“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 firstname.lastname@example.org