ATTEMPTING TO SPEAK TRUTH TO POWER

A lot easier said than done. I was promised five days advance notice of the out of town prosecutor's decision regarding proceeding or not with the Election Act charges against Councillor Scott Hahn. Instead I got a total of fifteen hours as I was e-mailed last evening almost at 6 o'clock. Allegedly Scott Hahn's lawyer was also advised for the first time last evening, which quite frankly I believe is utter bullshit. Back door, non-transparent lobbying is what our judicial system has degenerated to. After both verbally and by e-mail my requesting that the prosecutor speak to Ken Froese, the Auditor and author of the August 2015 Compliance (Forensic) Audit; he finally did so. Mr. Carnegie, the prosecutor, had earlier advised me that Mr. Froese was the single most knowledgable and important witness. That said after talking to him Mr. Carnegie "made up his mind" , typed and sent me his decision all within 45 minutes. Again utter bullshit.

Both Scott Hahn's lawyer and the prosecutor spoke strongly against my request to address the court. I had approached court staff in attendance prior to the 9 am. start and I advised Mr. Carnegie in the courtroom prior to the start of proceedings. Justice Marquette refused to allow me to address the court after hearing the two submissions from the two mentioned but wouldn't even let me advise as to what my requested submission was about. Maybe being the citizen who actually laid the charges is considered an affront in some legal circles.

There are two huge ironies here. Firstly my proposed submission to the court did get handed out to the three media present namely the Waterloo Region Record, Woolwich Observer and CKCO-TV (Kitchener). My submission had indicated that contrary to Mr. Carnegie's position that there was no public interest in proceeding; in fact the presence of three media actually suggested otherwise.

The other irony is the presence of Justice Marquette. It seems to me many months ago he recused (excused) himself from any ruling on this case because of a perceived conflict of interest. At one point he had assisted me in the laying of the charges: I believe the ones against Scott Hahn. He had expressed a concern due to a perceived conflict of interest as he had helped lay the charges and then might have had to make a ruling on them as he did today. No such mention from him today. Hmm need to think about that.