"Cowardice asks the question...is it safe? Expediency asks the question...is it politic? Vanity asks the question...is it popular? But conscience asks the question...is it right? And there comes a time when one must take a position that is neither safe, nor politic, nor popular but one must take it because it is right." ~Dr. Martin Luther King

Wednesday, 18 February 2009

Furthering The Discussion

Anonymous said:
If this can be verified - that Councillor MacEachern sent information to the lawyers of people who had a beef with the Town (were going to sue the town?) - then this is a very very serious matter and I am truly shocked that the Town's lawyer has not taken the necessary steps to address this on behalf of the residents of Aurora. Why didn’t the Lawyer advise the Councillor not to do that? Why the heck didn’t the CAO do something about it too?? With all due respect – what the heck is going on over there???

If this is true, then I cannot believe that the Councillor has been allowed to sit there for months after betraying the trust of the community she serves.Of all the nonsense that goes on with this Council, (and many of you have been guilty of one thing or another) - this is by far the worst.

I am dumbfounded

How can we as residents do something about this?Please don't tell me we have to wait until election time. That is not good enough.

We do need to do something RIGHT NOW...But first I need confirmation that what you are saying is true...You said that the documents are public? How can we get a copy???

No offence, but I’d like to see for myself.

It should not be assumed that Chief Administrative Officer John Rogers and the Town Solicitor did not do their job. Neither are currently in the employ of The Town of Aurora.

The documents I refer to have been filed in the Court in an appeal against a decision of the Town to order the removal of a fence. I know it as the Blue Grass Fence issue.

David Atkins, Acting Director of Public Works who advised Council on the matter is no longer in the employ of the Town of Aurora.

Bob Panizza, Director of Corporate Affairs, who liaised in the matter between Council, Town Solicitor , Chief Administrative Officer and Mr. Atkins is no longer in the employ of the Town of Aurora.

Charges against elected officials under the Municipal Act are not common and are usually filed by a resident.

Appointed staff do not prosecute charges against elected officials. Except for Statutory Officers, they are subject to the authority of elected officials. Appointed Officials provide expert professional advice to Councillors who are not obliged to accept it.

It is not the convention for elected officials to take legal action against one another. They probably could and there may be examples, but my gut instinct tells me one reason they wouldn't is the likelihood such an action would be seen as political and given less credence as a consequence. To be honest, I have never encountered such a circumstance.

The Department of Municipal Affairs is the appropriate agency to provide advice and answers to inquiries.


Anonymous said...

Before people start getting up in arms over Evelyn's charge here. Let's be sure we have something that is in fact true.

We all know the Evelina is not the brightest bulb in the box, but is she that dim to do this sort of thing? If nothing else, I suggest that we ask the CAO in the strongest terms to start an internal investigation about Ms. Buck's alligations. Knowing full well that they could be proved false.

Anonymous said...

Councillor Buck said:

"Councillor MacEachern sent an inter-department memo to the lawyer for litigants against the Town and attached a hand-written note that she " thought it might be of interest" to him.

An inter-department memo? Are they online somewhere? If we knew what the memo contained we might be able to find it in the online minutes/agendas. I looked up BLUEGRASS and there are pages and pages listed making reference to the fencing issue, residents coming to meetings, etc.. documents being referred to the town's legal department.

I think we'd need to have proof that there was a memo sent with a hand-written note, otherwise it's Evelina's word against Evelyn's. Evelyn, did all the councillor's get a copy of whatever Evelina sent out?

Anonymous said...

Jury awards $11.3M over defamatory Internet posts
Updated 10/11/2006 10:53 AM ET E-mail | Save | Print | Reprints & Permissions |


Since March 2004, the "blogosphere" has doubled in size every five to seven months. There now are more than 53 million blogs. Key blog statistics:

150,000 -- The number of blogs created each day, or nearly two blogs per second.

1.6 million -- The number of daily postings, or more than 66,600 per hour.

39% of the blogs were in English.

31% of the blogs were in Japanese.

12% of the blogs were in Chinese.

2% of the blogs were in Spanish.

40% of those who start a blog are still posting on it three months later.

Source: Technorati, a San Francisco firm that tracks blogs, as of June.

By Laura Parker, USA TODAY
A Florida woman has been awarded $11.3 million in a defamation lawsuit against a Louisiana woman who posted messages on the Internet accusing her of being a "crook," a "con artist" and a "fraud."
Legal analysts say the Sept. 19 award by a jury in Broward County, Fla. — first reported Friday by the Daily Business Review — represents the largest such judgment over postings on an Internet blog or message board. Lyrissa Lidsky, a University of Florida law professor who specializes in free-speech issues, calls the award "astonishing."

BEWARE OF BLOGS: Courts are asked to crack down on bloggers, websites

Lidsky says the case could represent a coming trend in court fights over online messages because the woman who won the damage award, Sue Scheff of Weston, Fla., pursued the case even though she knew the defendant, Carey Bock of Mandeville, La., has no hope of paying such an award. Bock, who had to leave her home for several months because of Hurricane Katrina, couldn't afford an attorney and didn't show up for the trial.

"What's interesting about this case is that (Scheff) was so vested in being vindicated, she was willing to pay court costs," Lidsky says. "They knew before trial that the defendant couldn't pay, so what's the point in going to the jury?"

Scheff says she wanted to make a point to those who unfairly criticize others on the Internet. "I'm sure (Bock) doesn't have $1 million, let alone $11 million, but the message is strong and clear," Scheff says. "People are using the Internet to destroy people they don't like, and you can't do that."

The dispute between the two women arose after Bock asked Scheff for help in withdrawing Bock's twin sons from a boarding school in Costa Rica. Bock had disagreed with her ex-husband over how to deal with the boys' behavior problems. Against Bock's wishes, he had sent the boys to the boarding school.

Scheff, who operates a referral service called Parents Universal Resource Experts, says she referred Bock to a consultant who helped Bock retrieve her sons. Afterward, Bock became critical of Scheff and posted negative messages about her on the Internet site Fornits.com, where parents with children in boarding schools for troubled teens confer with one another.

In 2003, Scheff sued Bock for defamation. Bock hired a lawyer, but he left the case when she no longer could afford to pay him.

When Katrina hit in August 2005, Bock's house was flooded and she moved temporarily to Texas before returning to Louisiana last June. Court papers that Scheff and her attorney David H. Pollack mailed to Bock were returned to Pollack's office in Miami.

After Bock didn't offer a defense, a Broward Circuit Court judge found in favor of Scheff. A jury then heard Scheff's arguments about damages. Pollack did not seek a specific amount for the harm he says Scheff's business suffered.

"Even with no opposing counsel and no defendant there, $11 million is a huge amount," says Pollack, adding that Scheff is considering whether to try to collect any money from Bock. "The jury determined this was a significant enough issue. It's not just somebody's feelings are hurt; it's somebody's reputation is ruined."

Bock says that when she moved back to her repaired house over the summer, she knew the trial was approaching but did not know the date. She says she doesn't have the money to pay the judgment or hire a lawyer to appeal it. She adds that if the goal of Scheff's lawsuit was to stifle what Bock says online, it worked.

"I don't feel like I can express my opinions," Bock says. "Only one side of the story was told in court. Nobody heard my side."

Posted 10/10/2006 10:07 PM ET
Updated 10/11/2006 10:53 AM ET

Anonymous said...

Councilor Buck,

These are very serious allegations you're levelling at Councilor MacEachern. Are you sure of your facts?

I'm prepared to do something, but before I spend any time or effort on this I need to know that the claims you make are true.

Did Councilor MacEarhern send a copy of an inter office memo to the litigants' lawyer(s)?

Anonymous said...

Defamatory internet posts? I hope someone can prove that Maceachern either did send something that could hurt the town, or she didn't. There are many pages of Blue Grass on the town's website under agendas/minutes - but nothing to say who the lawyers were or where to find the details, or even what happened. Looks like the fence issue was defeated - but there are no further details. What is being hidden on us?

Anonymous said...

From Wikipedia:

"In law, defamation (also called calumny, libel, slander, and vilification) is the communication of a STATEMENT THAT MAKES A FALSE CLAIM, expressly stated or implied to be factual, that may give an individual, business, product, group, government or nation a negative image."

Evelyn I hope you have your FACTS straight. I don't want you to go to jail.

Anonymous said...

Why do people question Evelyn? If you know anything about Evelyn she does ask questions, she gets her facts straight. She has nothing to gain from this. Only the same loss you have. Remember she is a stake holder in this town to. Openness and Transparency

Anonymous said...

Ms. "Bock" - Anonymous Feb 18/2009 asked you to confirm your allegations that "Councilor MacEarhern sent a copy of an inter office memo to the litigants' lawyer(s)?"

Your response was to refer us to a legal document. Why not just simply confirm your claim?

My guess is YOUR NOT being truthful! I hope MacEarchern sues you and not the Town.

Anonymous said...

Truthful! Go look for the facts where Evelyn says you will find them and see for yourself who is truthful, for I am sure you will find the info exactly as Evelyn says it is. Oh and remember the fact INTER OFFICE MEMO. Because I am sure that tiny bit of information will be forgotten by those who want to believe that Evelyn is not TRUTHFUL. Please provide your evidence to confirm your allegations against her.

Anonymous said...

What happened to the claim that Evelyn sensors her blog and only posts those which agree with her. As I see it here, there are a lot of disbelievers on this particular response. I hope that when the waters clear and you see for yourself that there is proof to what Evelyn has stated here then you will agree that Evalina MacEachern has betrayed the trust of the people that voted for her. However, that in itself has been proven over and over again.

Evelyn thank you once again for being open and transparent!

Anonymous said...

To Anonymous of February 19, 2009 3:22 PM why didn't you just go and read the document before you made yourself look like an ass for making these ludicrous accusations you obviously have not checked out for yourself. Claiming that someone is not providing the truth simply by accusation is just @@###**# ignorance at its best. Somehow you reflect and display accurately the demeanor of the majority of this council. Good luck to you!

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said... "could this anonymous be Collin-Mreakas?"...,
What happened to the claim that Evelyn sensors her blog and only posts those which agree with her. As I see it here, there are a lot of disbelievers on this particular response. I hope that when the waters clear and you see for yourself that there is proof to what Evelyn has stated here then you will agree that Evalina MacEachern has betrayed the trust of the people that voted for her. However, that in itself has been proven over and over again.

Evelyn thank you once again for being open and transparent!

February 21, 2009 11:30 AM