Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "Chris
Watts Latest":
12:44 PM
It is all easy to access. But read
everything pertaining to the case - not just select morsels. Councillor Ballard
has become an Armchair Lawyer.
*******
I've deleted the comment referenced in the above .
I received a call alerting me to a trick.
There's a massive effort afoot to have Morris' case retried in the court of public opinion.
I advised Councillor Thompson not to present the motion on the SLAPP decision. I agreed with the sentiment. But when a question gets onto the table ,there's no telling what might be said in the course of debate.
Rules of order are intended to permit sometimes disagreeable comments , or a person's inaccurate understanding of a situation, to be stated in freedom, so long as they are so stated with civility.
Freedom of speech applies in formal debate of a legislative body more than in any other situation.
I anticipated the motion would open the door to stuff that wasn't the business of Council.
Any more than severe criticism of the former Mayor in a blog, was ever at any time,the business of the Municipal Corporation..
I do not read Councillor Ballard's tweeting account.
I understand few do.
The trick apparently was to get something into my blog, which people do read, to entice them to read Councillor Ballard's
contentions on the issue.
I am not going to contribute to that.
Thursday, 20 December 2012
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
22 comments:
"I do not read Councillor Ballard's tweeting account.
I understand few do."
You would be surprised who does and to no read it is sticking your head in the sand.
Thank you for the house-keeping. I avoid Councillor Ballard's Blog and do not need to read it here. He does seem very confused, maybe a bit paranoid. I clearly heard him at the meeting say cases should not be discussed when still before the courts and subject to appeal. Then all this stuff gets sent out. Could be because there is no Auroran next week. Next he'll use the Banner which I also shun.
Matt Maddock has an excellent and lucid post on the subject of Ballard's assertions.
Sometimes we may think too much that a conspiracy is afoot when it is not.
I believe I am your Anonymous 12:44pm commenter as I saw the comment was up and now it was deleted. There was no intended treachery or trickery in posting my comment. It was simply to point out another Councillor’s thinking especially since he stated that this was what he intended to speak at a meeting this past Tuesday. I have posted to you in the past. I understand it is your blog and now further understand your rules of engagement.
I have read everything in the case and I was searching for further answers and opinions. I do agree that it appears that “Councillor Ballard has become an Armchair Lawyer”. The reason I didn’t post to his blog to ask the question about the source of his information is that he doesn’t allow anonymous discussion.
3:48 PM
If your intentions are indeed honourable, a # of good writers have commented on the SLAPP. There is a Blogger in B,C, Di Aramani ( my spelling could be off } who covered the so-called defamation case from the beginning. On the Citizen, you can still go back and check the different sources. Maybe try just googling Morris SLAPP or something similar? Good hunting.
Oh, and Councillor Ballard did speak at the meeting - it's taped so you can see where he veers of the straight & narrow.
"There's a massive effort afoot to have Morris' case retried in the court of public opinion."
Talk about an exercise in futility - the result will remain the same. Cllr Ballard is quick to urge caution and to proceed slowly, yet he he anxiously tells us that we'll all be "shocked" once all the facts are revealed. Ha!
No passage of time - and especially not mere months - will rehabilitate Phyllis Morris' reputation nor polish her image in this town. I genuinely wonder why she hasn't decamped to another municipality in search of a fresh start.
Well, 3:40 PM, at least it makes a change from his usual one-trick pony topic of conversation.
Unfortunately, 3:30 PM, the paranoia isn't a one-way street.
4:28 PM & 4:30 PM Not up to standards and you forgot to pace yourself.
To 4:22pm
My intentions are indeed honourable as I am abreast of all the news on the SLAPP or at least as much as I can find. What I am looking for are any of the direct court reports on the Hervey v. Morris conflict of interest action. More specifically any information that includes the six affidavits from the prior councillors. I just don't believe how Councillor Ballard can draw the conclusions that he does. He must be reading (or interpreting) something different. Where is he getting his information? I assume it is now on public record or does he have an inside track commenting on this subject as he is a friend of the defendant? Perhaps his viewpoint is skewed because of such.
Ballard is getting one of his wishes & I doubt if it will please him. I have done the reading on the SLAPP as he suggested. The consensus appears to be that it was over-do and that the awards by courts seem too low given what people have to endure. The only mention of any sort of appeal is a reference to a possible over-view by the judiciary to ensure costs given are adequate. That does not sound like something that could help Morris. But I am not a lawyer, not even of the armchair variety.
5:08 PM
Your honourable intentions could be costly but you could get a transcript of the entire case, probably from the Newmarket Courthouse. That would likely include everything given to the Judge for consideration. As far as I know, each law-firm purchases a single copy for its records.
4:28 PM You are such a " Meow ! " when another writer receives praise. Problems finding an outlet ? GYOB.
Council needs to be accountable for their actions. I suspect that the only reason that Councillor Ballard wants to "move on" is because he doesn’t want council to be accountable to the same degree that others feel is warranted.
He stated that in addition to the SLAPP designation granted by Master Hawkins, that another judge apparently said it was "absolutely not a SLAPP". Of course that isn’t true based on what I know. I think that Councillor Ballard is trying to mislead the public in his statement. If not, he should let us know what he based his comments on. Let’s see the proof. Read the Hawkins decision Councillor Ballard... it even makes the point that Justice Spence did not make a definitive ruling that this was not a SLAPP. Master Hawkins stated… “Spence J. did not make an express finding that this action was not SLAPP litigation, He simply concluded that Johnson and Hogg had not shown that this action was indeed SLAPP litigation. I don't know what evidence Spence J. had before him when he declined to make that finding. The evidence before me leads me to a different conclusion.” Master Hawkins also went on to essentially slam Morris’ case in other respects, as did Justice Brown in her decision related to the Norwich motion.
Justice Brown stated that procedures were not followed by the plaintiff and no case of defamation was proven. She also said that the anonymous commenters expected and deserved anonymity under the circumstances and she weighted this decision in the light of the importance of political free speech.
Given the damage that has been caused by what Morris and one of her lawyers have both called a council initiative, I’m glad that some elected officials have their facts straight and believe in the need for council’s accountability. What is called for in the Councillor Thompson Motion is, in my opinion, the very least that the town can do under the circumstances.
The one point that I agree with Councillor Ballard on is that it this whole sorted story does not put the previous council in a favorable light, but that sure isn't Councillor Thompson’s fault, is it ?
@ 4:55 PM:
You missed the comment at 4:26 PM - that's mine, too. I've no need to pace myself ... when you're on a roll, and all that.
Let's leave this damn subject. Everything is available that the Judge has to consider. Ballard may have taken a hit in the pocket book - we simply don't know and don't care. Stop playing his stupid games.
I remember councillor Wilson teetering on his chair and shouting as he waved papers in the air, " We must move on. We have work to do. " That was when people were in the Council meeting trying to get the council to pull that report about Evelyn off the town web site. No one believed he had read any of those papers. It was all show and distraction - we have more now from some of the same cast. Plus the new Hand-bag Handler.
5:08 PM
Shape-shifting is easy on the Blog. You may not be what you claim. The information you request is easily available. Do your own spade-work.
From the very beginning when Ballard went after Mayor Dawe over the Centre, he has been waving the Lawyer threat. This time he may have put the town at risk by his stupidities on camera at the meeting and his posts. He has made ugly suggestions and discussed cases which he admits have not been concluded. Time to put up, or offer an apology and shut up.
To Anonymous 4:22pm
You stated: “I just don't believe how Councillor Ballard can draw the conclusions that he does. He must be reading (or interpreting) something different. Where is he getting his information? I assume it is now on public record or does he have an inside track commenting on this subject as he is a friend of the defendant? Perhaps his viewpoint is skewed because of such.”
Response: I think that you’re right to be skeptical and I bet that we can take a good guess where he is getting his information from. I don’t think that Councillor Ballard is referencing the George Hervey v Morris Conflict of Interest case. He was likely referencing the Justice Brown decision on the Norwich Motion as well as the Justice Spence decision on the second motion to strike. Both of these rulings involved the private defamation case that Morris launched with the use of town funds while “acting in her capacity as mayor” and neither of these rulings made the claim that this was “definitely not a SLAPP”. The problem for Councillor Ballard is that one decision was silent on the issue and the Master Hawkins ruling clarified that “Spence J. did not make an express finding that this action was not SLAPP litigation”. Just to be crystal clear on the issue in the name of accuracy, accountability and integrity, we should give Councillor Ballard the benefit of doubt and ask him to prove his point.
I don’t think that anyone should be fooled into thinking that the mistakes made in the past could never happen again when you have politicians like Councillors Ballard, Gaertner and Gallo who appear to be willing to thwart the efforts of the current council to right the wrongs of the past and to ensure that council is accountable for their actions. Some past and present councillors appear to have learned nothing from the previous council’s messy legacy and I can only hope that no one forgets that on voting day in 2014.
And now Robert the Bruce is slagging you on Twitter as well. With re-tweets from Ballard.
Bruce Orrell @rborrell
Ballard does not have all the information. There was another Judge who sent the case to Master Hawkins. Maybe Morris didn't bother to mention that one ?
Post a Comment