I did. When speaking to James Wood from CHAT News on September 29th, 2017.
“[Eggen] seems to be on an agenda to exclude parents from knowing what their kids are doing at school,” said Williamson.
“That’s a violation of the U.N Charter of Human Rights. Parents have a prior right to choose the education for their children. Canada is a signatory on that charter, so to go back, independently as Alberta, and say parents no longer have a prior right to know, I think it will probably get challenged. He might pass laws, but it wouldn’t be very long before they got challenged in court.”
Link to full copy of Bill-24
Well, that was quite a weekend. I write a post proving Notley is a liar, (and not a very good one,) and putting the bed the idea that GSAs are for anything besides sex talks, and bam the website explodes with clicks. You don’t write legislation exempting GSAs from the parental right to opt out their children from sexual material, unless…well, you intend on having sexual materials in the GSAs. Basic logic. Though basic logic seems to be taking a back burner to feelings these days.
Friday’s post went viral. I say that, but there isn’t really a metric for saying something went viral. I base that on my own metric of the average hits this site gets, vs the number of hits it has gotten since Friday. Facebook hilariously says that the article had an abysmal reach of ~350 people. I don’t know how Facebook counts, but the articles clicks was in the thousands on the website counter. In fact, it had so many clicks, it outpaced the lifetime clicks of any of the other articles/posts in the lifetime of the site. Mind you, that isn’t very long. The CPoSD76 website has not even gotten to it’s first anniversary yet. It has only been around for about 8 months.
I know, I’m not the one that determines if something ‘goes viral.’ The media is right? Well, the bar was set pretty low, when 2 tweets by a couple of NDP twitter eggs who were triggered by a Wildrose constituency president Facebook post warranted a province wide ‘controversy.’ Friday’s post got 20 times the clicks the CPoSD76 post about the controversy did.
So why am I saying all this? Well, for one, as of last Sunday evening, the CPoSD76 website has had over 200,000 pairs of eye come to the site. That is no small thing for an 8 month old website. So woot! Thanks for paying attention. Tell your friends. Hey, tell your enemies! I’m sure a good portion of those clicks are not from people who support what the Concern Parents do. I know we have received a few not so fan e-mails.
Secondly, this post is about the liars. The liars that are all around us. I may be just speaking from my own interpretation here, but I think people are sick of the lies. They have had it up to the gills with the Orwellian PC speak, (which they know is there,) and they flock to sites that have people that are willing to say what they mean, and mean what they say.
It would be remiss of me to stand up here on my digital soap box and act like I’ve never lied before. I would be lying if I said I’ve never lied. I am ashamed, and sorry for each and every one of them, but don’t start rubbing your hands together in preparation for my ‘big confession.’ I’m not talking about any lies I’ve told to you. I take lying quite seriously, and as I’ve said in previous postings, I swore before God and under penalty of law for everything I stated in court, so ya, that is all the truth. I’ve never knowingly lied about anything I posted on here or the equivalent facebook page. I never lied during the election campaign. So why am I saying all this? Well, for one if you find anything I’ve posted, and you think it is a lie, or misleading, point it out to me, and I’ll explain or correct it. But also I’m not in a position of authority, or responsible for the protection of anyone in your family, and when someone in one of those positions knowingly lies to you, that is a serious problem. When someone with “Trustee” in their title lies to you, that should be a game stopper to you.
Over the course of the last couple of years, there have been a few lies told to the public by the Board of SD76, or one or more of it’s members, but I’m only going to go into the doozies, the ones I can prove. Before that though, let my define what I consider a lie, or lying:
A lie is when a statement is made with the intention of deceiving the hearer/reader into thinking that a false statement is true, or has a meaning other than it’s true meaning; This can be done through omission of relevant information, addition of incorrect or irrelevant information, exaggeration, or from having a meaning or context for words or phrases that is different from the typical and widely understood meaning or context of the words or phrases. This deception in most cases would be done intentionally, but can also occur when at first it was done unintentionally, but the speaker/reader refuses to correct their statements when presented with evidence of their errancy.
I’ll begin with the most glaring:
As this is getting to be quite the novella, I’ll just list a few others I’ve noticed that are a bit nuanced, and I would be happy to explain if asked.
Which of the current MHPSD Trustees believes that Public Education should be the only choice, and that Private/Home schooling is lowering educational standards and achievements?
Total Voters: 1
To close this off, I’ll share with you a video of the real reason public education is failing, and it is not because of Privatization of Schools, or parents choosing to home school their children.
On Thursday, Eggen slapped out his “will someone not think of the gays!” legislation. Even calling it the Kenney bill. Claiming that his proposed legislation would protect children from those abusive intolerant parents that permeate every corner of society. Never giving factual information on numbers of students that are actually abused by their parents for their sexuality. Never defining what he considers abusive behaviour. Never actually reporting those situations to police or child services, (which is the law,) and believing every story shared with a dozen “FWD::”s in front of it. Facts, evidence, and the truth don’t fit into his narrative.
In fact, truth seems to be the biggest issue he and Notley have trouble with. We’ve been told for two years that GSA are supportive groups that save lives, but when it was discovered the the material at these ‘clubs’ was about pushing sexual fetishes, and a work around for the “opt out clause;” with materials that included how to have safe anal fisting sessions with your partner, pantyhose parties, and sponsoring of drag reading sessions, total silence from Eggen. Parents were rightly outraged.
Parents then rightly demanded that they be told if their child was attending these ‘sex ed’ clubs. Under section 50 of the Alberta School Act, parents had the right to opt their children out of ANY sexual material at school. Well, then the Eggen/Notley outrage machine respond, and said “you are wanting to out gays to their parents, you horrible human beings!” The preposterous absurdity of that argument was clearly evident in the very name of the sex clubs, “Gay Straight Alliance.” A name they now want to protect under the law.
(c) by adding the following after subsection (3):
(3.1) For greater certainty, the principal shall not prohibit or discourage students from choosing a name that includes “gay straight alliance” or “queer-straight alliance”.
Imagine if a Catholic group demanded that they be allowed to have a club in school called “The Salvation of Lost Souls,” and that name was forced without consent, by law, or else legal consequences would follow?
So after it was discovered that Albertan’s weren’t buying there thinly veiled cover over the sex clubs that had pornography, and how to pay for sex, as supportive ‘resources,’ they set their phasers to kill; got their media lapdogs to dig up the ‘proposed’ Catholic Sex Ed curriculum, cut and pasted sentences together in the Ministry of Truth editorial room, and screamed, through the premier herself, that Catholics want to teach Rape.
Wrapped up in the feigned outrage over a non-existent proposal within the Catholic curriculum, Notley her self said, AND I QUOTE: “Parents have the right — and they have had the right for a very, very long time — to pull their kids from curriculum and education around sexual health. And they will continue to have that right.”
She said that on October 24th. 10 days ago. She must think Albertan’s have exceptionally short memories, because yesterday, her Minister of Education tabled legislation that revokes that right, and proves without a shadow of a doubt that GSA’s are about instructing on sex.
From the proposed legislation:
9 Section 50.1 is amended by adding the following after subsection (3):
(4)For greater certainty, this section does not apply with respect to the establishment or operation of a voluntary student organization referred to in section 16.1 or the organizing or holding of an activity referred to in section 16.1.
7 Explanatory Notes
8 Exemption from section 45.1; application of investigation, inquiry provisions.
9 Section 50.1 presently reads:
50.1 (1) A board shall provide notice to a parent of a student where courses of study, educational programs or instructional aterials, or instruction or exercises, include subject-matter that deals primarily and explicitly with religion or human sexuality.
(2) Where a teacher or other person providing instruction, eaching a course of study or educational program or using the instructional materials eferred to in subsection
(1) receives a written request signed by a parent of a student that the student be excluded from the instruction, course of study, educational program or use of instructional materials, the teacher or other person shall in accordance with the request of the parent permit the student, without academic penalty,
(a) to leave the classroom or place where the instruction, course of study or educational program is taking place or the instructional materials are being used for the duration of the part of the instruction, course of study or educational program, or the use of the instructional materials, that includes the subject-atter referred to in subsection (1), or 2
Section 16.1 presently reads:
16.1(1) If one or more students attending a school operated by a board request a staff member employed by the board for support to establish a voluntary student organization, or to lead an activity intended to promote a welcoming, caring, respectful and safe learning environment that respects
diversity and fosters a sense of belonging, the principal of the school shall
(a) permit the establishment of the student organization or the holding of the activity at the school, and
(b) designate a staff member to serve as the staff liaison to facilitate the establishment, and the ongoing operation, of the student organization or to assist in organizing the activity.
(2) For the purposes of subsection (1), an organization or activity includes an organization or activity that promotes equality and non-discrimination with respect to, without limitation, race, religious belief, colour, gender, gender identity, gender expression, physical disability, mental disability, family status or sexual orientation, including but not limited to organizations such as 2
(d) by adding the following after subsection (5):
(6) The principal is responsible for ensuring that notification, if any, respecting a voluntary student organization or an activity referred to in subsection (1) is limited to the fact of the establishment of the organization or the holding of the activity.
If GSA’s are not about instructing on sex and sexuality, then there would be no need to exempt them from section 16.1. If parents continued to have the right to opt out their children from sexual instruction, than there would be no exceptions for GSAs. Let me remind you, that the GSAs and their ‘resources’ have been caught teaching about transgenderism to 5 year olds, that they have had dozens of links to sexually explicit material on the GSA network, and that they have handed out pamphlets on how to have safe anal fisting sessions. (Something literally impossible to do safely.)
This is what Eggen’s proposed legislation ACTUALLY produces. Children are being harmed, in real life cases.
This kind of legislation is a pedophiles dream! We already know that sexual predators seek out positions where they can enact their fantasies, and we know that secrecy is their best ally. Now all they have to do is volunteer to be the organizer of the GSA. No standards of criteria, or expertise necessary. It is demonstrably clear the GSAs are being used to promote sexuality, and sexual education, otherwise why would they be exempt from the requirement of allowing a parent to opt out their child? If GSAs are not a wing of Alberta Education, a ‘class’ if you will, than why must the schools provide a staff member to run the ‘club’? Make no mistake, Eggen intends to use GSAs as a way of teaching his and his buddy’s(Wells) idea of sexuality. And he doesn’t care who gets hurt in the process.
Last Tuesday I had the privilege of attending the first board meeting for MHPSD since the elections. I initially stated that it started at 6pm, and then after checking the agenda, corrected myself, and said it started at 6:15pm. That was apparently actually a mix up on the agenda, as I arrived at 6:15pm and the meeting had already started. I unfortunately missed the Board recognition section of the meeting.
The overall flow of the meeting was pretty standard. The first item discussed was a band field trip to Disney Park. It was approved in principle. It appeared to me to be a well organized proposal, and I think the kids will have a great opportunity, should it receive final approval.
There was then a ‘district milestones update’, and then they got into the meat of the meeting. The policy update recommendations for student fees and special needs education. The student fees policies were updated to align with Bill 1, and it was noted by the Secretary that further updates are likely to follow, as the NDP have indicated that they wish to make further changes to school fees. The details of which are as yet not known. Massini noted that he had some “editorial comments, that he would give to the secretary in private.” (Why would editorial comments need to be in private?)
Forbes also noted that she would like to see the fees policies completely re-written, rather than keep amending them. This makes sense to me, and the Board seems to all agree, but they are going to wait until all the changes from Edmonton have been completed, and use amendments as a stop gap until that time. Forbes elaborated a bit on what she foresaw in changes to the wording of the policies, in regards to the section having to do with special needs.
Forbes stated that “Special Needs Education” should be called “Special Rights Education”, because these children have special rights to education. I did a bit of a Spock face to that comment, as it seemed rather Animal Farmesq. It brought to mind the quote from Animal Farm by George Orwell that says “All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.”
Now, I do think that children with special needs, do have special accommodations do to their particular circumstances, but I am unaware of any rights that they have that other students do not. I also do not have 20 years of experience on the board, so perhaps I am missing something. I’m a bit too cynical to draw my own conclusions, as to whether these wording changes would be helpful or not to the special needs policy in MHPSD, so I’ve put a poll at the bottom, so that you can let me know how you feel about it.
After approving the revisions to policy 650, the second in a series of “accountability” reports. These reports are based on the results of survey questions asked of staff, students, and parents, on where the district stands on various metrics. The results for this report are in the attachment documents for the agenda, and are fairly self explanatory, however how sampling was taken, and what questions were asked is not available. This may have been given in September’s report, but I was not at that meeting. I would be really curious as to how sampling was conducted.
There was a brief discussion on nominations for various committees, (those elections have not happened yet,) and then it was into a presentation from Student services. The student services presentation focused on special needs….I mean special rights education. The bulk of the discussion was around Tier 4 students, and what their support looked like. The presenter explained that each special rights student had a B.E.S.T.(Behaviour and Emotional Support Team,) group which consisted of a Support Teacher, Educational Assistant, and a Social Worker, which they now call a ‘Family Enhancement Facilitator.’ I guess there is some kind of stigma with calling them a social worker. I’ll have to ask the ministry of truth about that. Wilson-Fraser inquired further about the Support Teachers, and as far as I understood it, each school has one. Symmonds commented on the importance of a family liaison. I think she too was referring to the social worker. So I’m not sure what they should be called. There was no discussion on the centralization of special needs staff, that I heard so much about from teachers during the campaign.
The meeting finished with Trustee Reports, an enrollment update, (we are up by 22 students this year, there was a prediction of no increase, so that was good,) and a few announcements about future meetings.(NSBA,PSBA, & ASBA) The trustee reports were very brief, as everyone was involved in the election campaign. Massini made a comment about how he had not been to Ross Glen parent council do to a controversy. Not sure of the details on that.
The Board moved to in-camera, and thus concluded my public viewing of the meeting. I hope to get to as many board meetings as I can, but….just so you know, they CAN be interesting, but not always. I’m hoping as part of the future changes to CPoSD76 to get a schedule up, and maybe have someone else fill in on one or two meeetings? (wink, wink)
What do you think of the new suggested language of the policies, do you agree? Vote in the poll, and I can present the results to the Board.
Will rewriting the terms and definitions of inclusive education help to correct the pressing issues of the program?
Total Voters: 14
Earlier in the week Premier Notley said “… under no circumstances will we enforce or condone a sexual health curriculum that normalizes an absence of consent,” but did not provide a reference to what she took issue with in the proposed Catholic Curriculum. As was discovered after her statements, this was because there was nothing in the curriculum to have given her the impression that absence of consent was being taught.
Last Wednesday the 25th, I shared on my facebook page Jason’s Kenney’s defense of the Catholic Curriculum, and I mentioned how Notley had brought up consent, and I wished for some clarification from her on what idea of consent should be taught. I’ve since spent the better part of a week reading comments of hate for Catholic Education, and rebutting accusations that I was spreading fake news. The premier of Alberta can insinuate that Catholic’s want to teach that rape is OK, based on literally nothing, but ask her to explain her idea of ‘consent’ and suddenly, you are the bad guy.
Why is Notley’s idea of consent important? Well during the brouhaha, Notley also said “Parents have the right — and they have had the right for a very, very long time — to pull their kids from curriculum and education around sexual health. And they will continue to have that right.” I found that statement interesting, as it is clearly not true, and her own government is working on removing a parents right to know. CHAT wanted to make sure that was very clear during municipal elections. It also seems interesting that Notley brought up ‘opt-out’ while talking about ‘consent.’ Parental consent seems to be important enough to her definition to bring it up at the same time.
It is very clear that Notley and the NDP have a completely different idea of what consent means, after all, she thinks the Catholic’s idea is that it is ok to force your spouse. What does she base that on? Clearly not anything written in the proposed catholic curriculum. She also doesn’t think parental consent for 5-17 year old’s is necessary to instruct kids on things as complex as transgenderism, Eggen is planning to put that all through the curriculum, so opting out is no longer going to be an option. So how does Notley define consent? Who gets to give it? According to Eggen, the student. (IE the CHILD) Is Notley’s idea the same as Eggen’s? We are left only to speculate. Well, let’s hope it doesn’t line up with Sweden’s. After all, Sweden’s is the holy grail of tolerance and diversity. (A couple of other words that Notley needs to define her understanding of.)
I’ve taken a few days since the election to rest, and collect my thoughts. Obviously I am disappointed that I was not selected to represent your values and interests to Alberta Education. Although 2435 votes is nothing to shake a stick at, the simple fact is that I didn’t get the necessary votes. Considering the highest voted board member got 5585, I do think that is a significant voice. A 43.6% voice when compared to the the highest vote. More than enough votes to ..cough.. get a petition accepted.
So the question is, “Where do we go from here?” Policy 621 still expects children to obey the school code of conduct at home, and will punish any teacher that will not report alleged violations. Policy 622 still puts children at risk by refusing to tell the children the truth about the health risks of transgenderism, and the obvious fallacies and lies of gender identity politics.
We know that, at least at present, 622 also ignores the law, and willfully and intentionally applies an illegal idea of confidentiality between students and teachers as young as 5. We also know that the newly elected trustees advocated that they were just following a non-existent law, that Minister David Eggen has as yet not even tabled in legislature. We know that newly elected trustees consider parents to be fear mongers, and that according to at least one of the trustees, who stated this publicly to about 200 people, charter and home schooling is the reason public education is falling behind.
Given that a majority of the elected trustees spoke of how they were going to ask the children how they think they should be educated, and that “you[the children] know best what you need.” Given that 99.9% of the people I spoke to during the campaign were not in favour of the direction of public education, and are not secretly trying to undermine public education by homeschooling or sending their kids to private school. Given the tenuous definition expressed during the campaign of what constitutes bullying. It appears to me that parents concerns have not be calmed. If anything, it appears like they have been amplified, and are not likely to be dealt with, unless someone mediates for them. The irony is, that is what the Board is supposed to do.
During the course of the campaign, I heard a number of alarming stories of concerns being ignored. One such story played out at the ATA Forum, with a mother asking how to contact the board, since when she had a question about placing her special needs child, the only response she got was “this isn’t Wallmart.” I can only speculate as to what that response was supposed to mean, or what the whole context was, but what I did learn, was that parents with concerns over 621 and 622, are not the only parents who have been exasperated by the system.
Like I’ve stated many times before, my role has always been about bringing parents concerns to the board, and making sure they are genuinely heard. making sure communication is open, transparent, and honest. That is why I submitted the petition, that is why I took it to court, that is why I set up this website and made it available for anyone to contribute, and that is why I ran for School Board.
Some have disagreed with my methods. Some have even been angry, and lashed out, but here is harsh truth. Facts don’t care about feelings. The fact is, there are some serious problems with district policy and procedures. There are some serious problems with how special needs children are being ‘included’ in classes. There are some serious problems with bullying and the definition and understanding of bullying, and there are some serious problems with the extent of fiduciary duty. These problems are not going to be fixed by attacking the people who bring them up, and they will not be fixed by changing laws so that people can no longer talk or know about them.
What can fix the problems, is openly and fairly talking about them. What can fix them is educating schools and councils on what their roles are. What can fix them is working with parents, and allowing them to be included.
So that brings me to what I plan on doing next. Yes, I do plan on continuing to attend the regular public board meetings, (at least for the near future.) The next one is tomorrow, the 24th of October @6pm by the way. Would be nice to see some others come out. (I’ll post the agenda separately.) Beyond the board meetings and their summaries, I’ll be making some changes to the CPoSD76 site over the next few weeks.
With the help of some of the other concerned parents, we will be moving into a more of an advocacy role. I will follow up with some of the individuals who I spoke with that had concerns, and see if the CPoSD76 can’t work with them to see some kind of resolution to the issues between them and the Board. I will also be putting up forms, where electorate can submit issues/concerns that they feel have note been resolved, or adequately addressed by the district. There may possibly also be guides setup to help parents and school councils understand school policies, and the appropriate channels they need to follow, as well as knowing the limits of school authority and parental responsibility.
The next four years will be about holding the board accountable, helping parents navigate the system, and making sure parents stay up to date with the direction of the district and Alberta Education as a whole.
Thank you to the people who have visited this site 190,000 times since April, and are staying abreast with the truth of what is going in Public education in Medicine Hat, Alberta, Canada, & the world. Thank you to the 2434 people who put their trust in me to oversee public education in Medicine Hat. Your vote for me has given me strength to keep up the race. We are not at the finish line yet.
Some Points to ponder:
1. In Australia, the program was called “Safe Schools” | In SD76 it is called “Safe and Caring”
2. In Australia “professionals who dare to question the unscientific party line of supporting gender transition therapy will find themselves maligned and out of a job.” | In SD76 under Policy 622 you can not present non-affirming evidence to students, and we saw a teacher threatened by administration even before the policy was passed.
Safe schools/Safe and Caring do not protect children from the harm that comes to them from ‘transitioning’, nor does it ALLOW for children to develop naturally. As has been noted in multiple articles “around 90%” of children with ‘gender disphoria’ grow out of it during puberty, or when removed from an environment that is imposing the abusive idea upon them.
I ask you to please Vote on October 16th for candidates who stand for biological fact, and for the true protection of children from this perverse and abusive teaching. Candidates who have the courage to put fact based principles above political dogma, and who are not intimidated by threats from those that wish to break ties between children and their parents in favor of a debunked theory.
39% In Favor of returning to court.
61% Wish to focus on elections.
I respect the will of the people, and I too believe that the most important thing to focus on right now, is getting people on the school board who respect the authority and rights of parents to be involved with their children’s education. As one parent put it, “the lines of communication are down.” Just like I told the Secretary last September, my role is and always has been to restoring communication with parents. From my attempts to record proceedings, to my speaking up to the board, and to my taking the petition to appeal.
Given that the Secretary and Board had clear instructions to accept a copy of amended signatures from the Justice, and they have chosen not do so, it is evident to me and a majority of voters who signed the petition, that returning to court will not repair the lines of communication. I do understand the reasons why so many voted to go back to court. The Board, through allies in the media, have essentially maligned the electorate on the petition. They have portrayed the signatories as if they could not get the support for their position, and that they were unable to file a correct petition, when that is clearly not the case.
Should any of those signatories who voted in favor of returning to court wish to pick up the banner, and pursue an appeal to the Court of Queen’s Bench again, I will provide all necessary documents and evidence needed to do so. I support their right to do so, and I understand why they may want to. I will however point my focus on rebuilding the lines of communication, through the election of candidates that support parental authority, educational choice, and quality curriculum.
(For consistency and ease of understanding in this post I will be using the numbers that the Secretary used when discussing the number of signatures on the petition. There is some disparity between the numbers that I hold to and what the Secretary holds to, but in the grand scheme of things, those small differences would have no affect on the final outcome.)
On August 14, 2017, Secretary Jerry Lebossiere of SD#76 rejected an amendment to the petition I submitted in September, 2016. His excuse for rejecting it was that he could not accept any of the 121 signatures that had had their addresses corrected. In his rejection letter the secretary stated that “These addresses are not set out opposite to an original signature but are simply written in over the photocopied signatures,” and that “as Secretary Treasurer I have no discretion to permit the inclusion of names on a petition that do not comply with the requirements.” Additionally when the Secretary rejected the initial amendment of the petition on July 7th, he set out a an expiry for the petition of July 21, 2017.
When I took the petition to appeal on March 10, 2017, I did so seeking clarification on the act, as well as I contested the rejection of 259 signatures that had listed only a Postal Code, and did not include the street address. Through the proceedings on March 10th, Justice Tilleman made it clear that a copy was sufficient for the amendment. From The Court Transcript: “Okay, so her[secretary’s legal council] last words were the secretary is absolutely willing to evaluate fairly any petition that is re-filed or resubmitted, so, I mean, I take that to mean for example if you used a photocopy of the previous that someone, in an affidavit, certifies is the true copy, and the secretary says no, I’m not going to accept that, you’ll be back in court and I wouldn’t be very happy. It’s going to be accepted.” The Justice earlier in the conversation stating “…then you would need addresses on the 259 so you’re 100 [this is rounded] short, sounds to me like you’ve collected other names, assuming you want to go the (b) route,…” To top it all off, the Secretary’s legal council said, in her own words, “There’s no time limit on the petition names, there’s nothing that says that their name is on the petition for only a set period of time”
Taking the rest of the transcript into context, it is clear to me that the Justice gave the Secretary clear latitude to accept amended address on a copy, and also expected him to accept it, and the district freely told the Justice that we had no deadline/expiry on signatures. I will admit that I did not give a sworn copy of the petition sheets. I did however use the copy that was given to me by his legal council during the appeal proceedings, and red ink was used to indicate clearly which lines had been amended. The secretary did not contest that the pages were not a true copy, he contested that he had no way of knowing if the addressed were true. In affect insinuating that I or others had committed fraud, and made up the addresses. I might add, he provided no proof for his accusation.
In an effort to calm the Secretary’s concerns, on the 21 of August, 2017, I e-mailed the secretary outlining my objection to his rejection of the 121 corrected address. I offered to provide him with sworn affidavits from the individuals who had collected the address information on the 121 addresses. I requested that he inform me by the 23rd of August whether he would accept that, and there by accept the petition. As of the 25 he has not. And so, just like in October of 2016, he refused to provide clarifications in a timely fashion.
That brings me to the point of this post. I am ready to go back to court. I am ready to swear under oath, and before the God of heaven and earth that my statements are true to the best of my knowledge. I stand by the petition, and I stand by the amendment and that it fulfilled all the requirements necessary to be accepted by the Secretary. I am ready to defend that position before a Justice once again. I however will do what the people would prefer. The accusations against me mean nothing, as I and those who know me, know they have no truth to them, so I don’t need to clear my name in court. (Although I would be ok if it were officially cleared. I’m good either way.)
I’m posting to put it to a vote. To you the people. On Monday, if the vote is in favour, I will file at the Court of Queens Bench once again. If I file, a ‘speak to’ date will be set by the Clerk. At which a justice will weigh the merrits of the appeal, and will determine if I have sufficient grounds to appeal. So, by filing on Monday, it does not confirm that it will go to appeal. It may get thrown out. (Looking through the transcript, I find that highly unlikely.) If it isn’t thrown out, I believe we have a very strong case.
Given that the election is mere weeks away, and we might have a different Board after October 16, I want to give everyone the opportunity to state if they think court would be a worth while endeavor. As I’ve done from the beginning, I will do what the people wish for me to do.
Votes will be closed 8pm Sunday August 27th, 2017.
The voting is closed. Results will be posted tomorrow.