Monday, August 8, 2016


One of the definitions of corruption is "riddled with errors". There was a reason I took Sandy to MECAC TWICE. I needed to know/prove that their first incorrect decision not to appoint a Forensic Auditor was not an aberration done out of ignorance. They desperately needed to put themselves even more securely on the hook. Granted they had already done their best to do that with the decision not to send Scott Hahn on to the courts. Thus in fact they have made the wrong decision three out of four times. Their one and only correct decision was to appoint a Forensic Auditor for Scott. In my opinion three out of four wrong decisions equals corruption.

There are several examples of case law regarding the Municipal Elections Act 1996 (MEA) that can be accessed on-line. They include Chapman v. Hamilton (City), Jackson v. Vaughan (City), Lyras v. Heaps etc. These cases and others speak to the lack of discretion Compliance Audit Committees have to refuse to appoint a Forensic Auditor when an elector has "reasonable grounds" to believe that there has been a contravention of the MEA. "Reasonable grounds" are clearly defined and in Sandy Shantz's case that criteria was met and hugely surpassed with her admissions to multiple illegal contraventions of the MEA including failing to include an Audit with her Financial Statement, accepting a corporate overdonation and understating (ie. downwards) her Expenses and Conributions by $2,600. MECAC's decision TWICE was both improper and illegal. Chairman Carl Zehr and company, thus by the defintion above, are corrupt ie. riddled with errors.

The legal cases cited above and others also speak to MECAC's decision not to send Scott Hahn's case on to the Prosecuter. Our MECAC here in Woolwich Township is not the only one to make strange (corrupt) decisions. The City of Toronto appear to lead the way in MEA cases as candidates there make full use and abuse of the courts in order to prove exactly how dirty a business politics really is. Georgi Mammoliti from Toronto as well as a Dickerson fellow out of Pickering have both been convicted and fined for MEA contraventions.

In Scott's case there are principles of administrative law which I believe that MECAC have violated by not sending him on to the prosecuter for judicial examination. These principles include that the decision must not be grossly unreasonable as well as several other criteria. MECAC also participated in in-camera meetings with Woolwich Township's legal counsel that may very well have been contrary to the Municipal Act. Keep in mind that Woolwich have a proven history of indulging in illegal in-camera meetings. It is likely that MECAC received and cheerfully accepted incorrect (corrupt) legal advice from Woolwich's counsel regarding their discretion not to send Scott on to the courts.

MECAC's corruption is the reason that I took Sandy to provincial Court for prosecution under the MEA. Similarily I believe their decision refusing to send Scott to the Prosecuter was corrupt and hence he is on his way (August 31/16) to visit Provincial Court. I am disappointed that the media have not done even half the homework that I have done on these matters. If they had they might even be asking the tough questions as to my MECAC are consistently breaking the law to protect Woolwich politicians.

No comments:

Post a Comment