How do you spell conflict?????????????????


The COW met yesterday in the TSBP.

A motion presented by Art King to Request a Judicial Review was heard and defeated by you guessed it the 5 Bandits!!

The motion was the direct result of a Municipal Affairs investigation and recommendation regarding the illegal acts of certain members of Council with respect to the hireling of the acting CAO as a permanent position.

Does it surprise you that the ones being investigated voted down the motion?

Isn’t it interesting to note that Mark Wunderlich , one of the five opposing the motion, voted against the review in the end, after the prodding of the Red Harron!

Bootlegger Wray Lamont, advised that he had talked to is lawyer, who had estimated the cost of the review ar 1.3 Million Dollars and this was his means of justifying his vote against the review. I frankly find it hard to believe that it would cost that much to read the Review of the MA, question a few people and make an order. And if it does then the people who are found to be guilty would be liable for the costs in any event.

Now correct me if I am wrong but if someone or a group break the law, the Government will go to the end of the earth to prosecute the criminals, however in this case the Criminals vote against prosecuting themselves and win!

So much for equality under the law.

A further note, was that Bootlegger threatened to release a binder full of confidential documents if the Motion was carried. These documents are supposed to be delivered to the CAO at the end of each meeting, and controlled by the CAO. So let me see he has a binder full of documents that he is not supposed to have which he threatens to release to the press if he doesn’t get his way. Oh and the CAO was sitting beside him and refused to sit at her designated place when requested by the Mayor.

This sounds to me like conspiracy, extortion and collusion, all illegal act under the Criminal Code. But hey they are above the law so who cares! Or so they think!

In so far as the CAO sitting with Lamont and not at her designated seat, and refusing to take her proper place, this is insubordination and should be grounds for termination. The Mayor is the Chair and the CEO and an employee is given instructions which they choose to disregard on verifies her unprofessionalism as well as the fact that she is not the right person for the job.

I have to ask why do we as taxpayers put up with this? Isn’t it time for us to react?

It is fact that the CAO can only be hired by Bylaw, it is fact that every bylaw is subject to appeal to the OMB and it is fact that any member of this community can file an appeal of any bylaw within thirty days of it passing!

With respect to the Judicial Review any member of the community can apply for the  implementation of a Judicial Review, this right is not limited to Council. Is it a waste of money to bring this forward? Could be, however, it appears to me that if the Law is being broken and it affects the community in a negative result then it must be dealt with. It is clear, that those perpetrating the offence are prepared to avoid prosecution at all costs and that is just wrong!

Let it ride and you are part of the problem!




Oh By The Way…

When you get your Crown Patent ordered you need a search done back to the Patent, this will cost arround $300.00.

Joanne Horton’s (519-376-8650) office did mine for me and that is what they charged me.


One Million Dollars Later!!!!

Another little email obtained as a result of poor network management by TSBP!

> Sent: Sunday, August 22, 2010 8:40 PM

> Subject: Fwd: Broadband Bruce County Technical Plan


> For months, we have been waiting patiently to hear about the

> implementation of the Broadband Initiative for “un or under-serviced”

> areas, and on the 24th of June, Lisa Brocklebank emailed us to say

> that the project was almost ready to go.


> This past week, we received her description of the areas being

> serviced (see the attachment), and Hope Bay is not part of the plan.


> Currently, Bell will not provide the Hope Bay area with high speed

> access or cell phone service (Roger’s, however, does have a cell tower

> close by). As a result, we have invested in a satellite system in

> order to get high speed through Hughes Net (Gallaxy Satellite) and pay

> $126.00 per month for that service. The Hope Bay Campground also has a

> similar system. The cost is outrageous, but we have no alternative.


> Colpoy’s Bay, Red Bay, Oliphant and Sauble Beach will be part of the

> project, and we are assuming that the number of households is the

> criteria for service. We are disappointed that Hope Bay will continue

> to be un-serviced, and one of the few areas of South Bruce without

> high speed Internet.


> Is it possible that Council could lobby for service to Hope Bay?



> Thank you for your time.


> Sincerely,


> Lynn and John McCurdy

> Cedarholme B&B and Cottages

> R.R. # 6

> Wiarton, ON

> N0H 2T0

So as you may recall Bell Canada won the RFP for the Bruce County Broadband Contract last December, thus giving Bell the Gold Mine ($1,000,000.00 Grant) the Local Service Providers who promised to service Hope Bay in their proposal got the shaft!

Thank you Bruce County for supporting Local Business!



Property Rights An Issue in Nomination!!!

For those of you that attended the Great Debate in Sauble Beach last week, a question was posed to the Candidates with respect to Property Rights through a Crown Patent and its relation to the Magna Carta.

Mr. Wunderlich declared in essence that we ,  as people of the Province of Ontario do in fact possess Property Rights as did Mr. Walker.

I would first like to address this point in with the following:

The Constitution Act as proclaimed by Mr. Trudeau gave us a Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The Charter was in fact devised from the Universal Declaration of Rights and Freedoms as proclaimed by the United Nations in 1944.

I direct your attention to Article 17 of the Universal Declaration of Rights and Freedoms:

Article 17.

  • (1) Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others.
  • (2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property.

Now have a look at the Canadian Charter  Article 17:

Article 17.

17. (1) Everyone has the right to use English or French in any debates and other proceedings of Parliament.

If you were to review the Canadian Charter, you will find there is no reference to property rights what so ever, therefore in Law we do not as a people have any rights to own anything.

The Candidates were in the original question, asked  if they would support Property rights as contained in Crown Patents as supported by the Magna Carta.

Mr. Wunderlich went into a diatribe of measuring property with chains, while Mr. Walker explained he had no idea as to what the questioner was talking about and Michael Schmidt responded with a concise definition of a Patent and the fact that the Magna Carta was the supreme Law thus supporting the proposition that with a Crown Patent we indeed have property rights contractually in those instances where a Patent exists.

 To further enlighten those not familiar with the Magana Carta I offer:

The Magna Carta was the first document forced onto an English King by a group of his subjects (the barons) in an attempt to limit his powers by law and protect their privileges. It was preceded and directly influenced by the 1100 Charter of Liberties, when King Henry I, had specified particular areas where his powers would be limited.

The 1215 document contained a large section which is now called clause 61 (the original document was not actually divided into clauses). This section established a committee of 25 barons who could at any time meet and overrule the will of the King if he defied the provisions of the Charter, seizing his castles and possessions if it was considered necessary. This was based on a mediaeval legal practice known as distraint, but it was the first time it had been applied to a monarch. In addition, the King was to take an oath of loyalty to the committee.

In May, King John offered to submit issues to a committee of arbitration with the Pope as supreme arbiter, but the barons continued in their defiance. With the support of Prince Louis the French Dauphin and of King Alexander II of the Scots, they entered London in force on 10 June 1215,with the city showing its sympathy with their cause by opening its gates to them. They, and many of the moderates not in overt rebellion, forced King John to agree to a document later known as the ‘Articles of the Barons’, to which his Great Seal was attached in the meadow at Runnymede on 15 June 1215. In return, the barons renewed their oaths of fealty to King John on 19 June 1215.

A formal document to record the agreement was created by the royal chancery on 15 July: this was the original Magna Carta.

“The Crown Land Patent Grants were established for the settlement of Canada and created so the land would be granted free. There may have been certain conditions such as building a home or clearing the land within three years time,” Marshall said. “The letters patent are what would be considered a contract; they are their own legislation and had specific reservations for the Crown such as, for example, mineral extraction and white pine. Everything else was for the owner of the land and they could do anything they wanted with that land, as long as the landowner respected neighbouring land, water or air, as expressed under Common Law.

It also states in these patents that it is for the heirs and assigned forever. So everything that is in those patents stands and was to continue on.”

Marshall says, it would seem that any legislation created after existing land patents does not trump original land patents. If new patents were issued they would be subject to current legislation. The OLA is using these documents as means of fighting back against intrusive government legislation such as wetland, endangered species habitat, tree cutting by-laws, and the Places to Grow Act which are violations of their property rights.

Ultimately the issue will have to come before the Lieutenant Governor or Governor General because the land patents are Crown documents and as such a contract between citizens and the Crown. The Federal and Provincial governments are merely administrators of the documents.

“A land patent is a contract, a letter patent, a piece of legislation, a royal proclamation that is specific to the Crown only. Because the Governor General and the Lieutenant Governors of the province have the authority to veto, amend, revoke or repeal all pieces of legislation, except the Letters Patent.”If we are unable to meet with the Governor General’s office we will have to follow through and start initiating court cases.”

Marshall says even if landowners possess only a portion of the original land grant they are still entitled to the document. For a $50 fee landowners can obtain a certified copy of the Crown Land Patent Grant relating to their property by contacting the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources with the lot, concession and original township information.

The regulations imposed upon us by the NGO’s and Municipalities as well as the Province and Feds are in fact void when the Patent is applied using the Magana Carta to enforce your rights. Such things as zoning, the right to inspect are of no effect provided the Patent was originally issue to a Man in Service of the King.

 Since the Patents are the only means to secure our property rights I suggest that if you own property here then get a copy of the original Patent and file it with the Ontario Property Association and support their efforts to obtain  a Supreme Court order protecting those Rights.

 And since Michael Schmidt was the only Candidate to support the proposition publicly, (as he was the only one that knew what was being talked about) I submit he is the best man to replace Bill Murdoch.


Politician Job Description

So I got ta thinkin! Now don’t be goin  Oh Oh, cause this idea has merit! 

Any and everybody that works for the Town, or anywhere else in the world, has to produce a resume’, go through interviews etc.  Now when the town wants to hire somebody they Hire a headhunters and post a job description and requirements to qualify. The head hunter does a preinterview and then writes a recommendation of the candidates and submits it to the employer who then does interviews and subsequently hires the best man for the job, who then signs an employment agreement laying out the terms and conditions of employment. 

Now this system must work as after all it was used to find our new CAO! 

Since the beginning of time, come election time, people sign up to run for Council. They get together with their spin doctors and campaign managers and dream up their perceived issues and declare those issues to be their mandate. now in most cases the mandates and issues are things that they want to use to get elected and have nothing to do with the real wants and need of the people of the community.Of course from time to time there are things that are used that are real but usually the Politicians promise the world steak and potatoes and deliver Kentucky Fired chicken left over from their election party. 

So you could say that the guys applying for the job, are tellin us what their job description is, on what terms they will deliver those things that they describe, they grant us interviews on their schedule during the six weeks before the election by way of public appearances and then go to work without a contract that allows us to terminate their job if they fail to perform. 

So here is my idea’r: 

I suggest that we the people, lay out ten items we want addressed during their term as Council, publish’m right here on this Page. We demand that the Candidates post how they plan to address each issue we choose and put on our list. 

They must file their plan with the procedure they intend to use, how they intend to pay for it (without raising taxes)and the time line they intend to use to achieve the objective on an itemized basis. 

I think that we should also attach an undertaking that if they fail to achieve what they have laid out that they will submit their resignation and that seat would be reposted for replacement by way of a mini election for that seat. 

I believe that we are better qualified to lay out what we want and we should have the right to replace someone who has failed to do as what they have promised or in effect have contracted for. 

For example I think one issue should be a 25% reduction in overall budget requirements during the term of the Council. 

Now all the Candidates will be required to tell us before the election, how they intend to achieve this objective. 

Now lets say we publish this list between now and September 5, 2010, you all submit what you would like to see as a list of requirements we publish the list of say ten items. I will post a consolidated list (job description).The candidate will then post their plan to achieve the objectives set out with an undertaking to resign within a time line should they fail to meet the objective. They  campagne on their plan published right here. 

Here are some general topics for starters: 

Communication and Consultation with Ratepayers, Garbage Bag Tags and Recycling Program, Economic  Growth Strategy , Development Charges, Paid Parking , Bylaw Enforcement, Property Taxes and Fiscal Management Protecting Public Health and Safety, Seniors’ Housing, Sewers at Sauble, Teamwork and Council Working Environment Use and Management of Resources, tax reduction plan. 

So put on your thinin caps and post your list. On september 4, 2010 I will post a consolidated list of most common suggestions maybe we will even put up a web page with their responses and we will see if the perspective applicants will address our Job Description for them! 

Hell we will even entertain a joint submisssion if the Candidates choose to work on a team submission.

I won’t even charge the 20 grand we paid to hire Ronda 🙂 We are savin money already!!! 



Big news  on the Big Bruce Telegraph!!!!

The word is out on the street that the new CAO Rhonda Cook has a Doctors letter recommending she take a leave of absence from her job due to stress!!!

Just imagine that!!!!

I can understand her being stressed out with all the controversy and responsibility she has taken on.

Hell even the bloggers are beating on her!

Lucky thing she got the big pay raise so her disability will kick in at the new rate!!!!



Garbage in Garbage Out!!

I thought this might be of interest .
Bootlegger Wray Lamont and Dan the man Kerr, sit on the Waste Management Committee with bootlegger Wray  being Chair. Both civilian members left the Committee approximately one year ago. The two Bandits have continued to operate the committee without a Quorum and even purchasing Bear Proof Dumpsters without a Tender.
They have not supplied Minutes of the Meetings, they have Drafted and Approved Garbage Bylaws and have had Staff attending their Meetings. All this has been done in front of our Acting CAO when she knew or ought to have known none of this was following our Policies and Procedural Bylaws. Kerr is the up front person, because he is not running in the next election and is trying to take the heat off the bootlegger. 
Just so you know here are a couple of emails that were acquired through technical means much to complicated to explain but very effective if you know haw to work with cookies! A special thanks to The Red Harron, who doesn’t have a good firewall! 

—– Original Message —–
From: “Art King” <>

To: “Dan Kerr” <>

Cc: “Yvonne Harron” <>; “Wray Lamont” <>; “Stan Hoath” <>; “Rhonda Cook” <>; “Gwen Gilbert”

<>; “Betty Hall” <>; “Ana Vukovic”

<>; <>; “Dan Kerr”

<>; “Brad Burnett” <>; “Bob Woolvett” <>

Sent: Thursday, August 19, 2010 3:05 PM

Subject: Re: Waste meeting

> Councilor Kerr:

> I do not intend to make it a career of answering your stupid and

> ridiculous accusations, when you say that you have never lied to

> Council I am surprised that like Pinocchio your nose still fits through a doorway.

> When you are talking next to Bob and Brad would you ask them if they

> would care to deny that they have also had conversations with other

> Councilors in which they have expressed their frustrations with the

> Waste Management Committee.

> I am sure that the Chair of the Waste Management Committee, because

> you are not running again, appreciates your attempts to take the heat

> off this non-conforming Committee, and his and your inability to

> operate this Committee successfully after over three years of effort,

> which is really what this whole situation is about.

> It is not about whether the Civilian Members left in frustration over

> bullying by the Council Committee Members, or they just got tired of

> the Council Committee Members being unable to successfully put a bylaw

> together. So let us not be side tracked by your tactics to push the

> main issue as to why the Civilian Members left and stick to the issue

> that you and Councilor Lamont have not been following the Towns Policy

> and Procedural Bylaw.

> Art King, Councilor

> —– Original Message —–

> From: “Dan Kerr” <>

> To: “Art King” <>

> Cc: “Yvonne Harron” <>; “Wray Lamont” <>;

> “Stan Hoath” <>; “Rhonda Cook” <>;

> “Gwen Gilbert” <>; “Betty Hall” <>; “Art King”

> <>; “Ana Vukovic” <>;

> <>; “Dan Kerr” <>;

> “Brad Burnett” <>; “Bob Woolvett”

> <>

> Sent: Thursday, August 19, 2010 11:50 AM

> Subject: Re: Waste meeting



>>I will repeat that I spoke with both Brad and Bob who categorically

>>stated that they did not speak with Councillor King nor make the

>>statement about internal conflict. It would appear that we have the

>>pot calling the kettle black when we talk about honesty and integrity.

>>Padding expense accounts for 3 years and then not paying back all the

>>money shows a lack of both honesty and integrity. I have not lied to

>>council and I have not told Councillor King that I lied to Council but

>>I am prepared for his next charge of bootlegging. Rather than staying

>>on topic his history is to accuse someone else of being in the wrong.

>>I have asked both Brad and Bob to confirm their conversation with me.

>> Dan Kerr

>> —– Original Message —–

>> From: “Art King” <>

>> To: “Dan Kerr” <>; “Yvonne Harron”

>> <>; “Wray Lamont” <>; “Stan Hoath”

>> <>; “Rhonda Cook” <>; “Gwen Gilbert”

>> <>; “Betty Hall” <>; “Ana Vukovic”

>> <>; <>

>> Sent: Thursday, August 19, 2010 11:14 AM

>> Subject: Re: Waste meeting



>>>I read with great interest Councilor Kerr’s statement concerning

>>>Honesty and Integrity. As Council may recall I put forward a letter

>>>to the Editor in which I set out the facts that Councilor Kerr lied

>>>to Council and myself to deliberately protect a confidential source

>>>and later admitted the same to myself. To date he has not apologized

>>>to the person he lied about to Council, and or myself. I do not

>>>believe Councilor Kerr is in any position to start handing out

>>>lectures or criticism regarding the truth.

>>> I again confirm that I spoke to both previous civilian members of

>>>the Waste Management Committee and they both advised me they had

>>>stopped attending the Committee because of internal problems within

>>>the Committee.

>>> I also wish to point out the Committee have been operating for

>>>approximately a year without a quorum, and without Minutes being

>>>presented to Council, a fact that Councilor Kerr brought to Councils

>>>attention regarding other Committees whom he felt were late with

>>>their Minutes, at the last Council Meeting Councilor Kerr defended

>>>the fact that they did not have a quorum, by stating, they had

>>>several Members of Staff, attending their meetings, therefore it was

>>>proper. When he knew or ought to have known that Staff are not

>>>voting members of any committee, therefore obviously they should

>>>have not have been obliged to be at a meeting that did not confirm the Policies and Procedures.

>>> Respectfully Submitted

>>> Art King Councilor

>>> —– Original Message —–

>>> From: “Dan Kerr” <>

>>> To: “Yvonne Harron” <>; “Wray Lamont” <>;

>>>”Stan Hoath” <>; “Rhonda Cook” <>;

>>>”Gwen Gilbert” <>; “Betty Hall” <>; “Art King”

>>> <>; “Ana Vukovic” <>;

>>><>; “Dan Kerr” <>

>>> Sent: Thursday, August 19, 2010 9:41 AM

>>> Subject: Waste meeting



>>>>A councillor made the claim that he had interviewed the public

>>>>members of the Waste Committee (Bob Woolvet and Brad Burnette) and

>>>>they told him they had left the committee because of internal strife on the committee.

>>>>I spoke with Bob and Brad yesterday and they claimed they had never

>>>>made that statement nor talked with this councillor. It is important

>>>>that this councillor stand closer to the truth when making public

>>>>statements on the waste committee and development in our town.

>>>> Dan Kerr

>>>> 519-534-3745