PROSECUTORIAL & JUDICIAL BIAS

This is reproduced from another Blog and is in regards to the mayor of Woolwich Township having all Municipal Election Act(MEA) charges withdrawn yesterday.




These above biases are built into the Municipal Elections Act whether intentionally or not. Any law that puts the sole responsibility upon citizens and laypersons while assiduously avoiding giving them any practical assistance or means to fulfill their responsibilities is a sham. At every step of the way the system have done their absolute utmost to throw up roadblocks of time, money and frustration. From the wrong Forms handed out to me last September, followed by sending the case to the wrong court (Superior) and now finally telling me six months later that some of the ten charges I laid are "improper"; this process has been a bust and it's all on our judicial system. Customer service? Non-existent. Client respect? Zero. Oh and let's not forget the idiocy of having Justices of the Peace only available at Superior Court for this process ONE DAY OF THE WEEK namely Fridays. What a pathetic joke. Yet the Municipal Elections Act claims that citizens can go directly to the Courts to have the Act enforced . Pure, lying bullshit. I wanted to see if I had finally found a law holding politicians accountable for their inattention, stupidity, mistakes or downright dishonesty and disrespect for the law. If such a law exists it isn't the Municipal Elections Act.

Then we have the Crown. I have in writing from the out of town Crown the statement that he will not do any investigation whatsoever. Not even a phone call or request to the police for assistance. Everything and I mean everything constituting evidence must be spoonfed to the Crown. I and every other citizen have zero authority to collect evidence, interview witnesses or in any fashion whatsoever compel cooperation in this investigation. Oh and yes meanwhile the Crown yesterday stated in court that under the Elections Act I am not able to charge the accused with the offence of Obstruction (Section 93 MEA) for either her lawyer's dispicable attempt to keep me out of Superior Court last July or for her ten minute "ambush" of me with 30 pages of documents just prior to the July 2/15 hearing. According to the Crown yesterday this Obstruction charge doesn't apply to me. While I am the complainant I am a legal nonperson apparently.

All the Crown had to do was request an interview with the mayor's accountant. Nope he wouldn't even ask.

The Crown advised the court that eventually the mayor had included all her Contributions (donations) after multiple Financial Statements. He is of course guessing about that. They kept rising throughout the process. He was a little less clear about her expenses. Despite a minimum of four Financial Statements she did not include expenses such as her live band as pointed out here in my February 4/16 posting. Further evidence could have been obtained by a phone call or interview with the Elmira Curling Club but of course that was out of the question. Crown's are very busy people.

I mentioned four Financial Statements. Actually there is testimony to another one that was removed from the Township's website prior to the February 2/15 one going up. Of course neither the mayor nor the Township ever got around to mentioning this allegation to MECAC, Superior Court or anyone else. I advised the Crown as to the name of the person who gave me this tantalising information. Think of the implications which I also pointed out to the Crown. Would the Crown pick up the phone and make a call to confirm this statement to me. Nope! Would he get the Regional Police to make such a call? Nope! Is this a failure by the Crown or is the justice system totally and completely biased against sucessfully prosecuting violaters of the Municipal Elections Act? Or is it both? I'm not sure.

Yes Woolwich CAO Brenneman I do have an audio copy of the October 26/15 MECAC (Compliance Audit Committee) meeting. Yes I knew exactly what I was speaking of when I accused you and possibly assorted staff of failing to accurately record the facts of that meeting in your Minutes. I gave a copy of that recording to the Crown. Was the Crown keen on the clearly biased and leading comments or questions of the MECAC panel? No he wanted to know how, who and where I obtained the audio recording. At first blush I thought he just wanted to satisfy himself that it was legal and acceptable in court. Now I'm thinking it's as likely that he was looking for evidence against me. That is disturbing.

I sat down with the out of town Crown less than 48 hours before Wednesday's 9 am. Court appearance. Oddly while the Police weren't interested in helping me last summer with concerns and allegations I took to them including the Township's failure and delay in removing the mayor who had automatically forfeited her position (Section 80 MEA); nevertheless they were there for the two hour meeting last Monday. Also I believe it was a Regional Police Officer (Detective J. Murray) who arranged the appointment for last Monday. Oh and this same officer has had further recent dealings with the out of town Crown. What exactly is going on versus what I'm being told? Instead of investigating MEA contraventions am I being set up for something? Was Monday's meeting really to assist the Crown in further understanding of the MEA case or was I invited there under false pretenses? Would our Regional Police do such a thing? Is the Pope Catholic?

Then of course there is the Crown's nitpicking. Add to this the Crown advising the Court yesterday that it was not in the public interest to prosecute mayor Shantz on the Municipal Election Act (MEA) charges. I would agree it's not in her interests to prosecute her. Why is it not in the public interest? What is the Crown's criteria for claiming it's not in the public interest? Who made those criteria if they even exist? Yesterday was a very sad day for the public, citizens and taxpayers . Unsurprisingly politicians everywhere are probably very happy with how it went. It was not justice. Nice try though.