“Questions
are a danger to you and a burden to others”
(Mr. Krabs from SpongeBob
SquarePants).
I
have not heard words more wisely spoken in years. Only some days
ago, January 15th
2012, the pages of Mayorgate
brought
the story of 'Salem's Witch Hunt comes to Niagara.' Serious
questions were raised in that piece. An elected member of the
Niagara Regional Council accused by anonymous e-mailers. His own
co-workers could not give a damn that confidential information was
given to one who has nothing to do with regional government. The
anonymous cowards make the e-mails public by sending them to the
local paper The Standard. Yet none of this was enough, Mayor Brian
McMullan Mayor of St. Catharines who is also a regional councillor
decides to make public attacks on the accused. The Standard sends
their ace 'investigative journalist,' presumably without a tape
measure on that occasion, to interview the accused Councillor
Petrowski and Mayor Brian McMullan.
Here
begins the true story. In the interview published by The Standard
Mayor of St. Catharines, Mayor Brian McMullan admits to know the
identity of the anonymous e-mailers! Mayor McMullan quoted as
answering when asked if he knew who Tim Lewis was (that is the name
of the anonymous e-mailer, phoney name and phoney e-mail
identification address). This is what Brian McMullan said, “Yes,
I've learned who they are. There's more than one person, I believe.
But I don't know who Tim Lewis is. I know some of the other people
involved.” Wow,
Mayor Brian McMullan admits to know the identity of the cowards
hiding behind fake names and e-mails. But there is much more, Mayor
Brian McMullan a member of regional council on November 28th
2011 decides to write an e-mail to his boss Chairman Gary Burroughs,
Chairman of the Regional Council. Anyone who has any common sense or
slightest intelligence would realize this would be a private
communication between a councillor and head of council, true? Well
not with Regional Councillor and St. Catharines Mayor Brian McMullan.
Mayor Brian McMullan copied his e-mail that he wrote his boss
Chairman Burroughs to the anonymous e-mailer Tim Lewis. Remember
Mayor McMullan claimed, “...But
I don't know who Tim Lewis is I know some of the other people
involved.” The
anonymous coward Tim Lewis then copied McMullan's e-mail to boss
Burroughs to everyone on his circulation list. WHY did Mayor Brian
McMullan send this communication that is considered confidential to
someone he claims not to know?
Mayorgate exposed all of
this and much more in the story. In fact as the evidence unfolded
the possibility of a criminal conspiracy grew larger. Now comes
the attack on the author of the story. Only four days after the
story was posted on Mayorgate this notice was posted on the house of
the author of Mayorgate where evidence provided raised serious
questions surrounding the involvement of Mayor Brian McMullan in the
whole affair surrounding the anonymous Tim
Lewis and Suzie Q. Is it coincidence? Not on your God damned
life!
An
Order to Remedy Unsafe Building no#12 100 624 BO dated on January
19th
2012 was stuck on the door of 53 Almond Street. The house I live in
and have for well over a decade. It was signed by a Steven
Sunderland, Building Inspector II. Sunderland states, “Take
Notice that I have found the following unsafe conditions at the said
premises: A) The roof at the rear appears to have collapsed.”
Now
come questions and I do
know how much of a danger these questions are and just how much of a
bother they are going to become to others. Before continuing I want
to tell Sunderland that you had it stuck to the front door, not
smart, the wind would tear it off. Also I had to scan and copy it
for my solicitor I have now proudly stuck it to my front window, oh
and published it here.
Let's
begin, Sunderland states “that
I have found the following ...”
How did he find this? He did not knock on my door to ask any
questions. He did not enter my yard as the back and side gates have
padlocks. How did Sunderland 'find' anything? Before you say
anything my wife is at home so do be careful on that. If you claim
to have knocked and there was no answer why not leave your card and
you would of had a call back. If you had come in you would of been
shown that this is not part of the main house. It is an unused
section completely empty. Sutherland states, “I
found...” Did
you find that only a few months ago a new roof, soffit, fascia and
gutters have been installed on the house? I guess as the Building
Inspector II you do recognize a new installation? Or does the
designation number II preclude that? Just maybe someone who had
spent thousands to replace a roof, soffit, fascia and gutters may of
considered the add-on out back and a remedy to it. In addition to
all the said new work on the roof, the front porch has had a new
ceiling replaced, its still all shining! But then Sutherland did not
want to talk to anyone did he. Sutherland only issued a threat
instead.
Since a new roof was completed and
I have the original quote to show the date, I had also had quotes on
the work on the damaged back portion. The first quote is several
months ago and there are more than one. I have only posted the top
parts of the quotes for their names the rest is only for my solicitor
at this time. Sunderland or the Corporation of the City of St.
Catharines did not care for any of this. It is only threat and
intimidation that was required, not facts nor truth. If Sunderland
bothered to knock, he would of also found that work had begun on the
back portion. Simply one of the individuals had become ill. I won't
go into details here either, that is also for my solicitor,
especially since neither Sunderland nor the City of St. Catharines
gave a damn to start with.
How
did Sunderland 'find' anything without coming into the yard? Why did
he do this at all? Did someone call you? My neighbour knows about
the work we have joked about its 'beauty' often enough, he did not.
Where did you observe anything from? On the other side I have large
screens after years of threat and harassment so it would not be
possible. Why now? You don't simply walk into homes and yards
without first asking for permission. If permission is not granted
you then have the authority to get entrance, but not before going
through procedures, according to the Building Code Act or the
Muncipal Act.
Building Inspector Sunderland obviously didn't bother looking up at the lovely new ceiling, soffits, gutters. He missed them all, oh and the locks on the gates. |
I
have already raised the issue of how did Steven Sunderland Building
Inspector II manage to have “found” anything. Now I ask a more
direct question on this. On Order #12 100 624 BO attached to the
door of the home my family and I live in, the Building Code Act and
sub-section 15.9-(4) are quoted. Reading the Building Code Act 1992
and the section headed General Powers of Inspection and Enforcement
more questions arise in relation to sub-section 15.23 Duty to carry
identification and sub-section 16 Entry to dwellings. How or when
did Sunderland enter the yard or premises for any form of inspection?
From where did he make his inspection? Why was he there or here or
anywhere to do an inspection? Too many questions and no answers.
Order
#12 100 624 BO also states:
“take
notice if this order of an inspector is not complied with within the
time specified in it,” where
on that order is the specified date for completion? Look at it and
everything above Sunderland's signature, is there any date aside of
the date of issue January 19th
2012. Is it hidden in some form of code? Or maybe it is a hologram
of some sorts? Remember the legality of this order, the completion
date has to be above Sunderland's signature!
Or maybe this is only a generic notice not really an 'order'!
In
the 'Order #12 100 624 BO' you state “unsafe
conditions.” Here
are now more questions for the City of St. Catharines to answer. In
late April 2011 we had one hell of a wind storm in St. Catharines,
many will remember that one. I do and I have photos to prove it.
Several huge chunks of a City tree out front came crashing down on
our roof. All but one fell down to the ground, my neighbour had one
that imbedded into the ground by more than a foot. One huge piece
landed on the roof and it did not crash to the ground, just stayed
there overhanging into the side passage. We were fortunate the way
it landed it did not damage the old roof. I called the City and I
photographed it with time and date. I was told that the city staff
were really swamped with calls and more serious emergencies I would
have to wait a little while. Understandable at the time. I was
polite and recorded my conversation. A month had passed I called
again and recorded the response plus took updated photos with time
and date. No one came and nothing happened the huge piece of city
tree was still on my roof. Another month later I called again I was
told that the work order was maybe lost. Lost? Then put on hold, a
few moments later a woman came back on the phone to say “here
it is I found it.”
A God damned miracle!! She said it will be done within a week or
so. I recorded the conversation and had taken new dated photos. By
now we were in July! Yes July, how many months after it first landed
on the roof? Maybe Building Inspector II Sunderland can count?
Still there, still hanging over the side.
This is the first day that the limb from a City tree landed on the house. Every effort to call the City and have this removed was recorded and no one came till November! |
I recorded every phone call and
took regular dated photos. A short time after this a truck, a City
truck pulls up outside. Mind you they only look at the roof from
inside the truck. I went out to talk to them. Now I am told that
the size of the branch and the position make it too dangerous to go
up on a ladder that a ladder-truck needs to be called. I am told to
be careful and not use the side passage as the overhanging limb from
the City tree was dangerous. These guys tell me that a ladder-truck
would be at my place within days to remove the limb from the roof.
Not to attempt to do it myself because of the risk. Did a
ladder-truck arrive? Heck you guessed it. NO!!! So it continued to
just hang there. The neighbourhood even got used to seeing it there!
It sort of became a part of the scenic view of Merritton. City of
St. Catharines really gave a damn about “unsafe conditions” I
guess.
Look
at the photos and the date. A ladder-truck and a crew of how many
come to the house across the road? I heard the buzz of the machine.
I went out and photographed the City crew and trucks. Heck maybe
CUPE 1287 leaders want to threaten me as they did Councillor
Petrowski. I have had experience with Mr. Shawn Wilson's office at
CUPE a few years ago. During a Ministry of the Environment
investigation of contaminated water being pumped by the owner of the
property next to The Keg restaurant on Glendale Avenue into the
run-off sewer. The contaminate was mercury and highly dangerous, I
had photographed the sewer grate and provided all evidence to the
Environmental Commissioner of Ontario and MOE. To cut it short, the
sewer grate disappeared before it could be tested. As it was either
Region's or the City of St. Catharines' property and only region or
city staff that could touch it, with potential risk to safety, I
contacted CUPE Shawn Wilson. After questioning their CUPE members it
was clear that no regional or city staff touched it. So it was
stolen by someone else. Evidence during an investigation conducted
by MOE had simply disappeared, the thing weighed over 200 pounds so
it wasn't some kids on skateboards. All details are available on this investigation via the Office of the Auditor General of Canada.
Whoopee a ladder truck at last! Oh shucks, not for our house or the log on our roof that's been there since late April. Here they've arrived to do some clean up for the house across the road. |
Left the scene and left the log still hanging on our roof. |
Still back to the ladder-truck
across the road. I photographed them and watched them do their work,
then load up and leave. I photographed them leaving as well! The
huge limb was still sitting on my roof only a few hundred feet away
from where they were and easy for all to see. So now October, I had
one contractor even comment as he quoted on a roof job and the back
portion, the one yes that Sunderland “found” in January. From
April to October still there! City staff even warn how unsafe it
was. Each phone call to city recorded. Any answers to this? Can
someone like maybe Building Inspector II Sunderland explain why?
Look at the photos and explain how this was possible City Solicitor
Nicole Auty, you'll have to soon enough. The voice recordings are
not made available here of the city staff they are for my solicitor.
I have tried to understand all of this but there is no way to do so.
Yet it's not the end of the horrors my family has faced at the hands
of the City of St. Catharines.
Yep, still there. I came out most mornings coffee cup in hand just to see whether or not a helpful squirrel had joined CUPE and moved the log off the roof. Alas, still there. |
They have arrived! The log landed late April, it is now after the first week of November, finally the unsafe conditions can be remedied. WHY SO LONG???? |
My house at 53 Almond Street was
sold by the City of St. Catharines. I won't go into all the boring
details, they can be read when you link to this information via no ad LIB and view letters sent to Minister Harinder
Takhar, Government Services. The individual who bought the house and
I rent from now was even surprised by how the City acted. Still the
issue is how it was done. The City of St. Catharines sent a letter
stating that the house would be advertised for sale in the local
newspaper to commence July 2008. We got the newspaper each week and
nothing appeared all of July, again we got the newspaper each week
and nothing appeared all of August! Again the same for all of
September, nothing. Do you have any idea of the stress on a family
to search the City page to find nothing there not knowing what was
going to happen. Any idea of the stress? Then mid-October a new
Registration Certificate arrives? The City of St. Catharines
threatened in writing to advertise for sale the family home, they did
not advertise or contact the family in any way for over 100 days!
Then the City of St. Catharines re-registered the home for the
second time! Now no extension agreements were discussed nor
negotiated with us. No contact by anyone from the City of St.
Catharines at all during these 100 days. Yet the Final Notice read
Re: SALE OF PROPERTY “be advised The Corporation of the City
of St. Catharines intends to offer this property for sale by Public
TENDER. Advertisements will appear once in the Ontario Gazette and
once a week for four (4) consecutive weeks in the St. Catharines
Standard. The advertisements are expected to commence July, 2008”
It finished with “Please govern
yourself accordingly.”
How “accordingly” did the
Corporation of The City of St. Catharines govern itself? No
advertisements appeared for over 100 days, only 100 days of stress,
pressure and terror on a family! Does the Municipal Act provide
anywhere in the section Part XI Sale of Land For TAX Arrears of the
Municipal Act, sub section 379 Public Sale, pages 251 and 252 of
total 310 pages (posted here) a provision to re-register the same
property twice with two different registration certificate numbers?
The answer is a definite NO!
Nowhere does it permit or state
that you as a municipality can threaten to advertise the sale of a
property and then not do so. No where does it permit the
re-registering for the second time the same property. Damn well
nowhere! Copies of both pages are posted here. Page 250 of the
Municipal Act sub-section 378 Extension agreements states that a
municipality may only authorize an extension agreement by passing a
by-law. Further in the pages of the Municipal Act 2001 the tax
arrears certificate can only be cancelled in accordance to
sub-section 375 page 249 of 310 by the payment to the municipality of
the cancellation price. The original Tax Arrears Certificate #NR 132
729 was simply ignored by the City. Instead it was an instrument of
threat, terror and harassment against a family beyond any
understandable reason. Over 100 days of intentional threat and
terror! What was the goal of this? Letters were written to Mayor
McMullan, but I won't bother saying anything about him any longer. A
new registration certificate arrived #NR 191 589.
One may question why this was done
at the time. Mayorgate had not been given birth or voice.
Yet the author of the future Mayorgate was involved in a
community issue that centered on safety and was revealing corruption
that was becoming, it would seem, a bother to some. A new post on
Mayorgate is coming in a week titled, 'How
is this possible' that explains a scenario beyond belief
in a society with laws and equality of a justice system.
So the Corporation of the City of
St. Catharines decided to terrorize and threaten a family for over
100 days. Mind you the horrors surrounding the sale of the family
home was yet to begin when on September 18th 2007 the
first attempt at threat had arrived. This was an Order Requiring
Compliance with Property Standards By-Law No. 76-320 #06 002 656 PR.
Now this one was in fact a true measure of insanity and beauty to
behold.
This order stated that there was
loose wiring on the front porch and that the soffit, fascia and rear
cladding should be scraped and painted. Attempts to fight for the
safety of the community were channelled at the time towards proper
authorities, or at least that was the naive belief. Much had needed
to change in the four-plus years since. The strongest weapon
against the darkness of threat and terror, at whatever hands of
delivery, is the glaring light of public attention. That was the
eventual motivation behind the birth of Mayorgate, it will always be
its foundation.
As this Order #06 002 656 PR
arrived some shock needed to be handled before a response delivered.
The response delivered to Sandra Korakis and City Solicitor Annette
Poulin (we have a new one now) was simple. Photographs were taken of
properties in the neighbourhood in far worse shape, one being the
Merritton Senior Citizens Centre and a letter attached. A simple
statement, carry out your threat as on page 3 of 3 of Order #06 002
656 PR. Photos of the house were included that received the order
and the soffits, fascia were left unpainted. A field inspector of
the Electrical Safety Authority had checked all the electrical wiring
on the porch and made it clear that nothing was wrong and he could
not understand the order received from the City. Unpainted soffits
and fascia remained long after the threatened deadline and not a word
was heard from the City again. Those unpainted soffits and fascia
became a public badge of courage proudly displayed as the strength to
stand against threat and not back down from the truth. Issues of
public safety remained at the top of the author's list of motivation.
A great deal more threat, terror and intimidation was to come, this
was simply an initiation.
Since 2007 one form of threat or
another for simply raising a voice against corruption and believing
in equality. Mayorgate was born out of that need and will
continue to shake the accepted norm of the traditional 'three
monkeys'. Mayorgate's logo is in the form of the
EMANCIPATED MONKEYS. Turning upside down the safe
co-existence of the traditional three monkeys: SEE ALL EVIL, HEAR
ALL EVIL and SPEAK OF ALL EVIL, without fear.
Mayorgate will
not be silenced by threat nor bought off by greed.
Send comments to demtruth@gmail.com