COMPARISON OF TWO ELECTION ACT CASES

In Sandy Shantz's case all expenses and contributions were not clear. There had not been a formal, professional investigation by either a Forensic Auditor nor by the police acting on behalf of the Crown prosecuter. To my surprise and disappointment, even after the local Crown Alexander Andres took complete carriage of the file, there still was not going to be a complete, comprehensive investigation into her four Financial Statements. Hence right up until near the end of her case I was still sucessfully finding additional campaign expenses (and hence contributions) that she had not included. This of course puts her July 2015 conditional Reinstatement by Justic Broad into some question.

In Scott Hahn's case with his initial and only legally acceptable Financial Statement, the initial complainant Dr. Dan Holt had essentially a blank canvas to work with. It truly was an incredibly ridiculous Financial Statement right on the face of it. That the Clerk Val Hummel did not question it by asking Mr. Hahn some very simple questions is inexplicable. Inexplicable that is unless she did ask him some appropriate questions and either the answers were inaccurate or if accurate no timely resubmission was demanded. That Woolwich Township improperly and I believe also illegally accepted and commissioned Mr. Hahn's second Financial Statement was and is bizarre. The Elections Act simply does not allow that after the March 27/15 deadline unless ordered by a Judge.

To his credit amd similar to Todd Cowan, Mr. Hahn co-operated with the investigation and quickly admitted that he had made some major errors. That was certainly an understatement but at least he did not lie about having so many very large signs throughout Ward One. Are Woolwich residents such lightweights that they would so easily be induced to vote for a basically unknown candidate simply due to his signs and brochures, albeit almost $3,000 worth of them? I would certainly hope not yet he did defeat much more knowledgable and experienced candidates including Pat Merlihan, Ruby Weber, Dr. Holt and Sebastian Seibel-Achenbach. Ahh democracy can sometimes be strange. It worries me that Todd could attempt a political comeback several years down the road. I can see his campaign slogan now ..." I'm the only candidate caught so far and I've learned my lesson unlike my worthy opponents". LOL

What concerns me with Scott is what could be interpreted as breathtaking arrogance. Saying that I readily admit that I do not know him well. The appearance to me at the MECAC hearings was that of a young man caught redhanded at the very least having absoultely not a clue as to what his legal responsibilities and duties were. And at times he was on the offensive with Dr. Dan Holt. Dr. Dan was never rude, offensive or even judgemental. He stuck to the facts whereas both Scott and Sandy at her hearings were at times ridiculously personal, rude and disrespectful. Wow that's pretty impressive considering they are the ones who by their own admission screwed up their legally required Financial Statements royally.

Scott also had some very, to say the least, unusual receipts and invoices. The Forensic Auditors made it clear that they had serious problems with them. Firstly they simply could not be confirmed as legitimate or accurate via the legally required paperwork trails. These paperwork trails are mandatory yet invoices could not be found on Tri-Mach's computer system nor could entries of over $1700 in cash be found in their petty cash records to allegedly pay for the signs. Nor could withdrawals of cash from personal bank accounts account for this large sum of cash. Somewhat similarily Scott's in-laws did produce an invoice for brochures that they printed on Scott's behalf only to suggest that it was a "sample" invoice. While they did list the billing to two individuals hence attempting to keep below the maximun $750 indiviual campaign donation, the Auditor was having none of that. Allegedly no money was paid to them hence it was an individual corporate overdonation to Scott's campaign.

For me the bottom line with all three (Sandy, Scott, Mark) Woolwich Election Act lawbreakers is as follows: Why even bother passing legislation provincially if you the Crown have no interest in enforcing even some of the most egregious and blatant cases? Again similar to Todd Cowan nobody based upon the current knowledge is suggesting extreme punitive measures such as jail time. However a conviction on these provincial offences (ie. non criminal) may well be appropriate. Only a judge or jury can so decide.