Friday, January 27, 2017


Today's post is an off the top, generalized opinion based upon my dealings with our judicial system over the last two years regarding both Sandy Shantz and Scott Hahn's illegal behaviours. These behaviours I'm referring to concern the Municipal Elections Act (MEA). I am comfortable characterizing both of them as having broken the law despite two out of town, conflict of interest prosecutors refusing to prosecute their admitted offences. Breaking the law and either being prosecuted and or convicted are entirely different things and boy have the dealings here in Woolwich Township shone a light on that.

Both individuals admitted that they broke the MEA in several different ways. They have suggested that these admissions are to their credit. Oddly the admissions only came after they were outed by Woolwich citizens. Both individuals, in my opinion, also hid behind a non legal process which seemed intent upon protecting them far more than protecting citizens or the MEA. MECAC were an embarassment on so many levels. They were, in conjunction with Woolwich Township, all about damage control, not the truth. Sandy Shantz at one point answered the media's question as to whether it was worthwhile spending so much taxpayers' money on this process. Her answer was absolutely as they had kept all three councillors (admitted offenders) on Council. The bracketed words are mine not Sandy's.

Both prosecutors admitted that the MEA had been broken by Shantz and Hahn and that there was a good likelihood of obtaining convictions. Both prosecutors claimed however that it wasn't in the public interest to do so. Neither prosecutor in my opinion elaborated on that while Mr. Carnegie may have tried a little harder to do so. Mr. Fraser Kelly tried to intimidate me with references to alleged illegal behaviour by myself in the taperecording of public MECAC meetings held in Woolwich Council Chambers. Mr. Carnegie in his address two days ago claimed that there was no audio or visual recordings of the investigation available to the Crown. Isn't that bizarre. I personally gave copies to Mr. Alex Andres, the local prosecutor, and he advised me that he had given the entire file to both Mr. Kelly and Mr. Carnegie.

I took extensive notes of Mr. Carnegie's speech to the court last Wednesday. I am writing this now without having reread those notes. Undoubtedly I will find more problem areas with his comments. That said he took a much more conciliatory tone in his comments than Mr. Kelly did a year ago, suggesting that I deserved a salute for my efforts and that my concerns were valid. Unfortunately his whole speech sounded more like a political speech to me than a legal one. He basically argued both for and against Mr. Hahn's behaviour, repeatedly stating that there was a prima facie case that he broke the law with both his Financial Statements and then arguing that well Mr. Hahn was young, naive and ignorant. He also claimed that there was not evidence of intent to deceive or lie. I beg to disagree on that one as the Auditor made it clear that a document (maybe two) was produced after the fact and dated however months earlier.

I'm going to wrap up today's post by advising citizens and readers that our judicial system is badly broken. Intake Court, open but once a week, is worse than a joke. Some staff are accomodating within the confines of the system and a couple are downright rude and arrogant. It's because of them that plexiglass is installed from counter height up to the ceiling. Delays, adjournements, workloads and stilted, self-serving rules and procedures are what it's all about. Self-serving is to the benefit of those making their living off the taxpayers while it is totally taxpayer/citizen unfriendly. Communications are simple if you've got the money to hire a lawyer to constantly navigate through this system.

Lastly the Ontario legislature are contemptible. They are passing laws claiming to give citizens certain rights that simply do not exist. At no point did any judge, J.P., prosecutor or lawyer suggest that I as a citizen did not have the right under the MEA (Section 81 (17)) to file private charges against Shantz and Hahn in support of the MEA. All the roadblocks of time, effort, money and lack of clear communications from the judicial system followed. Even then when I persevered I ran up against prosecutors who pretended that upholding a law (MEA) whose purpose is to make political candidates accountable; was not in the public interest. In fact it is and if I had a couple of hundred thousand dollars to spend unwisely I'm sure our judicial system would love to hear further from me and my lawyer(s). Afterall every participant in that system is well paid for their time except of course the honest citizens looking both for justice and to uphold the law. It is not a "right" if you have to pay through the nose for it. It's not a "right" if it literally takes years to have that "right" upheld.

No comments:

Post a Comment