News around the Hammer

The last while the news from the Hammer has been coming in fast and furious and has covered everything from a  cop in a deep state of denial, city tax payers picking up the check for a councilors fines, to a man with a novel idea for a gift for his wife. Hang on, strap yourself in and lets start the ride, I will meet everyone back at the end for a trip to the obscura  gift shop, enjoy.

Hamilton man charged in oprah ticket theft story
A Hamilton man beat himself up - literally - and claimed he had been mugged after failing to get seats for a taping of The Oprah Winfrey Show in Chicago on Tuesday.

(You didn't win a car!!!)

Police officer in dixon civil suit denies concocting arrest events
A Hamilton police officer, named as a defendant in an $180,000 civil lawsuit stemming from a wrongful arrest, was evasive, argumentative and confrontational on the witness stand Thursday. Oliver Mann admitted under cross-examination that he changed his testimony.

Early the morning of Aug. 15, 2003, Mann and fellow officer Christian Beaulne responded to a call that a short white man wearing light-coloured sneakers was breaking into a John Street South jewellery store.
Around the same time, Dixon had gotten off a GO bus and began walking. The two officers ended up arresting Dixon at gunpoint in a parking lot along Hunter Street. He spent three days in jail and waited nine months before the Crown withdrew the charges.

 Under cross-examination, Mann rejected Zbogar’s suggestion that he concocted his version of events to support the arrest. Dixon, a black man, claims the officers discriminated against him on the basis of race despite witness descriptions of the robbery suspect.

(Sadly, there's no litmus test for the police system to use to weed out these type of blatant racist ignoramuses so we as citizens are forced to pay for a broken chain of command)

*May 28 Update*
police have learned lessons chief

Superior Court Judge Kim Carpenter-Gunn ordered the police board, along with Mann and Detective Constable Jason Leek, who conducted a formal video interview the night of the arrest, to pay Dixon just under $80,000 to cover his legal bills. Beaulne, who died in 2009 of a medical condition, was exempted from the cost ruling.
Earlier this week, Carpenter-Gunn ruled the police board and the officers had committed false arrest, false imprisonment, negligent investigation and Charter rights of liberty and security of person, and called the officers inept, arrogant, closed-minded, lacking experience and suffering from tunnel vision.
She awarded Dixon $54,000 in damages, including prejudgment interest, which will be paid by Hamilton taxpayers as per Police Services Act rules.

Links to my original posts following the whole story
http://theeternalkenaz.blogspot.com/2006/12/hamilton-police-black-and-blue-in-2006.html
 http://theeternalkenaz.blogspot.com/2008/09/michael-dixon-wronged-by-hamilton.html

 Let the records show spring has sprung a leak
It’s official. The latest cloudburst pushed us well over the brink of what we actually needed to break a record this spring. With 27.2 mm of rain Wednesday, this spring is Hamilton’s wettest.

(Duck soup anyone?)

Whiteheads language malicious demeaning defamatory
City taxpayers are footing the bill for $15,000 in damages after Councillor Terry Whitehead lost a defamation suit filed against him by a deamalgamation advocate.
Justice James Turnbull ruled that Whitehead libelled Free Flamborough chairman Roman Sarachman when the councillor called Sarachman a “destructive, mean-spirited, irrational liar that does not deserve the time of day” in a May 2008 email copied to council.

“It is not in the best interests of the city that councillors address taxpayers in such derogatory and unfair terms,” Turnbull wrote in a judgment handed down Monday morning. “It is incomprehensible that an email with such comments fell within the scope of his duties as a city councillor.”

(Here's the kick in the groin by a bunch of clowns.

City solicitor Peter Barkwell says Whitehead’s costs are being covered because his case comes within the terms of the city’s indemnification bylaw. That means the city’s legal department and insurers feel Whitehead was acting within the scope of his duties as a councillor and acting in good faith when he sent the email. But in his judgment, Turnbull says Whitehead’s words did not meet either of those criteria.

(Tax payers get clowned again. We got three new councilors who have decided to join the good old boys club and stick it to the voters who voted for change)

*But wait there's more!!! May 28*

The city must cover all legal costs incurred by a Waterdown resident and deamalgamation advocate who successfully sued Councillor Terry Whitehead for defamation. In a judgment handed down Thursday, Justice James Turnbull ordered the city to pay $28,188.75 for Roman Sarachman’s legal costs.
That fee is on top of the $15,000 Turnbull awarded Sarachman in general damages at the end of the two-day libel trial that wrapped up in mid-May. Turnbull had reserved a decision on Sarachman’s legal costs until this week. The city is also covering the cost of Whitehead’s lawyer.

Walkerton compensation tops 72-million
Ontario has now paid out more than $72 million in compensation to victims of Walkerton's tainted water tragedy.
(The Spec's open comment policy brings out all sorts of misinformed ideas from people who must sit around all day making tin foil hats. Re:Comments from "Churchill" Friend of this guy?)





One last stop before we end the tour, welcome to never-never land where Hamilton's activists hang out stroking their egos and listening to Gary Wright's  "Dream Weaver" whilst insulting anyone who challenges the legend of an internet hero. Some good points are made in this post, but one glaring omission is obvious who's paying? Cheers! have another.

http://www.raisethehammer.org/article/1376/the_future_of_west_harbour_and_barton-tiffany

Gotta go, off to the new "Centre on Barton" to look at some new walking shorts, I'm as optimistic that the sun will rise as I am that Hamilton can rise from the ashes and shed this "what a dump" attitude our neibours and some Hamiltonian's have.

Later,
Kenaz

Hamilton Council's latest proposal makes me 'gag'

The good: The draft bylaw to establish an city council integrity commissioner will go out for public consultation. It’s expected to be finalized in June. Councillors today allocated $50,000 in the 2008 budget to cover the potential costs of the commissioner for the last six months of the year.

The very bad: Controversial amendments were added to the bylaw last week at the Accountability and Transparency sub-committee, including charging a $100 fee to make a complaint and automatically cancelling investigation if the complainant speaks to the media.

The tragic comedy that is city hall continues it's sickening run at King and James. This weeks 'farce' includes a proposal that would render a complaint to the city's integrity commissioner null and void if the person complaining about a councillor goes public before the investigation is complete.

In other words, if you talk to the media, an investigation would be automatically be scrapped, regardless of how serious the allegation is. What draconian piece of shite is this? When did democracy cease in Hamilton?

That amendment to the draft bylaw was approved last week by the integrity and transparency subcommittee, which is made up of councillors and citizens. Council has transformed a piece of legislation intended to ensure that councillors live up to their ethical obligations into both a blatant attempt to gag free speech and a ruse to shield themselves from being accountable.

And, as citizen committee member Joanna Chapman, who voted against the proposal, rightly notes, "Anything that stands in the way of having a complaint properly investigated ... is a huge mistake."

The council members hiding behind the curtains pulling the strings are no mystery. Their the same ones, time and time again, who wish to waste time and money in order to save their old tired butts.

There's nothing nefarious behind the proposal. It's simply a misguided attempt to discourage "frivolous and vexatious" complaints.

Councillor Terry Whitehead, a member of the committee, argues imposing confidentiality on members of the public will help protect councillors from "bad-faith complaints" intended to politically embarrass them.

"The majority of the committee felt if someone was genuine in their complaint and had no agenda and they respected the independent process of the integrity commissioner then they would allow the commissioner to do the work before going public," Whitehead explains.

Councillor Brian McHattie, another committee member who supports the muzzle, notes the restriction is an extension of the same confidentiality rule that would apply to the integrity officer, if and when one is hired.

"I'm hearing very clearly from my fellow councillors unless they have those kind of protections in place then they won't support the commissioner bylaw," McHattie says.

Nice try, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern. Like Shakespeare's two courtiers in Hamlet the two councillors bumbled this one. The proposed restriction is not only out of step with an open and free society, it flies in the face of the rules governing investigations by the provincial integrity and environmental watchdogs.

Councillor Brad Clark points out that rather than protecting councillors from trivial and trumped up allegations, the gag would make them more vulnerable. For example, if a complainant goes public with an allegation and the investigation is dropped as a result, a councillor will have no way of clearing his or her name. The shadow of suspicion would linger forever.

Councillors should, within reason, be sheltered from unscrupulous special interest groups and political rivals looking to get at them, but they already have legal and moral ways of doing that. Imposing a muzzle on the public at the expense of what may be a legitimate allegation and serious investigation is way out of bounds for members a democratic political arena to conduct themselves.

Asinine comment shows Councillor Terry Whitehead's true character

as·i·nine [as-uh-nahyn]–adjective 1.foolish, unintelligent, or silly; stupid.

"I will not apologize"

It is surprising that supposedly intelligent people can make such asinine statement. Councillor Terry Whitehead drew gasps around Hamilton this week when he accused Joanna Chapman of not being objective in her role as a member of the integrity and transparency subcommittee. Chapman was not present in the gallery at the time.

The heated exchange started when Brad Clark objected to comments Whitehead made Wednesday morning. Clark said it’s highly inappropriate to criticize citizen volunteers who are giving up their time to help the city develop an integrity commissioner proposal. Whitehead shot back, naming Chapman as the person he doesn’t think is objective. Councillor Bob Bratina asked Whitehead to apologize. He refused, arguing he has a right to an opinion. Eisenberger again stopped Whitehead, explaining he was out of order. Chapman, who pursued charges against former mayor Larry Di Ianni for violating election was once again cheap shotted by a public official because they don't like the idea of a private citizen taking charge and voicing their given right to an intelligent opinion.

Whitehead and his supporters have been accused of trying to derail the integrity commissioner proposal. He denies the allegations, arguing he’s only trying to fight for the best model for taxpayers. The only thing he's fighting for is the continuance of "cronyism" at city hall. A regime that Mr. Whitehead vainly defends against crusaders like Joanna Chapman who only wish to hold the Mayor to his word and bring transparency back to this city.

You are errornous Mr. Whitehead when you claim this was not your election promise. You represent your constituents and it is your job to bring their wishes to the council floor. The people of Hamilton spoke loud and clear in the last election, they want transparency. Your petty wishes do not circumvent the wishes of the masses, sir. It is your duty to provide those, who's tax dollars provide you with a rather healthy living, their just desserts.

The proper resolution to this matter would be for Councillor Whitehead to be a man and offer an apology to Joanna Chapman.

Later,
Kenaz