the cheque “was altered from the original amount of 12 Euros”.
[9] Mr. Norman has stated under oath that he was entitled to the €500,000 as his fee on the sale of a “batch of diamonds” to “a businessman named Mr. Risinger, doing business at the present time in Venezuela” whom Mr. Norman has never met. There is no evidence to support such a business.
[10] Mr. Norman is a jazz musician by profession who has deposed that he has lived a hand-to-mouth existence for forty years, has no substantial assets and is the Judgment-Debtor named in a Judgment outstanding since 2001 in favour of Bread and Roses Credit Union in the sum of $114,000. He is basically broke.
[11] Mr. Norman has stated under oath his belief that there was a technical problem in the transfer of funds from Mr. Risinger’s bank to the Caja Bank, and that as a result, the Caja Bank declined payment of its bank draft, using the only pretext available to it, namely alteration.
[12] Mr. Norman has stated under oath that the €500,000 are still sitting in Mr. Risinger’s bank.
[13] In response to the plaintiff’s demand for reimbursement from Mr. Norman, Mr. Norman has sent numerous emails which are frequently incoherent, which state or otherwise represent that he has “more than enough assets in the bank to pay this off”, that he was scheduled in February 2005 for a private audience with the Pope, that his business is “evaluated and sanctioned by the World Court in Geneva”, that his associate in this transaction managed the account of Nelson Mandela, and that credit union personnel would “have to face retaliation”.
[14] During the course of a meeting held on May 18, 2005 among Mr. Norman, Alterna and their respective counsel, Mr. Norman agreed to refrain from taking delivery of the Porsche motor vehicle referred to above, and provided instructions to his counsel to direct Downtown Cars to retain custody thereof, pending resolution of this dispute.
[15] Contrary to the agreement referred to above, Mr. Norman obtained delivery of the said motor vehicle from Downtown Cars on or before May 25th, 2005.
[16] The statement of claim was issued on May 26, 2005.
[17] On May 31, 2005, the Honourable Mr. Justice Day made an Order, providing, inter alia, that the Sheriff for the City of Toronto shall seize the vehicle described therein, that possession thereof shall be retained by the Sheriff until otherwise ordered by the Court, and that Mr. Norman pay to the plaintiff forthwith costs fixed in the sum of $5,000.00. The vehicle in question, registered in the name of Mr. Norman, was identified as follows:
2005 Porsche Truck/V Cayenne Turbo 4, vehicle identification number WP1AC29P25LA92028
[18] This is a rare vehicle with a luxury bicycle roof rack, special wheels, and a luxury sound system. There are relatively few potential buyers. It is depreciating in value.
[19] Pursuant to the said Order, the vehicle was seized by the Sheriff on June 21, 2005 and remains in the custody of the Sheriff.
[20] Of the amounts drawn against the $798,850.00 credit created on the deposit of the Spanish draft, Alterna has recovered only €100,000 ($151,239.45) on two returned wire-transfers to Spain, leaving a debit balance owing of $641,723.45 together with interest thereon from June 6, 2005.
[21] Since mid-May, 2005, Mr. Norman has, through his counsel, repeatedly assured Alterna’s counsel that repayment in full of the €500,000 would be made within the next few days or the next week. No such payment has ever been received. Nor has any payment been received in respect of the $5,000.00 costs which were ordered fixed and payable forthwith by the Honourable Mr. Justice Day on May 31, 2005.
[22] While in storage with the Sheriff, the Porsche continues to depreciate and is subject to accumulating storage charges. Sheriff’s storage charges accumulate against the vehicle at the rate of $8.00 per day.
[23] The Amended statement of defence and counterclaim was delivered August 3, 2005.
[24] The plaintiff does not have a judgment that would entitle it to either the vehicle or to the proceeds of sale.
[25] Thrum, not Mr. Norman, is the owner of the Alterna account. Mr. Norman is not a party to the account and he has not guaranteed Thrum’s liability to the plaintiff. Mr. Norman acted as agent for Thrum. However, the money was taken from Thrum’s account and transferred to an asset in Mr. Norman’s name or to Mr. Norman personally. He is the alter ego of the corporation. Accordingly, Alterna is entitled to trace the funds to Mr. Norman and to claim them back as unjust enrichment.
[26] Mr. Norman says he paid Thrum liabilities with the $69,200 paid to him personally. However beyond this broad allegation he provides no detail to support the claim.
[27] He says payment to the Ivory Coast account and to Taiwan were for fees required by them.
[28] The plaintiff has claimed against the defendants “payment of the sum of $641,723.45 being the unrecovered balance of $789,850.00 obtained by Norman from the Plaintiff by fraud”.
[29] Mr. Norman alleges a counterclaim for damages for slander by way of set-off to this claim. He says the plaintiff’s allegations about him were disseminated in the business world and to his business contacts before they were repeated in the statement of claim in this action.
Amendment of Pleadings
[30] The plaintiff has moved for changes to the statement of claim which under R. 26 I am bound to grant subject to costs or adjournment because of prejudice. I grant it subject to counsel forthwith amending the statement of claim. The amendment is specific in this motion. See Butler v. Nash, 2003 Carswell Ont. 3879. There was no request for an adjournment to amend the statement of defence. I then proceeded with the motion for summary judgment.
Summary Judgment
Rule 20
[31] After service of the statement of defence, a plaintiff may move with supporting affidavit material or other evidence for summary judgment on all or part of the claim. Unfortunately no statement of claim was filed with the material although a copy was shown to the court.
[32] Rule 20.04(1) contemplates that a complete evidentiary record will be before the motions court judge and there will be nothing further if the issue were to go to trial. There must be a genuine issue, not just a spurious issue, requiring a trial for its resolution. The defendant must put its best foot forward or risk losing. A genuine issue for trial is not raised by a denial in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary and the absence of additional evidence to support the denial.
[33] Where the court is satisfied that the only genuine issue is a question of law, the court may determine the question and grant judgment accordingly: R. 20.04(4).
[34] The defendant argues that the essence of its argument is that the plaintiff’s attempt to create a spell is no substitute for investigation. If an honest man is overtaken by events then he should have more time and one should not pierce the corporate veil except if fraud is proven. Nowhere is it indicated who altered the draft from €12 to €500,000. However, the fact is it was altered.
[35] It is now beyond argument that restitution is an available remedy in cases of proved unjust enrichment. Money, or a benefit, paid by a mistake of fact gives rise to a prima facie case of unjust enrichment unless:
(a) the payer intends that the payee shall have the money at all events, whether the fact is true or false, or is deemed in law so to intend;
(b) the payment is made for good consideration, for instance to discharge a debt owed to the payee (or a principal on whose behalf he is authorized to receive the payment) by the payer or by a third party by whom he is authorized to discharge the debt; or
(c) the payee has changed his position in good faith or is deemed in law to have done so.
See Barclays Bank Ltd. v. W.J. Simms Son & Cooke (Southern) Ltd., [1979] 3 All E.R. 522 at p. 535.
[36] Absent a defence of bona fide purchaser for value, a change in position in good faith, or other recognized defence, a bank is entitled to restitution and the claim may be traced into other assets. Where money is received by the defendant from the plaintiff by mistake of fact, a constructive trust results in order to prevent unjust enrichment. The plaintiff to whom the money rightfully belongs can trace the funds and recover them or the property representing them from an insolvent. Harper v. Royal Bank of Canada (reflex-logo) reflex, (1994), 18 O.R. (3d) 317.
[37] Where money is paid on the supposition that a specific fact is true which would entitle the other to receive it, which fact is untrue and the money would not have been paid if the fact had been known to be untrue, it can be recovered “and it is against conscience to retain it”: Rural Municipality of Shorthoaks v. Mobil Oil Canada, Ltd., [1976] 2 S.C.R. 147 (S.C.C.).
[38] In Royal Bank v. The King, [1931] 2 D.L.R. 685 (Man. K.B.) the court set out the law with respect to the right to recover money paid under mistake of fact:
1. The mistake in paying the money is honest. His last laches or negligence will not of themselves affect his belief. Knowledge will not be imputed to him unless he willfully abstains from inquiry.
2. The mistake must be as between the person paying and the person receiving. The receiver must in some way be a party to the mistake either inducing it, responsible for it or connected with it.
3. The facts, as they are believed to be, impose an obligation to make the payment. The obligation must be legal, equitable or moral. It is not enough that the payment is desirable or advantageous. The compulsion must at least be practical.
4. The receiver of the money has no legal or equitable or moral right to retain the money as against the payer.
Shorthoaks and Royal Bank are cited in Pinnacle Bank, N.A. v. 1317414 Ontario Inc. (c.o.b. Jay-B Conversions), [2002] O.J. No. 281. It that case Kustom bought goods from 1317414 and paid for them twice by having Pinnacle wire funds to 1317414. Pinnacle mistakenly wired twice. 1317414 refused to repay arguing that Kustom owed it additional money. Although the state of the accounts between the companies was in issue, this did not provide 1317414 with any defence.
[39] In River Valley State Bank v. Toronto Dominion Bank, [2002] O.J. 2078 per Master Hawkins, K, a customer of River Valley, presented a $350,000 cheque for deposit. Before the cheque had cleared or been returned, K instructed River Valley to transfer $344,000 to Bedi’s Canadian account. River Valley did so assuming that the $350,000 cheque would be paid. River Valley then learned that the $350,000 cheque was forged and sought to reverse the transfer to Bedi’s account. Bedi’s bank refused to reverse the transfer. The court held that River Valley had made an honest but mistaken belief that the cheque would be honoured. Bedi had received the funds that River Valley paid by mistake. River Valley was entitled to judgment based on either mistake of fact or unjust enrichment. Bedi was enriched. River Valley suffered a corresponding deprivation. The fact that Bedi was owed money by K was not a juristic reason for enrichment with River Valley’s funds. There was no genuine issue of law or fact requiring a trial.
[40] The defendant Mr. Norman has been given 8 months to come up with repayment or a defence to the claim. He has offered only theoretical possibilities, none of which make sense. He has given no supporting facts. The defence says the money remains in Mr. Risinger’s account and was not paid to the defendant. However this is contrary to the fact that he received a cheque for €500,000 from Caja Bank which he gave to the plaintiff for deposit. Caja Bank has said the cheque was for only €12 and has given it to the police.
[41] Alterna has paid the money under an honest mistake in fact that the cheque was valid. The defendant is a party to the mistake. The facts impose an obligation to make the payment. The defendant has no obligation to retain the money as against the plaintiff. The plaintiff is entitled to the proceeds of the cheque.
[42] The defendant used the money obtained from the plaintiff to purchase the vehicle in his name and to pay himself money totalling Can. $69,200. The defendant holds the money in trust for the plaintiff.
Conclusion
[43] I authorize amendment of the statement of claim to include the relief requested in (i) a – d above.
[44] I would award judgment to the plaintiff for Can. $181,000 and for $69,200.
Counterclaim
[45] The defendant counterclaims for damages in defamation based on statements of fraud by Mr. Norman. They allege that Alterna told Downtown Cars, its counsel, a chartered accountant, TD Canada Trust branch at Bloor and Windermere in Toronto, Bank of Montreal, Rexdale and Kipling, Toronto, and others, that Mr. Norman had deposited with the plaintiff a cheque that was counterfeit and that the funds which Thrum paid to Bailey in mid-April of 2005 were obtained by Mr. Norman by fraud.
[46] In my opinion this could raise a genuine issue for trial: Siemens Electric Ltd. v. Unident Ltd., [1999] O.J. No. 575. The counterclaim flows from the same relationship as the claim itself so as to raise the equitable set-off defence. There is no pleading to the counterclaim yet.
[47] I would exercise my discretion to not grant execution on the claim yet but only to pay the $181,000 and the $69,200 into court to the credit of the action.
Sale of Car
[48] The car is likely to deteriorate in value and ought to be sold as quickly as possible under Rule 45.01(2). I order that the car be sold by the sheriff and the proceeds of the sale, net of expenses, be paid into court to the credit of this action, save for $5,000 which shall be paid forthwith to the plaintiff.
[49] Before selling the car the sheriff shall advertise the auction thereof for at least 3 weeks in a magazine or newspaper dedicated, at least in part, to expensive vehicles. The defendant shall be entitled to bid.
Costs
[50] If the parties cannot agree on costs, the plaintiffs shall give me their submissions within 15 days after release of these reasons. The defendant shall respond within 10 days thereafter.
__________________________
CAMERON J.
Released: February 9, 2006
Okay, so just to review, the court clearly found that Jim Norman passed a bogus check, then spent all but 1% of the money. The court also clearly found that the Plaintiff was entitled to recover its money.
But, that's not how Jim Norman reads what we all just read. He is telling his loyal followers (all frickin' 'tards who suffer from functional illiteracy, obviously) that he has a $22 million judgment against the credit union.
Now, nowhere does it say that, folks. You read it for yourself. As of month before last, he hadn't even actually filed a counterclaim for his claim of defamation yet. There definitely hasn't been a trial, much less a judgment. I know this for a fact, because I confirmed it myself.
Even if he does file a counterclaim, he stands approximately the chance of a snowball in hell of winning. After all, a court has already found that he passed a counterfeit check, so why can't the people he defrauded warn others about it before they sue him? I'd want someone to warn me if somebody I was doing business with pulled a stunt like that. In fact, I'd kiss their ass for saving mine. I'll eat my own head if a jury doesn't agree with me that there was no defamation just for warning others that the guy had passed a counterfeit check, especially in an amount that large. After all, truth is an absolute defense to claims of defamation. He would also have to prove malicious intent, and that he was damaged as a result of their actions.
Based on the above court order alone, I cannot imagine anyone could damage Jim Norman's reputation any more than he has damaged it himself.
Whoo-boy.
Now, this is not the only bogus check floating around with Jim Norman's name on it. In fact, there's another, also on a Spanish bank, and this one is in the amount of a staggering $58 million. I don't think he's actually passed it (he sends it out to his so-called "investors" as proof of his "abundance"), but I've reproduced it below for anyone who ever wondered what a $58 million counterfeit check actually looks like.
Don't try this at home though, kiddies. It's an obvious counterfeit, and no bank in its right mind would ever accept it. Plus, you'd go to prison for a very long time if you even tried to pass a counterfeit check. So just say no to being a frickin' 'tard, okay?
0 comments:
Post a Comment