INADVERTENCE VERSUS INDIFFERENCE

Well it's taken this long to obtain (for a price) copies of Mark Bauman's allegedly public court appearance. What a political/judicial system when you can schedule a court appearance privately and have a trial without even advising the citizen complainant (me) about it.

Having read the Decision and having only skimmed the Factum and the Application Record it becomes obvious as to what a legal farce this has been. Yours truly's name is mentioned in the Factum as the complainant yet the Judge had no qualms about making his Decision without me being present and or without his inquiring if I had been informed of the proceeding. I will assume that this is an intentional loophole in the legislation (Municipal Elections Act 1996) versus some sort of judicial error.

Having read other similar court cases as well as Mark's it appears to boil down to the following: Inadvertence versus Indifference. In other words regarding the Election Act, indeed ignorance of the law is an excuse. Of course it was helpful to Mark's cause that there was nobody present prior to the judgement, such as myself, to testify otherwise. While there was no Affidavit from the Woolwich Clerk in which she could possibly perjure herself; Mark in both his Factum and Application Record absolutely stated that the Clerk did NOT know that Mark like every other candidate was supposed to file an election expense report and thus allegedly she did not send him the same Notice she sent all the other candidates in Woolwich Township. Very damned convenient there Mark.

In fact this citizen and Woolwich resident specifically asked in front of a witness to see Councillor Mark Bauman's election expense report. I believe the Clerk baldfaced lied to me when she said that his expense report was on line. I politely advised her otherwise. Then she departed for ten minutes allegedly looking for his expense report to show me. I believe she was in fact obtaining advice as to what to do with this pesky (but polite) citizen. There would have been no need for the ten minute discussion if she truly believed that Mark was not required to file that expense report. All she had to do was so advise me and my witness. She did not. In fact her response after the ten minute wait was that it was
"Woolwich tradition" not to require Mark to submit his election report when he was acclaimed. None of that evidence ever got to the Judge.

Be proud Woolwich Township and five time Councillor Mark Bauman. You deceived the judge into believing it was Inadvertence (ignorance) rather than Indifference to the law. This is exactly what I'm talking about regarding Woolwich Township stickhandling around rules, by-laws and provincial legislation. Further and deeper shame on the lot of you.