Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "A THANK YOU OUTSTANDING":
*slow clap* Well-played, 12:39.
Posted by Anonymous to Our Town and Its Business at 7 April 2015 at 14:20
*slow clap* Well-played, 12:39.
Posted by Anonymous to Our Town and Its Business at 7 April 2015 at 14:20
******************************
Readers will have to check back for the lengthy comment made at 12.39.
I just read it again.
A substantial difference in cases cited is that tax revenues,
town resources and elected authority were used and abused
in every instance against residents of our town.
town resources and elected authority were used and abused
in every instance against residents of our town.
Insurance indemnification of almost $845,000. has been used to defend the conduct. Resulting in increased premiums of 41% in succeeding years. And nothing done by the immediate past Council to prevent the flow.
Responding to a correction of my last post; I believe
the sole affidavit of evidence in support of the SLAPP action was filed by then Town Solicitor Christopher Cooper.
the sole affidavit of evidence in support of the SLAPP action was filed by then Town Solicitor Christopher Cooper.
A Statement of Claim is documentation filed by legal counsel on behalf of the litigant.
The last Council, when elected , voted to pay fees of $45,000. for the SLAPP on advice from George Rust D'Eye. Which advice cost $8,000.
My own was another one of those solitary votes in opposition.
A further suit by the former Mayor claimed additional $250,000 and as far as we know, the town is still footing legal bills to deal with the matter in a court in Waterloo.
We are talking here of millions of tax dollars used in acts of
malicious intent paid for directly and indirectly from town
revenues. With the repeated and vehement avowal of the former Mayor that none of my money would be used"
malicious intent paid for directly and indirectly from town
revenues. With the repeated and vehement avowal of the former Mayor that none of my money would be used"
Taxes collected from hard-pressed homeowners could never have been intended to be used that way.
It took former City Councillor Doug Holyday in the last term, to litigate against Toronto with his own funds to stop tax resources from being so used in the city.
How do you rationalize the costs incurred by the Town in the wake of your litigation?
ReplyDeleteI checked out the place to which the former solicitor went when he left the town'e employ.
ReplyDeleteIt was actually quite funny but I am not risking Evelyn by posting it here.
Looks like you have us all well-trained, /Evelyn. The food fights tend to stick to one strain.
ReplyDelete
ReplyDeleteThis endless rehash is terribly depressing.
Let's switch over to the rebirth of our plants, flowers and trees and the sound of lawnmowers.
Yeh...if Justin gets it done we can grow it at the old Hallmark and roll a big fatty and sing the Flinstones theme.
Delete20:24, endless rehash is always on the menu of this digital diner.
ReplyDeleteSure...as our tax $'s are being squandered each and every day.
ReplyDelete20:24
ReplyDelete"Endless rehash"? Come on, that is the sole purpose of this blog. The endless rehash of the glories of the past.
I do not mind the sound of lawn mowers but would cheerfully strangle the inventor of leaf blowers which we now seem to have all year . My neighbour was blowing dust particles off his driveway yesterday.
ReplyDelete@17:21, why does Evelyn have to rationalize anything? She is the injured party, she exercises her right to seek a remedy from those individuals that caused the damage, THEY hide behind the town's insurance, and you expect Evelyn to have to rationalize?
ReplyDeleteI doubt the sincerity of your question.
It was completely sincere, KA-NON. Do you not think that a self-proclaimed champion of the taxpayer causing those same taxpayers extra expense isn't contradictory? Do you not see the conflict involved in choosing personal litigation while knowing the ramifications on those you were elected to represent.
ReplyDeleteThe insurance company show-and-tell, as orchestrated by the mayor and his deputy just before the election, exposed the hypocrisy of our moderator's position. I believe it was a major contributing factor in her downfall at the polls.
KA-NON
ReplyDeleteI am not 17:21, but I agree that his/her question has some validity.
THEY are not hiding behind the town's insurance. That coverage is automatic. As someone being sued, you would expect two things. One, to prove innocence and Two, to not have to pay for any expenses if at all possible.
You don't have to like the people involved, but that is the system and they are using it to the full extent.
Evelyn has chosen to sue them, she has had opportunity to settle but continues on. She ran her campaigns on saving money for the tax payer. This does exactly the opposite. She needs to rationalize that for me. That is why she did not receive my vote last fall.
12:20
ReplyDeleteNice try but I would call you on that.
You did not vote for Evelyn because you had no intention of doing it, Ever. No amount of rationalizing can explain your lack of an empathy button.
12:20- "she has had opportunity to settle but continues on"...and you know this how? From what I understand there wasn't even an apology that was offered.
ReplyDelete12:57
ReplyDeleteWhy would I vote with empathy? I vote for higher vaoues than that.
So, 12:57, rather than address the incongruity of our host's position, you call 12:20 a liar.
ReplyDeleteAs has been stated, seeking legal redress is entirely ex-Councillor Buck's right. But when you've long preached a platform of watching the public's pennies, it can't help but harm your reputation to launch litigation for personal gain that will cause extra expense to the taxpayers.
That stance does beg rationalization, justification, or merely explanation. Many voters must have thought so, too.
@11:43
ReplyDeleteAccepting your declaration of sincerity, I am led to what should be an obvious conclusion to all regarding your intelligence.
If you really think that someone who exercises their right as a free Canadian citizen to defend themselves against mean-spirited, defamatory actions (both spoken and in print) CAUSES the associated expenses of the defense, then I am afraid that there is not much point in taking the debate with you any further.
As my Dad always told me, never get in to a pissing match with a skunk.
'a pissing match with the skunk', you can always pick skunk up, he will not do anything, maybe peck you in the nose ;).
ReplyDelete8:52
ReplyDeleteLeave it, KA-NON,
Without access to Evelyn's blog, it is nothing but a puff of hot air and attitude.
You do realize, 11:27, that comments are getting through from more than one critic of our moderator.
ReplyDelete15:42
ReplyDeleteBut there is only one consistent irritant that is extremely jealous of all the attention generated by Aurora' blogs.
Rubbish, 20:25!
ReplyDelete