Monday, 1 June 2015

TO BE PRECISE

The legal saga  is in its seventh year. The sixth anniversary passed  on Citizen Awards Night. On that night in 2009 ,six  individuals went behind closed doors at the Town Hall and made the decision to retain and instruct legal counsel at public expense, to read  two of my blogs and interpret  same..

I started writing the blog for communication in August 2007 when it became apparent equal pportunity at Council would be sparse.

A majority slate had been elected in 2006 . Three others had no Council experience and had yet to discover what was what.

I was the odd one out.

 But I had a computer, a sense of it's potential and necessity became the mother of invention.

The Blog began.  Tentatively at first.

It was a paradigm shift. 

As a  veteran of fifty years, I am no stranger to political battles . I seldom back away.

But ... Duelling with a lawyer  is hardly an equal footing.

 I didn't start it.

Now the decision is pending.

I appreciate the continued interest but I still can't talk about it. 
at

18 comments:

  1. Anonymous1 June 2015 at 13:27

    It does get more and more strange by the day. Do take care.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Anonymous1 June 2015 at 15:31

    It doesn't really seem fair. The residue can meet for a beer and exchange stories about dealing with the terrible councillor. And you have to keep silent......

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous2 June 2015 at 09:03

      Yes thats what they do, and what about that poor man they went after over and over. You know whom I speak of.They did not deserve that and are still being punished.

      Delete
  3. No Fantasy Parks1 June 2015 at 15:47

    John Mac RE:Webster house SOLD.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Anonymous1 June 2015 at 23:09

    Suing was your choice.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Anonymous1 June 2015 at 23:57

    15:47
    Lovely stuff ! As long as it ain't to the town,

    ReplyDelete
  6. Anonymous2 June 2015 at 08:08

    15:31

    Evelyn has already stated that she was the odd one out. The other can meet for a beer and exchange stories because they share a common situation - good against evil. You can decide who falls on which side of that.

    I really doubt however that any of them get together for a beer. I know one of them personally and outside of the confines of the Town Hall, they are a completely different person. The only thing that they had in common was the council table.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Anonymous2 June 2015 at 11:00

    8:08
    Are you suggesting that it was being on council that made them hunt like a pack after a single individual as well as three residents of the town associated with another Blog they found offensive ?

    ReplyDelete
  8. Anonymous2 June 2015 at 11:33

    Hope you never have to 23:09

    ReplyDelete
  9. Anonymous2 June 2015 at 11:35

    9:03- Who would that be?

    ReplyDelete
  10. Anonymous2 June 2015 at 11:43

    @ 8:08
    What flavour was your kool aid ?

    ReplyDelete
  11. Anonymous3 June 2015 at 11:18

    That's the whole point, 11:33. No one 'has to' - particularly when the case isn't based on business. This one is seemingly about a perceived loss of reputation. Pursuing litigation is a choice.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Anonymous3 June 2015 at 13:57

    11:18
    So was the so-called defamation thingee. Did you have a point other than you disagree ?

    ReplyDelete
  13. Anonymous3 June 2015 at 15:45

    @11:18
    Why do you persist in arguing that the term as business as usual ? The same tired refrain. None of us had seen anything like it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous3 June 2015 at 17:56

      It was truely shocking a.nd not by Ev.

      Delete
  14. Anonymous3 June 2015 at 17:49

    I witnessed the way evelyn was treated on live TV many times. God only knows what was going on when the Camara wasn't rolling! There were times I wanted to jump in my car and head over there, but didn't because I would have made matters worse. It was discusting.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Anonymous3 June 2015 at 19:15

    I agree with you both, 13:57 and 15:45. The "so-called defamation thingee" was also a choice, and WRONG on every level you can think of. Also, the 2006-10 term was the worst ever; I'm not arguing that it was "business as usual." It was our long municipal nightmare.

    I'm as vehemently anti-Mormac as many of you here (although, thankfully, the passage of time renders them further into irrelevance), but that doesn't make me an automatic supporter of former-Cllr Buck. It is not, as many of you seem to think, an either/or proposition. Fault can be found in all camps - I see no righteous side, particularly not in the wake of that term.

    The point is - again - that commencing litigation is a choice. There is no obligation, however aggrieved a party may feel, to go down that (legal) road. A quest for vindication can be seen as pursuing a vendetta. One person's crusade is another's tit-for-tat.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Anonymous3 June 2015 at 22:07

    "It can be seen as pursuing a vendetta?" That's not the way I see it at all. And I'm sure the judge won't either. Stay strong Ev.

    ReplyDelete

If you've got a comment, this is the place to leave it for me. Please feel free to leave your name, or even just an email address if you'd like a response. You can also email me directly.