In his commitment to ‘transparency’ Mike has stated his case ad nauseam before ICOA members both in person (at meetings) and through the dissemination of video (of those meetings) to our out of town members.
He has taken the same position since the very start of the BCSC actions.
(Video(s) are and continues to be easily accessible through the ICOA website archives).
That said, significant are a few lines drawn from all that recent documentation – as submitted to the court – by Mike’s legal counsel.
Unsolicited and presented exactly as transcribed these excerpts reflect Mike’s position all the more obviously:
“The BCSC has been essentially persuing a vendetta for years, regarding the collapse of the real estate investment company of which defendant Michael Patrick Lathigee was principal in and around 2007-2008.”
“As is noted in the Declaration of Mr Lathigee, even the BCSC’s expert witness acknowledged that the monetary judgement being imposed in 2014 was a sanction and fine and was not based on any evidence or proof that Mr Lathigee personally benefited from the monies invested in the subject business.
The exact words of the BCSC’ expert witness are – ‘Certainly I agree the impact of the remedy is significant in that the order in question requires Mr. Lathigee to pay $21,700,000 without proof that Mr. Lathigee personally received that amount’
Indeed, as noted in Exhibit “A”, not only does Mr Lathigee disavow receiving such personal aggrandisement and enrichment, but he in fact was the biggest loser in the collapse.
Never the less, multiple years later we find ourselves at present litigating about ordinary routine household goods which BCSC wants to liquidate, at pennies on the dollar, as what would appear to be a totally non-economic attempt to drive Mr Lathigee into the ground.”
“Unfortunately, in the process of same, BCSC and its counsel have apparently taken quantum leaps and from limited circumstantial evidence to reach highly speculative and erroneous conclusions as to alleged ongoing misconduct and nefarious activity on the part of Michael Lathigee. It should be noted that most of the suggestions and innuendoes totally lack foundation, are not corroborated by appropriate documents or facts, and candidly are not very germaine or relevant….”