Degradation of Public Office

Today our society has no real respect for anyone in public office. Reports of corruption and wrongdoing no longer ring the bells of surprise, rather such news only finds in response a flippant “what did you expect?” Some say that the longer Toronto's Mayor Rob Ford is permitted to prance over the front pages of the daily newspapers the greater the insult is to not only the City of Toronto but to all of Canada, yet it continues.

At one time a slogan pilfered through the airwaves that you 'CAN' in Canada. That is true for where else “can” an elected member of government admit to drugs, be photographed drunk and with reports of association with the ladies of the night without consequence. If this had happened in the US there is no doubt what the result would be. Yet such disrespect, such contempt for the law is not a disease of a big city alone. It is a disease of the very law itself in Canada which protects those elected into office and ensures that no action is ever taken against them.

Toronto has its Mayor Rob Ford, here in the quiet town of St. Catharines Ontario we have our own. There is no issue of drugs, no photographs of public inebriation and no sexy gals are to be heard of. Rather the drug in St. Catharines is a more universal one and one that the law cannot restrict. It is the lust for power and the ability to slip through anything as easy as a Teflon coated pan slips off a fried egg.

St. Catharines Mayor Brian McMullan has been able to breach the Criminal Code, have a local newspaper lie to cover for him, abuse the court system and walk away unscathed. Mayor McMullan does not like Mayorgate because here the truth does find an opportunity to be aired. He had tried to bully and threaten me as publisher with a letter from a lawyer Christopher Bittle. In that letter Mayor Brian McMullan threatened to shut Mayorgate down. I published his threat and more evidence against him. McMullan shut his mouth and packed up his threats.

Now there is something new brewing in Brian McMullan's mind. On May 11^th 2014 Mayor Brian McMullan appeared at my place of work. At first he came in front of me with his expected phoney approach. Then some 15 minutes later he came up behind me. Mayor McMullan came close this time and said “you took some time on your day off to visit the Conservation Authority in Welland.” My response was simple, that I had not. McMullan then said, “we now have a statutory declaration.” After he left with his smugness in tow, I was left to wonder what was this all about. What affidavit and from whom? Who was the “we” that McMullan alluded to? Why or what is the Conservation Authority to do with my day off?

Before saying anything else Mayor Brian McMullan should be aware that I carry a small digital recorder on my person at all times. Also above my station is a security camera and that day a video had been requested to be copied and kept. McMullan should remember that I do not run from threat or intimidation. But there in itself lies the problem of how a coward threatens another individual only to run and not carry his or her threat through, to have time and energy wasted to prepare the fly swatter.

This wild act by Mayor McMullan left only questions and bemusement in the air. Though another incident prior to McMullan's personal appearance may shed some light on the matter. A private message came to me via Facebook by Mayor Brian McMullan's wife Ruth McMullan. Both the message and who it came from was quite a surprise. I have had no dealings with Ruth McMullan in any way, and as far as Facebook's terminology of 'friend' stands it is a laugh and a farce. Oops, watch some 'friends' get offended by this.

Looking at the Facebook page, the name is listed as Ruth French McMullan. Family photographs pepper the page as so many have with a son in police uniform and an adult daughter. What little could be checked proved to be a genuine Ruth McMullan even comparing to a newspaper photo in the Standard of Mayor McMullan and wife from 2010.

The message bordered on slander and sounded more like a rant of a disturbed person, or was it something else. Now that is purely my suspicious nature being activated as I had never had any contact with a Ruth McMullan in any way. She went on about things being said and how they are hurting her children and her at work. No explanation of what things though. Ruth McMullan asks me to stop them or if not me if I know who is saying this, to tell that invisible person to stop. I am not Brian McMullan and this is not a Tim Lewis affair. My response was swift and hard.

I made it clear that I would not accept such lunacy again and I had said that I wanted no further contact with whoever this was. Thirty odd minutes later another response came. Now the lunacy was more wild, sounding more like a drunk wrote it with spelling errors. This time Ruth McMullan uses words that raise even greater suspicion and a close correlation to the legal threat by Mayor Brian McMullan which he did not carry though.

Now 'Ruth' carries on that I had “misunderstood” her lunatic accusation. She also says not to continue “just for something against Brian.” I have only ever published the truth with supporting hard evidence, it had never been done on a personal level. Mayorgate does not look for something against anyone and the facts regarding Brian McMullan are undeniable.

These two incidents lead me to suspect that both are somehow associated to each other. Ruth McMullan is accusing a stranger of circulating “information...about a private matter.” Brian McMullan's cowardly threat must have something to do with this “private matter” though the so called statutory declaration is somewhat bewildering. Here the “private matter” is the divorce filed by Ruth McMullan, and it is far less private that she claims it to be.

First and foremost Mayor Brian McMullan is far from a private person. Mayor McMullan uses the front page of his public relations newspaper whenever he chooses to butcher anyone. He as the mayor is a public figure, elected by the public and answerable to the public even though he doesn't think so. Ruth McMullan can pretend to be shy and not liking the spotlight of public attention, she may make lunatic accusations if she wishes, yet it is she who filed the divorce papers. If Brian and Ruth McMullan were some nondescript couple living on a nondescript street in St. Catharines no one would care. They are not and for either of them to demand that this is a private matter then Brian McMullan should have controlled his desire for power and influence.

Amongst all the angst of what is a private matter or not comes a far more serious issue to deal with. In her divorce filing Ruth McMullan cites adultery and names the female. Now no part of this is a private matter as the woman Ruth McMullan names is Debbie Zimmerman, Regional Councillor for Grimsby and former Regional Chair.

Rumours are the realm of the National Enquirer and other such tabloids, not a part of, or ever had been a part of Mayorgate. In this case rumours of the affair were brought to me as far back as the time of the 2010 elections. Then I had said that I was not interested regardless if they were true. Now it is not a rumour rather it is a Superior Court of Justice Family Court file #133/14. In file #133/14 the Applicant is Patricia Ruth McMullan and the Respondent one Brian James McMullan, in case anyone wishes to mistake this McMullan the address for service is c/o St. Catharines City Hall.

The Superior Court documents are available for public inspection unless sealed by a judge and to seal divorce files requires certain criteria to be met. A person who has a public position or is known by the general public has no grounds to have such a court order. Court file #133/14 is available for public view to this date.

On page 5 of the filed divorce papers it states the important facts for the claim. One being Adultery naming Debbie Zimmerman of Grimsby, Ontario, the other Cruelty, with an attachment A. There is no doubt that divorces become messy with a great deal of he said and she said. Here between Mayor Brian McMullan and his wife it will be no different. If as said McMullan was a private person there would be no interest at all, just another marriage crushed by the stresses of humanity. Mayor Brian McMullan is not a private person, nor is Regional Councillor Debbie Zimmerman.

Cupid may sling his arrows wherever he wishes, it is the response to the sting that can become bothersome. Both Brian McMullan and Debbie Zimmerman sit on regional council. Both have lied publicly and to all members of regional council although without a doubt there are those on council who have known for a long time. This deceit has also been aimed at the people of Niagara.

The Regional Municipality of Niagara, Code of Conduct For Members of Council on page 2 of 10, with section 1 Principles Upon Which This Code is Based, subsection 1.2(c) states the following:

“Members of Council are expected to perform their duties in office and arrange their

private affairs, in a manner that promotes public confidence and will bear close public

scrutiny.”

Regional Councillor Debbie Zimmerman was at one time Regional Chair, she is fully aware of the impact of her affair with Mayor Brian McMullan and the potential legal mess it opens up. As a starry eyed couple conducting an affair deceit becomes a way of life on a daily basis, otherwise divorce papers are served earlier than planned. Deceit in this case affects, or has the potential to affect the workings of government.

Mayor Brian McMullan has played his games even publicly attacking all who get in his way. He is quoted making his sanctimonious statements in relation to how councillors should act when he attacked fellow councillor Andy Petrowski. Yet he has been part of a deceitful blanket for several years. The City of St. Catharines Code of Conduct for Elected Officials, Local Boards and Advisory Committees on Page 1 under “The key principles that underline the Code of Conduct are as follows,” then states: “members are expected to perform their duties in office and arrange their private affairs in a manner that promotes public confidence and will bear close public scrutiny.” Any similarity to the Region's?

In the end Mayor Brian McMullan and Regional Councillor Debbie Zimmerman have only spat on both of these Codes of Conduct. Their combined decision was to lie and deceive each and every day. Yet they expect trust in return and spout condemnation of others.

There is a reality here which cannot be put aside. Since Cupid did his deed and both Brian and Debbie answered the call of love one should have stepped down from regional council. Neither is capable of relinquishing their seat of power and that has resulted in deceit and lies.

Ruth McMullan cries and without cause makes statements that are slanderous, yet it was she who filed the divorce papers. Brian McMullan attempts some kind of cowardly threat without being specific. At the bottom of this rotten pool sit the people of Niagara. Some will say who cares about the mayor's pillow stacking, others will find the conflicts of interest important to consider. The purveyors of so called news in St. Catharines will only try to wash it away. Doug Draper of Niagara At Large will again aim his empty rhetoric at the “ugly blogs” without the courage to say anything more. Truth is sometimes very ugly and in our Niagara it rarely finds the light of day. Maybe that is why Doug Draper is more willing to insult than to speak of it.

In the final analysis Mayor Brian McMullan and Regional Councillor Debbie Zimmerman have shown contempt for government, and only self interest. Whatever the issues are between Mayor McMullan and his wife are their own affair. Both had decided for whatever reason to drag Mayorgate into it. The people of Niagara simply deserve the truth. I as publisher of Mayorgate will say to Mayor Brian McMullan either carry out your threat or run like you did once before. You have lied to your family and to the people you asked to trust you. You, Mayor McMullan, have answers to provide.

On May 22^nd 2014 a judge will make a decision whether file #133/14 will be sealed. It is going to be interesting to see what grounds are cited to arrange the sealing.

To end for now I'll quote a favourite wise crab from SpongeBob Squarepants, “questions are a danger to you and a burden to others.” Mayorgate will never stop asking the ugly questions.

Send comments to: demtruth@gmail.com

Retirement Homes Regulatory Authority?

The Retirement Homes Act 2010 established the Retirement Homes Regulatory Authority (RHRA) to “administer this Act and the regulations, including overseeing their enforcement, for the purpose of ensuring that retirement homes are operated in accordance with this Act and the regulations.” This Authority has a Board of Directors (as per section 12 of Part II of the Act) with its various stipulations and its Chair designated by the Minister responsible for Senior Affairs (section 14 of Part II of the Act).

Throughout Part II of the Retirement Homes Act 2010, intricate legal cobwebs weave the illusion that the RHRA is an authority that is not part of a government ministry. Yet throughout Part II of the Act it is clear that the Minister for Senior Affairs is tied at the hip to the RHRA, and not only as an interested on-looker. Part 18 speaks of the memorandum of understanding between the Minister and the Authority, section 26 states that the Authority

(a)”with the approval of the Minister, shall establish a code of ethics that includes rules respecting conflicts of interest, political activity and disclosure of wrongdoing.”

No matter what section of Part II of the Act one reads, the Authority is mentioned in conjunction with the Minister. Yet the Authority had been set up as a non-profit entity on its own. It is not a part of a ministry but at the same time answers to the Minister. No non-profit organisation does that. True a not-for-profit organisation would have a board of directors and a chair. Though at the RHRA that position is designated by the Minister. The RHRA's finances or income is basically split between two incoming sources.

Revenue for the RHRA comes from annual licence fees and application fees totalling in 2013 at $4,898,140 out of a total revenue of $7,789,963. The Government of Ontario provided a grant of $2,741,431 making that approximately one third of total revenue for the year 2013. In 2012 as the RHRA began its existence for real, rather than a note in legislation or a bright idea of government, its revenue was only a provincial grant of $3,807,773. As a side note one wonders who at the government decided on figures for grants with $431 and $773, would it not be simpler for the government accountants to make the grants with round numbers like $2,750,000? Maybe this proves that the workings of a government are never easy to explain.

In relation to the finances of the RHRA, the Act under section 21, Fees, loudly proclaims with subsection (5) that, “For greater certainty, the money that the Authority collects in administering this Act and the regulations is not public money as defined in the Financial Administration Act, and the Authority may use the money to carry out its objects.” So “for greater certainty” two thirds of its revenue is not public money, but one third is. It is taxpayer dollars and it is handed over to an Authority established by an Act of Legislation for the purpose of protecting and administering one of the most vulnerable sectors of our society, our seniors. Not only are seniors vulnerable to abuse, neglect and more, they are part of a very powerful political lobby which can influence a vote and support for the government or its opposition.

After reviewing the Retirement Homes Act 2010 and Part II of the Act, it is clear that the RHRA may claim a non-profit status but in the end it is an Authority that answers to the government for its existence and operations. A clearer and more decisive picture emerges with inspection in detail of the Memorandum of Understanding entered into by the Authority with the Minister.

Under section 6 of the MOU, Accountability Relationships, it states “the Minister is accountable to the Legislative Assembly for the fulfilment of the statutory mandate of the RHRA and for reporting to the Legislative Assembly on the affairs of the RHRA.” Further in section 7, Roles and Responsibilities of the Parties, subsection 1, “The Minister is responsible for the overseeing the performance of the RHRA with respect to its statutory mandate and reporting to the Legislative Assembly on its activities...” It may be a fair question to ask as to why it had been necessary to nail down the managerial ladder of responsibility relating to the RHRA.

The first point that needed clarity was the RHRA's not-for-profit designation. As a not-for-profit Authority the RHRA has the power to generate its own, or partially own income revenue from licensing and application fees. In all other areas such as a business operator's licence, driver's licences and more, that revenue is considered government revenue, not so with the set up of the RHRA. Not withstanding all the political and legal terminology of the Act, Part II or the MOU, the RHRA and the government cannot be separated.

Mario Sergio, Minister Responsible for Seniors Affairs was contacted by letter March 20^th 2014 regarding a serious breach by the RHRA of its own Code of Ethics and the Criminal Code. Minister Mario Sergio did as is expected of any minister of government, he lied. This Minister Responsible for Seniors Affairs, and who is by position and authority referred to in the Act Part II and the MOU, ran for cover rather than do what he is paid to do.

Minister Sergio was provided with details of a breach of legislation relating to confidentiality and privacy of information. This breach was committed by an Intake Supervisor at the RHRA and further complicated by John Risk, General Counsel of the RHRA. General Counsel John Risk lied in his letters to a private individual, to a senior and then ensured that phone messages by the individual were intercepted by him rather than being answered. At the time copies of correspondence and other documents were provided to Minister Mario Sergio which confirmed everything that was stated regarding the situation.

Minister Sergio ignored his responsibility though that is not a surprise of a Liberal government minister. By the time Sergio's response was received another piece of the puzzle came forward. This time it was the most damaging of all. A letter dated April 4^th 2014 and signed by Shirley Cordiner, Chair of Niagara Regional Housing, confirmed that the RHRA had instructed all emails and hard copies of a file be destroyed. This is a breach of the Criminal Code and the section on Fraudulent Concealment. So now it is clear as General Counsel for the RHRA, John Risk not only lied in his written communications, he had instructed another government agency to destroy documentation relating to an investigation.

An attempt was made to contact Mary Catherine Lindberg, Chair of RHRA April 11^th 2014. General Counsel John Risk intercepted that phone message, so as no return call was made. Now John Risk, General Counsel for RHRA added stalking of a member of the public on top of his lies and fraudulent concealment. This necessitated a letter to be sent to the Chair of RHRA dated April 23^rd 2014 providing full details and documentation.

No response came from Chair Lindberg, instead an email arrived dated April 28^th 2014 from WeirFoulds LLP, Barristers & Solicitors. WeirFoulds LLP has quite a pedigree, as a law firm based and established in Toronto with a continuous partnership since 1870 made it the oldest law firm in Canada. Its partners have in their ranks a number of judges, in 1966 it prevailed in the Leitch Gold Mines vs. Texas Gulf dispute, the firm represented the T. Eaton Company in 1920 to develop what was then the largest department store in Canada, and in 2003 Derry Millar of WeirFoulds LLP was appointed lead counsel in the Ipperwash Inquiry. In addition to all of this WeirFoulds lawyers have authored or edited leading legal reference books such as Electronic Documents: Records Management. This is one John Risk, General Counsel for the RHRA should have read.

Lawyer M. Jill Dougherty with a Jordan Glick attached responded that they were in receipt of the April 23^rd letter to Chair Lindberg of the RHRA. It may be quite fortuitous that the RHRA is listed as a not-for-profit Authority otherwise how could they afford such legal history and pedigree. A letter was sent to the attention of Ms. Dougherty after her initial email. Rather then respond in writing the attached Jordan Glick decided to use the telephone, and that is when it became quite clear that all the pedigree meant nothing. The attached Jordan Glick was only different to the fellow who hangs out his shingle in Smallville Anywhere because he needs to ride the elevator high enough to be impressed in Toronto's TD Bank Tower.

Jordan Glick's phone call was recorded, and as he was to be considered an 'enemy' that was a prudent step. Three points stood out of the phone conversation. One which Jordan Glick pushed more than once was the fact, according to Glick, that WeirFoulds LLP didn't know what was being expected of their client, the RHRA. Secondly, platitudes gushed out of Jordan Glick's mouth like syrup from a ruptured vein in a maple tree. Thirdly, Jordan Glick dropped two points that were relevant. He brought up the issue of whistle blowing protection, and that the RHRA were supposedly investigating the fact that the provisions and laws surrounding whistle blowing protection were breached. He did not further allude to what or who was conducting what investigation. Ending the phone conversation was as easy as attempting to leave a room filled with insurance salesmen, the door simply had to be slammed loudly.

After the memorable, and recorded, phone conversation with the attached Jordan Glick an email was sent to him. The reply, as always from a lawyer, was interesting. Back on May 5^th, 2014 Jordan Glick said in an email, “My concern about responding in writing is that it is not clear to me what type of response you desire from the RHRA and therefore it is unlikely that we will be able to reach a workable solution for both parties without further information.” Wow, lawyers do fear putting anything in writing. Some four days later Glick sent another email, dated May 9^th 2014. Here Jordan Glick mentions Section 115 of the Act and Section 115(7), all relating to “whistle blowing protection.” He then states, “You have brought to the attention of the RHRA a concern that the Paderewski Society Home may have violated provisions of the Act and the RHRA is responding to this concern accordingly.” A lawyer's answer that is not really an answer.

Glick further states that the RHRA disagrees with the facts of the situation at present. Now that is a surprise, even when settlement is reached no one at RHRA or at WeirFoulds admits to anything, it is simply a settlement to make it all go away, preferably without public attention. Then comes the real chuckle, Glick says “As you have declined to indicate how amicable resolution of your concerns may be reached, it appears that we are not able to be of further assistance at this time.”

Jordan Glick is attached to M. Jill Dougherty, who is employed by WeirFoulds LLP, who have been retained by the RHRA as their client. The RHRA, a pseudo not-for-profit Authority

established by an act of legislation and responsible for reporting everything to the government through the Minister responsible for Senior Affairs, and who have breached legislation and law, now need to find a back door. Jordan Glick amusingly says we “are not able to be of further assistance.” Either the attached Jordan Glick swallowed funny pills before sending these words, or he really thinks he is a comedian.

It is near impossible to ask a question of a lawyer and then get a straight answer regardless of whether the office is a highrise in a big city or a walk-in from the street. Sill Jordan Glick had eluded to a very interesting section of the Act, one not spoken of before. The Plain Language Guide, An Overview of the Retirement Homes Act 2010, published by the RHRA sets out on page 14 “Section 75 of the Act requires a person to make a report to the Registrar where the person suspects that a resident has suffered harm or is at risk of harm because of certain events. These events include abuse, neglect, improper care or treatment and unlawful conduct. A person must also make a report where they suspect misuse of a residents money. Residents are not required to report, but may do so.” It concludes with this statement, “The Act has strong protections for those reporting or disclosing matters to the Registrar or an RHRA inspector. These protections are set out in section 115 and 116 of the Act. In general, a person must not retaliate against a person who makes a report or discloses information to the RHRA.”

The Fact Sheet published by the RHRA relating to Whistle Blowing Protection makes it very clear stating, “Contravention of the whistle blowing protection is an offence under the Act. If convicted, a person may be subject to fines or imprisonment, or both.” In addition to the Plain Language Guide and Fact Sheet published by the RHRA, the Retirement Homes Act makes it clear under Section 115, that anyone making a report to the Registrar is protected under the Act.

So the attached Jordan Glick played at the usual empty bravado that lawyers do and said the RHRA disagrees with the facts. As a mouthpiece for his or his bosses' clients what else is to be expected, still fact is fact, and remains so. The RHRA through Tracy Fairfield, Intake Supervisor and John Risk, General Counsel breached the legislation that gave life to the RHRA. John Risk went much further to hide the truth, he not only lied in written communications but had provided instructions for the deletion of files.

An opportunity was provided to the RHRA to settle an issue of breach of legislation and law by officers of the Authority. As a response, the RHRA brought in an impressive law firm with an equally impressive pedigree. WeirFoulds LLP through the attached Jordan Glick decided that they were of no “further assistance at this time” for their clients, the RHRA. Since Jordan Glick eluded to the whole issue of Section 115 of the Act, he is also fully aware, and for that matter so is his client the RHRA, of the fact that General Counsel John Risk knew of the breaches committed against Section 115. Yet John Risk requested the fraudulent concealment of documentation regardless.

Maybe in the end the heights of the Toronto Dominion Tower in downtown big city Toronto are not as impressive after all.

Send comments to: demtruth@gmail.com

Mayorgate's Reply to Defence To Counterclaim

Lawyer Rachel Slingerland of Martens Lingard LLP on behalf of her clients the Board of Directors of the Paderewski Society Home has bounced back with her Defence To Counterclaim. It is as interesting as ever.

The Rules of Civil Procedure are quite elongated and somewhat convoluted with jab and cross jab. Mind you there are strict rules that set out the boundaries of a playing field. For instance time limits, and others. Lawyer Slingerland jabbed first with her Notice of Action, then followed up with the Statement of Claim. Since I decided to use boxing analogies I will say that Slingerland is no Mohammed Ali, the boxer who changed his name nor the Viceroy of Egypt of 1805-48.

As required, I on behalf of Mayorgate, and artist Alexandra Davidoff on behalf of Alexandra Davidoff responded with our Statement of Defence. All within the Rules of Civil Procedure, how civil, well that's been the question from the beginning. Can civility accept intentional deceit and false claims? That is still to be answered.

I/Mayorgate made my statement of defence very clear and in individual point form, as did Alexandra Davidoff in relation to herself. No allegation made by Slingerland on behalf of her clients the Board of the Paderewski Society Home had been left out. To revisit all that here and now would be a waste of time as all the details have been published. I will only repeat again that as publisher of Mayorgate I will be open and public on everything, and artist Alexandra Davidoff also wishes to be so.

Upon receipt of the Statement of Claim issued by Slingerland there were 39 individual paragraphs, neatly organised and numbered. True some of them were lawyer's and legal rhetoric, but in the end all those years in law school did pay off in some way. From the 39 paragraphs 16 directly were aimed at Alexander Davidoff and Alexandra Davidoff. Some of these played at quoting my article, though the deceit here was astonishing at the omission, I repeat intentional omission, of some 80% of the actual words I wrote. Also such simple facts as I had published copies of letters originally by Slingerland and Niagara Regional Housing, (NRH). Nothing on Mayorgate in any article is made by mere claim, it is always supported with material, documents and testimony of a credible individual.

I responded with a Statement of Defence, properly registered at the courthouse as required by the Rules of Civil Procedure. My document had a total of 32 paragraphs. The first 12 under the subheading for Alexandra Davidoff, the remaining under Alexander Davidoff. It was also neatly set out, in clear and concise English, though it may not of had that sparkle of legal rhetoric and book learning.

Finally on April 21^st 2014 via email, then April 22^nd 2014 via standard mail a Defence of Counterclaim was received from Slingerland. This time there were 15 neatly stacked paragraphs. Beginning with paragraph 1, Slingerland states: “The Plaintiff admits the allegations contained in paragraph 20 of the Counterclaim of the Defendant, Leopold Skorski (“the Defendant, Skorski”).” As one reads that particular paragraph in Leo's Statement of Defence, one can't help to wonder whether Slingerland was trying to let her hair down from book learning or simply sarcasm snuck in. Leo put as paragraph 20, “The Defendant, Skorski, repeats and relies upon the allegations in the Statement of Defence in support of the Counterclaim.”

Slingerland's paragraph 2 does not clarify as to who it really is meant for, but one has no choice but to conclude that it is aimed at the Statement of Defence served by Alexander Davidoff, and separated under that specific subheading. These paragraphs that Slingerland refers to can only be relating to the issue of time limitations and the supporting documents presented. Mind you here in her second paragraph Slingerland does not elude to that. As neat and orderly as the stacked paragraphs are, clarity was left out.

After this Slingerland continues to make each paragraph relate directly to Leo Skorski and only him, well until paragraph 11. Here Slingerland takes a walk on the wild side again. Paragraph 11 states, “On or about February 2 2014, the Plaintiff became aware of an article and You Tube video published on the website known as Mayorgate, in which the Defendant, Skorski was interviewed by the Defendants Alexander Davidoff and Alexandra Davidoff...” The rest of this paragraph is the repetition of what Skorski had said.

So out of the 15 neatly stacked paragraphs only 2 now relate to me and artist Alexandra Davidoff. The first is considered to be by its ambiguously arranged words, and the second more clearly aimed at Alexandra and I. Only the sheer ludicrous nature of paragraph 11 cannot be ignored.

Slingerland has miraculously found the date! In her original Notice of Action this was not stated! According to time limitations and the case law that I had provided in my Statement of Defence, after both the Notice of Action and Statement of Claim, Slingerland now conveniently pulls February 2^nd out of a hat.

In the Defence to Counterclaim Slingerland does not state who her paragraph 2 pertains to. Those paragraphs 15, 16, 17, 18 and 19 she quotes can only relate to the Statement of Defence for Alexander and Alexandra Davidoff. In my Statement of Defence, under the subheading of Alexander Davidoff I had provided the case law and Supreme Court decisions on this very issue. So it appears that Slingerland decided to do the rabbit and hat trick, and deny the facts again. Yet Slingerland is not very attentive, and her neatly stacked paragraphs are only a farce. It seems the book learning was missing something after all.

Our Statement of Defence was divided into two subheadings as already stated. First was the subheading under Alexandra Davidoff, it was shorter and rightfully so. The lies by lawyer Slingerland relating to Alexandra were insane, needing little in polite response. Though it is important to note paragraphs 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8. Those paragraphs state the same defence and refer to the same case law as the ones that Slingerland denied in paragraph 2 of her Reply to Counterclaim.

Legal language I have come to understand has to cover every possible interpretation, understanding, meaning and actuality of statement. Basically in simple terms it has to cover all angles and close all possible loopholes. Lawyer Slingerland apparently denied the veracity and relevance of case law and Rules of Civil Procedure relating to her lack of knowledge and actions as brought up under the subheading of Alexander Davidoff. Yet lawyer Slingerland did not deny the same case law and its relevance to the Rules of Civil Procedure and her lack of knowledge and actions as raised under the subheading of Alexandra Davidoff.

As it now stands lawyer Slingerland has not denied the “allegations,” the statements of fact in paragraph 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8 of the Statement of Defence. Then it has to be taken that lawyer Slingerland concedes them to be true. Maybe like a school girl she will claim that she meant to claim that she meant to, or that by ambiguously denying them will work, or that as she only denied paragraphs 15, 16, 18, 19 then surely everyone should accept her excuses. The law only relies on clear and precise language, not misconception and deceit.

Deceit is something lawyer Slingerland slings around rather freely on behalf of her clients the Board of Directors of the Paderewski Society Home. Slingerland began her deceit claiming that artist Alexandra Davidoff “writes” the articles on Mayorgate. Then in her Statement of Claim that changed to a new lie, this time lawyer Slingerland claimed that Alexandra “operates” the website known as Mayorgate. Now in her Defence to Counterclaim Slingerland has changed that to Alexandra had “interviewed” Skorski. Three changes, three lies and Slingerland as a lawyer has to prove those lies. As a lawyer, sworn in as an officer of the court, Slingerland needs to explain if she is being instructed by the Board of Directors of the Paderewski Society Home to lie, or is it simply her decision.

At this time the image of lawyer Slingerland manically pulling out one deceitful trick after another, as the senior partners Ronald Martens and Peter Lingard sit back and watch appears to be appropriate. Both partners had been made aware of the breach, the willing breach of law by a lawyer representing their legal firm. As they watch one lie fall after another they have decided to let that lawyer to continue to defame and to lie. They cannot walk away from responsibility in this case.

In today's society law as a profession rates as high as politics. No one can believe that O.J. waved good-bye to justice without a good, and expensive mouthpiece. The law itself is as blind as the broad holding those scales. None of our rights are guaranteed unless we are willing to fight for them. Truth and dignity does not always win out in the end, and in reality rarely does as fewer and fewer people care about it. Corruption in St. Catharines is simply, as it now appears, a way of daily life. Although it is not only in St. Catharines but a plague that continues to fester throughout. Sadly as Canadians we do not rock the boat, we do not fight for each other very much. In the end all suffer from this attitude.

Lawyer Rachel Slingerland, a licensed and sworn officer of the court has willingly broken the law. She used illegally obtained documents to make an attempt at criminal harassment. That was not enough for Slingerland. She then lied and backed off from her lies in relation to an innocent individual. All of this done on behalf of the Board of Directors of the Paderewski Society Home. It has been stated in a letter by Slingerland that she meets with the Board to discuss these issues. This is the same Board who wants people to believe that they initially gathered out of the goodness of their hearts to donate their own time for no financial gain to help seniors in their community. How many of them know of the criminal breach of law by their lawyer? How many of them know of the lies stated by their lawyer on their behalf? How many of them care?

Both Ronald Martens and Peter Lingard are fully aware of the criminal breach of law by their lawyer Rachel Slingerland. Neither partner saw fit to end this farce.

Send comments to: demtruth@gmail.com

Earth Has Its Residents

Once again Earth Day is upon us with its usual one day hoopla. Famous faces get together for the cameras and just like on New Years Eve resolutions are made, only to be broken and forgotten. It seems that if we give something its own day then we feel that a level of achievement has been reached. Well a quick flip of the calendar to May 1^st and it's Save the Rhino Day. A day for thinkers, minor politicians, activists and others to sit around and talk a great deal about the horrific slaughter of this majestic beast.

Worldwide publicity around Earth Day has grown over the years to an extreme level. People from each corner of the globe seem to know of it and find all kinds of events arranged for April 22^nd. School children are herded together into collective projects, local municipal politicians praise their recycling efforts and media play the theme of Mother Earth for a day. As April 23^rd dawns all is forgotten, packed away for another year, well except the obvious talents of little Johnny and little Mary, that stays on the fridge for at least a week.

This planet Earth is extremely important and its conservation, its protection, cannot be ignored. Yet this wondrous planet does not float in the galaxy barren, unlike so many others it sustains life to billions of varying residents. Earth has its residents, the most intelligent and most dangerous of all is man. Although it is man who can help to preserve the Earth and his fellow neighbours who share the ground he lives on, the air he breathes and the water that sustains all life.

As humanity we carry an absolute and undeniable responsibility to preserve life. We have seen through the years one species after another reach the brink of extinction, and then finally pass into oblivion. How much longer can we ignore the fact that man is the only species that kills for pleasure, kills for sport, and kills for greed.

Today we face the prospect of another creature being herded towards the brink of extinction. For now there is little time on our side to stem the tide of destruction, though it would take humanity as a collective to achieve such a goal. The killing fields are in Kruger National Park, South Africa. The target is the rhino, not for food or pelt, but only for its horn. This incredible beast which can exceed 3500 kilograms (7700 lb), with a length of head and body at 3.5 to 4.6 metres (11-15 ft), and a shoulder height at 1.8 to 2 metres (5.9 – 6.8 ft), is being slaughtered in alarming numbers. The killers are vicious gangs incapable of understanding the impact of the slaughter, and bred to be incapable to care.

"This photograph was taken on a camera trap. The camera traps are donated to Stephen Long by Nicholas Duncan from the SAVE the African Rhino Foundation, Australia. Stephen would have set the camera up at a strategic point in Sinamatella to identify the rhino from ear notches. The Black Rhino that these guys are desperately trying to protect can travel an average of 25km a night so they are hard to stay with and track, depending on the terrain," said Chris Palmer.

At one time in the early twentieth century rhino population throughout African and Asia was estimated at some 500,000. Today that is no longer the case with the Western Black Rhino declared extinct by the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN). According to the IUCN two other subspecies of rhino are facing the same prospect, Africa's Northern White Rhino and Asia's Javan Rhino. Yet it is not the depletion of natural habitat that is putting the rhino at risk, it is man, it is illegal poaching.

Simon Stuart, chair of the IUCN species survival commission said in a statement, “In the case of the western black rhino and the northern white rhino the situation could have had very different results if the suggested conservation measures had been implemented.” (Western Black Rhino declared extinct, Matthew Knight, CNN, November 6, 2013). Many, including the IUCN, point to the success in the conservation of the Southern White Rhino subspecies which saw numbers drop to less than 100 in the late nineteenth century. Today the Southern White Rhino subspecies is estimated at 20,000, conservation works and there is proof of that. Now the rhino faces a more dangerous enemy. South Africa is home to 83% of Africa's rhinos and 73% of all wild rhinos worldwide (statistics from savetherhino.org). At the same time it is also the bloodiest killing field, with much of the killing taking place in South Africa's Kruger National Park.

According to government statistics the figures of slaughtered rhinos has been increasing alarmingly, particularly between 2012 and 2013. In 2007 there were only 13 rhinos killed for their horns, 2012 saw that number climb to 668 and now 2013 has been the very worst year with the death toll climbing to 1,004. Tom Milliken from Traffic International told BBC news, “the experts tell me we are not quite yet at the tipping point but we are very close to it. If this kind attrition is sustained for much longer we are definitely going to see South Africa's rhinos go into decline for the first time in a hundred years.” (Worst year ever for SA rhino poaching, Matt McGrath, Environment Correspondent BBC News, January 17, 2014).

The White Rhino was one of the greatest conservation efforts, with many patting themselves on their backs, and rightfully so. It showed what man is capable of, instead of dealing out death, man saved a creature from extinction. Still those conservationists did not face a vicious animal with a high-powered gun fuelled by greed. Today the White Rhino faces a greater challenge.

The slaughter is generated by a higher demand for the rhino horn, particularly from Vietnam and China. Here the horn is thought to have medicinal benefits and an aphrodisiac. Maybe Viagra should be introduced in this part of the world, and the rhino left alone. It is this demand, frivolous and insane as it sounds, that puts a black market price of up to $65,000 per kilogram for the rhino horn, making it more expensive than gold or even cocaine.

One response has been to promote the dehorning of the rhino, believing that poachers will not kill a rhino that is hornless. Dehorning is a medical procedure and has been conducted first in Namibia and in Zimbabwe Lowveld. This process removes some 90% of the rhino horn leaving a stub whilst the animal is sedated. In Zimbabwe's Save Valley Conservancy, six newly dehorned rhinos were killed from January to August of 2011, one was killed within 24 hours and another within five days of being dehorned.

So the debate on dehorning continues. Regardless of whether one considers the dangers of sedation to the animal or the fact that the horn grows back, or listen to the statistics of how dehorned rhinos have a better chance of survival, the real point is missed. Why should a natural state of an animal be altered as protection against men and their greed? The rhino horn is there for a reason and it is used by the rhino in its daily life. Why should there be a need to hack off such a definitive feature?

Photograph taken by Stephen Long, and posted by Chris Palmer on Google+ with this comment: "a message to anyone that supports De Horning of Rhino. It doesn't f---ing work!! These two Rhino stubs were found on a dead poacher!! not long after it was De horned."

Dehorning put aside another suggestion is to legalise the rhino horn trade. Duan Biggs, research fellow at the Centre for Excellence for Environmental Decisions at Australia's University of Queensland told IPS: “The trade ban is creating a situation where rhinos are being killed unnecessarily. It's taking resources away from other conservation efforts, and is leading to the situation where there's a pseudo war taking place in the Kruger National Park.” (Would a legal rhino horn trade stem poaching?, Brendon Bosworth for IPS, Guardian Environmental Network, April 18, 2013).

The South African government is preparing a proposal for the 2016 Convention on Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) to open up the rhino horn trade. Michael't Sas-Rolfes, an independent conservation economist who researches the trade in illegal rhino horn told IPS, “The idea is to cut (illegal traders) out of the market. They are dealing in a lot of other products. If it becomes unattractive to them they'll simply switch to something else.” (Would a legal rhino horn trade stem poaching?, Brendan Bosworth for IPS, April 18, 2013).

An analogy that is used by the proponents of legal rhino horn trade is the benefit of the establishment of legal and sustainable crocodile ranching rather than the slaughter of wild crocodiles. Mary Rice, executive director of the Environmental Investigation Agency, provides a more alarming example. Illegal ivory sales in China has risen even though China bought, legally, stockpiles of ivory from Botswana, South Africa, Namibia and Zimbabwe in 2008. According to a report by the Environmental Investigation Agency some 90% of ivory that enters the market in China is illegal. Mary Rice told IPS, “Legal ivory is now more expensive that illegal ivory, and what you have is the biggest upsurge in poaching since the (1989) ban (on international ivory trade).” (Would a legal rhino horn trade stem poaching?, Brendan Bosworth for IPS, April 18, 2013). The Chinese government bought the ivory stockpiles for $157 per kilogram, selling it for up to $1500 per kilogram, and ivory products retailing for up to $7000.

To further fuel the insanity of the debate over how to protect the rhino from slaughter, the African nation of Namibia and the Dallas (Texas) Safari Club decided to auction off a permit to hunt an endangered African Black Rhino. This permit sold for a cool $350,000 with the executive director of the Safari Club defending the auction claiming that the money raised will go toward protecting the species, less of course the one that will be killed. Better questions hang unanswered, even not asked, how much of a commission did the Dallas Safari Club get, how much did they charge for the privilege to be part of the auction and how much will members of the Namibian government distribute as commissions? Finally, how will this blood money, and no one can deny that physically in the end that is exactly what it is with the death of a rhino by bullet, be used in the protection of the species?

First of all this is not the first time a permit such as this has been auctioned by the Namibian government. Namibia's government offers five such permits every year, with a previous record price being $223,000, although it is the first time that the auction was held outside of the country. Jeffrey Flocken, North American regional director of the Massachusetts based IFAW said, “This is, in fact, making a spectacle of killing an endangered species.” (Permit to hunt endangered African black rhino sells for $35,000, AP, January 12, 2014).

On the opposite side of the scale comes a massive donation of over $23 million to help in the war to protect the rhino by the son of billionaire investor Warren Buffet, 59 year old Howard Buffet. The donation is to enable authorities to buy a helicopter, vehicles, and high-tech equipment to be used in Kruger's National Park. This high-tech equipment will be similar to what the US uses to patrol the Mexican border, with sensors on fences to detect anyone jumping over them, and tethered balloons. Tethered balloons carry infrared cameras that scan the ground for intruders. Buffet told Associated Press, “we're going to do it at a scale that hasn't been done before. This is very much like our drug war.” ($23 Million for Rhinos: Howard Buffet`s Mega Gift to Help Stop Poaching, John Platt, AP, March 2014 for Takepart).

Without hesitation it is a war, a war to save creatures hunted down and slaughtered for greed and the satisfaction man has felt through the ages in the hunt. China and Vietnam fuel the insatiable demand for the rhino horn. Traditional Chinese medicine uses it as a major component, and today it has become an ingredient for a detoxifying party drug. The saddest reality of all is that the rhino horn is made of keratin, the same as fingernails on humans and it has no medicinal qualities at all!

Still the demand grows, and the war continues. Amongst the political rhetoric and excuses there are individuals who risk a great deal to protect the rhino, and other creatures like the elephant. These men walk the bushlands ready to go head to head with poachers. Each day they patrol with rangers putting their lives on the line. Men like Chris Palmer, Stephen Long of Bhejane Trust, Damien Mander Founder and CEO of International Anti-Poaching Foundation and Nicholas Duncan President of SAVE African Rhino Foundation, know the realities first hand.

Photograph by Chris Palmer of Stephen Long catching a break.

Mayorgate was able to contact Stephen Long of the Bhejane Trust, who was out in the bushland on patrol, to ask about the realities at 'ground zero'. As Save the Rhino Day approaches with the activists, conservationists, politicians and general thinkers gathering together, Long's words should echo the hallways. Steven Long of Bhejan Trust told Mayorgate: 

“Why bother to preserve rhino? As far as I can see, whatever reasons you put forward, you eventually come back to either the ethical (what right do we have to wipe out a species?) or the 'grandchildren' (we must preserve them on behalf of our grandchildren) arguments. They don't sound hard-headed or practical but they are really just about all we've got. In the Zimbabwe context a powerful and related argument for rhino is that they are great preservers of the wilderness and other animals. We often think of it the other way around - we need wilderness to keep the rhino but here there are a number of wilderness areas that would probably be gone without the rhino.

During our land reform (we won't get into discussion of that one or I'd be typing for weeks) most white-owned land with wildlife on it was taken and it is an established fact that the animals were mostly killed and the land use has often changed to small-scale 'peasant' farming with no room for wildlife. That did not happen where rhino were present. The contrast between the Gwayi and Save Valley conservancies is an excellent example. Both were largely white-owned, Gwayi had few or no rhino and was all taken, Save has many rhino and has been left alone - even to the extent of settlers linked to the ruling party being chased away when they tried to take over without permission. The rhino and their high international profile are responsible for that. On the same lines, we are currently facing a major elephant poaching problem and are having some success in containing it. This is down to the training, equipment, alertness of rangers on the ground and good intelligence networks that started out aimed almost exclusively at preserving rhino but now conserves elephants just as well.

So, the rhino are an internationally recognisable flagship species, and thanks to them, everything else that lives around them is better preserved. Whether or not that's a good thing goes straight back to the ethical and grandchildren arguments but for me it makes them more powerful - we might look away while one species goes but it becomes more difficult when whole ecosystems are at risk. To sum up - preserving rhino is part of preserving the wild - and that's worth doing! 

Secondly then, how do we conserve them? The 'make them valuable' argument divorces rhino from their habitat and just makes them a commodity - it would work better if they were farmed rather than kept in the wild and I see that as a completely different discussion. There can't be much doubt that we could preserve caged rhino for ever - and farm their horns but what would be the point? That certainly isn't what I'm interested in. For me, conserving rhino is a part of conserving natural habitats and although there is certainly a role for small fenced conservancies as rhino 'fortresses' it can't be the only plan.

The anti-poaching/'military' option is the high profile one that brings in the donor funds but I am not a believer. I honestly don't think the military option can work so long as the rewards for the poachers and smugglers are huge and  there is poverty and corruption to make poaching worthwhile, whatever the risk. South Africa has the best resources in Africa for anti-poaching but it is not winning - and the rest of us have even less chance. If we rely entirely on anti-poaching we will eventually lose the fight. That's not to say anti-poaching is useless - without the rangers out in the bush day after day we would have lost the fight long ago. We must just be careful not to put all our reliance on anti-poaching and be seduced by the tough guy image of men festooned in guns and camouflage creeping around out in the bush pretending to be Action Man. Don't get me wrong - I work with brave, dedicated, skillful rangers every day and they are fantastic at what they do. The white guys who just like posing with guns can be a pain but they have their role as well (donors love them). Ultimately though, black or white, trained and dedicated or not, they can't win.

The only solution I can see is to hold the fort with anti-poaching in Africa but meanwhile attack the problem at its source - the market in Asia. I'm not in any way an expert on that but I'm told that statistics show markets for rhino horn increase as nations become more affluent, then shrink as affluence and education increase further. That is apparently what happened with Japan and Taiwan and is starting to happen with China - but Thailand and Burma are waiting in the wings. How you put pressure on the Chinese consumer and their government is a question I can't even begin to answer but it is certainly the central question in rhino conservation.”

The future of our Earth does not rest on the willingness to conserve our resources, turn off some lights for an hour, demonstrate about fracking or fight the pipelines. Though all of these individual efforts are important, our future and that of Earth must include all the inhabitants who share our wondrous planet. We as humanity have a responsibility in what can be considered a more enlightened millennium to preserve other species who are our neighbours.

As Stephen Long, Chris Palmer and others struggle both in words and sweat to save the rhino from extinction, a general groundswell around the world is being fueled through the use of imagery of the majesty of this creature. News media have provided photographs of rhinos in agony with their horns hacked off. Artists have used all forms of medium to portray the rhino in its natural habitat. Whether you want to listen to Stephen Long or not, his point on concentrating efforts at the source of the demand for the rhino horn cannot be ignored. Artist Alexandra Davidoff, using a simple pencil, provides an image of the rhino as it is entangled in the very language of the dominant species on earth. This image was part of an exhibition held in New Delhi, India, March 7^th to 9^th 2014 by an organisation called Animal. Images such as these widen public opinion against the slaughter and can bring greater pressure on those who provide the demand and reason for the existence of illegal poachers.

Alexandra Davidoff's rhino drawing at the Animal "Species" exhibition in New Delhi, India.

Earth Day will pass within its flitting 24 hours and be packed away until the next April 22^nd, yet the struggle to keep a species from being declared extinct and lost forever does not end.

Send comments to: demtruth@gmail.com