Fraser Kelly and Michael Carnegie. I assume it at least partially has to do with career ambition and hope for promotion. Both of which should have no place in decisions surrounding their jobs. If they don't then there are worse reasons for letting politicians/criminals off the hook while ordinary Joe's get the book thrown at them.
Elmira Councillor Scot Hahn demonstrated in many ways, both on and off the job, that he was immature and entitled. Not particularly smart either but Daddy sure had the means and monies to help him get ahead and did so. Scot literally appeared to have spent maybe five to ten minutes in filling out his election finance forms. They weren't even close to appearing legit even upon the first glance. He had the most and biggest election signs of all the Ward 1 candidates for Council yet my recollection is that his total election expenses claimed something like $350. Basically his expense claims were a red flag screaming "Catch me, catch me!"
Woolwich/Elmira mayor Sandy Shantz on the other hand was careful and subtle. She hid much of her reduced expenses and improper donations making it more difficult to understand what she was doing. She did not falsely reduce her expenses to ridiculous levels as Scot did, just enough to keep her below the threshold requiring a formal audit. Clever. Even so she had a motive greater than avoiding an additional $1,200 audit fee by keeping her expenses below the $10,000 mark. I expect that she was a little embarrassed (as she should be) by the fact that her legitimate expenses ended up being very close to TRIPLE those of her three competitors combined. Now keep in mind according to the rules that was legal but it could have given way to criticism that she "bought" the Mayor's job. If so it was a good investment in that the job pays six figures per year including regional councillor pay and other committee work stretched now over three terms.
Out of town prosecuter Fraser Kelly wasn't satisfied with advising that yes there was enough evidence to get a Municipal Elections Act conviction on Sandy but that he didn't feel that it was in the "public interest". Such bulls*it. Oh no he felt it necessary to throw some dirt on the complainant , yours truly. Apparently my following all the legal procedures, steps, jumping through hoops and loops etc. somehow magically didn't show a proper attitude, respect or whatever he dreamed up as an excuse. What a pathetic bugger.
Mr. Carnegie on the other hand as I recall probably also stated that there was enough evidence to get a conviction but also wrongly claimed that it wasn't in the "public interest" to do so. Still bulls*it but at least he didn't feel the need to shoot the messenger or blame the victim.
For those who don't believe that our judicial system is politicized just look at these cases carefully.
No comments:
Post a Comment