Public Watchdog Complaint Line

Public Watchdog Complaint LinePublic Watchdog Complaint LinePublic Watchdog Complaint Line

Public Watchdog Complaint Line

Public Watchdog Complaint LinePublic Watchdog Complaint LinePublic Watchdog Complaint Line

Watch This Video For More Information

Stop Adult Bullying Send A Complaint Now.

  Send A Complaint To The Following Individuals Aiding Large Financial Institutions Collecting Debts They No Longer Own!  Make Sure You CC All Complaints To UnitedWeStandPeople@Gmail.com To Be Entered Into A $500 Giveaway

The Culprits

Copy and paste the following complaint to j.mcdonald@firstxv.ca & CC UnitedWeStandPeople@Gmail.com

 I am writing as a concerned citizen, I recently watched a Public Investigation on you John Mcdonald via UnitedWeStandPeople.com. / PublicWatchDogComplaintline.ca Why cant you substantiate your claims with any evidence? its very clear that the private lender exists, your refusal to answer reasonable questions that would substantiate your claims suggests your statements are slanderous and your claim an abuse of process. It appears as though you are aiding Banks in collecting on debts they no longer own. 

Copy and paste the following complaint to idagher@goeasy.com & CC UnitedWeStandPeople@Gmail.com

 Dear EasyFinance Council

​

I am writing as a concerned citizen, I watched an investigation by an investigative journalist regarding Lesley Hand's and your unethical conduct Via UnitedWeStandPeople.com/PublicWatchDogsComplaintLine.ca, ignoring efforts to prove a private lender was indeed legitimate & refusing payout. You should not be ignoring evidence and taking away due process from the Canadian public. This complaint pertains to his handling of cases involving borrowers in conflict with banks, specifically Easy Finance. It appears as though your organization is attempting to collect on debts which they ​no longer own. 

Copy and paste the following complaint to CentralPeace.Notley@assembly.ab.ca & CC UnitedWeStandPeople@Gmail.com

 

Dear MLA Loewen,

I recently came across an investigative report highlighting concerns that your office is not taking constituents’ issues seriously and has even hung up on callers attempting to discuss important matters. As a concerned Albertan, I find this deeply troubling. Elected officials have a responsibility to listen to the people they represent, regardless of the topic.

I urge you to address these concerns and ensure that all constituents are treated with the respect and attention they deserve. Please clarify what steps your office is taking to improve communication and responsiveness.

Looking forward to your response.

Copy and paste the following complaint to Calgary.Edgemont@assembly.ab.ca & CC UnitedWeStandPeople@Gmail.com

Julia Hayter 

 

I am deeply concerned by your stance that it is not your role to intervene in cases of judicial overreach, particularly when due process is being denied to Albertans. As an elected official, you have a duty to ensure that our legal system remains fair, accountable, and within the bounds of the law. When the courts fail to uphold fundamental rights, it is not just a judicial matter but a democratic issue requiring political oversight. Your refusal to act allows an unchecked judiciary to erode public trust and legal protections. I urge you to reconsider your position and take meaningful steps to address these concerns. Please clarify what actions, if any, you are willing to take to safeguard the rights of your constituents. Unless there is a serious change of tune, Myself an others will no longer support your position as our MLA and we will continue to share articles about your refusal to help your constituents   

Sincerely,

Copy and paste the following complaint to Calgary.NorthEast@assembly.ab.ca & CC UnitedWeStandPeople@Gmail.com

 

Dear MLA,

I am writing to express my concern regarding reports that your office has been unresponsive to constituents, including failing to return calls or acknowledge inquiries. As an elected representative, it is your responsibility to ensure that those you serve have a means to communicate their concerns and receive appropriate responses.

I urge you to address this issue and clarify what steps your office is taking to improve communication and accessibility for constituents. Public engagement is a fundamental part of your role, and responsiveness is essential to maintaining trust in the democratic process.

I look forward to your response.

Copy and paste the following complaint to Edmonton.WestHenday@assembly.ab.ca & CC UnitedWeStandPeople@Gmail.com

 

Dear MLA,

I am writing to express my concern regarding reports that your office has been unresponsive to constituents, including failing to return calls or acknowledge inquiries. As an elected representative, it is your responsibility to ensure that those you serve have a means to communicate their concerns and receive appropriate responses.

I urge you to address this issue and clarify what steps your office is taking to improve communication and accessibility for constituents. Public engagement is a fundamental part of your role, and responsiveness is essential to maintaining trust in the democratic process.

I look forward to your response.

Copy and paste the following complaint to FortSaskatchewan.Vegreville@assembly.ab.ca & CC UnitedWeStandPeople@Gmail.com

 

Dear MLA,

I am writing to express my concern regarding reports that your office has been unresponsive to constituents, including failing to return calls or acknowledge inquiries. As an elected representative, it is your responsibility to ensure that those you serve have a means to communicate their concerns and receive appropriate responses.

I urge you to address this issue and clarify what steps your office is taking to improve communication and accessibility for constituents. Public engagement is a fundamental part of your role, and responsiveness is essential to maintaining trust in the democratic process.

I look forward to your response.

Copy and paste the following complaint to jrotsztain@krmc-law.com & CC UnitedWeStandPeople@Gmail.com

 Dear KRMC Council,

​

I am writing as a concerned citizen, I saw a Public Investigation by UnitedWeStandPeople.com / PublicWatchDogComplaintLine.ca on the unethical conduct by Joe Varano, a paralegal at KRMC Law Firm in Toronto, Ontario. This complaint pertains to his handling of cases involving borrowers in conflict with banks, specifically the Royal Bank of Canada (RBC). Why is it that Joe Varano would suggest his client does not have to prove they own the debts they are collecting money for? Obviously RBC sells debts, they explicitly state they can sell debts via the contract, it seems like KRMC is aiding RBC in collecting on debts they no longer own.

Copy and paste the following complaint to Efitzgerald@mcdougallgauley.com & CC UnitedWeStandPeople@Gmail.com

 

I am writing to express concerns about a video showing your actions related to verifying ownership rights for a Fairstone mortgage. The video suggests false statements were made about ownership verification, raising serious ethical, legal, and professional concerns. Such behavior undermines trust, violates ethical standards, and risks improper legal outcomes. I urge you to reflect on the implications of this conduct and take immediate steps to ensure transparency and integrity in your future actions. Attempting to collect on a debt which your client no longer owns is misrepresentation of the facts leading to fraud..

Copy and paste the following complaint to Patricia.Copeman@albertacourts.ca & CC UnitedWeStandPeople@Gmail.com

 

I am writing as a concerned citizen, I watched a Public Investigation by UnitedWeStandPeople.com featuring Judge K.G. Nielson of the Alberta Court of King's Bench. Judge Nielson's repeated mischaracterization of requests for verifiable proof of debt ownership as "OPCA" (Organized Pseudolegal Commercial Argument) schemes, despite clear evidence the private lender existed and contradicting his own endorsement where he states it is not "OPCA" for private lenders to request proof of ownership is reprehensible. This practice undermines the due process rights of Canadians and raises serious ethical and procedural concerns. It appears as though K.G. Nielson is aiding Banks in collecting on debts they no longer own​.

​​Copy and paste the following complaint to gbowden@fijlaw.com & CC UnitedWeStandPeople@Gmail.com

 I am writing as a concerned citizen, I watched an investigation by an investigative journalist regarding your unethical conduct Via UnitedWeStandPeople.com/PublicWatchDogsComplaintLine.ca, Slandering legitimate private lenders for simply asking for verifiable proof of ownership for the debts they are attempting to purchase, From first claiming that debt consolidation is illegal to then claiming they are running a scam yet you are unable to substantiate your claims when asked to do so. It appears as though you are aiding banks in collecting on debts which they no longer own.

Copy and paste the following complaint to whiteley@wbalaw.ca & CC UnitedWeStandPeople@Gmail.com

 I am writing as a concerned citizen, I watched an investigation by an investigative journalist regarding Denise Whiteley unethical conduct Via UnitedWeStandPeople.com/PublicWatchDogsComplaintLine.ca, ignoring efforts to prove a private lender was indeed legitimate & refusing payout. I would like to bring to your attention the unethical conduct of Denise Whiteley, She should not be ignoring evidence and taking away due process from the Canadian people. This complaint pertains to her handling of cases involving borrowers in conflict with banks, It appears as though WBA Law is aiding RBC in collecting on debts they no longer own.

​

Preface

Important Definitions

 

Verifiable Evidence means that citizens have a means to check the veracity of the levels of surveillance that are reported. This is achieved using cryptographic protocols that produce data which can be subjected to tests by citizens. In principle, any citizen can verify the data, although it might be technically difficult and/or expensive to do so. It is sufficient if some trustworthy organizations (such as Chartered Accountants) do so on behalf of everyone else.

Abuse of process refers to the improper use of a civil or criminal legal procedure for an unintended, malicious, or perverse reason. It is the malicious and deliberate misuse of regularly issued civil or criminal court process that is not justified by the underlying legal action.

Abuse of process includes litigation actions in bad faith that is meant to delay the delivery of justice. Examples include serving legal papers on someone which have not actually been filed with the intent to intimidate, or filing a lawsuit without a genuine legal basis in order to obtain information, force payment through fear of legal entanglement or gain an unfair or illegal advantage. The determination of what in unfair and wrong is for the court to determine on the individual facts of each case.

​

A LAWYER'S DUTY TO THE COURT BY ROBERT BELL AND CAROLINE ABELA

Securitization is the process used to create asset-backed securities (ABS). It takes the illiquid assets of a financing company (the leases, loans, mortgages and credit card debts of its customers), pools them and transforms them into highly liquid securities that are sold to investors.

The process benefits both the financing companies and the investors.

For the financing companies, new capital is raised at more affordable rates than they could get through their commercial banks. Better yet, they do that by freeing up cash from assets sitting on their balance sheets. They also grow their loan books by lending the capital back out to new borrowers.

Investors not only benefit from the income that flows from the assets that “back” the securities, but also from the liquidity of the securities themselves—the ability to sell them to another buyer at any time.

Auditing is defined as the on-site verification activity, such as inspection or examination, of a process or quality system, to ensure compliance to requirements. An audit can apply to an entire organization or might be specific to a function, process, or production step. Some audits have special administrative purposes, such as auditing documents, risk, or performance, or following up on completed corrective actions.

OPCA

This article discusses ways in which Organized Pseudolegal Commercial Arguments (OPCA) litigants use pseudolegal concepts, techniques, and procedures before the courts. The author begins by looking at where OPCA legal arguments originate, and the historical sources where these arguments find grounding, while assessing the flaws in such. A thorough analysis is then conducted into some of the tactics used by OPCA litigants in order to evade legal consequences, including a survey of global case law where these arguments have been brought before the courts. The article culminates with an analysis of the implications of the use of pseudolaw by OPCA litigants and how tactics permeate through OPCA movements, while looking for solutions in dealing with OPCA litigants as they move through the courts.

Assignment is a legal term whereby an individual, the “assignor,” transfers rights, property, or other benefits to another known as the “assignee.”   This concept is used in both contract and property law.  The term can refer to either the act of transfer or the rights/property/benefits being transferred.

Contract Law 

Under contract law, assignment of a contract is both: (1) an assignment of rights; and (2) a delegation of duties, in the absence of evidence otherwise.  For example, if A contracts with B to teach B guitar for $50, A can assign this contract to C.  That is, this assignment is both: (1) an assignment of A’s rights under the contract to the $50; and (2) a delegation of A’s duty to teach guitar to C.  In this example, A is both the “assignor” and the “delegee” who delegates the duties to another (C), C is known as the “obligor” who must perform the obligations to the assignee, and B is the “assignee” who is owed duties and is liable to the “obligor”.

(1) Assignment of Rights/Duties Under Contract Law

There are a few notable rules regarding assignments under contract law.  First, if an individual has not yet secured the contract to perform duties to another, he/she cannot assign his/her future right to an assignee.  That is, if A has not yet contracted with B to teach B guitar, A cannot assign his/her rights to C.  Second, rights cannot be assigned when they materially change the obligor’s duty and rights.  Third, the obligor can sue the assignee directly if the assignee does not pay him/her.  Following the previous example, this means that C (obligor) can sue B (assignee) if C teaches guitar to B, but B does not pay C $50 in return.

Loan servicing can be carried out by the bank or financial institution that issued the loans, a non-bank entity specializing in loan servicing, or a third-party vendor for the lending institution. Loan servicing may also refer to the borrower's obligation to make timely payments of principal and interest on a loan as a way to maintain creditworthiness with lenders and credit-rating agencies.

Loan servicing was traditionally seen as a core function held within banks. Banks issued the original loan, so it made sense that they would be responsible for handling the administration of the loan. That was, of course, before widespread securitization of loans changed the nature of banking and finance in general. Once loans—and mortgages in particular—were repackaged into securities and sold off a bank’s books, the servicing of the loans proved to be a less profitable business line than the origination of new loans.

​

Just because an organization is handling the administrative portion of a loan such as collecting payments and creating statements does not mean that organization currently holds the rights to the loan as they may have securitized the loan and simply continued to service it.

“Fraud” is any activity that relies on deception in order to achieve a gain. Fraud becomes a crime when it is a “knowing misrepresentation of the truth or concealment of a material fact to induce another to act to his or her detriment” (Black’s Law Dictionary). In other words, if you lie in order to deprive a person or organization of their money or property, you’re committing fraud. 

A Breakdown Of The Rampant Unnoticed Fraud Within Banking Facilitated By Unethical Lawyers

 Now that you know debts are frequently bought and sold within the finance industry through processes known as "securitization" or "assignment." This means that when a bank originally issues a loan, it may later sell the right to collect payments to another entity, such as an investor or a debt collection agency. As a result, the entity demanding payment may not always be the one that originally issued the loan.


Who Do You Really Owe?

When a Canadian is told by a bank that they owe money, they often assume the obligation remains with the original lender. This assumption is usually correct, but not always. Borrowers have a legal obligation to pay the rightful owner of the debt—who may or may not be the bank they originally borrowed from.

If a bank sells or assigns a loan, it transfers the legal right to collect payments to another party. For example, if Bank X sells a loan to Company Y for $50,000, Bank X no longer has the right to collect payments because those rights now belong to Company Y. This situation is similar to selling a car—once ownership transfers, the original owner no longer has the right to use or sell it.


How Banks Are Collecting Money They No Longer Have a Right To

If a bank has already sold a debt but still attempts to collect, this could lead to:

  1. Unfair Double Payments: The bank may have already received payment from selling the debt, meaning the borrower could unknowingly pay the wrong party.
  2. Legal Uncertainty: If a borrower repays a bank that no longer owns the debt, the rightful creditor may still demand payment later.
  3. Potential Fraud: If a bank knowingly collects money on a debt it no longer owns, this could be considered fraudulent.

Despite these risks, many borrowers are unaware that banks may not be the actual creditor when they demand repayment.


How Unethical Lawyers Protect These Practices

Banks often rely on legal teams to shield themselves from scrutiny when challenged about ownership. Instead of providing verifiable proof of ownership, some bank lawyers resort to:

  • Delaying responses to information requests.
  • Providing incomplete documentation that does not actually prove ownership.
  • Misrepresenting borrower rights to make them believe they have no choice but to pay.

In some cases, lawyers go further by mischaracterizing legitimate requests for proof as frivolous or part of “pseudolegal” arguments—a tactic used to deter borrowers from exercising their rights.


Can Banks Sell Your Debt Without Informing You?

Yes. Most loan agreements include clauses allowing banks to sell, assign, or transfer debt without notifying the borrower. For example, Capital One’s Cardholder Agreement states:

"At any time, we may sell, transfer, or assign any or all of our rights and obligations under this agreement or your account without telling you in advance."

This means that even if a borrower has been making payments to the same bank for years, ownership of the debt may have changed without their knowledge.


What Constitutes Verifiable Evidence of Ownership?

Many banks, when asked to prove ownership of a debt, will provide a payout statement or reference the borrower’s payment history. However, these documents only show that the bank is servicing the loan—not necessarily that they still own it.

To confirm legal ownership, the creditor should be able to produce documents such as:

  • A chain of title proving the debt has not been sold.
  • A legal assignment agreement if the debt was transferred.
  • An affidavit from a qualified professional attesting to ownership.

While banks are not legally required to conduct third-party audits for borrowers, they must prove ownership in court if challenged.


Why Verifiable Proof Is Essential for Borrowers

So when a bank is attempting to collect money for a debt, and the borrower requests verifiable evidence that the bank owns the rights to their contract—such as through an affidavit from a Chartered Accountant—the borrower still has an obligation to fulfill the contract to the rightful owner. However, the bank also has an obligation to prove it is the rightful owner of the debt and entitled to collect payment.

If the borrower’s ability to fulfill their contractual obligation is impeded by the bank’s unwillingness to provide proof of ownership, should the borrower be punished through credit reporting penalties for simply applying sound business practices and exercising their rights in a financial transaction?

This is a legitimate concern. Borrowers should not be penalized for seeking transparency, especially when repayment to the correct party is the ultimate goal.


Why Due Diligence Is Important

In other financial transactions, verifying ownership is a standard practice:

  • Real Estate: Buyers conduct title searches before purchasing property.
  • Business Acquisitions: Companies verify ownership of assets before completing mergers.
  • Debt Purchases: Investors require proof that they are buying a legally enforceable debt.

Given these norms, it is reasonable for borrowers to apply the same level of diligence when repaying significant debts.


What If a Bank Refuses to Prove Ownership?

If a borrower requests proof of ownership and the bank fails to provide it, this raises serious concerns. While the borrower remains obligated to repay the rightful owner of the debt, the bank should also be accountable for proving it is legally entitled to collect.

If a bank misrepresents its ownership of a debt and collects money unlawfully, this could constitute fraud. Borrowers should consider seeking legal assistance if they suspect improper collection practices.


Conclusion

Borrowers should not assume that a bank always retains ownership of their debt. Given the widespread practice of securitization and assignment, it is crucial to verify that payments are being made to the correct party. Requesting proof of debt ownership is a reasonable business practice that helps prevent fraud and ensures financial transparency.   

​

As you will see in the Public Investigations presented on this website the Unethical Bank Lawyers and their clients will go to extreme lengths to avoid producing Verifiable Evidence & misrepresent the fact that they may no longer own the rights to the contracts they are attempting to act on, throughout our Public Investigations you will become familiar with all the common and uncommon tactics used by Unethical Bank Lawyers to avoid producing Verifiable Evidence when in conflict with Canadian on behalf of banks, these Unethical Law Practices stretch from refusing to answer simple reasonable questions, Abuse of Process all the way to manufacturing Contempt of Court charges for simply asking reasonable questions. 

​

All of this to avoid answering one question...

Can your organization provide Verifiable Evidence that it maintains ownership of the rights to my Loan Agreement?

Copyright © 2025 Public Watchdog Complaint Line - All Rights Reserved.

Powered by

This website uses cookies.

We use cookies to analyze website traffic and optimize your website experience. By accepting our use of cookies, your data will be aggregated with all other user data.

Accept