TIE-DYED TYRANNY

 

Making the corrupt Ontario Government accountable

This is a continuation in a series about the efforts of one Concerned Taxpayer (CT) to make the corrupt ‘Liberal’ Ontario Government in general and Kathleen Wynne in particular accountable in the court system of our land.

In Part 1 of this series, I explained a little of the background of the ongoing Presto scandal, which has already cost Ontario taxpayers half-a-billion dollars – and how a concerned taxpayer (hereafter referred to as CT) had searched for who was behind this…and discovered the documents had been signed by none other than Kathleen Wynne, then Ontario Minister of Transportation and now the Premier of Ontario.

In Part 2 of this series, I explained a bit of how the Canadian/Ontario justice system function:  in order to safeguard from a government that will either fail to bring charges against certain individuals or will not uphold certain laws, each and every citizen has the power to, as a private person, lay criminal charges.  However, this safety-valve (a citizen-empowering protection against a corrupt government) is immediately eviscerated by permitting the government of the day, called ‘The Crown’ and represented by the office of the Attorney General of Ontario, who both employs all the crown prosecutors and is appointed by/serves at the pleasure of the Premier of Ontario, can take over any private prosecution and stay the charges for ever….and the example of Gary McHale in Caledonia was explained.  (This very legal precedent was cited heavily by The Crown representative in this court hearing.)

In Part 3 of this series, I explained a bit about the concept of ‘summary dismissal’ – using the example of Baglow vs. Free Dominion and John Does as an example.

In Part 4 of this series, I sketched the atmosphere that morning and wondered at the difficulties our wonderful civil servant had in telling everyone – the plaintiff included – where the hearing is to be held.

It was really strange:  I had been over at this courthouse observing a number of cases, usually related to the Freedom of Speech, and always, the staff at the Elgin St. Courthouse in Ottawa have bent over backwards to help me find the proper courtroom.  This was the first time when they were not just ‘unhelpful’, but aggressively so!

(Not the guys at the front desk – they just didn’t have the info.  I mean the ladies at the proper counter, who insisted no such case was to be heard that day (18th of August), but who immediately reversed themselves when CT showed them his summons, even volunteering that they had ‘just been discussing this case’…

Now, please permit me to paint the two protagonists:  the CT (Concerned Taxpayer) and the Attorney for the Crown (AC).

CT is tall, dark and handsome.

AC is short, balding and cute, in the way, say, a chipmunk is.

CT is serious and eloquent.

AC is blustery, flustery and blushes at the first provocation.

Both sides are ‘ready’ and roaring to go.

But, the judge said that only 5 or so minute had been allocated for this hearing and she was absolutely not prepared for more than that.

AC argued that she need not be ready – just kick it out and be done with it…he assured her CT had no case.

CT argued that justice delayed is justice denied and that he would very much like to have a hearing that day.

It seemed that the judge was in a bit of a pickle.  Whoever had scheduled this hearing had clearly not permitted for a proper hearing, had not given the judge a chance to prepare for it and slotted it into an inappropriate category.  I have absolutely zero training in legal matters, my formal education being in Physics and Anthropology of Religion, but to my ‘peasant/scientist brain’, it looked like whoever slotted this hearing into this spot was attempting to sabotage CT’s case.

Yes, of course:  never attribute to conspiracy what can be explained by incompetence.

But – this was beyond incompetence.

If it had just been the case of slotting it into an inappropriate format of hearing. OK – perhaps incompetence.  But, the sheer aggressive unhelpfullness of the clerks coupled with an inappropriate slotting by peers of these clerks – well, let’s just say it seemed one too many complications for random incompetence.

Eventually, after much pleading from CT, the judge agreed to set aside 30 minutes at the end of her day (before another, previously scheduled hearing) to hear both sides.

So, we filed out into the hallway and waited.

When I say ‘we’, I mean CT, an MPP, and a group of other supporters of CT, some of whom were involved with the Language Fairness movement.  CT went to collect his thoughts and condense his arguments into a very shortened form, the rest of us chatted and waited.

Finally, our time was up!!!

We were in!

And, since The Crown initiated the move to dismiss, they were the first to speak.  And the AC did speak, at great length, explaining why it was silly for people to think that elected officials ought to be held accountable for their actions….  It seemed to this observer that his main aim was to waste time, so that CT would not have a chance to argue his case.

Indeed, the Crown’s position took up 20 of the 30 allotted minutes, leaving CT at a distinct disadvantage to make his case.

The AC argued that the transcripts of what occurred during the last hearing are essential to determine the judge’s finding….and, even though CT had requested (and paid for) these transcripts, this hearing came up before they had been delivered and without these transcripts, it would be impossible for the judge to find for CT….

In other words, the AC seemed to argue that since the bureaucracy was too slow to provide the transcripts, the case ought to be summarily tossed out.

Am I the only one to see a flaw in this reasoning?

When CT finally had a chance to present his case, he pointed out that the transcript was irrelevant:  since the person charged, Kathleen Wynne, is now the Premier of Ontario, and the Attorney General serves only at her pleasure, and the Attorney General is the employer of the AC, there is a clear conflict of interest here and the case ought to be moved from the provincial realm (controlled 100% by Kathleen Wynne – the accused) to the Federal level…

The judge appeared shocked at the level if interference this situation would have permitted – and it looked like she was about to rule for the CT, when…

In the counterargument – permitted by the judge – the AC argued that Kathleen Wynne onlu out-ranked the Attorney General as a public figure…and that CT was suing her as a ‘private citizen’.

At this point, the judge seemed to assess the direction ‘from which the wind was blowing’ and, suddenly and without warning, issued her ruling:

IF CT had sued Kathleen Wynne as a member of Ontario Government, he would, indeed, be correct that the case ought to have been transferred to Federal Court because of a conflict of interest.  BUT, since he sued Kathleen Wynne as a person, not as a member of the government, this does not hold since no ‘person’  can have an influence over the office of the Attorney General.

!?!?!

After the ruling had been issued, CT pressed the judge (to the point where some of us in the audience feared him being penalized for his boldness).  He got the judge to admit – for the record – that she had not read the case, the arguments either side made, but was basing her decision solely on what she heard in the very limited time had been allotted to this case due to it being slotted into the wrong bit to be heard/presented.

He also got her to clearly state that had he sued the Government of Ontario rather than a private individual who just happened to be  member of it, he would have succeeded is demonstrating a conflict of interest for the case to be heard in provincial rather than federal court.

Pat Condell: The real enemy within

To learn more about Cultural Marxism, I highly recommend CodeSlinger’s guest post on this subject.

Nanny of the Month: August, 2014

A few days late, but still worth it:

Invite: 161 Elgin Street, Ottawa Court House, Sept 4: 9.00am, Court Room 7

Earlier in August, I watched an interesting case be argued (though very briefly) in Ontario Court.

I even started writing it up – though, thanks to a fever, I did not yet finish (it is far too complex for me to try to accurately report when I am still a bit feverish – please, forgive me the delay, it is in the name of accuracy).  However, what I have written so far about it is here:

In Part 1 of this series, I explained a little of the background of the ongoing Presto scandal, which has already cost Ontario taxpayers half-a-billion dollars – and how a concerned taxpayer (hereafter referred to as CT) had searched for who was behind this…and discovered the documents had been signed by none other than Kathleen Wynne, then Ontario Minister of Transportation and now the Premier of Ontario.

In Part 2 of this series, I explained a bit of how the Canadian/Ontario justice system function:  in order to safeguard from a government that will either fail to bring charges against certain individuals or will not uphold certain laws, each and every citizen has the power to, as a private person, lay criminal charges.  However, this safety-valve (a citizen-empowering protection against a corrupt government) is immediately eviscerated by permitting the government of the day, called ‘The Crown’ and represented by the office of the Attorney General of Ontario, who both employs all the crown prosecutors and is appointed by/serves at the pleasure of the Premier of Ontario, can take over any private prosecution and stay the charges for ever….and the example of Gary McHale in Caledonia was explained.  (This very legal precedent was cited heavily by The Crown representative in this court hearing.)

In Part 3 of this series, I explained a bit about the concept of ‘summary dismissal’ – using the example of Baglow vs. Free Dominion and John Does as an example.

In Part 4 of this series, I sketched the atmosphere that morning and wondered at the difficulties our wonderful civil servant had in telling everyone – the plaintiff included – where the hearing is to be held.

Well, even before I can write up the last bit, the next chapter is being written.  The plaintiff, a concerned taxpayer (CT), is going sent me the following little invite:

 

 

Invite: 161 Elgin Street, Ottawa Court House, Sept 4: 9.00am, Court Room 7

On August 18, the Judge ruled that Applicant may bring proceeding against the Ontario Government, and the Crown must delegate authority to intervene to the Federal Director for Public Prosecutions. A concerned taxpayer brought the motion and it will be heard on Sept 4 at 9am. The issue is the threats by former MTO Minister Kathlynne Wynne to force TTC and OC Transpo to breach the Federal AIT (Agreement on Internal Trade) and Federal Gas Tax which has cost taxpayers up to $0.5 billion enrichment for private interests at taxpayers expense.

If you’re in the area and can spare the time, I hope to see you there!!!

Justice must not only be done, it must be seen to be done: except, perhaps, when a taxpayer tries to prosecute Kathleen Wynne – part 4

In Part 1 of this series, I explained a little of the background of the ongoing Presto scandal, which has already cost Ontario taxpayers half-a-billion dollars – and how a concerned taxpayer (hereafter referred to as CT) had searched for who was behind this…and discovered the documents had been signed by none other than Kathleen Wynne, then Ontario Minister of Transportation and now the Premier of Ontario.

In Part 2 of this series, I explained a bit of how the Canadian/Ontario justice system function:  in order to safeguard from a government that will either fail to bring charges against certain individuals or will not uphold certain laws, each and every citizen has the power to, as a private person, lay criminal charges.  However, this safety-valve (a citizen-empowering protection against a corrupt government) is immediately eviscerated by permitting the government of the day, called ‘The Crown’ and represented by the office of the Attorney General of Ontario, who both employs all the crown prosecutors and is appointed by/serves at the pleasure of the Premier of Ontario, can take over any private prosecution and stay the charges for ever….and the example of Gary McHale in Caledonia was explained.  (This very legal precedent was cited heavily by The Crown representative in this court hearing.)

In Part 3 of this series, I explained a bit about the concept of ‘summary dismissal’ – using the example of Baglow vs. Free Dominion and John Does as an example.

Thus, we find ourselves on the morning of the 18th of August, 2014, in the Ottawa Elgin Street courthouse,where the hearing between our concerned taxpayer (CT) and The Crown (which too over his prosecution of Kathleen Wynne, the former Transportation Minister of Ontario and the current Premier of Ontario, whose signature on documents seems to suggest she used undue pressure to force Ottawa and Toronto transportation authorities (meaning ‘government-usurped monopolies’) to use an outdated and overpriced ‘Presto’ system in place of competitively awarded contractors to provide an electronic public transit system payment method).  The CT laid private criminal charges against Kathleen Wynne, as a private individual, for wasting over half-a-billion of taxpayers money in an ongoing action, which CT perceives as criminal.  The Crown took over this private prosecution and shelved it – so it would never see the light of day or be acted upon.  Which CT protested against, and it was these protests that The Crown wanted to be summarily dismissed.  As ‘The Crown’ answers directly to the Attorney General, who is appointed by and serves at the pleasure of the Premier, Kathleen Wynne, CT challenged this on the grounds of conflict of interest.

The setting is the palatial Elgin St. Court Building in downtown Ottawa, smack dab next to the Ottawa City Hall (with its cheap underground parking – seriously, you’d be hard-pressed to find cheaper parking anywhere else in downtown Ottawa).

The courthouse itself is very, very beautiful.

The core of the building is open – from the first floor all the way to the top, filled with light.  I entered on the 1st floor (the underground basement floor houses the prisoner cells), from the City Hall side, walked past the Tim Hortons and was just about to head to the 2nd floor, where the main,  Elgin Street entrance, is with its information booth to find out which courtroom this hearing will be held in.

As I passed the Tim Hortons, I saw Beth Trudeau and a group of other people walking towards the stairs.  As I caught up to them, Beth introduced me all around:  there was Jack MacLaren.  Another was Jean-Serge Brisson. Another was the concerned taxpayer, CT, in a crisp dark suit, with a light shirt and a finely striped tie.  They, too, were in search of the proper courtroom.

The information desk people, you see, my dear reader, were completely baffled as to why CT might be showing up for court today – they certainly had no record of him or his hearing!

So, the little band of corruption fighters was directed to ask at the criminal courts booth – since this is a criminal case, these people were bound to know where to go!

I must admit, when he walked up to the booth, I stayed rudely close so that I may hear the conversation.  Bad manners on my part, perhaps, but I did want to bring you as much of the story as I could…  Everybody else stood a polite distance apart.

The pretty young woman with a ready smile who worked the booth was very pleasant, but quite definite – CT might as well go home as there is no hearing scheduled for him for that day…

CT – a very pleasant fellow, tall, broad-shouldered with eyes so deep one could loose oneself in them forever – was insistent:  he was given official notice that his case was to be heard today and he would very much like somebody to tell him which courtroom to go to.  Charming and polite – yet determined, with steel in his spine!  The pretty young woman frowned, creasing a wrinkle in her otherwise unblemished forehead, and left.

An older, more knowledgeable-mannered woman came in a few minutes and took her place.  CT smiled and asked where his hearing was to be held.  Shuffling the papers authoritatively, the senior woman, too, insisted that there was nothing on the schedule for the day that even remotely resembled the case he was talking about.  As she was telling him that he must be mistaken in the day his hearing was to be held, the younger woman joined her and shook her head in eager assent.

At this point, CT took out the paper with his official notice of the hearing, to be held today, in this courthouse.

‘Oh, THAT case!’

Of course they knew about THAT case!  It was to be held in courtroom #34!

The younger woman even volunteered that they had been discussing this very case just earlier that morning…

Which, of course, begs the question:  if they had been discussing this case just earlier this morning, how come they had both claimed never to have heard of it before?

Should this be chalked up to simple bureaucratic incompetence, or is the fact that they are employed by the people whose boss answers to Kathleen Wynne, the subject of this lawsuit?

I guess we will never know…

 

More to follow in Part 5 of this narrative.

 

Justice must not only be done, it must be seen to be done: except, perhaps, when a taxpayer tries to prosecute Kathleen Wynne – part 3

In Part 1 of this series, I explained a little of the background of the ongoing Presto scandal, which has already cost Ontario taxpayers half-a-billion dollars – and how a concerned taxpayer (hereafter referred to as CT) had searched for who was behind this…and discovered the documents had been signed by none other than Kathleen Wynne, then Ontario Minister of Transportation and now the Premier of Ontario.

In Part 2 of this series, I explained a bit of how the Canadian/Ontario justice system function:  in order to safeguard from a government that will either fail to bring charges against certain individuals or will not uphold certain laws, each and every citizen has the power to, as a private person, lay criminal charges.  However, this safety-valve (a citizen-empowering protection against a corrupt government) is immediately eviscerated by permitting the government of the day, called ‘The Crown’ and represented by the office of the Attorney General of Ontario, who both employs all the crown prosecutors and is appointed by/serves at the pleasure of the Premier of Ontario, can take over any private prosecution and stay the charges for ever….and the example of Gary McHale in Caledonia was explained.  (This very legal precedent was cited heavily by The Crown representative in this court hearing.)

Which is what brings us to Monday’s court hearing:  The Municipal Taxpayer Advocacy Group founder (CT – conscientious taxpayer) had brought a private prosecution against Kathleen Wynne, due to her signature on the letter which seems (at least, to my untrained eye, as well as CT’s, I suspect) to be extorting the Jim Watson and the City of Ottawa, in order to force him to both accept the inferior and overpriced ‘Presto’ bid for introducing electronic payment on our public transit system as well as making it almost impossible to collect late/non-performance penalties from that particular contractor.  The Crown took over his case – and chose not to proceed with it – meaning the charges would never see the light of day.

So, CT challenged The Crown’s takeover of his case.

And lost….for various, not necessarily ‘farious’ (as opposed to ‘nefarious’) reasons.

CT had appealed that takeover – and The Crown brought about a motion to ‘summarily dismiss’ his appeal:  and this was the subject of Monday’s hearing.

 

In order to win and get his case back, The Crown argued, it was now necessary for CT to prove that there was some abuse of process in The Crown taking over his prosecution of Kathleen Wynne.

CT disagreed, saying he just had to prove that since the accused is the Attorney General’s employer, and by extension the employer of The Crown’s prosecutors, they are in a conflict of interest position in taking over his private criminal prosecution:  and therefore must recuse themselves from the case and turn it over to the Federal Director Public Prosecutions.

CT even cited an Alberta precedent for this – even the appearance of a potential conflict of interest requires The Crown to kick the case to a different level of goernment, like, say, the Feds (who do not, ultimately, answer to Kathleen Wynne, their current employer).

If you read my blog regularly, you may recall that ‘summary dismissal’ is a topic I have covered when reporting on the John Baglow vs Free Dominion and John Does.  In that case (a very, very important case about internet governance, the outcome of which will affect each and every internet-using Canadian and American – and one which is still ongoing), Dr. Baglow sued several posters on an internet political forum, Free Dominion, for having defamed him, as well as suing the administrators of the site for having facilitated the publication of those words (sort of like suing a printer for having printed a newspaper with an article that defamed someone).

In this ‘Baglow’ case, the defendants asked for the case to be summarily dismissed on the grounds that the words published were ‘common insults’ and thus not defamatory.

The hearing lasted a couple of days and the judge agreed that indeed, the words were not capable of being defamatory.  (At east – that is what I heard in the courtroom nd what I understood the final ruling to say – but I am not trained in legal matters, just a member of the ‘unwashed masses’, with a bit of peasant wisdom tossed in.)

Dr. Baglow appealed the summary dismissal – and the court of appeal agreed.  Not because they thought the case had merit – to the contrary, they agreed that they didn’t.  (Or, so I understand.)  But, they said, internet discourse lacks governance so there ought to be a legal precedent set!

So, a full trial is going on now.  First part took place in the spring, the second part will do so this fall.  With expert witness – as the judge chosen has no knowledge of the internet beyond using email (at least, that is what she declared).

Similarly, the MTAG founder (our dear protagonist, CT) had challenged The Crown’s takeover of his case.

He lost, appealed, and The Crown sought to have his appeal ‘summarily dismissed’.

Which is where we found ourselves on that fateful morning of August the 18th, 2014!!!

More to follow in Part 4 of this narrative.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 126 other followers