CORRUPTION, BLACKMAIL, CONSPIRACY WE'VE GOT IT ALL RIGHT HERE

Councillors are you still sure there aren't some valid comparisons with the Watergate scandal? In other words the initial offense (election expense contraventions) may be only a three or four out of ten on the ethics scale but the following coverup is an eight. The definition of conspiracy by the way is a joining or meeting of individuals for an improper or illegal purpose. Wow that pretty much covers most meetings of politicians I would expect.

I've been advised by some brave souls who stayed for the whole Council meeting of a week ago that Mayor Shantz did a strange thing late in the evening. Apparently she pulled out Justice David Broad's seven page decision reinstating her and read part of it into the Minutes. Yes that is correct, she read exerpts of it into the record. Exerpts as in cherry picked exerpts. Odd. If she wanted it formally into the record all she had to do was include the whole document, which by the way I believe the Woolwich Observer put on line in its' entirety less than three weeks ago. Of course it should have been in the meeting Package and named in the Agenda. Now the Package was over 400 pages long and while I have looked assiduously for any mention of Justice Broad's decision, even remotely, it simply wasn't mentioned in the Agenda, revised or otherwise.

I was advised by the listener that the cherry picked exerpts unsurprisingly were positive for Sandy and less so for my extremely limited input at the court proceeding. Is this Sandy trying to put her numerous expense contraventions to rest (see Mon. August 3/15 Elmira Advocate) by publicly using a non-trial, narrow and limited legal proceeding to claim vindication prior to further public revelations? Back on August 1/15 I did post here about Justice Broad's Decision and what he badly missed and misunderstood.

Fundamentally and shockingly he admits that he failed to grasp and understand the significance of the March 23/15 date on Sandy's second Financial Statement that she sent to her accountant. Justice Broad's exact words on page 5, paragraph 16 of his Decision were " I had difficulty following the argument related to the significance of that date, but Mr. Marshall appeared to be suggesting that the date on the form suggests that the applicant (Sandy) had knowledge of her error but did not take proper and legal steps to file an auditor's report on time. By this, he sought to call the applicant's good faith into question."

The next paragraph (#17) Justice Broad stated "He was not granted intervenor status in order to bring forth facts to refute the applicant's assertion of good faith set forth in her affidavit. With the greatest of respect to Mr. Marshall, I did not find his argument to be of assistance within the purpose of Rule 13.02.".

On page 2, paragraph 7 of his Decision Justice Broad specified what my input was supposed to be. " ...I granted intervenor status to Mr. Marshall as a friend of the Court for the purpose of rendering assistance by way of argument. I directed Mr. Marshall to avoid any attempt to introduce facts or evidence, but rather to restrict his submissions to argument.". I indeed did not attempt to enter new evidence. Mayor Shantz had already entered into evidence her revised Financial Statement with the March 23/15 date, which date was four days PRIOR to the March 27/15 filing deadline. I understood that I was arguing that this already entered evidence spoke to her having knowledge prior to the deadline that her already filed Statements were inaccurate yet she did not correct/replace them. This absolutely was me arguing bad faith on her part which by using her already entered evidence I understood to be acceptable. Is it possible that Justice Broad missed that the March 23/15 date was already in evidence? I am certain that I had so advised him including the page reference in her submissions.

Regardless one thing should be very clear to readers of this posting. Mayor Shantz's election expenses were NOT remotely examined, clarified or tested at this hearing. Her Affidavit and Factum were automatically accepted as truthful at face value without benefit of new evidence or even cross-examination. My role was extraordinarily limited by Justice Broad. Sandy's lawyers gave short notice to the Court for response by other parties exactly as Councillor Mark Bauman did. In Mark's case I received exactly zero prior notice. This is exactly how both Mark and Sandy have managed to coverup various transgressions over the years. They subvert process, laws and rules to their advantage and to the disadvantage of truth and the public interest.