Sheila Frances Gaffney also known as Sheila Gaffney

First before we begin the story regarding Mrs. Sheila Frances Gaffney, the spouse, who thus far, got away with perjuring herself on her STATEMENT OF AFFAIRS, when filing for bankruptcy, the readers of this page ought to be cognizant that the following crime was perpetrated by lawyers accountants and CIBC and with the help of Realtors and others.

In order for Sheila Gaffney to not go through divorce proceedings and share her pensions with her husband of more than 30 years, she made a deal with her lawyer to forgo the matrimonial property, in exchange to bankruptcy.

It was reported online that "there is a scandal spreading across Wall St. like a very bad case of poison ivy. A rash of fraudulent home foreclosures exposing some of the nation's biggest banks to an even worse condition ... bankruptcy.

Law firms in the USA, and in Canada use Robot-Signers to comnit false property transactions, making it appear legitimate.

Law Enforcement in Canada, including Attorney Generals, are wilfull and turn a blind eye to property fraud, when in fact, per capita, there is almost as many, if not more foreclosure scams in Canada than in the USA.

Mrs. Gaffney's scam is only one of many unreported but there are many others.

Mrs. Gaffney should have been charged under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, as it is an offence to make false statements and oaths in bankruptcy cases, as she clearly did.

Bankruptcy offences

198. (1) Any bankrupt who

(a) makes any fraudulent disposition of the bankrupts property before or after the date of the initial bankruptcy event,

(c) makes a false entry or knowingly makes a material omission in a statement or accounting,

(d) after or within one year immediately preceding the date of the initial bankruptcy event, conceals, destroys, mutilates, falsifies, makes an omission in or disposes of, or is privy to the concealment, destruction, mutilation, falsification, omission from or disposition of, a book or document affecting or relating to the bankrupts property or affairs, unless the bankrupt had no intent to conceal the state of the bankrupts affairs,

(f) after or within one year immediately preceding the date of the initial bankruptcy event, fraudulently conceals or removes any property of a value of fifty dollars or more or any debt due to or from the bankrupt, or

is guilty of an offence and is liable, on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding five thousand dollars or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year or to both, or on conviction on indictment, to a fine not exceeding ten thousand dollars or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three years, or to both.

Peter Pocklington, the Canadian business mogul and former owner of the Edmonton Oilers, famous among other things for his failed shot at leadership of the Progressive Conservative party, was sentenced in Palm Springs, for making false statements to a bankruptcy court in California.

On a plea bargain, to avoid jail, Peter Pocklington agreed to plead guilty to perjury, acknowledging that he concealed from a bankruptcy trustee two accounts at Palm Desert National Bank and failed to disclose two storage units in southern California, according to the plea agreement filed in U.S. District Court.

On October 27, 2010, the Riverside California Court sentenced Peter Pocklington to six months of home detention for making false statements in his Southern California bankruptcy case and he was also sentenced to two years of probation.

Whereas the story you are about to read on this page, is exactly the same as Peter Pocklington and subsequently the same as the foreclosure scams in the USA, in Canada it pays to commit crimes, as Mrs. Gaffney did, with the full assistance of her lawyer R. Keith Oliver, and subsequently, the courts, who acknowledged, in the first instance, that Mrs. Gaffney was never insolvent and therefore was in no position to be assigned into bankruptcy by trustee Kenneth Rowan, who was also part of the scheme to steal Mr. Gaffney's home, by forcing him into foreclosure even though he continued to pay his monthly mortgage. Perhaps Chief Justice Finch, when he labelled Mr. Gaffney as vexatious, meant that Mr. Gaffney was a nuisance for paying his monthly mortgage.

Following is the real story of Mrs. Sheila Gaffney, a spouse, bent on revenge and found the lawyer to assist her and subsequently the courts, who will do just about anything to damage self-represented litigants, as evidence in many cases, and one that comes to mind, in the IVAN HENRY case, wherein Chief Justice LANCE FINCH 's modus operandi is to label self-represented, who go before his court, as vexatious litigants, as he did with IVAN HENRY, which blocked Henry from obtaining Leave from the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC), as it blocked Mr. Harold Gaffney to obtain leave from the SCC.

The live bait, and the perfect candidate for attorneys, is Mrs. SHEILA FRANCES GAFFNEY, a retired operating room technician of Coquitlam, British Columbia, born in NOVA SCOTIA, in year 1940, to BLACK CANADIANS and in her second and current marriage of thirthy years with no biological children to Mr. HAROLD GAFFNEY. According to Mr. Gaffney, his wife has one biological son from her first marriage, who was and/or still is allegedly involved in criminal activity, related to drugs.

The reason why Mrs. Sheila Gaffney was the perfect candidate for lawyers, appears to be due to Mrs. Gaffney's deep seated resentment towards her husband, for Reporting her Criminal Conduct to the police in July 2001, thereby resulting, at the time, in Mrs. Gaffney's REMOVAL from the matrimonial home for six (6) months, on the basis that Mr. Gaffney believed and verily believed that Mrs. Gaffney would cause him and her grandson personal injury.

It appears that since harming Mr. Gaffney physically failed in 2001, based on court documents filed by Mr. Harold Gaffney, she set out to wipe him financially, by filing an assignment into bankruptcy on May 13, 2005, with no provable debts or provable creditors.

As a result of Mrs. Gaffney's fraudulent assignment in May of 2005, she obtained the most powerful injunctions available under the bankruptcy law, called THE AUTOMATIC STAY.

It is important to note that neither Mrs. Sheila Gaffney nor Mr. Harold Gaffney have to date (2010), invoked the Family Relations Act - Part 5.

This means that in order for spouses in B.C. to have rights in sharing in family property, it can only arise when one of the following "triggering Event" occurs:

Equality of entitlement to family assets on marriage breakup

Section 56 (1) Subject to this Part and Part 6, each spouse is entitled to an interest in each family asset on or after March 31, 1979 when

(a) a separation agreement,

(b) a declaratory judgment under section 57,

(c) an order for dissolution of marriage or judicial separation, or

(d) an order declaring the marriage null and void respecting the marriage is first made.

In 2009, the Ministry of the Attorney General's Office put out a Public Consultation to change the Family Relations Act. The proposals have not come into law, as of March 30, 2010.

However In the Matter of the Property of Mr. Gaffney, the courts and lawyers appear to have taken it upon themselves to make the changes, in particular the "triggering event" and the separation of assets between spouses still married.

There is no doubt, based on the documents filed into court that, Mrs. Gaffney benefited from her unlawful behaviour, since she skipped matrimonial proceedings all together and entered into a fraudulent bankruptcy, wherein the matrimonial home was divided in two, when neither spouses invoked the FRA.

Based on affidavits filed in the bankruptcy court, Mrs. Gaffney appears to have plotted her exit, soon after she RETURNED to the family home in 2002 and began to immediately persuade her husband, Mr. Gaffney, to sign a personal loan in the amount of $20,000, under the guise of paying off some other separate debts.

Subsequent personal loans were taken, almost up to the time of Mrs. Gaffney's exit in 2005, without the need of Mr. Gaffney's signature and knowledge, which amounted to more than $100,000.

The facts that precipitated to the sale of Mr. Gaffneys home without the requirement of the Family Relations Act are as follows:

a) On April 29, 2005, Mrs. Gaffney voluntarily left the property at 312-450 Bromley Street, in Coquitlam, B.C. with her grandson Marche Riley, who according to Mr. Gaffney, is the son of Mrs. Gaffneys son and that it was Mr. Gaffney who raised Marche since he was one year old, due to the fact that Marches parents are both addicted to drugs.

Mrs. Gaffney left with 90% of all furniture, her pensions, life insurances and other assets, and left behind joint debts belonging both to Mrs. Gaffney and Mr. Gaffney.

b) Soon thereafter Mrs. Gaffney filed an assignment into bankruptcy on May 13, 2005, and her one-half interest in the condominium she and Mr. Gaffney owned as joint tenants, was transferred to the trustee A. Farber & Partners Ltd. with Kenneth A. Rowan being the personal trustee named pursuant to the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, which said transfer severed the joint tenancy.

It is in the latter part of May 2005 that Mr. Gaffney learned of Mrs. Gaffney's bankruptcy from CIBC MORTGAGES INC., the financial institution that held the mortgage of the Gaffney's property at 312-450 Bromley Street, Coquitlam, B.C.

c) Mrs. Sheila Gaffney, claimed in her STATEMENT OF AFFAIRS that she could not meet her financial obligations; however it is reported in sworn affidavits that less than two months after being assigned into bankruptcy, Mrs. Gaffney began collecting almost $8,000.00 more a year in pension -- old age -- totaling close to $40,000.00 per annum. Mrs. Gaffney, upon her assignment was collecting a pension income in excess of $32,000.00 per annum.

Together, jointly, Mrs. Gaffney was collecting, in pensions, close to $60,000 a year.

d) From the evidence in Mrs. Gaffney's STATEMENT OF AFFAIRS, the trustee KEN ROWAN CA Trustee in Bankruptcy, of then A. Farber Partners Ltd., assigned Mrs. Gaffney into bankruptcy knowing she was not insolvent; that in fact, ROWAN knew that Mrs. Gaffney fabricated debts and undervalued assets, including undervaluing the property at 312-450 Bromley Street for $134,000, making it appear as though Mrs. Gaffneys bankruptcy was legitimate.

e) On June 13, 2005, upon the transfer of title, the trustee valued the condo at $185,000, being $51,000 more than what Mrs. Gaffney had entered in her STATEMENT OF AFFAIRS.

f) Sworn affidavits deposed to in court for the bankruptcy matter, Mr. Gaffney has consistently maintained that after the trustee transferred he title to his name, KEN ROWAN, and later KEITH OLIVER had advised Mr. Gaffney to not pay his mortgage as it would foreclose in three (3) months.

Evidence shows that Mr. Gaffney however continued to honour his contract with CIBC by paying his monthly mortgage even though attorney Keith Oliver in e-mails, dated Dec. 14 and 17, 2007, advised Mr. Gaffney, inter alia, to no longer make payments on his mortgage, notwithstanding the fact that, TD Bank, the financial institution purported to have issued a loan to the new alleged purchasers, claimed in two (2) separate emails to Mr. Gaffney, on Dec. 20 and 21, 2007 that they were reviewing the matter.

g) Contrary to the false debts entered in Mrs. Gaffney's STATEMENT OF AFFAIRS in June of 2005 Mr. Gaffney paid off the only debt held jointly with his wife, in the amount of $20,000, which took away the necessity for Mrs. Gaffney to be in bankruptcy. In effect, according to the evidence before the court, Mrs. Gaffney, at any material times, was not insolvent.

h) As per Mr. Gaffney, in August of 2005, during an appointment with the late Dugald Christie pro bono clinic, Christopher Ramsay, of Fraser Milner Casgrain, counsel for the Law Society of BC In the Matter of the Bankruptcy of Martin Wirick, volunteered to be pro bono lawyer for Mr. Gaffney.

J4Y is informed that Mr. Ramsay advised KEN ROWAN that his client Mr. Gaffney did not require to file a proof of claim, as evidence later in a case alleging bankruptcy fraud, wherein minority shareholders did not file proof of claims to be given legal standing in court.

Rather than having Mr. Gaffney prepare a proof of claim, Mr. Ramsay delivered a letter, dated August 22, 2005 to the trustee KEN ROWAN, asking him to remove his name from title, to which Mr. Rowan refused to do, knowing that no creditors existed and knowing that Mrs. Gaffney was not insolvent.

i) Mr. Ramsay stated in his letter he would proceed to file an application before the court, then decided to resign as Mr. Gaffneys pro bono lawyer, most likely due to the pressure put on him by either the LSBC or by other lawyers. Shortly thereafter ROWAN refused to remove his name from title.

j) In the month of April 2006, Sheila Gaffney applied for an absolute discharge and on the 10 day of the month of May 2006, Mr. Gaffney filed an application before the Supreme Court of B.C. to stop the bankruptcy discharge and subsequently to annul the bankruptcy of his wife based on Mrs. Gaffney having used the bankruptcy proceedings for improper purposes.

k) The matter went before the court on August 31, 2006, and Mr. JUSTICE IAN MEIKLEM presiding over the matter, found that there was no insolvency and stated upon hearing all the evidence that, The trustee was well aware there was no real insolvency. There was no insolvency.

Mr. Justice IAN MEIKLEM, aknowledged in his Judgment of Nov. 2006, that Mrs. Gaffney fabricated debts in her STATEMENT OF AFFAIRS, which she listed as unsecure and which was in fact secured by the mortgage charging the condominium.

With the full knowledge of Mrs. Gaffney using the bankruptcy proceedings for improper purposes and knowing the Laws Governing the BIA and knowing that Mr. Gaffney's property, which he owned, was at stake, IAN MEIKLEM appears to have been persuaded by his brothers to look the other way, and not give Mr. Gaffney standing in the bankruptcy court, which resulted in the lawyers preying on Mr. Gaffney.

l) In and around the month of December 2006, Mr. Harold Gaffney learned that the lawyer for the trustee David W. Donohoe and Mr. Keith Oliver concealed from the court that a Child Disability Tax Credit Refund, going back to 1999, in the amount of about $13,000, which had been delivered to Mr. Rowan in June of 2006, prior to the hearing before Meiklem, J.

Mr. Gaffney claims and maintains that Marche Riley was not disabled at any time and that the application filed to Canada Revenue Agency stated that Mr. Gaffney was the father of Marche Riley, which was untrue and any attempts to correct the errors in Letters, on the record of the College of Physicians & Surgeons went unheeded.

2. The following is what took place after the bankruptcy proceedings;

a) On Nov. 27, 2006, after the property appreciated significantly from the time Mrs. Gaffney had been assigned into bankruptcy, ROWAN removed his undivided one-half interest from title and put Mrs. Gaffney back as a TENANT IN COMMON in the FIRST POSITION. It certainly gives the appearance that ROWAN then instructed Attorney Keith Oliver in using, off the record, the same procedures under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, to begin an action against Mr. Gaffney under the Partition of Property Act, without the requirement of the law in having his client to invoke the Family Relations Act.

It appears that from the time the Gaffney's title was intentionally severed, from Joint Tenants to Tenants in Common and fraudulently transferred as an undivided one-half interest to Trustee KEN ROWAN with the full cooperation of Mrs. Sheila Gaffney, the property then became the focal point for the lawyers and for CIBC MORTGAGES INC.

b) A notice of hearing was filed in the month of March 2007 by Attorney R. Keith Oliver and the parties were before Master Peter Keighley, life bencher at the LSBC, In the Matter of the Partition of Property Act. The matter was adjourned to April 25, 07, as Master Keighley was compel to advise Mr. Gaffney to obtain a lawyer to commence an action under the Family Relations Act, which Mr. Gaffney and Mrs. Gaffney ignored.

c) On April 25 2007, the parties were before Crawford J. and the judge decided to grant Mrs. Gaffneys Petition under the Partition of Property Act for an order of the sale of the property at 312-450 Bromley Street and gave Mrs. Gaffney exclusive conduct of the sale of the property. The order was suspended until June 20, 2007 for a hearing before the Court of Appeal in the matter of the bankruptcy, which later was dismissed on the basis of mere technicality.

d) The Order of Mr. Justice Crawford, further provided that, the proceeds of sale, after payment of the registered financial charges, taxes and real estate commission were to be divided one-half to Mrs. Gaffney and one-half to Mr. Gaffney.

It is important to note that for each and every motions filed in court by Attorney Keith Oliver, he made sure in not relying on any rules of court. The motions were between Attorney Keith Oliver and the judges, who turned a blind eye to the Law and Equity Act, which should always prevail in these matters.

Hence, the fraudulent foreclosure proceedings had begun, as if Mrs. Gaffney was still a bankrupt, without Mr. Gaffney's knowledge, but with the full knowledge of the judges and Attorney Keith Oliver, while all along Mr. Gaffney was servicing his monthly mortgage diligently.

e) On Nov. 20, 07, Madam Justice SANDRA BALLANCE ordered the property to be appraised and Attorney Keith Oliver immediately made arrangements with Mr. Eric Linquist of Sutton Group to appraise the property based on the property being a FORECLOSURE, when the property was a judicial sale.

The two bedrooms, two full baths corner suite condo of Mr. Gaffney was APPRAISED at a low price of $225,000, notwithstanding the fact that the listing agent Noella Neale of Re/Max had listed the property on August 20, 2007, at $249,900 and across the street from Mr. Gaffneys property at 455 Bromley Street, units equivalent to his property, were listed between $290,000 to $300,000.

f) An order for the sale of the property finally came before Mr. Justice Lance Bernard on the 26 day of the month of November, 2007 in which he approved the sale of the land and premises at 312-450 Bromley Street, to Mariana Oviendo Ovando and Brent Tremain for the sum of $225,000, notwithstanding the fact there was an offer for $240,000 and $242,000, before the court, which Justice Bernard refused to consider. Mr. Justice Lance Bernard and Attorney Keith Oliver were classmates of the graduating class of the 1980 Law Faculty at UBC.

g) On Dec. 11, 07, Mr. Justice Grant Burnyeat a life bencher with the LSBC, and before being appointed to the bench in 1996, was the leading mortgage foreclosure lawyer in all of British Columbia and possibly all of Canada, and is reputed to have single-handedly foreclosed more than 40 percent of all the mortgage foreclosures in B.C., endorsed an order, drafted by Attorney Keith Oliver for Mr. Gaffney to vacate his home on Dec. 15, 07, without the knowledge as to whether Attorney Keith Oliver had raised the funds to purchase Mr. Gaffneys property.

It is on that famous day, December 15, 2007, wherein Mr. Gaffney vacated his home, as ordered by the court, that his wife, who no longer was the property owner, stood outside jumping up and down, waiving her hand to her husband while proceeding to go in at 312-450 Bromley Street.

There is something eerie about the Order drafted by Keith Oliver and endorsed by Mr. Justice Grant Burnyeat, as the conditions put on Mr. Gaffney, especially the part where Mr. Gaffney can not come 1 block radius near the property after he vacated, is the SAME CONDITION that was included in the PEACE BOND against Mrs. Gaffney in year 2001. It could be said that there is no such thing as coincidence.

h) Attorney William Cadman did not appear before the Court at any time on behalf of the purchasers.

3. Following is part of what occurred pursuant to the Order for sale granted by Mr. Justice Lance Bernard:

a) The contract of purchase and sale, indicates that the purchasers deposited $10,000 deposit, towards the purchase of the property.

b) In addition William Cadman, indicates that the purchasers allegedly received a loan from TD Bank in the amount of circa $220,000. Further Cadman claims he was in receipt of $220,000 from TD Bank, plus $10,000 deposit from the purchasers, which would bring the total in trust to $230,000 and the property was purchased for $225,000. Most of the property transaction occured with the e-filing, at the New Westminster Land Title Office, also reffered to as Robot-Signers, wherein Law firms use electronic filing to comnit false transactions, making it appear legitimate.

c) WILLIAM CADMAN claims in a letter dated December 14, 2007, remitted from the money he had in his possession from the sale of the property, a cheque in trust to Mr. Keith Oliver in the amount of $214, 215, 07, notwithstanding the fact that the Associate Vice President and Litigation Counsel Peter K. Moffatt, stated on two (2) separate emails dated December 20-21, 2007 regarding the alleged mortgage loan for the purchasers that, "Our review of the matter is ongoing." In other words, TD Bank had not issued a mortgage loan to the purchasers. Thus it begs the question where did the $214, 215. 07 come from on Dec. 14, 2007? Certainly not from TD BANK.

d) In ANTHONY JASICH's caculation, the Real Estate Commission was $10,125.00 and the adjustments for taxes would be a credit to the vendors Mr. and Mrs. Gaffney on a fifty fifty basis since the taxes were paid out by Mr. Gaffney.

e) Thus Mr. Cadman kept a total amount of $15,784.93 for himself and the LSBC and Law Enforcement is refusing to investigate.

g) Attorney William Cadman claims that he delivered in trust a cheque to member Keith Oliver and Mr. Oliver claims in e-mails, dated Dec. 14 and 17, 2007 that he held all the proceeds of the sale of the property in his trust account.

Mr. Gaffney asked Mr. Oliver in a letter to separate his share of the proceeds into a separate trust account, as required under Rule 3-53 of The Law Society Rules and Mr. Oliver replied to Mr. Gaffney that there was no money coming to him, when Mr. Oliver, to date, has no orders for costs that he can enforce.

h) Since Attorney Keith Oliver claims he holds in his care Harold Gaffney's trust money and he is adamant to keep Mr. Gaffney's trust money for himself, as apparent in all of his letters that he has emailed to Mr. Gaffney, it is not a stretch to state that Keith Oliver, could be in violation of section 336 of the Criminal Code of Canada.

According to criminologist, criminals return to the scene of the crime, in view of their sentimentality. Mrs. Gaffney is no different, in view of her attendance on December 15, 2007 to say goodbuy to her husband, while she moved back in.

Could Mrs. Gaffney, in fact be MARIANA OVIEDO OVANDO and BRENT TREMAIN the grandson?

There were more than 25 judges who inched the case along in the foreclosure fraud of 312-450 Bromley Street.

The following names are some of the names of the judges who sealed the deal for CIBC and the lawyers:

Oliver's classmate and friend Mr. JUSTICE LANCE BERNARD, who clearly acted unlawfully while on the bench to assist R. Keith Oliver. It could be further concluded that Bernard J. when he drafted his Order, and wrote, "to pay the balance remaining, if any, to the respondents" that Oliver may have promissed him a cut of the proceeds of the sale.

Former CIBC lawyer and now BC Supreme Court Judge, Mr. Justice GRANT BURNYEAT. Prior at being appointed to the bench, Grant Burnyeat was the leading lawyer with DAVIS LLP, acting for CIBC Mortgages Inc on foreclosures. BURNYEAT, J. was instrumental in assisting and covering up OLIVER, by issuing, on Dec. 11, 2007, an Order preventing Mr. Gaffney and anyone having notice of his Order, from going anywhere near 450 Bromley Street.

Madam Justice SANDRA BALLANCE; She ordered OLIVER to have the property appraised for the same amount as the alleged purchasers' offer of $225,000, while there was more than one offer in the court for $240,000 and $242,000. The appraiser Eric Linquist was asked by Keith OLiver to appraise the property for FORECLOSURE PURPOSES ONLY, while Gaffney continued to pay his mortgage.

Madam Justice WENDY BAKER. Prior at being appointed to the bench, Baker J. was with Davies & Company and also acting for CIBC. Baker J. is the same judge involved in Firstline Trust Co. (Principal Subsidiarie of CIBC MORTGAGES INC v. Mills 2000 BCSC 226 wherein she ended up assisting MARTIN WIRICK in a mortgage fraud committed on an old lady of 84 years of age.

Mr. Justice JON SIGURDSON made out an Order that protected the realtor from being cross-examined by Harold Gaffney.

Sigursdon J, is the same judge involved In The Matter Of The Bankruptcy Of Martin Wirick, wherein the Entered Order of SIGURDSON, J was violated, since on November 22, 2006, the lawyer for Wirick, on an ex parte application, with the consent of the lawyer for the LSBC, ended up going before Master Taylor, obtaining a Consent Judgment in favour of trustee E. SANDS & ASSOCIATES contrary to the entered order of Judge Sigurdson.

Mr. Justice IAN MEIKLEM. It took over two (2) months for MEIKLEM to make his decision public, and evidently, by his decision, it shows that he may have indeed been persuaded by the bar, and his brothers on the bench, to not given legal standing to Harold Gaffney, contrary to the laws that govern Bankruptcy Fraud and the LAW AND EQUITY ACT.

LANCE FINCH C.J.A. Chief Justice of British Columbia, wherein to cover up the crime, he denied Mr. Gaffney leave to appeal the Order of Justice Lance Bernard, which is the order that was instrumental in helping R. Keith Oliver in stealing Mr. Gaffney's property.

The Supreme Court of Canada, namely REGISTRAR ANNE ROLAND,who resigned in late 2008, after having intentionally misrepresented the facts for File #32316 and for another file on the GAFFNEY CASE and subsequently, Mr. Justice IAN BINNIE, who denied Mr. Gaffney application, to stay Chief Justice FINCH's decision and who, by the way, was also the same judge who denied STELCO's shareholders' Leave to Appeal application.

It is obvious that the justice system in Canada, run by lawyers, is broken and those who would appear like winning are in fact not. As by the time the lawyers get paid, and the costs of judicial abuse on the state, there is nothing left to the so called "winner". Signed you "winning" cheque payment to your lawyer and hope and pray that you have enough to cover the damages.