For a guy who won a court case that threatened to force peace bond conditions on him that could have severely restricted his access to City Hall for another year, Donald Barber doesn't seem like a very happy man.
And it's not because his "victory" occurred on Valentine's Day, the 87th birthday of Her Official Nemesis, either.
No, Barber is not happy about the process that stole a couple of years out of his life and prevented him from fulfilling his self-appointed task as Official Watchdog of Hazel McCallion and the Great State of Mississauga.
"I guess I am happy with the outcome, but I'm incredibly disappointed in the process," says the four-time mayoralty candidate. "It leaves the door open for this to happen to other people."
Even though criminal charges of assault were dropped by the Crown last November, another three days of court time were spent trying to determine if Barber should be limited in his contact with the female security guard at City Hall he was accused of assaulting, and whether he should be restricted in his access to councillors and municipal staff.
Barber claims that the charges against him were "an act of terrorism" reflecting City Hall's distaste for anyone who dares to question the first draft of history being scripted every day at 300 City Centre Dr.
"They were trying to make me so fearful that I would never again go to City Hall," says the founder of the Friends of Cawthra Bush.
It would been very nice if the court hearing would have clarified what happened that June 7, 2006 at City Hall, but that did not happen.
You'll recall that Barber and Roy Willis both questioned an apparent change in long-standing council practice that day, which effectively did away with a citizen's right to stand up during public question period and make a query on any subject.
Barber's story is that he went to the clerk's office after being physically escorted from the council chambers. The security guards were following closely behind him. He went to get on the elevator, then remembered an earlier incident where he claims he was pushed into the elevator by the guards. He turned on a dime, stepping on the foot of the female guard.
Then Barber took the stairs from the third to the first floor but went too far and ended up in a dead-end. There is a distinct difference of opinion about how much contact there was when Barber turned around to go back up the stairs, past the guards, the way he had come.
The female guard testified that she received a two-handed shove from the resident activist who "walked through me like I was a ghost."
Interestingly enough, the male security guard who was part of the events of that day never got to tell his story. He wasn't put on the stand by the Crown. A strong disagreement between Barber and his lawyer, another former Mississauga mayoralty candidate, Jim Girvin, prompted Girvin to tell the court he could no longer follow his client's instructions.
Barber wanted the security guard forced to testify and his lawyer didn't necessarily agree.
Barber also asked to make comments directly to the court at the end of the hearing, which prompted another schism between client and lawyer. Barber says that when Girvin refused to fax in his remarks, he made his own submissions.
The justice sounded a might peeved about the process himself when he delivered his verdict.
Turns out no evidence about the substance of Barber's original presentation to council — which was obviously relevant to all the antics which followed — was ever provided to him.
The justice said he had no doubt that both the security guard and Barber probably truly believed their quite-remarkably different versions of events, given the charged atmosphere. But just because City council makes a decision that you really don't like, doesn't give one the right to "vent at those around them," he said.
On the other hand, the judge was undoubtedly influenced by the fact that the security guards never called police after the alleged assault. In fact, testimony indicated that Barber was escorted from the council chambers even though the chair of the meeting (the mayor) never ordered him removed, which is the proper procedure.
The justice noted that Barber had abided by the bail conditions that were imposed as a result of the initial assault charge and which would have been substantially similar to the peace bond strictures. He has no record of violence. City Solicitor Mary Ellen Bench has already warned him that additional trespassing bans against him may be issued, "should you engage in similar action causing disturbance on City premises in future."
All of those factors added up to erring on the side of caution in a case of one person's word against another, the justice ruled.
The message for Mr. Barber is quite clear: consider yourself scolded and keep your nose clean in future.
Mr. Barber is quite used to being scolded by the powers that be. He will be emboldened, not chastened, by his latest brush with officialdom.
If what does not crush you makes you stronger, council had better be prepared for an even feistier version of Donald Barber.
A non-peace bond may have just been issued.
Comments (8)
Hey there, John.
The Muse here again.
This is for The Donald.
HEY DON! (Wayne) You're gonna love this.
This Wednesday Mississauga Council is handing out its 2008 Corporate Awards.
And ONE award (wipes tears of laughter from eyes) the "Leadership and Empowerment" award, is going to Mississauga (City) Corporate Security!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHA oh man that's perfect.
I guess it was only logical. If they keep no records, how can anyone prove they're anything but "Trust, Quality, Excellence" exemplary?
And get this. I dropped down a Freedom of Information the last time Mississauga Corporate Security nominated itself for the City Manager's Award.
All you get back is a blank sheet with scribbling on it explaining why everything's blank (privacy for the staff nominated).
Funniest of all is Joe Chin's MissyNews article on the Mississauga Crime Prevention Association morphing into a new name (same secretive shadowy organization).
Headline. Ready?
"Improved crime-fighting group rises from the ashes"
Of COURSE, it's "improved". Because saying it makes it so.
Here's the best part. Just don't be sipping coffee or slurping soup.
OK, at a time when both Don and I have called for a "broad disclosure" or Mississauga Corporate Security operations, we find this in the Mississauga News.
"accountability and transparency"
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.
From the "ashes" of the old MCPA "accountability and transparency".
BTW, more opportunity for laughter. Last week I emailed Saito, Mahoney, Parrish and McFadden and told them I wanted to be a citizen-rep and to send me an application form.
Now remember. I'm certain that the existing citizens in both the former MCPA and Violence/Vandalism group have no idea how Mississauga Corporate Security works.
Here's why. Because if they did, then I'd have to conclude that they approve.
Don't know what to do for Wednesday though. It's vital I hold fact to the Observer Role until all my FOI's are completed.
We'll see...
Trust Quality Excellence Tra LA!
Posted by The Mississauga Muse | February 25, 2008 7:57 PM
Posted on February 25, 2008 19:57
Response to Muse’s Feb. 20 comments.
Ah - Grasshopper you have not snatched the stone from the hand, yet.
The inter workings of the world of political correct double speak is very hard to master - not just in recognizing it is being used but its many forms and what to do about it. Humans are social animals, so politics is the air we breath, to believe otherwise is a double-think delusion.
Judge “Blacklock, he took over the trial from a former judge. So he had to play catch-up”, not really true. As there was no trial, all evidence was flushed and the Peace Bond started completely fresh with nothing before the Judge but what the Crown and Defence presented, so no catch-up.
Muse notes “Justice Blacklock's "politics" is one of fairness”, I would not agree and from what I could see or rather hear, he would have convicted me in a trial. The Judge’s statement “vent at those around them,”, stands out and when have the transcript the correct wording can be used. The point I was making was there was no real basis for that comment, it should be seen as a political perception based on fragments of facts that the Judge should have known it be unwise to make such a speculation on. In reality people filter the input by their senses and often a political point of view will be used to “understand” what they are being made aware of and how to interpret how threatening or not events are. There is also what is called “fill-in”, most often use with sounds or audio signals, where you don’t hear or understand perfectly right away so the mind quickly decides what most likely was said. A person of the right wing will see any effort at questioning or standing up for a Canadian’s Charter rights as wrong and threatening, even more so when it involves government guards, unless there is overwhelming proof otherwise. A bias in favour of protecting government and those protecting government, a key indicator of the right and the of the left, it was best sadi by Voltaire "I may disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.". A person of the right wing is also bolder in putting froward their understand as truth, knowing it can sway many who don’t want to think for themselves or bother with spending the time with discovering the facts for themselves, especially when it comes from on high or forcefully. Knowing this, one looks for statements that are exaggerations as they lack factual basis, so read between the lines - in this case, view the video again.
At this point it is important to note two things. One I have spent many years working in politics, with political parties, public speaking, running for public office and as you would say learning the trade. So I understand how political statements are crafted by what is included, what was left out AND why they are made. Second, a person must know how the same event can be reported to show different political or no political views or basis. If a person can’t do that - well it is like the old saying “If you don’t stand for something - you will fall for anything.”
The Muse goes on to say “That man (Judge) had one difficult time up there wrestling with the right thing to do.” A left wing judge would have no such problem at all. If there is no clear proof and in this case great effort was made to blind the eyes of the Justice by withholding existing evidence, then the Judge must, in the defence of the highest law of the land, the Charter and Canadians Democratic Rights, must if anything error on the side of caution. While making it perfectly clear the cases such as mine should not be presented to the Courts as they undermine the public faith in the administration of Justice in Canada.
My greatest criticism is that the Judge was so silent on my Canadian Charter Rights or Canadians in general.
"City staff have told me how those who do dirty deeds for the City get ahead in City culture."
Specific people have come to me and presented very detailed stories about what happens inside City hall.
Again, efforts to seek help by way of making them public in the “Missing News”, does not happen.
The Muse following statements are starting to show she is getting to the point where she misses the good old days, where ignorance is bliss.
“That people DO get the government they deserve.”
“I'm developing a growing conviction that people deserve governments that treat them with this much contempt.”
I think the current crop of so-called adults deserve to be hit by the fright train of their own stupidity, lack of being political involved, in denial about the reality they have created by their actions & inactions and being environmental wise BUT what will be left of the world after that?
And what will the children have to build on?
A City like Mississauga is falling apart as it was not built to stand the test of time or a future we knew was coming - too many reasons to list here.
We got where we are now because we didn’t know how to identify or tell the difference between facts and political rhetoric (fantasy), in all its many forms. We wanted to live like mushrooms but would never admit to it as it was politically incorrect to tell the truth.
Posted by Donald Barber | February 23, 2008 8:47 PM
Posted on February 23, 2008 20:47
As Ursula must have noticed the same routine last June 21 from the regional PPAG Dental delegation, Mrs. Hazel McCallion passionately avoids sharing her personnel city space with the same constituents her Ontario Work’s in Peel people have seriously welshed out of food, clothes and vital essentials, house and home, Canada Revenue T-4 slips and the HRDC Records of Employment verifying our Occupational Codes when “Pooling” and new personnel tax increases came in thru the auspices of Duggan Harvey and Associates.
Carolyn Parrish’s article on Ernie Eve’s friends up in Caledon are in reference to the same firm that was facilitating the shut down of aerospace and military skills trades jobs under Brian Mulroney in 1899 that was attached into the Mississauga property tax base by Mike Harris in 1997 in follow up to the John Stewart, June 1996 article regarding David Szwarc’s Employment Services Group(s) .
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k7t2eK0P4IA (Time line 28 – 32 & 2:15 – 2:20, 2:37 -2:40 of 4:31 )
Tuesday, January 29 2002, Hazel’s official letter reads nothing more than mere garbage to obfuscate and seeks to confuse the general public because Peel Region’s own public salary disclosers pages 10 and 82 of 101 clarifies, Janice Baker pulls off $232,946.42 and $5,245.82 a year salary equivalent to David Szwarc’s $222,533.43 and $15,382.46 of public trust in compensation to over see the same programs Brian Mulroney and Karlheinz Schreiber were using to stash in their private safety security deposit boxes.
http://www.fin.gov.on.ca/english/publications/salarydisclosure/2007/munic07.pdf
http://youtube.com/watch?v=E5qGUIXRYYo
Posted by Wayne Nagy | February 21, 2008 10:37 AM
Posted on February 21, 2008 10:37
Hey there, John,
WHOA! Did Don Barber ever have his say on here! (Hi, Don)
Now few people can sympathize with Donald Barber the way that I can.
Still. There's one thing that Don Barber wrote that I can't let go (sorry, Don)
This part:
To be fair to Justice Blacklock, he took over the trial from a former judge. So he had to play catch-up.
Next, this was a case of "They Said/He Said." and "They" was The Government. And not just the "They Said" of any The Government but "The Great State of Mississauga Government, the TRUST, QUALITY, EXCELLENCE, Leading Today for Tomorrow" people.
I agree with Don writing:
But that's all I agree with.
There is zero doubt in my mind that Justice Blacklock's "politics" is one of fairness. That man had one difficult time up there wrestling with the right thing to do.
Blacklock even read Don's 12-page report. He didn't have to. Blacklock even checked out Don's website. He didn't have to.
I'm convinced Justice Blacklock's "politics" is a conviction that if he is to err in choosing between Citizen and Government, that he'll do so on the side of Citizens and The Charter of Rights.
Some background here.
Don needs to remember that Justice Blacklock has been kept in the dark and hasn't seen the dozens of Freedom of Information (FOI) results on Mississauga Corporate Security as we both have. Now THAT'S "mushroomed".
Don wrote:
I suspect this is true of many Ontario municipalities and their secretive, duplistic ways. Institutional Bullying --we've seen it ourselves. The Mayor demands "cooperative councillors". Dissenters are "nutbars", "cranks", "lunatics", "miscreants", and my personal favourite, "misguided".
They claim to welcome public input but don't give the public the vital information they need to make informed decisions.
Last Don wrote:
Comes a time, Don --at least it came for me just this morning that maybe, people aren't worth fighting for.
That people DO get the government they deserve.
Read Craig MacBride's column today. Cuz he does a great job describing some truly "deserving" Mississauga people...
I'm developing a growing conviction that people deserve governments that treat them with this much contempt.
Posted by The Mississauga Muse | February 20, 2008 4:24 PM
Posted on February 20, 2008 16:24
Read Muse's comments about "own personal digital "guards", how true & how sad that it the real nature of not just Canada but the world we live in.
My case is a prefect example, the video tape showed what really happened Council that day and the Crown would not dare try to put those charges before the Courts BUT they would keep them active for almost a year and heavy bail terms as well. Charges should have been dropped right ways but there was no Peel police investigation beyond who do want charged and with what - your tax dollars at work. Peel police records stated the arresting office was informed that I was known to the Mayor - just what is that code for?
So knowing and being able to prove you are totally innocence by way of "technology" is what the Crown is finding a way around. And of course there is the old we take your recordings from you and guess what they go missing.
The more the game changes the more it stays the same - so simple minded Bullies can play it.
An informal Peace Bond?
Think John is right on that - that guard has had 2 shots at me (not counting 2002) - 3 times lucky?
And she did say words to the effect she didn’t like my Internet postings as they were less than flattering as to how she has done her job. Is she taking it personally?
In my letter to the Judge I noted the following - remember I was not made aware until after this letter was written as to the contain of the 2002 City security report;
“The Crown has made the claim that I am obsessed with City Security guard Ruffo, a person I never knew of before she abused her authority when she filed false claims against me, that had me thrown in prison, my name and picture on the front of News papers as assaulting her, responsible for forcing me to live under bail terms that destroyed most of my Charter and Democratic Rights needed to dealt with local government. Even after the charges were withdrawn because “the Crown said there was no reasonable prospect of conviction”, based on the facts, she then comes after me (with a great deal of help from the Crown to see that it is done), for a Peace Bond. It would be more to the point to say that the City Security guard is obsessed with me and causing me harm by using the criminal legal system while being unable to admit she has done wrong in the past. If you were to visit other pages in the Democratic Reporter you would see that there are many other persons that have their picture, name posted and articles about them that some would say should be removed but only she is trying legal action. Yes, I am very upset with her but am taking what legal actions as I can about it.”
“To properly test the claim of “obsessed” and the web-site here are the facts. A scan of the Democratic Reporter web-site revels this there about some 633 images and only 6 show the City Security guard . There are 2,504 web-pages in the site and only 10 web-pages turn up her name and 6 of those are just links to the other 4 web-pages. Clearly, the City Security guard is a very minor element in the Democratic Reporter web-site and other persons, like the Mayor of Mississauga have far more web-pages that note her and pictures of her but she like others are not being paranoid about it.”
This case is far more important legal to Canadians Rights then the media is giving it credit. Some thing the “Missing News” should change.
Posted by Donald Barber | February 20, 2008 2:27 PM
Posted on February 20, 2008 14:27
Me again. About your last three paragraphs.
I hope you're wrong, John.
Barber knows what my FOI's have said about Mississauga City Security.
He knows what's what because I showed him. I also told him his other problem is that he's male which means on any given day, Barber's targeted more than me.
Female Mississauga security guards would have difficulty claiming to be scared of a 58-year old female like me. Males are at a disadvantage inside Big Yellow.
Coached Barber to do what I do. Always go the same route. Use the CCTV cameras to your advantage. Stay with the public. And above all, SHUT THE #$@* UP --they don't want to hear from you.
If documenting the demise of what little democracy there ever was in Mississauga is important to Barber, then he'll be extremely careful and take precautions as I do.
What we both really need are personal (small, light) minidome CCTV "Pelcos" two of them --to wear front and rear. Like our own personal digital "guards".
But the technology ain't there yet.
And frankly, I'm not even sure if that would save us...
Get this. My cellphone? It has Peel Regional Police on speed dial. PRP's listed between "Mom" and my husband's cell.
Yeah, John. It's really that bad!
Signed,
The (You should see my FOI stuff some time) Mississauga Muse
Posted by The Mississauga Muse | February 20, 2008 12:58 AM
Posted on February 20, 2008 00:58
Hi there, John, GREAT summary!
I've been researching the events leading up to Mississauga Council snuffing out Open Public Question Period.
Perhaps you and the MissyNews can help me with something.
First. I examined all General Committee AND Council agendas/minutes for April, May and June 2006 and there's zero mention of Council even considering a change in procedure, let alone deciding on one. (Anyone at Big Yellow who believes I'm mistaken, now's the time...)
Next, when you examine all Council agendas where it lists Public Question Period, there's a blank like there'd always been. Meaning there's no indication that there was some change in procedure.
Even on the day (June 7, 2006) when Don Barber got up, he had every reason to believe Open Public Question Period was the same as always.
The Corporation's agenda notes and minutes contain no record of discussion regarding a change. Of course, "no record" is no surprise. Freedom of Information confirms that Big Yellow has a consistent and pervasive record of keeping no records on things a reasonable person would find reasonable for a government to keep records of.
Now if you play the Council telecast of that day, there's Nando Iannicca doing his Iannicca thing and explaining how Councillors were at this Peel meeting etc etc etc and that Staff weren't changing the procedural bylaw just enforcing what they already had in place. Etc etc etc.
Trouble is, I've not found any fossil record of any discussion/announcement --anything that there was a change.
They made Barber wait three hours and then just let him walk into it.
Here's what I need from the MissyNews. Perhaps the intrepid MissyNews reporter on duty the months before June 7, 2006 might remember Iannicca et al's discussion of a change?
Or perhaps, Big Yellow in its commitment to an informed public might have announced the Open Public Question Period procedural change in the MissyNews?...
When did YOU and MissyNews know that 30 consecutive years of Open Public Question Period was snuffed by Mississauga Council?
Did you also know that Mississauga Council and Rogers signed an agreement regarding Council telecasts in May 2006?
And they made sure that election signs and even signs on poles that looked "messy" were removed ASAP. That they even put more man hours in place over the summer to rid Mississauga of sign blight?
All that happened between April and end of June 2006.
September 2006, the Municipal Elections cranked up.
What can I say?
Incumbents Happen.
Love,
The Mississauga Muse
Posted by The Mississauga Muse | February 20, 2008 12:30 AM
Posted on February 20, 2008 00:30
Those who are informed about the events from 1994 to the present and how I have reported to the community, that has both voted me in to represent them at a public meetings and supported the efforts to save the Cawthra Bush & Mississauga’s environment over the years know why the term “Missing News” is used. Mr. Stewart says “fulfilling his self-appointed task as Official Watchdog of Hazel McCallion and the Great State of Mississauga.” and how could he not know this is wrong. The Mississauga (“Missing News”) News has published many articles detailing my leader ship and many written by none other than John Stewart like this one “City stops cutting in Cawthra woods in reply to lobby”, Feb. 27/94. Mr. Stewart goes on to state “four-time mayoralty candidate”, as if that is all Mississaugans should know about my public service. He does go on to note the Friends of the Cawthra Bush like an after thought.
"an act of terrorism"- yes, instill fear in me & others and what has happened in this case should make Mississaugans truly question how the old City guard (Council), does business. It would never be done to any one with deep pockets for lawyers to buy justice in Canadian Courts. What is really happening is that City Council would rather use the Peel police to deal with taxpayers who wish to be meaningful involved in their local government decision making, then to practice the Democracy our armed forces fight and died for.
“It would been very nice if the court hearing would have clarified what happened that June 7, 2006 at City Hall, but that did not happen” - that is right, there was a 10 ton elephant named Hazel McCallion in Court that every one (but me), was bending over backwards in denial to avoid noticing or speaking about. And I would say it was also the reason why the charges were withdrawn or it opened the door for the Mayor to be ordered to take the stand.
“after being physically escorted from the council chambers” - sounds stronger then reality and in fact the guard admitted she was not acting under the directions of Council. This is from the letter sent to the Judge “As cases are being referred to the Judge for reference in making a decision, here are two sections of law to show that the person who is asking for the power of a Peace Bond over my general Charter and Democratic Rights has in the pass, at the least acted very unprofessionally by completely disregarding her employers written instructions on how she was to serve Council, to unlawfully according to legislation by way of the Municipal Act. The Municipal Act details the right of the public / taxpayers to address their local municipal or City Council is well noted in law or legislation, just as it is noted that only the Chair or Mayor can remove that right and / or expel a member of the public / taxpayer, in a Democracy.” Both say only the Chair (Mayor), can expelled persons from a meeting.
Yes did go to Clerks office to check on the rules and as no one was coming to deal with my request, lunch hour and I could hear the guards talking about calling the police, left Clerks. At elevator remembered an earlier incident where I was pushed into the elevator by the guard on to an senior, in 2002. I had been trying to get members to help the Green Party get City records to help the Cawthra Bush & Jefferson Salamander, which the City could not allow, so we were ordered to leave & did. What is interesting is that I have always said I was set-up by Council on June 7th and after this Peace Bond Hearing, I get a copy of a report the Crown had BUT NEVER USED that notes the very same guard (who the “Missing News” is going out of its way not to name - take note of that!), was listed as directly involved when I was pushed me into the elevator from behind - of course that is not the version of events the City guard filed. I am just saying what I know as the facts. Now ladies & gentleman what are the odds of that happening - the very same guard involved both cases? I did not recognize this guard from 2002, still the Mayor would say “interesting”.
So I had a flash-back about City security and being pushed from behind onto elevators, “turned on a dime”, yes and bang, much to my surprise, she was right there breathing down my neck. Why was she so close-lining up to push me? What kind of training do City security guards get where they crowd a person that closely? Sounds likely a bully trying to pick a fight.
I had decided to return to Clerks as this guard made it clear she wanted trouble more then anything else.
This is when the guard said "walked through me like I was a ghost." - what does that mean? Did I knock her down - no. Did she fall back - no. Did she have to grab me to keep from falling down - no. Sounds terrible but is really the kind of drama women are well known to use when trying to get the undeserved sympathy of the our Courts for an unjust ruling. This in not solely my opinion try asking fathers4justice about this kind of thing. In fact she admitted that it could just have been a case of her being too close and I just turned around, accidentally stepping on her foot. Can you imagine how full our Courts would be if every case of a person accidentally stepped on some ones else’s foot ends up in the Courts?
At Clerks counter again, the By-law Queen finial comes out with the rules and nothing useful about Public Question Period. I left and quickly went down the stairs. The pictures of these events can be seen on my web-site - THE DEMOCRATIC REPORTER. The fact the male security guard was not called to give the female guard some credibility, is of the greatest of importance and Mr. Girvin noted to the Judge that he should draw an “ADVERSE INFERENCE”. They did try to get me to agree to a “agreed statement of facts” that the male guard noted to the Crown and appeared to have help from another lady, City lawyer? This statement would not have to be sworn to and show be used when the witness can’t attend the Court. It contained what the defence wanted, a statement that the two armed assault didn’t happen but as it contained too many other falsehoods or efforts to create a false impression in the mind of the Judge, couldn’t agree to it. Yes I wanted the guard on the stand and taken fully to task as we hand on hand lots to prove my version of the facts. Also consider this - after the so-called two handed assault, I was not arrested right there and then, no effort to call for back up was made and the male guard didn’t take any action to protect the female guard - how very odd - if you (really), believe what guards claim. No wonder they call City hall Wonderland.
In general the Judge was treated like a mushroom by the Crown and he noted that by way of he didn’t know what really going on in Council. None-the-less, the Judge did show his politics and basis by making comments like "vent at those around them," when he really did not know the details. Still he had to be threatening towards me as that is what right wingers do, a left wing judge would have stood up for my Charter Rights and put the security guards in their places for their abuses. In fact our Canadian Charter of Rights seemed to play no role in this case - why?
No matter what the Judge said here is the bottom line. In a case where there were lots of witnesses, Mayor, Council and City staff, video tapes, laws to say who was right or wrong, that had a female government security guard calming unruly behaviour in a government meeting and members of Council needed to be protected, with two counts of assault in which only she and her partner were the witness against my word. How in this age of post 9/11paranoia was I not found guilty or hit with a Peace Bond, is the real question that should be asked? The Crown would not even try to bring it to trial - all charges withdrawn. Then in the Peace Bond hearing the Crown tried to get me in a civil preceding because it had a lower legal standard of maybe it could happen again - still the only person to take the stand, the female security guard was so lacking in credibility, along with the fact the Crown would not inform the Court as to the facts, soured the case to the point it sound like give us a Peace Bond just because we want it. The Judge claims to say he believes the guards but not by his actions.
In this case the Devil is truly in the details and many details have yet to be noted.
This was also a case where they tried to do backdoor censorship to my web-site and rewrite our laws so political active people could be arrested on charges they have no intentions of tasking to trial and then get Peace Bonds to control these people as the Crown wanted a Peace Bond to prevent "misbehaviour", which really mean you don't know your place and you could be arrested - jailed for just about anything! How is that for a power trip?
Sounds like the fix was in, not just to keep the Mayor & members of Council from having to take the stand but was the Crown protecting the City from being sued by keeping the other guard from giving his full story in advance of such legal action?
Is this over - NO - I would say the City by way of the unnamed security guard will keep coming after me as it has cost her nothing to harass me so far and why should she stop now? Other members of City staff have told me how those who do dirty deeds for the City get ahead in City culture.
Remember this - “City Solicitor Mary Ellen Bench has already warned him that additional trespassing bans against him may be issued, "should you engage in similar action causing disturbance on City premises in future.” - I say I was set up on false charges and this quotes say the City will do it again. If they do it to me, they could do it to any one.
The real question is - who in Mississauga will stand up for the environment and Mississaugans Democratic Rights, if not I?
Posted by Donald Barber | February 19, 2008 11:43 PM
Posted on February 19, 2008 23:43