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The defamatory statement could have been retracted upon receipt of notice of intent to litigate.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.
I see your troll is still here, Evelyn. Pity, that. There was a slight hope that it might find another rock.
ReplyDeleteThe 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.
ReplyDelete
ReplyDeleteI suppose we all hold the belief that a court will decide based upon the law and the supporting facts. Indeed, we expect a high standard for the presentation of the truth. Examination under oath, the right of cross examination and the rejection of hearsay. We trust that a court is the highest standard, unlike quasi judicial boards such as the OMB and other boards of appeal.
Certainly, a reasonable person (read Aurora citizen) would have expected this matter to have been dealt with in a reasonable time. The matter is not complicated. It requires that all of the important elements be presented to the court in a truthful manner and that a judge or jury make a decision.
We will likely never know if the judge had some sort of bias or was delaying the matter for some reason. I had the sense, and it is only speculation, that the matter was delayed until after the municipal election.
22:08
ReplyDeleteThe Old Boys Network couldn't have handled it.
10:03 Simple and to the point, and probably correct.
ReplyDeleteI like it.
11:16, 10:03, 10:00 (you are probably all the same person)....
ReplyDeleteThe reality is that the suit was an exercise perpetuated by someone who never thinks that they are wrong and who's ego was inflated.
It's too bad your lawyers and family did not advise you to not go down this path... maybe they did and you felt that you were right.
There is no "old boys club" at work here. It was just common sense.
Whatever "Old Boys Network" you may think is in existence, it would also be anti-MorMac.
ReplyDeleteMasons?
Delete@12:06
ReplyDeleteMy comment was at 10:03.
Your suggestion about double postings is therefore rejected.
And your history on this blog has you responding to your own posts.
If you do not understand about the Old Boys Network, that cannot be remedied.
ReplyDeleteThere are networks of old boys, old girls, old transgendered people.
So what.
There are networks of red Tories, pink Liberals, ecumenical right wing whacko Republicans, anti and pro abortionists, Democrats for the Lord.
None of this is new or even unusual.
It's simply a reflection of our humanity.
No, 12:14. That is incorrect. I refer you to 22:08.
ReplyDelete16:58 - How sad when in this society when we have to refer to our judicial system as a game. But it truly is just that. A game where the rules change depending on who you are.
ReplyDelete19:57 The civil legal process is a game very much like the game that Ms Buck likes to think politics is.
ReplyDeleteIf you play game, you have to be aware that you could loose.
09:32 - Politics is a game, there is no "like" about it. And with all games, there are winners and losers. It's sad when these games are played with taxpayers money.
ReplyDelete@9.32
ReplyDeleteOf course one can lose but that was a particularly blatant example of bias.