Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "A
Conundrum":
The Scene: The Newmarket Court House
The
Purpose: The conclusion of the COI application hearing
The Actors: Morris
and spouse and daughter, Marshall woman, Poppe man, Gaertner, Ballard
representing townCouncil, Granger - former representative on same,
unidentified woman.
Hervey.
Brock Weir, Dianne Cunningham from
the Auroran.Jill Copeland
- Hervey's lawyer,
Steven O'Melia - Morris'
lawyer,
petite judge,
clerk,
bailiff,
court reporter.
Begin with Copeland
requesting Hawkins SLAPP decision be entered as evidence.
O'Melia objects.
Judge
over-rules.
Turn to O'Melia for continuation of droning presentation from
first day's hearing. Sleep inducing.
Lunch break.
Continuation of
more O'Melia droning for approximately 45 minutes whereupon he says he is
finished.
Copeland presents list of 13 points, all by way of reply to
arguments made by O'Melia during his total presentation.
The crown wakes up and
pays attention for the first time in several hours.
Copeland
concludes.
Judge thanks counsel.
Will deal with the case as quickly as
her workload permits, which could be some months.
So now the big wait
begins.
****************
So, the stage was set. The play begins again. Several acts were already completed in different scenes at various intervals.
In Aurora, we have and are, receiving an education in the ways of civil litigation. It has become a feature of our daily lives.
We may take from it what we will.
Melodrama to be sure.Comedy not fully developed. Insufficient distance as yet from the real thing.
In court, the defendant's head was being stroked from behind by a sympathetic friend, during the procedure.
Lawyer's voice, seemingly deliberately pitched in low monotone.
Details of dress not provided.
Toronto media, conspicuous in their absence.
Is this the stuff of theatre ? Or is theatre the stuff of life?
Are the elements real or should we put it all down to climate change?
The author of the T.V. series,Murdoch's Mysteries is said to be an Aurora resident.
The show is a favorite. Characters are perfectly developed. Authenticity is captivating. Women are beautiful and age appropriate. Bad guys and crime are figments of imagination.
I watch them over on demand, in preference to garbage offered on other stations. It's forty-five minutes of magic.
Enough to take one's mind off the tsunami damage we are still mopping up from the destruction and debris of the Mormac years.
Saturday, 3 November 2012
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
12 comments:
And, pray tell. How is Ms Kelly, Editor-in-Chief of The Banner, going to cover that hearing? Has she hired good, old buddy Ballard to file the story for her? I am still waiting for her promised hard-hitting stories about Aurora's Council.
To 12:51
Ken Whitehurst was Morris' campaign manager and her speech writer. He also got a plumb paid job on the Cultural Centre Board during the previous term. He used to work for Metroland Press as well. Maybe Ken could write some balanced news coverage to explain how all of this came about. It would certainly make for interesting reading.
What did O'Melia argue ?
Was any more light shed on what Gallo and Gaertner said shortly after the case was launched in 2010? They both suggested in the media that they knew nothing about the potential for a lawsuit being launched following the closed session and prior to Morris launching her town funded private lawsuit without notice to council. I thought that the Clerk and CAO filed affidavits that said that the issue of the lawsuit was discussed in the closed meeting which Morris not only attended but participated in. If Morris attended the closed meeting in which the potential of her being given town funds for the launching her private defamation lawsuit (despite the fact that it is my understanding that towns can’t legally sue for defamation, according to the Charter of Rights), is that not a clear breach of the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act as well as an apparent end run on the intent of the Charter of Rights towards its efforts to protect political free speech ? Just wondering.
I really would like to see the affidavits as well as the cases presented by both sides. I wonder if the town will post them. I think that the public has a right to know given the price they have paid for this debacle.
THE PLAY'S THE THING
In the misty mind of Morris, head-stroking from behind by sympathetic friend notwithstanding, I wonder if any of the past two years have penetrated into her brain.
Or does she continue to think that she is so smart that judicial decisions against her are in error, and that in the end she will prevail?
There is a medical term for this condition. Not being a psychiatrist I shall simply allude to it in passing and bid you good night.
Someone should get in touch with the international bird people. We had the discovery of a secondary nesting site for vultures in Newmarket.
2:07 PM
I don't think she even has a reporter covering Aurora. That must really ring her boss' chimes.
Affidavits filed are now part of the Court record. You can read them but those of the past Council are literally word for word. One exception was filed well after the deal-line and not sworn. I think that one was not accepted by the court. A court reporter was present.
To 2:22 p.m.
I think what you would like to read would be the examinations for discovery. That was when the lawyers asked individuals about their affidavits. There is no meat on the bones of an affidavit itself.
The Auroran has staff at the hearing. Brock should have the arguments available late Monday/early Tuesday. So far, he has been very accurate.
8:02 PM, what a pithy comment! (That's 'pithy' with a t-h, not a lisp)
To 8:07 PM.
Councillor Gallo was not going to submit an affidavit but then at the last minute he did. I think he may have missed a deadline however his affidavit was accepted by the court under the condition that the judge said that she would put less weight on it.
Given that all of the affidavits from the Councillors who facilitated Morris’ access to free money with no strings attached, were nearly identical, I have no idea what the implications are of putting less weight on a potentially identical affidavit means.
It looks like the CAO and the Clerk also outlined a slightly different picture of what transpired behind closed doors than the Councillors in question did. Take your pick on who to believe but I know who I believe. As far as I am concerned, someone needs to look at the statements made by all parties and make direct comparisons while conducting a reality check. The statements made by Councillors Gallo, Gaertner and McEachern in the media also deserve a closer look in light of what we now know. We need to have faith in our elected officials and the integrity of our government and this case raises a number of important questions while the elected officials at the center of the story appear to claim complete innocence.
I suspect that the most important question will be if Morris will get off on a technicality due to when the case was launched. I’m looking forward to reading this week’s Auroran in order to find out the details of last week’s hearing.
7:49 AM
One affidavit was different, filed late, unsworn and made an error about how many times that person had been ' elected ' in the first paragraph.
Were not Granger & Wilson the Aurora physical bullies while Morris & Evalina used the rhetoric? We must not forget Evalina who in my mind was always the brains as well as the foul mouth.
Post a Comment