Example Exposing Fake Article

This is the perfect example of an individual attempting to publish a fabricated article and how easily people like this are exposed. http://www.thecumberlander.ca/show2041a45s/Why_Is_Alan_de_Jersey_Embarrassed
How can he believe no one noticed he proved my point?
Information IS power.

The videos posted at Union Bay Improvement News http://www.youtube.com/user/UnionBayImprovement/videos are to provide information to the public regarding the process and decisions being made on your behalf by those who promised to represent YOUR interests.

I previously provided your government with copies of the videos, but in keeping with their policies - information is not shared.
It is impossible for people to attend all the meetings, and the miniscule information provided in the minutes and the Landowners Update are inadequate.

In keeping with my beliefs - I want all of us to know what's going on. Only videos regarding The Union Bay Improvement District will be posted. More videos will be added to keep information current.


More at: http://allthingsunionbay.blogspot.ca/


law, misappropriation is the intentional, illegal use of the property or funds of another person for one's own use or other unauthorized purpose, particularly by a public official, a trustee of a trust, an executor or administrator of a dead person's estate or by any person with a responsibility to care for and protect another's assets (a fiduciary duty). It is a felony, a crime punishable by a prison sentence.
From 2007 Mail Outs Titled "Fairness In Our Community", and posted on old blog. Still believe it to be true.
Again, if anyone thinks I’ve got my facts wrong. maryreynoldsis@hotmail.com more at http://allthingsunionbay.blogspot.com/ By the way, I’m not auditioning to become a friend etc., so I’m not interested in comments regarding my presentation, style, bluntness, politeness blah blah - get it? This is not personal – it is business – I don’t care if one of your relatives or friends or neighbors is an elected official. They are accountable – like it or not. It doesn’t matter what level of government – they are elected.

Union Bay Residents' Association - A Front For KIP

Union Bay Residents' Association - A Front For KIP
Union Bay Residents' Association - Created to Promote KIP



Thursday, October 27, 2011

In Camera Meeting Minutes - Union Bay Improvement District

At the October meeting of the Board of Trustees of the Union Bay Improvement District, Chair Carol Molstad announced Minutes of In Camera Meetings are to be published on the UBID website.

This is very interesting as the request came from the investigator with the Ombudsperson's Office to make the minutes public.

More to come, including video of the meeting.

Saturday, October 22, 2011

Information From Farewell Foundation

Greetings Farewell Foundation Members and Supporters,

Here is the latest pre-trial update for Carter et al v. Attorney General of Canada and Attorney General of BC.  The good news is that the trial is on schedule:

BC Attorney General Backs off on Application to Dismiss the Trial, for now
On October 3rd, the Attorney General for BC filed an application to dismiss the summary trial scheduled to start November 14th.  As part of the application, the AG also sought a court order to put Canadians with knowledge about cases of assisted suicide on a list, with a requirement that they could be subpoenaed to testify. 

Some Farewell Foundation members observed that this could force Svend Robinson to testify about Sue Rodriguez’s death, as well as many other compassionate Canadians.  One Farewell Foundation member sent us an email pointing out that the sweeping order sought by the Attorney General for BC smelled of McCarthyism, recalling US Senator Joseph McCarthy’s 1950’s inquisition where suspected “subversives” were placed on a list and called to appear before a government committee. 

The AG has now backed off from its plan to dismiss the trial before it starts.  Instead, it reserves the right to apply to dismiss the trial after it is completed, if it believes that the court is deprived of a sufficient evidentiary record to make a proper ruling.  Counsel for the plaintiffs, Joe Arvay, told the court that he also reserves the right to apply to dismiss the trial at a later date if the evidence is insufficient. 

Four New Interveners Added to the Case
On September 2nd Farewell Foundation was the first group to be granted intervener standing.  As of October 20th the court has accepted four more intervener applications.  There are now 3 interveners supporting Carter et al and two plaintiffs opposed:

·       Canadian Unitarian Council (CUC): 
The CUC represents 48 church congregations in Canada.  It says it will inform the court about Unitarian and Christian perspectives that support assisted dying.  Even before the Supreme Court of Canada ruled against Sue Rodriguez’s right to assistance with self-chosen death, the CUC had a policy that embraced choice in dying.

·       Christian Legal Fellowship (CLF):
The CLF has a Christian perspective opposite to that of the CUC.  The CLF is against assistance with self-chosen death.  The CLF told the court that it intended to argue that the Constitution has a positive duty to require the criminal prohibition against assistance with suicide.

·       Euthanasia Prevention Coalition (EPC):
The EPC has a mandate to preserve and enforce the laws prohibiting assistance with suicide.  It believes that relaxation of the law will harm disabled people, the elderly, and negatively alter the physician-patient relationship.
·       Ad-Hoc Coalition for Persons With Disabilities
The Ad-Hoc Coalition is a new group formed in September 2011.  Its members are people with disabilities who support the freedom to choose assistance with dying.  The Ad-Hoc Coalition says that it offers an opposite view about disability than that of the EPC.

Will the Trial be Televised?
The CBC has applied to televise the trial.  The Attorney General of Canada is opposing the CBC application on grounds that the practice standard in Canada is that trial proceedings are normally only televised if all parties consent and if the judge agrees.  The AG for Canada does not consent to a televised proceeding, which it says is potentially harmful to the administration of justice and intimidating to witnesses when the issues at stake are highly sensitive.  The AG for Canada also argues that televised portions can be very selective, lacking in context, and chosen for dramatic content rather than legal or informational importance.  The AG is concerned that if this trial is televised then people may be reluctant to bring forward other legal actions that involve sensitive issues because they do not want their private lives broadcast to a national or international audience.  Madam Justice Lynn Smith has not yet ruled on the matter.

Ruling on Expert and Lay Evidence (September 28, 2011).
In a previous update we referred to the court ruling with regard to various affidavits and evidence that was challenged by the Attorney General of Canada.  The judge ruled that she would allow nearly all of the evidence that the AG Canada wanted excluded.  The decision is published at http://www.courts.gov.bc.ca/jdb-txt/SC/11/13/2011BCSC1371.htm

Next Steps
The parties have agreed to a tentative list of expert witness that they wish to cross-examine before November 14th.  Many of the witnesses are in other countries and the blitz pace of this summary trial demands efficiency.  Therefore, many of the witnesses will be cross-examined by video conference before the actual trial commences.

A case management conference to determine scheduling details is tentatively set for November 7th.

Farewell Foundation
322 – 720 6th Street
New Westminster, BC
V3L 3C5 Canada
(604) 521-1110

Tuesday, October 4, 2011