"Cowardice asks the question...is it safe? Expediency asks the question...is it politic? Vanity asks the question...is it popular? But conscience asks the question...is it right? And there comes a time when one must take a position that is neither safe, nor politic, nor popular but one must take it because it is right." ~Dr. Martin Luther King

Sunday 31 January 2016


Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "THE PUZZLE ALWAYS COMES TOGETHER": 

Evelyn, in the post that you deleted you mentioned something about a $100,000 payout. May I ask, who is being made to pay $100,000 to whom?: 

Posted by Anonymous to  Our Town and Its Business at 28 January 2016 at 15:04


According to the last communication from the defendants counsel  payment to settle costs  will be 
received by  Phyllis Morris ,Evalina MacEachern,Wendy Gaertner ,Stephen Granger, Al Wilson and John Gallo  $100,000.  

The defamatory statement ,written by a lawyer, signed by the above named , read into the public record ,posted on the town's world wide web site where it remained for sixteen months and published in two newspapers  was all paid for with tax dollars....yours and mine .

After five years and  completion of a five week long trial, instead of instructing the jury  the judge  dismissed  them instead and allowed the defendants to change their defence, on paper, no public process, no witnesses called , no cross examination. Authority to do what they did was argued. 

Previous defense before the jury was that I am a person motivated entirely by greed and my objective was to obtain a legacy for my children. 
Nineteen  months  later  in inquiry at the court, the file was described by court employees as stagnant; 
stored  in the archives 

Finally , a thirty-nIne page decision, singularly lacking in judicial reasoning  was delivered. 

The complaint  was dismissed,  ruled  more or less  on the new defence of authority  to publish and broadcast world wide a  signed statement of recrimination against myself. 

A claim for  defendants's costs was forwarded in an area of $429,000. 

My decision was to process a certificate to appeal the decision. 

Failure to act could have meant  seizure of  my home  and  assets frozen. 

The final agreement was to withdraw the appeal and pay  $100,000. 

The last communication spelled out  names of the defendants as recipients of the settlement.  

On September 9th 2014, a Vice President of the town's insurance company appeared as an invited delegate at a Council meeting. He  disclosed  $840,000. had been expended on behalf of the defendants of the litigation. 

He also informed Council the normal process was for defendants to settle without a trial. 

Insurance premiums were increased  that  year by 30% to recover the outlay. 

The town's policy premiums  are paid from the town treasury. 

From taxes...yours and mine. 

My legal  counsel has advised, the defendants will not receive the  settlement fee of $100,000.
March 26th  is the deadline for payment. 

Whatever....a question remains....

Saturday 30 January 2016


I Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "THE PUZZLE ALWAYS COMES TOGETHER": 

Attending the same educational facilities may be a part of it, but very small. A lot of it has to do with party affiliation. All judges are appointed by the government of the day, and judges used to be lawyers. 

Posted by Anonymous to  Our Town and Its Business at 28 January 2016 at 20:15


They were not sued as Councillors. The complaint included Abuse of Authority...Abuse of Public Resources...an denial of Charter Rights. No elected representative at any level has authority to do 
what they did.

The  above comment suggests a connection between judges,lawyers politicians and family connections and echoes several comments about  an  "Old Boys CLub"

I always considered the justice system in a class removed from politics. If I hadn't lived so long, I would have gone to my grave with the illusion intact despite all the signs and portents.

Being a  municipal councillor provides a glimpse into many sectors of society. Like a fly on the wall. 

The hospital board gives a glimpse into medical association politics

Similarly the  Public Health Board 

The list is extensive. Police Services board , Fire Protection Committee...etc.etc.

All are fiefdoms with associations and executives elected to promote,protect and advance the interest of members.The larger the membership,the greater the political clout. 

In municipal, provincial and federal elections, support is hawked about to the highest bidder.

The police discipline code prohibits members  from promoting a party or candidate but they get around that by naming a separate organisation for the purpose.

Early on I chaired the police committee of  Aurora . I attended the annual conference of Police Governing Authorities  in Toronto and was elected to the executive for the next term.I always had an opinion to express.

Half the executive were Judges from cities in Ontario the other half council  members.

Except for C.O.Bick of Toronto. He was an optometrist with the title of Magistrate  to fit the status of Chair of Toronto Police Commission. 

 Regions were created and Judges chaired all regional boards. For a time. 

A provincial study by the Ontario Police Commission, (a body similar to the Ontario Water Resources Authority , the Ontario Municipal Board, arm's length and  a-political ) concluded the affinity between judges and police created a conflict. Judges were no longer appointed to chair police governing authorities, 

York Region had the last judge /chairman when I was  a member of the Police Governing Authority. He continued until retirement from the judiciary at seventy-five . He refused to cast a vote on any matter before the board .He was quite the fashion dandy and enjoyed sharing tidbits of  luxurious vacations and his personal lifestyle with board and administrative members. 

I re-call that aspect of his conduct because I was surprised by it and little else was remarkable. 

It's a dead giveaway. 

Friday 29 January 2016


Last week Sean Penn was a guest with Charlie Rose. The interview was two hours, spread over two shows. At the start  of the second ,Charlie stated the previous hour had been watched by the  largest audience of any in T.V.history. Twenty million people ,world-wide had watched . 

Sean Penn had interviewed a Mexican drug lord.... in hiding after a peculiar escape from a Mexican jail... The actor wrote a five-thousand word article for Rolling  Stone magazine and came under considerable criticism for his effort.  

Charlie Rose was merciless in his challenge. 

Why did you do it ? What was your objective .....were questions repeated over and over. The answer was strong and consistent. 

The decades long, government multi-million dollar war on drugs is a failure. Thousands have died and hundreds of thousands more are in jail. Still the government does not turn attention to the demand for drugs. All sectors of society are tragically affected. Society is complicit in the problem. 

The actor felt his objective had failed. Public attention focussed elsewhere. 

The interaction between host and guest was great television. Intense  drama about a major problem growing worse. 

Most interesting for me was that, Mr. Penn's claim he  does not attempt to provide answers. He does not tell readers what to think. 

He sets out what he has learned and leaves it to readers to form an independent conclusion.

As information grows and changes, conclusions evolve and solutions can adapt.

How simple and sensible is that ?

I take  great comfort from the logic . Despite that  Mr. Penn declared his objective had  failed. 

Watching the  bad reality  show passing for the Republican Presidential nomination and similar puerile political  performances  closer to home ,one might easily despair .

The beacon of light from the earnest endeavor of Sean Penn, Charlie Rose  and a growing number of others like them is enough to give us hope. 

Thursday 28 January 2016


Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "FALSE START": 

12:05.. Who's importance is being inflated? The plaintiff or defendant? Perhaps both. 

Posted by Anonymous to  Our Town and Its Business at 28 January 2016 at 08:48


And perhaps neither. 

Much  of my time  is spent with left foot elevated on a stool  to minimize swelling and 
discomfort. My attention is diverted by the birds,chipmunks and squirrels feasting from the cornucopia of seeds and cornmeal spread out on a table ,a bird feeder and the railings of my deck by Heather.

Stephanie's old lab Mickey goes in an out, He sits on the edge of the deck gazing upon his territory,
 raising his nose to the wind occasionally, nostrils trembling with the hint of something or other. 

CJ the calico cat has equal opportunity to exit but doesn't always. He sniffs the air and decides when discretion is the better part of valour.

Cardinals are never so brilliant as with winter contrast of fresh snow, ice blue skies and dark cedar green hedges. Young males are tall and slim and even more brilliant in their new red plumage.

A blue jay came to visit a couple of weeks ago. Big and handsome and startling blue. He did not return. someone else is probably feeding him peanuts. 

The squirrels' acrobatics are entertaining to watch. But the food isn't intended  for them. And  they're so greedy. No matter how much they eat, it never seems to be enough.

Half a dozen mourning doves came to visit a couple of times  and clustered  in a corner  and a pair of mangy starlings also check in now and then. . Gold finches too have made a single appearance. All other little domestic birds gather in numbers  and appear to be very fine and healthy
 and enjoying the mild winter. 

I listen to a T.V. expert telling me how wildlife is dying out in the urbanization and climate change and look out my window and watch the complete opposite happening. 

It reminds me of how  legendary English gardens faded when coal  burning stopped because  choking fog was killing people  from the chemicals  in the atmosphere be fire they washed ceased down into the soil.

Contradictions exist everywhere . 

This is true . But this is also true. Weight of evidence is critical. Or not. Depending on judgement exercised. 

Our current conversation is focused on Ontario Justice Mark Edward's  decision and trying to make sense of it. 

Yesterday I struggled with the concept of "an Old Boys' Club" at work. Tangled myself  in knots and abandoned that  angle. 

There was no such local  network backing Morris and her friends. It's not the answer.

But there is an answer. 

Wednesday 27 January 2016


Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "FACTS IN EVIDENCE": 

The loss was because of a technicality. Even if a jury found in your favour, it wouldn't have been over. Somehow some way they would have found something to dismiss or overturn this case. Your win would have set precedent for future litigation with future politicians. There is no way they could have let that happen.  

Posted by Anonymous to  Our Town and Its Business at 24 January 2016 at 22:08


I took yesterday's post down. Comments had been made about an "Old Boys' club"  I couldn't make the connection so I was trying to prove a negative. That gets confusing. Editing did not improve . So it was removed 

I've thought before the only way to uncover all that happened in the Mormac years and since would be a judicial inquiry. The cost  would be in the millions. Benefit from the process  is not always commensurate.  

 Former  Prime Minister Paul Martin launched an inquiry into the federal sponsorship scandal. The tab was over $20 million.

The most remarkable thing about it was the clash of arrogance  between the Justice  inquiring and former Prime Minister Jean Chretien. The display was not illuminating. It did not reflect well on either party. 

Toronto had Madam Justice Bellamy inquire into the computer scandal. I believe the price tag  was $14 million. One recommendation that came out of it was  permissive legislation from the Province  allowing municipalities to adopt  a Code of Conduct and appoint an  Integrity  Commissioner to adjudicate complaints. 

Mississauga had their own inquiry costing millions in double digits. Nothing came of that. 

Toronto Councillors have an allowance of $20. thousand to retain legal counsel in their defence. The Integrity Commissioner has  independence to adjudicate with objectivity.

The  same cannot be said for the Aurora experience. 

We will have our conversation. 

 be said for 

Sunday 24 January 2016


Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "IN TERMS OF RELATIVITY": 

Good or bad, your reputation wasn't affected by your treatment at the hands of MorMac. With your lawsuit, you sought retribution and punishment, but it was easy to see that you were on a hiding or nothing.

Posted by Anonymous to  Our Town and Its Business at 23 January 2016 at 16:04


I sought no such thing.

In July 2009 , a defamatory statement about my conduct as a Councillor was read into the public record of a Council meeting. 

In May ,Public resources ($43,000) had been used used to retain a lawyer to fabricate a complaint and write a statement for publication. 

Town staff were directed to place the statement in two local newspapers. Carefully  contrived to look like  a Statement from the town and  paid for with town resources. 

The Statement was posted on the town website. Where it stayed from July 2009 until December 2010.

in August 2009 ,the Integrity Commissioner appointed to receive, investigate  and adjudicate complaints, dismissed the complaint. The Commissioner determined the complaint to be purely political. 

The defamatory statement could have been retracted upon receipt of notice of intent to litigate.

But with free access to town coffers ,without checks or balances, even after their defeat from office, they makntained the allegations.

Six names were cited in my claim. The municipality was not the defendant. 

The law extends the right to a complainant the right to  a jury 

 As I always have,  I placed  my  faith on the judgement of people. 

As part of their civic duty ,The jury sat to the end of  a five week trial  .

They were denied the right to make the decision. 

I was denied the right to their decision. 

Friday 22 January 2016


Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "NOTHING CAN BE TAKEN FOR GRANTED": 

Are you alright?

Posted by Anonymous to  Our Town and Its Business at 21 January 2016 at 20:30


Alright is a relative term.  Four weeks of intravenous anti-biotics has brought infection in my leg almost 
under control.

More needs to be done.

My frame of mind does not improve.

 I don't sleep . In the deep hours of darkness my thoughts are morbid .I contemplate a short stroll on a railway track ,immediately ahead of a train. I wouldn't of course. My family, friends and supporters and railway employees deserve more of me. 

But in all practicality, it seems the  alternatives are grim

Homelessness is a real possibility.

 Loss of independence is inevitable. 

Becoming  a liability to my family is unthinkable. 

What a group of short-term politicians were unable to carry out was accomplished by a judge who proved amazingly accommodating to their original intent. 

My traumatic experience with the Ontario justice system may have been the greatest shock to my belief in a just society. 

Fairness and objectivity were entirely lacking in the litigation process. 

To say nothing at all about judicial reasoning. 

Wednesday 13 January 2016


Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "IT'S A FRAME OF MIND": 

Sorry, but I am not shedding a tear for her or anyone else that might be involved. If records were handled in accordance with what I am sure must be clear written directives of the government and she can demonstrate this she need not worry.  

Posted by Anonymous to  Our Town and Its Business at 11 January 2016 at 12:39


 The comment pays little attention to the mode of modern politics.

The charge  against Laurie Miller. is Breach of Trust....destruction of  public records.

Why were the records destroyed?  Who gave the order?

Who benefited from destruction of evidence? 

Laurie Millar was an employee in The Premier's office. Did she make the decision to cancel  power generation plants  projects already under construction? 

Who benefitted?

Why did the O.P.P. Officer who announced the charges against Laurie Millar and the senior manager feel  compelled to exonerate the former Premier of any wrong- doing? Why was that his responsibility?

In the last term served by Mr.  McGuinty, TheHonorable Dwight Duncan was Deputy -Premier and held several senior portfolios including Chair of Management Board. 

He had previously served as M.P. In Liberal Opposition at the Federal level where he also held senior responsibilities. He was elected from a  traditional historical  Liberal bastion in Windsor.

Mr. Duncan did not put his name forward  after the decisions to cancel the gas generation plants in Burlington and Missuassaga on the eve of the previous election. 

The Minister had much to contribute  at the time of his exit from politics. He offered no explanation. Simply  a  sad and sober warning  the province was facing serious problems. 

When  criminal charges were announced against Laurie Millar, McGuinty's employee, crowd-funding was  announced for the  defence. 

Dwight Duncan was named as contributor .

The story has been a long time  on the radar. 

An investigation was by the Ontario Provincial Police.the government investigated itself. 

Another government department will decide if evidence is sufficient to prosecute the charge.

A  provincially appointed judge will be selected to preside.

It may be a jury trial. But not necessarily a jury decision. 

The judge has authority to take away the  rightmost jury decision.

For whatever spurious reasons he may contrive. 

It cannot be concluded that right will prevail. 

Our Province has changed.

Monday 11 January 2016


I've never had difficulty finding a thought worth expressing.. My  last three weeks have been pre-occupied  with a health episode,  the details of which contribute nothing of interest. Sharing is not always conducive to well-being. 
The world around us, since before Christmas, offers no pleasing distraction. 

Days turn into weeks and nothing lifts the fugue. With the exception, perhaps, of the Fantasy Hollywod Industry.

More  news than enough is negative. So much .... It would be hard to choose an issue. 

Political pronouncements are fast and facile .

Floods,fires and landslides are sweeping people's lives away and millions are in retreat from man's inhumanity to man. 

Even at the higher levels of our  so-called civilization, no-one is secure from cruel injustice at the hands of others.  

Laurie Miller  comes to mind.  A young woman of thirty-six  who has had the misfortune of being Associate Chief of Staff In  Premier Dalton McGuinty's office when he decided to cancel two  gas generation plants on the eve of an election .The decision generated inappropriate spending of $1.2 billion dollars of public resources for purely political purpose. 

Ms Miller is charged with Breach of Trust for destroying public records .A charge that could result in a
ten year jail sentence. 

The  Senior O.P.P. Officer, in making  the announcement,volunteered the gratuitous information the investigation uncovered nothing to implicate  Mr. McGuinty  in wrong doing.

Since destruction of records appears to be a fact, guilt or innocence on the part of Mr. MCGuinty would obviously have been difficult to prove or disprove. One might even conclude ,destruction of the records would be for the purpose of destroying evidence in that specific regard. 

But never mind. ... a Senior  Officer, resplendent in uniform of the Ontario Provincial Police,conducting  a formal media release ..... carries  a level of gravitas that tends to obscure such   pesky inconvenient details.  

I have to read the reports for media reaction and further details.

The devastation of  Laurie Miller's life hardly caught a ripple in the post -Christmas news.

 I haven't had the stomach to delve into it yet.