Monday, August 31, 2015


We should all be aware by now of Mayor Shantz's amazing admission in Council Chambers last Tuesday evening. As written here on Wednesday August 25/15 as well as in this past Saturday's Woolwich Observer; Sandy admitted to having submitted an untrue sworn Statement to her July 23/15 Superior Court hearing. Rogers Cable TV (channel 20) also broadcast it and CTV News Kitchener filmed it although I am unaware as to whether they broadcast it. This related to her submitting her 30 page amended Financials to MECAC (Compliance Audit Committee) ten minutes prior to the meeting versus her untrue claim to the court that she submitted it three days prior; thus giving the court the misunderstanding that MECAC had adequate time to read and study the new election expense Financials.

Next we have page 2 and 3, paragraph 8 & 9 of her Affidavit. Sandy advises that she believed that she was not required to have her Financial Statement audited as both her Contributions and Expenses were below $10,000. Highly suspect and unlikely based upon the date of March 23/15 (4 days prior to the deadline) on her second set of Financials submitted to both MECAC and Superior Court.

Page 3, paragraph 12 Sandy claims she retained the services of Tim Adams, accountant, AFTER being advised of my June 16/15 Application for a Compliance Audit. Specifically she states "Upon being notified of that Application and reviewing its contents, I was surprised and upset ...". "I immediately, and on my own accord, retained the services of Tim Adams, an accountant with MAC LLP...". Really Sandy? You received, read, digested my Application and doublechecked your own 10 page Financial Statements, called up Tim Adams, asked him for an Audit which he then did that day in its entirety. You were then called to accept his completed audit, read it carefully, and signed for it all in the same day (June 16). I don't believe that is likely.

Page 4, paragraph 15 (e). Well this statement to Superior Court may be true but essentially you misled MECAC and then reported that deception to the Court as truth. You stated that Web D Zines "...had closed by the time the work on my website was completed.". Your website was completed in September 2014 but Web D Zines did not formally close until March 31, 2015 six to seven months later.

Page 6, paragraph 21. Sandy appears to be suggesting that she was tipped off by MECAC at the July 2/15 hearing that she was in danger of forfeiting her position as mayor. She states that MECAC Chair Carl Zehr made such a suggestion. In fact his suggestion is on page 61 of her submissions in the MECAC Minutes. I do not interpret his suggestion to be what Sandy says. What I'm wondering is if she was indeed tipped off by Chairman Zehr but not publicly and not by his comment as stated on page 61. The reality is that I in writing advised the Clerk Val Hummel that Sandy had forfeited and then had to push the Clerk to get the Default Notice issued.

Page 7, paragraph 25 Sandy again claims that she had her audit carried out AFTER she received my Notice of Application on June 16/15. The evidence on her own amended Financial Statement submitted to both MECAC, her accountant Tim Adams and Superior Court is that she initiated her audit on March 23/15. To date there is no plausible explanation or evidence contrary to this.

At the bottom of the first page and top of the second page of her "Moving Party's Factum" , paragraph 3. is the obviously false statement that while Sandy's first Financial Statement (Feb. 2/15) had incorrect income and expense calculations nevertheless "...all of the information was included on the Form filed.". This Factum submitted to Superior Court in July this year is after Sandy had already received multiple details regarding specific expenses she had not claimed but now finally admits to in her August 6 Financial Statements.

Page two of her Factum, paragraph 6. states that my Application for a Compliance Audit only referenced three issues with Sandy's February 2/15 Financial Statement . This is false as it also referenced failures to record numerous expenses.

The third page of her Factum, paragraph 7. staes that she advised MECAC on July 2/15 that she had repaid the $250 corporate overcontribution. In fact she had only advised MECAC that she was willing to do so.

Page four, paragraph 10. of her Factum Sandy states to the Court that she "...acted in good faith, and with the honest belief that her filing of the Form had been done properly.". Again I fail to see how this could be possible based upon every error and omission she made in her February 2/15 filing was to her advantage by minimizing both her Contributions (income) as well as her expenses thus keeping her below the $10,000 threshold requiring an Audit. Remember that as of this point in time Sandy had not had an audit in her previous three elections and thus probably was unaware that these self induced audits were mickymouse and not remotely close to the scrutiny of a forensic audit.

Paragraph 18. and others repeats the mantra of "good faith", "inadvertence", "error in judgement", "mistaken belief".
The facts in this case do not support those claims to the court.

There are three essential elements required in order to be able to prove perjury. They are 1) proof a statement was false
2) proof the accused knew it was false 3) intent to mislead the court .

We now have admissions by Mayor Shantz both in last week's public Council meeting as well as in her most recent August 6/15 Financial Statements to numerous falsehoods within her sworn statements to Superior Court. This speaks to both elements 1) and 2). Element 3) also requires that there be some advantage or benefit to the individual in commiting the perjury. I submit that Mayor Shantz certainly had a benefit to gild the lily with the court. She specifically was applying to be reinstated as Woolwich Mayor and all of her falsehoods sucessfully assisted that purpose.

I would like to publicly thank both Detective Costa of the Waterloo Regional Police as well as his superviser Staff Sergeant Robert Cowan for their assistance in explaining the elements of Perjury. To date Detective Costa appears to be reluctant to admit to what I believe is obvious. That said I still have a call in to his superviser and trust that further consideration is possible.

No comments:

Post a Comment