ROBERT Z. SPEAKS OUT: MY DISPUTED JEEP TRANSACTION WITH AMHERST CHRYSLER (1999) LTD., JESSICA THERESA AMIRAULT (ALSO KNOWN AS JESSICA ALLEN), AND MICHAEL RODNEY ALLEN

 

ROBERT Z. SPEAKS OUT: MY DISPUTED JEEP TRANSACTION WITH AMHERST CHRYSLER (1999) LTD., JESSICA THERESA AMIRAULT (ALSO KNOWN AS JESSICA ALLEN), AND MICHAEL RODNEY ALLEN(ALSO KNOWN AS MIKE ALLEN)

What began as a financed Jeep purchase in Amherst, Nova Scotia, became years of criminal proceedings, disputed records, missing communications, conflicting recollections, and consequences that have affected nearly every part of my life.

This post reflects my position, my interpretation of the disclosed records, and my allegations in an ongoing legal matter. The individuals and organizations named here may disagree with my interpretation. Nothing in this post should be understood as a judicial finding unless expressly stated otherwise.

THE TRANSACTION

On August 25, 2018, I purchased a Jeep Wrangler through Amherst Chrysler (1999) Ltd.

The financing was arranged through Scotiabank.

According to the July 16, 2021 police statement of Jessica Theresa Amirault, also known as Jessica Allen, she was directly involved in the financing process. She identified herself as the finance manager, said information was provided over the telephone, said she filled out the forms, and said she forwarded the information to the bank for approval.

That makes her one of the most important witnesses concerning what information actually entered the financing paperwork.

But her own police statement also records that she:

• did not remember the date of what happened;
• did not remember how long it was between the credit application and possession of the Jeep;
• did not remember a later email shown to her;
• acknowledged that she had deleted an email;
• and identified someone in a photo lineup whom she “thought was Robert Z.”

Those are not small details when a prosecution depends on proving precisely what somebody allegedly said or represented years earlier.

WHERE IS THE ACTUAL FALSE PRETENCE?

The charge against me is identified as:

FALSE PRETENCE — Criminal Code s. 362(1)(a)  FOR PROPERTY not CREDIT would be (b)
Date: August 25, 2018
Place: Amherst

So I keep asking the most basic question:

WHAT EXACTLY IS THE FALSE REPRESENTATION THAT I PERSONALLY MADE?

What exact words did I allegedly use?

When did I say them?

To whom did I say them?

Was the statement made by telephone?

Was it in an email?

Was it written on a form?

Where is the recording?

Where is the contemporaneous email?

Where is the original document bearing my signature?

After years of litigation, those questions should have straightforward answers.

JESSICA THERESA AMIRAULT SAYS SHE FILLED OUT THE FORMS

One of the most important sentences in the police statement is remarkably simple:

“She filled out the forms.”

That matters because there is a major difference between:

what I actually told somebody,

what a dealership employee understood,

what that employee entered into a form,

and

what that employee later certified to a bank.

Those are not automatically the same thing.

If the Crown relies on an inaccurate entry appearing in dealership or banking paperwork, it should establish who physically entered that information and where it came from.

THE SCOTIABANK CUSTOMER IDENTIFICATION FORM

One of the documents at the centre of my concerns is the Scotiabank Customer Identification Verification Form (Personal).

I did not sign or certify that form.

The certification section identifies the business manager as:

Jessica Amirault
Amherst Chrysler (1999) Ltd.

The document contains a signature attributed to the dealership business manager.

That raises an obvious question:

WHO ACTUALLY MADE THE DISPUTED REPRESENTATION TO SCOTIABANK?

If an entry on that form is inaccurate, where is the evidence that I personally created it?

Where is my signature?

Where is my handwriting?

Where is the email where I instructed somebody to enter it?

Where is a recording in which I allegedly supplied that specific information?

A disputed entry appearing on a document prepared and certified through the dealership should not automatically be transformed into a false representation personally made by the customer.

I ALREADY HAD VALID GOVERNMENT IDENTIFICATION

This is where the documentary chronology becomes extremely important.

Before the Jeep transaction, I already had multiple valid government-issued Canadian identification documents in my lawful legal name.

I had:

A valid Nova Scotia Identification Card
Issued: April 18, 2017
Expiry: April 5, 2022

A valid Ontario Driver’s Licence
Issued: March 29, 2017
Expiry: March 28, 2022

A valid Canadian Passport
Issued: June 18, 2018
Expiry: June 18, 2023

All of these existed before the August 25, 2018 transaction.

So I ask a very simple question:

WHY WOULD I NEED TO INVENT FALSE IDENTIFICATION WHEN I ALREADY HAD MULTIPLE VALID GOVERNMENT-ISSUED IDS IN MY OWN LEGAL NAME?

If Amherst Chrysler needed to verify my identity, I had valid government documents available.

There was no obvious reason for me to invent some different identity.

THE NOVA SCOTIA DRIVER’S LICENCE CAME LATER

There is another objective date that matters.

My Nova Scotia driver’s licence was issued:

SEPTEMBER 4, 2018

That was after the August 25, 2018 Jeep transaction.

So a Nova Scotia driver’s licence issued on September 4 could not have been the Nova Scotia identification document presented on August 25.

Yet the Scotiabank form appears, in my view, to describe identification as a Nova Scotia driver’s licence while using information corresponding to my earlier Nova Scotia Identification Card.

If that is correct, then who made that classification?

Who selected the document type?

Who entered the number?

Who entered the expiry date?

Who certified the form?

Those are evidentiary questions that deserve answers.

THE ORIGINAL DOCUMENTS SHOULD MATTER MORE THAN A MEMORY THREE YEARS LATER

Jessica Theresa Amirault’s police statement says:

“he gave the 99 wyse road address but his driver’s license was from Montreal.”

I dispute the accuracy of that recollection.

The objective documentary record shows that I possessed:

• an Ontario driver’s licence;
• a separate Nova Scotia Identification Card;
• a Canadian passport;
• and later, after the transaction, a Nova Scotia driver’s licence.

The documents have dates, numbers and issuing authorities.

That objective evidence should carry significant weight when compared with a recollection recorded nearly three years later by a witness who simultaneously acknowledged substantial memory gaps.

THE EMAIL PROBLEM

The transaction occurred in 2018.

Emails from that period could potentially establish exactly:

• what identification I sent;
• what address information I provided;
• what documents the dealership received;
• what instructions I gave;
• what the dealership understood;
• and who entered what into the financing records.

Yet the July 16, 2021 statement records that Jessica Theresa Amirault:

“has since deleted the email.”

She was also shown an email dated December 3, 2019 and reportedly said:

“Doesn’t remember the email.”

So I ask another straightforward question:

WHY IS A LATER EMAIL AVAILABLE WHILE IMPORTANT COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE ACTUAL 2018 TRANSACTION APPEAR TO BE MISSING OR UNAVAILABLE?

I am not saying that missing emails automatically prove misconduct.

I am saying that when the case depends on reconstructing conversations and representations from years earlier, the missing original communications matter.

WHERE IS THE RECORDING OF THE ALLEGED PHONE REPRESENTATION?

The police statement says the information was provided over the telephone.

So:

Where is the recording?

If there is no recording, where are the contemporaneous notes?

What exact words did I supposedly use?

Who heard those words?

When?

The criminal allegation should not depend solely on a retrospective reconstruction of an unrecorded conversation years later.

AND NOW LOOK AT THE CHARGE ITSELF

The charge shown in the record is under s. 362(1)(a).

That puts another issue directly in the spotlight:

WHAT PROPERTY DID I ALLEGEDLY OBTAIN BY FALSE PRETENCE?

If the property is alleged to be the Jeep, then who is the alleged victim?

If the Crown’s theory is that Amherst Chrysler (1999) Ltd. was induced to deliver the Jeep, then I want to know:

What did Amherst Chrysler actually lose?

My understanding is that Scotiabank financed the purchase and Amherst Chrysler received payment for the vehicle.

If Amherst Chrysler received the purchase funds, where is the dealership’s financial loss?

Where is the victim-loss statement?

Where is the dealership accounting showing that Amherst Chrysler remained unpaid?

Where is the ledger showing the loss?

Where is the evidence identifying exactly what property Amherst Chrysler surrendered without receiving the agreed value?

Payment by Scotiabank may not by itself resolve every legal issue, but it makes the Crown’s theory of property, victim, reliance and deprivation extremely important.

WHERE IS THE VICTIM STATEMENT FROM AMHERST CHRYSLER?

If Amherst Chrysler is the victim, where is its victim statement?

Where is the statement identifying:

• what property it claims to have lost;
• what false representation it relied upon;
• who heard that representation;
• what amount it lost;
• how the loss was calculated;
• and how the alleged representation caused that loss?

These are not side issues.

They go directly to the charge.

MICHAEL RODNEY ALLEN

I also spoke with Michael Rodney Allen, President of Amherst Chrysler, on November 22, 2024, shortly after receiving disclosure.

My recollection of that conversation is that he did not identify a specific financial loss suffered by Amherst Chrysler and did not appear to remember me or the transaction in the way one might expect if the dealership itself had supposedly suffered a major fraudulent loss.

I am not asking anyone to accept my recollection blindly.

I am asking that it be compared against the actual prosecution file.

If Michael Rodney Allen provided a formal victim statement identifying a financial loss, produce it.

If there is dealership accounting showing a loss, produce it.

If there is a police interview where he explains what Amherst Chrysler lost, produce it.

If not, that absence deserves attention.

IF THE REAL ECONOMIC ISSUE WAS SCOTIABANK, THEN SAY SO

If the Crown’s position is instead that Scotiabank suffered the relevant loss because it advanced financing, then that theory should also be clearly explained.

What exact representation was made to Scotiabank?

Who made it?

Who relied on it?

What money or property was advanced because of it?

How does the Scotiabank identification form fit into that theory when I did not sign or certify it?

The prosecution theory should not move between the dealership and the bank depending on which evidentiary problem is being discussed.

It should be clear:

FALSE REPRESENTATION → MADE BY WHOM → MADE TO WHOM → RELIANCE BY WHOM → PROPERTY OBTAINED → PERSON DEPRIVED → ACTUAL LOSS

That chain should be identifiable from the evidence.

THE ROLE OF JEAN-SÉBASTIEN PERREAULT OF SCOTIABANK ALSO REQUIRES SCRUTINY

Another part of this matter that concerns me is the role played by Jean-Sébastien Perreault of Scotiabank in advancing or communicating allegations concerning this transaction.

From my perspective, statements associated with Jean-Sébastien Perreault and Scotiabank contributed to a narrative about my identity, financing, addresses, conduct or intentions that I strongly dispute.

I am particularly concerned about any declaration or allegation attributed to Jean-Sébastien Perreault that does not match the underlying documentary record.

If he made statements concerning my legal name, identification documents, passport history, address, financing application or supposed intentions, those statements should be placed beside the actual source documents and tested for accuracy.

I want to know:

What exactly did Jean-Sébastien Perreault say?

When did he say it?

To whom did he say it?

Was his information based on personal knowledge?

Was it based on Scotiabank records?

Was it based on information received from Amherst Chrysler?

Did he personally speak to me before advancing those allegations?

Which original records did he review?

Did he have the identification documents that I had actually provided?

Did he distinguish between my Nova Scotia Identification Card and the Nova Scotia driver’s licence issued later?

Were any of his statements subsequently found to be inconsistent with the documentary record?

If so, were police and the Crown informed of the correction?

This is particularly important if statements made through Scotiabank helped push the investigation or prosecution forward.

An assumption does not become a fact merely because it is repeated by a bank, a dealership, an investigator or another institution.

If a declaration attributed to Jean-Sébastien Perreault of Scotiabank is inconsistent with the objective documents, then the original statement and the documents supposedly supporting it should be produced and compared directly.

IF JEAN-SÉBASTIEN PERREAULT OF SCOTIABANK PUSHED THIS MATTER FORWARD USING INFORMATION THAT WAS INACCURATE, SHOW THE ORIGINAL STATEMENT, SHOW ITS SOURCE, SHOW THE SUPPORTING RECORDS, AND SHOW WHETHER IT WAS EVER CORRECTED.

THEN THERE IS THE PASSPORT ALLEGATION

One of the most disturbing things I heard during the court proceedings was a statement to the effect that police had said that I changed my name to obtain another passport.

I categorically deny that allegation.

My legal name change was completed lawfully in Ontario on:

MARCH 29, 2017

That was well before the August 25, 2018 Jeep transaction.

My Canadian passport was issued in my lawful legal name on:

JUNE 18, 2018

I have reviewed the disclosure and I have not been able to locate a police note, witness statement, occurrence report, recording, Passport Canada record, or other disclosed material in which Constable Tom Wood actually says that I changed my name in order to obtain another passport.

So I ask:

WHERE DID THAT ALLEGATION COME FROM?

Where is the police note?

Where is the recording?

Where is the witness statement?

Where is the Passport Canada document?

Where is the evidence establishing that my lawful March 29, 2017 name change was undertaken for the purpose of obtaining a passport?

If that evidence exists, it should be identified.

If it does not, such a prejudicial allegation should not be repeated as though it were an established fact.

A LAWFUL NAME CHANGE IS NOT PROOF OF FRAUDULENT INTENT

The chronology is straightforward:

March 29, 2017: lawful legal name change.

June 18, 2018: Canadian passport issued in my lawful legal name.

August 25, 2018: Jeep transaction.

A lawful name change followed later by issuance of identification in that lawful name does not automatically prove fraudulent intent.

The Crown should rely on evidence, not speculation about motive.

WHAT TROUBLES ME MOST ABOUT HOW THIS DEVELOPED

From my perspective, this entire matter appears to have grown from a series of suspicions and retrospective interpretations.

A witness says she does not remember important details.

She says she filled out the forms.

A Scotiabank form I did not sign contains disputed identification information.

Important emails appear to be missing.

One email was expressly acknowledged as deleted.

There is apparently no recording of the telephone conversation in which the alleged information was supposedly provided.

The dealership appears to have received financing proceeds for the Jeep.

The alleged dealership loss remains unclear to me.

And a highly prejudicial allegation about my lawful name change and passport was stated in court even though I have not found the source for it in the disclosure.

Yet I am the person who has had to live with the consequences.

SUSPICION IS NOT PROOF

The police statement contains descriptions such as:

“suspicious”

“fishy”

and

“red flag.”

Those are opinions.

Having more than one address is not automatically fraud.

Cancelling an extended warranty is not automatically fraud.

Requesting a refund is not automatically fraud.

Using a lawful legal name is not fraud.

Holding identification from different provinces is not automatically fraud.

An inaccurate entry appearing in a form prepared by somebody else is not automatically a false pretence by the customer.

A criminal conviction requires evidence of the actual offence.

MY QUESTIONS REMAIN SIMPLE

What exact false representation did Robert Z. make?

What exact words were used?

When?

To whom?

Where is the recording?

Where is the contemporaneous email?

Who filled out the Scotiabank identification form?

Who certified it?

Why does the identification chronology appear inconsistent with the description entered on the form?

Why would I need false identification when I already had valid government-issued identification in my legal name?

What property was actually obtained under the s. 362(1)(a) allegation?

Who was the victim?

If Amherst Chrysler was the victim, what did Amherst Chrysler lose after being paid through Scotiabank financing?

Where is Amherst Chrysler’s victim statement?

Where is Michael Rodney Allen’s statement identifying the dealership’s loss?

Where is the accounting evidence of that loss?

Where is the evidence that I changed my legal name to obtain another passport?

These questions deserve answers.

SHOW THE FALSE REPRESENTATION.

SHOW WHO MADE IT.

SHOW WHO RELIED ON IT.

SHOW THE PROPERTY.

SHOW THE VICTIM.

SHOW THE LOSS.

SHOW THE EVIDENCE.

— ROBERT Z.

This publication states Robert Z.’s personal position, allegations, recollections and interpretation of records concerning an ongoing legal matter. Amherst Chrysler (1999) Ltd., Jessica Theresa Amirault (also known as Jessica Allen), Michael Rodney Allen, Scotiabank, police, Crown counsel and other persons mentioned may dispute these allegations or interpretations. No disputed allegation in this publication should be understood as a judicial finding unless expressly identified as such.