Ego,
the self in relation to all else surrounding the self. There are
spiritual explanations for the ego and psychoanalysis of its
existence, fundamentally it is the view that all exists and can be
known only in relation to the individual's mind. One may be excused
to think that Debbie Zimmerman's actions are exemplary of such a
theory. Whilst the ancient Tea Singers of Buddhist tradition may
chant of truth and knowledge, and of Buddha the deliverer of truth, Debbie Zimmerman attempts to silence all such nonsense. Spirituality
put aside then only realistic analysis leads eventually towards the
discovery of truth.
That
being said it doesn't take deep and heavy thought to understand what
Debbie Zimmerman has attempted to do. Her Notice of Action
was dated June 2nd 2014 and was followed up with a
Statement of Claim dated June
11th
2014. In the cover page of the Statement of Claim it states as
“prescribed by the Rules of Civil Procedure.” As
one may remember I had pointed out the Rules of Civil Procedure and
the response given by Zimmerman's lawyer. Anyhow this is only a
small point but like the first candle lit in the darkness it begins
to shed light exposing all else.
A
Statement of Claim is the beginning of a legal process, with a court
file number requiring by the Rules of Civil Procedure a formal
response, which too has to be filed at the courts with a fee of $144.
My Statement of Defence was filed with the court on the 30th
of June 2014 with a copy served on Zimmerman's lawyers in Toronto on
June 26th.
I will say Debbie Zimmerman's chosen legal eagles have an impressive
full floor at 20 Dundas Street, right opposite the Eaton Centre.
Impressive
the address may be and the whole floor thing rightfully so, still
that does not stop questions being raised. Such outward appearance
implies money, experience and presumably knowledge, at least the
library looked well organised and impressive. As it has been said a
Statement of Claim heralds the commencement of a legal process,
demanding attention and warning that ignorance only comes with a
heavy price. So then what is the purpose of a faux Statement of
Claim, a dummy if you wish. What does this dummy statement herald
in? Is it a threat? Can it be legally considered as harassment?
May one take it as intimidation?
A
Notice of Action under the Rules of Civil Procedure is simply a
formal notification of legal proceedings being planned and an
opportunity to resolve the issue if both parties agree to do so.
Jordan Goldblatt from Sack Goldblatt Mitchell LLP representing Debbie
Zimmerman on June 2nd
2014 attached to his Notice of Action a dummy copy of a Notice of
Libel. It is an abbreviated version of the Notice of Action which is
required under the Rules of Civil Procedure. There is no court file
number, although it is made to appear as an official court registered
document.
The
Libel and Slander Act, R.S.O. 1990
makes it clear that time limitations are at play in relation to
claims against media. It also states that a Notice of Libel is to be
served in the same manner as a Statement of Claim, and refers to this
notice as a Notice of Action. A dummy faux official, yet not
official document is somewhat questionable. Still a more important
point in the Libel and Slander Act is section 76, there it states
that whatever is claimed in the Notice of Action must be claimed in
the same fashion, or exactly, in the Statement of Claim. Law if
nothing else strives for consistency and the rules it sets forth
demand that consistency.
In
her Notice of Action Zimmerman had her lawyer, Jordan Goldblatt issue
two threats. First that she will be “contacting
the host of your blog and requesting it be removed, in its entirety.”
No further
mention of this insane threat in the Statement of Claim, and I wonder
why. Zimmerman and Goldblatt also threatened with, “making
a Criminal Code Complaint under s.289 of the Criminal Code.” This
also has been dropped from any further mention in Zimmerman's
Statement of Claim.
Quoting the Canadian Bar Association, “Defamation can be
a crime under the Criminal Code, but only rarely.” I
could also see why this threat was left alone as well.
“The
statement of claim must be confined to the statements complained of
and specified in the notice. Consequently, where the plaintiff in
such notice specified parts of an article published by the defendant
and in her statement of claim set out the whole article, the portions
not specified in the notice were struck out on an application
attacking the plaintiff's pleadings, Obernier v. Robertson (1892), 14
P.R. 553 (Ont). (Canadian
Libel Practice, Ch. 3, Notice under the Libel and Slander Act &
Limitations Period) from
www.cyberlibel.com.
This
whole notion or idea of threat, intimidation and harassment was
simply designed to feed an ego. An ego that places itself above the
people and community she serves as an elected public
servant. As a public
servant no question relating to conduct can be left unanswered,
whatever else she does outside her part-time public servant role is
simply a job. Issues that raise questions relating to her role as a
public servant are relevant to the public, and the public has the
right to question her actions as long as there are sufficient grounds
to do so.
Although I have referred to and
quoted the Libel and Slander Act one other piece of judicial law is
of even greater importance. I refer to the Supreme Court of Canada
and its decision in December 2009, in the action resulting from Grant
v. Torstar Corp. This decision clearly provides the grounds on
which action such as this intimidation by Zimmerman is to be dealt
with, but first I will deal with the 'bullets' of hurt by Zimmerman
as set out by her in the Statement of Claim.
An
affair outside the bounds of marriage survives on deceit on a daily
basis whether Zimmerman likes that fact or not. It is also a fact
that court documents which state the reason for a divorce procedure
to be commenced are a somewhat reliable source of information. Sadly
there are very few women who file for divorce and name 'the other
woman' find
themselves to be
wrong. Unless of course hubby thinks himself a stud and has a stable
of women, this is not the case with Mayor Brian McMullan. Still most
women especially those who had been married for many years endure a
great deal before taking the final step. In any case this final step
is a legal process and statements made are done so with the knowledge
that during a trial it all has to be proven.
Generalities aside, this specific
case involves the mayor of a town, and his wife names a fellow
sitting councillor as the adulteress. Not only has the wife named
the councillor as the adulteress, rumours of this affair have been
floating all around town and the region for years. If this alone is
not news that people want to read then one has to hang up the notepad
and pen. OK this may be a little old fashioned as an analogy but you
get the drift.
Levity put to one side, the
seriousness of the situation is alarming. No affair is an honest
game, and the players become experienced deceivers. Yet what remains
of the fact that both of the players are elected members of
government sitting together on the same council? The questions
raised are enormous and have chilling effects on such nuisance issues
as Code of Conduct, Conflict of Interest, possible misuse of public
money and more.
Zimmerman fired six bullets on page
7 of her Statement of Claim. It appears that publishing the divorce
papers and raising serious questions regarding the affair hurt her
feelings and ego. She claims that Mayor Brian McMullan's wife Ruth
McMullan is a liar, yet Zimmerman has not proved that in a court of
law. In the meantime Brian McMullan is working hard to seal the
documents and offer door number one, two or three in a let's make a
deal scenario.
Any affair entered into for
whatever reason is based on dishonesty and unethical and immoral
conduct. After all who can forget those vows of marriage, and the
cost of divorce. Those who are partnered in an affair definitely
share many conflicts of interest yet they put personal interest
first, at whatever cost. Contempt becomes a way of daily routine and
honesty is replaced by deceit. Yet according to Debbie Zimmerman's
ego none of this applies to her chaste character.
Ruth McMullan, wife of Mayor Brian
McMullan has been labelled a liar and it is only the word of Debbie
Zimmerman that is to be taken as relevant and true. No comment or
question is permissible according to Zimmerman's ego. Yet we are
still a democracy even though censorship in Niagara thrives.
Zimmerman has to prove in a court of law and not by meaning,
suggestion or innuendo that Ruth McMullan lied. That in itself is a
hurdle, but a higher one for Debbie Zimmerman and her lawyer is the
Supreme Court of Canada and its decision from December 2009.
Quoting
the Canadian Bar Association, “In
a December 2009 case, the Supreme Court of Canada established this
new defence to a libel claim. The court said that journalists should
be able to report statements and allegations – even if they are not
true – if there is a public interest in distributing the
information to a wide audience. This defence, which looks at the
whole context of a situation, can apply if:
1. the news was urgent, serious, and of public importance, and
2. the journalist used
reliable sources, and tried to get and report the other side of
the story.
The
court defined “journalist”
widely to include bloggers and anyone else “publishing
material of public interest in any medium.” (Defamation:
Libel and Slander, cba.org)
Ego now comes face to face with the
law. Both Zimmerman and her lawyer knew this yet decided that threat
and intimidation was a game that they needed to play. Though even
the threat has changed and in court I will prove what I need. The
reliability of sources cannot be denied and the fact that the city
mayor faces divorce with adultery named as the circumstance, that is
of public importance. Add to the adultery claim by the wife of Mayor
Brian McMullan that the 'other woman' named is a fellow sitting
Regional Councillor Debbie Zimmerman then the whole issue takes on
another facet.
I
served my Statement of Defense at the impressive offices of Sack
Goldblatt Mitchell LLP in Toronto on June 26th
2014, as posted here. I further registered and paid my fee at the
Robert S. K. Welch Courthouse in St. Catharines. Under the Rules of
Civil Procedure, and Zimmerman's lawyer cannot ignore them, time
limitations only permitted 20 days for a Defense to Counterclaim from
Zimmerman. To date no such document has been served, no rebuttal of
my defense and no comment.
On
July 17th
Zimmerman announced that she will not be going for re-election to
Regional Council. She gave an interview to a reporter from The
Standard and had the
opportunity to set her side of the story, after all it was The
Standard. At
the same time a 'newspaper' had the opportunity to lift the heavy
cloud of censorship to provide the people it claims to serve with the
news. Neither saw fit to touch the subject or allow censorship in
Niagara to be lifted.
According
to reporter Don Fraser, Zimmerman referred “to
the loss of privacy as a politician.” Well
maybe that is why the job is called public office or public service.
It could also be why a Code of Conduct demands public scrutiny.
Reporter Don Fraser quotes Zimmerman as saying “If
you're in politics you'll get potshots from the sidelines...”
(Update: Zimmerman not seeking re-election, Don Fraser, QMI Agency,
st.catharinesstandard.ca, July 17, 2014). A
demand for accountability is not a pot-shot, it is a direct bulls-eye
hit. In the end both Zimmerman and pal Brian McMullan will have no
choice, it is a road each has chosen with their actions and
egotistical desire to threaten and intimidate.
In
her actions Zimmerman chose to go after a comment and the author of
the comment, Fred Bracken. This ludicrous action only further proves
the real reasons for Zimmerman's actions. Yet another comment
appeared on Mayorgate (article: Debbie Zimmerman Attacks Mayorgate) and
this one really tells Zimmerman and Brian McMullan what the people of
Niagara are aware of.
The
comment is short but to the point, it begins with “Everyone
I know, that lives in the Niagara Region has been aware, and
disgusted by the illicit affair between Brian McMullan, and Debbie
Zimmerman for several years now...” Debbie
Zimmerman had not decided to release her 'dogs of war' on this
individual nor has she threatened me about it, or that I allowed it.
Why?
Debbie
Zimmerman has had ample opportunity to publicly deny the affair,
whether by responding to me prior to publication or using the local
p.r. sheet, The
Standard. Instead
she chose to threaten, intimidate and harass me as publisher of
Mayorgate
and
selectively one individual only. My response is a simple one, I want
Zimmerman in a courtroom under oath to reveal what drove Zimmerman to
this point, now it is a demand by me to stand in an open court and
allow the truth to be heard. Mayorgate
does
not fear Zimmerman nor her ego, nor does Mayorgate
fear her pal Mayor Brian McMullan. He now has chosen to open
Pandora's Box and that is the next article.
In
Canada there is no recall or impeachment, there are no laws or rules
that are enforced on these egos filled with self-delusion of
importance. For that reason corruption in Niagara has reached levels
which are out of control and it is time to bring it to the light of
day. It is time for the average people who have built these towns to
care enough to raise a voice. Mayorgate
will not run for cover in response to threat.
Send comments to: demtruth@gmail.com
No comments:
Post a Comment