WHY I BELIEVE SANDY SHANTZ IS HOLDING OFFICE ILLEGITIMATELY

Our current Mayor in my opinion is not holding office legitimately. Now keep in mind professional liars and weasel worders just love to twist words and definitions to attack citizens who are speaking the plain truth. I am not a lawyer therefore as I also am not a professional (or amateur) liar it is quite possible that my understanding of legal terms and definitions is only slightly better than that of the general public who understandably avoid courts and lawyers as much as humanly possible. I have dabbled in them and overall found them worthy of the contempt that most honest citizens have for them. Yes there have been a couple of lawyers who have impressed me with their personal integrity and straightforwardness and literally dozens of others who haven't the foggiest notion of morals, ethics or integrity. For them it's all about how they can interpret and or twist law to their client's immediate advantage and their longterm advantage.

Sandy Shantz was stripped of her Mayor's position by the Municipal Elections Act 1996. It's quite black and white. She failed to include an Auditor's Report with her Financial Statements as required by law. Coincidentally this Auditor's report is only required if the candidate's expenses exceed $10,000 and the one she submitted by the deadline did not. The previous one may have however that one seemed to disappear into the ether. Turns out that a little creative bookeeping by our then Mayor had reduced her expenses below $10,000. Interestingly she was the only candidate who even came close to the magic $10,000 mark. I have speculated that she was a little embarassed by this fact and wished to hide it for fear of people realizing that money counts in an election, even at the municipal level. Also coincidentally I'm sure, Sandy had decades of book keeping experience (allegedly) in her husband's planning/semi-architect firm.

Justice David Broad in July 2015 reinstated her to the Mayor's Chair CONDITIONALLY ! The conditions were reasonably simple yet she violated them. Among them was that her next Financial Statements were to include ALL her election expenses. This includes freebies/donations/gifts of services. They must be included at their normal professional rates as expenses. Her violation of this CONDITIONAL reinstatement is why I believe she is not holding office legitmately. Perhaps the proper term is legally versus legitimately. Perhaps there is a better wording or terminology. I do not know but my meaning is very clear.

I provided strong evidence to the Crown, when I went to court trying to prosecute Sandy Shantz for her Election Act contraventions, that she had not included all her expenses at her victory party held at the Elmira Curling Club. The costs of this party are subject to inclusion in her Election Act expenses. I provided the Crown with a photograph of the professional band plus their name and members while they were performing at that party. Oddly not a nickel for the band or some other expenses were ever included in Sandy's Financial Statements. These expenses did not take Sandy's total above the ultimate top value allowed for mayoralty candidates. That maximum limit is ridiculously high when you look at the totals the other three mayoralty candidates spent. Again I have to think that Sandy simply obfuscated throughout the entire process, including court, in order to falsely reduce the total money she spent to win the election. Regardless she is holding office contrary to the Conditions set by Justice David Broad in Kitchener's Superior Court. In plain English she is holding office improperly, illegitimately, illegally or whatever term is most appropriate.