He said, she said, I said, they said…..
WARNING! WARNING! WARNING! WARNING! WARNING! WARNING! WARNING! WARNING! WARNING!
IT SHOULD BE NOTED THAT THIS ARTICLE IS AN OPINION BEING EXPRESSED AND NOT TO BE TAKEN LITERALLY!THERE MAY BE SOME PROFANITY USED SO IF YOU TAKE OFFENSE EASILY READ NO FURTHER! DO NOT READ IF YOU ARE A GUTLESS WONDER THAT BELIEVES OUR RIGHT TO FREE SPEACH IS NOT OUR RIGHT TO SPEAK FREELY! DO NOT READ THIS IF YOU BELIEVE THAT CIVIL SERVANTS HAVE THE RIGHT NOT TO WORK IF THEY ARE OFFENDED BY LOUD MOUTH RED NECKS! DO NOT READ THIS IF YOU BELIEVE THAT RIGHT IS WRONG AND WRONG IS RIGHT! DO NOT READ THIS IF YOU THINK OR BELIEVE THAT OUR TAX DOLLARS ARE BEING SPENT WISELY IN THE TOWN OF SOUTH BRUCE PENINSULA!
The fact of the matter is somebody has to pay.
The situation is that Rhonda Cook has the right to sue anyone she wants for what she believes. I have no problem with this. It is her right.But to use my money to do it is just wrong.
I do take offence to the fact that the taxpayers are paying her bill but the defendants do not have the same rights as her.
The other thousand miles is it is okay to have a good old snot slinging match where all the dirty laundry get spread out and we turn friend against friend, brother against sister and neighbor against neighbour. But at the end of the day who wins?
The Little’s don’t have $700,000, and I doubt that Gammie has 3/4 of a mil kickin arround, as for Schnurr he has no money, more importantly, he is just an employee. Last, but not least is the Turks and Caicos company, they are under to obligation even to adhere to this jurisdiction. So Rhonda, in the event of a win, gets a judgement, which if you add a dollar gets her a rather poor quality cigar.
The town of Meaford learned about litigation and the costs associated thereto. Do we have to repeat history.
It is my opinion that a lawyer worth his salt has a responsibility to determine whether or not the people he is pursuing have the ability to pay the claim in the event he wins. Ops, guess we have a lawyer not worth his salt!
The reality here, is the issue at hand, Freedom of Expression.There are people who treasure political correctness and wouldn’t say shit if they had a mouthful. That is their right. But there are the rest of us that say what we think and how we think it and don’t cotton to being told by our employees what we can and cannot do.
Yes sometimes things get carried away but oh gee we have the right to think and say what we feel is right.
The moment we restrict the right of free speech we promote Fascism.
The fact remains that Rhonda is paid with tax dollars. Our tax dollars. Now the town is giving her $50,000 + tax-free in legal fees to prove that we do not have the right to complain about it in any way except to remove those elected come election time.
Where is the accountability???
Rhonda’s lawyer (he of no salt), wrote everyone and demanded an apology. Schnurr offered to provide and publish one, provided Rhonda signed a mutual release, in an effort to put this behind us. Guess what the lawyer said no! Seems to me that Schnurr’s offer was reasonable! Rhonda got what she wanted, but oh wait there are no legal fees in accepting the offer. The gravy train is over!!! Now we cannot have that can we! No sir them tax payers have a right to pay what ever it takes to get justice for Rhonda!!! He doesn’t care how much it costs!!As long as the cash keeps flowing!!!
Now I have found most folks up here to be pretty reasonable! They call a spade a spade and then put it behind them. It appears I overlooked a few!!!
Our Mayor, Mr. Close, went to the press and called the Blog “blight of the community” just last fall! If he had any balls he would have ended this without spending dime one! But perhaps I am confusing him with a leader or maybe with someone with balls.
The balance of Council, I am told were informed by a Mr. Mundy of the Ministry of Labour, in August or there abouts, that Rhonda indeed was being harassed by the Blog and if the Town did not come to her aid that they could be charged under the Act and prosecuted personally. They in turn voted to pay here legal fees.
It is interesting to note that Council agreed to pay her legal fees, prior to passing their Harassment policy. Even more interesting their harassment policy differs in definition from the Provincial definition in that the towns policy is custom tailored to fit the lawsuit filed. I wonder how that happened.
Correct me if I am wrong but doesn’t the CAO produce recommendations to Council before any bylaw is passed.
In my opinion any member of Council that supports this litigation and maintains their seat is as gutless as their leader. If they have any integrity at all they would resign. They have been duped into supporting a lost cause that terminates our right to speak freely about those that are taking our tax dollars to protect us from ourselves by allowing the tail to wag the dog!
Now it is our town, our money and our rights that are being abused here.If we allow them to carry on with this fraud we deserve what we get.
Remember, Rhonda wanted an apology it was offered and her lawyer said no! Who is kidding who.