SO TELL ME SANDY 1) ARE WE STILL FRIENDS? 2) DID CHEMTURA HELP FINANCE YOUR ELECTION CAMPAIGN?

In order to get you to answer the two burning questions above I am going to flatter you. SANDY SHANTZ Did Not SPEAK A SINGLE LIE in Superior Court yesterday. First off she didn't speak at all and secondly when that need arises you simply hire a lawyer.

So did Chemtura donate at all to Sandy's campaign? According to her admittedly horribly erroneous February 2/15 Finacial Statement maybe. But afterall it's admittedly erroneous. She received $1,658 worth of allegedly below $100 each donations. Who were those donors? A full forensic Audit would have told us but apparently the privelege of also being a Regional Councillor exempts one from following the Elections Act and being ordered by the Municpal Elections Compliance Audit Committee (MECAC) to get one. Her five minute "Audit" submitted was not a forensic Audit.

What about her second kick at the can? That would be her illegal and unacceptable do over dated March 23/15 presented to MECAC on July 2/15. Well that anonymous $1,658 is still in there. Plus we now have a box clearly marked at the bottom of Table 1 indicating there is a supplementary attachment for more donors of greater than $100 each. Of course that supplementary attachment isn't there. Oh and of course absolutely no explanation why not because there still hasn't been a forensic Audit done.

Sandy now gets a third do over courtesy of Superior Court yesterday. It's due by September 15/15. Well sort of a third do over. I've had two people tell me that her February 2/15 Financial Statement wasn't really her first one posted on the Township's website. Boy I've got to suspect that her husband has given her stickhandling lessons. Her time at the school board would also have prepared her for a life of deception. The School Board like jail tends to prepare career deceivers also known as politicians.

Judge Broad criticized Woolwich Township's do nothing/nuetral position at Superior Court yesterday. He applauded my intervention on behalf of the public interest essentially because Woolwich Township (Council) failed in their duty to do so. The Judge referred to Counterpoint argument and evidence that was sadly lacking until I came along. Judge Campbell in Mark Bauman's case apparently couldn't have cared less despite my name being mentioned as the complainant in Mark's case.

Jaimie Bennett of Madorin Snyder took his lumps from the Judge as well. Jaimie kept hurling accusations at me including referring to the Elmira Advocate as well as to the "groundwater committee" (CPAC) issues. The Judge repeatedly told Jaimie that a citizen's right to hold a politician accountable is not removed just because he has had earlier disagreements with said politician. Jaimie's lies and bullshit via e-mail this past Tuesday was not raised in court. As I had told him it was untrue, irrelevant nonsense. Jaimie's alleged quoting in his e-mails of lawyer Gary Petker was also interesting. If Petker is blabbing untruthfully or otherwise about a confidential Settlement (at his client's insistence) from eleven years ago then he could be in big trouble. If Jaimie has lied about Petker's mouthing off then perhaps Garry you should sue him, you miserable shyster.

I will be looking to obtain a copy of Judge Broad's Decision. As is par for the course both the Township and Sandy's lawyer will not advise me or supply it when it's ready. That Decision may have given Sandy's job back but at what cost? The Judge might very well expose the March 23/15 smoking gun date of her revised Financial Statement, indicating Sandy's untruthfulness to the public, to MECAC and to the Court.