Saturday, March 29, 2014


Another chapter in the on-going saga of the Dougie Buyers Club has ended.

Before we get to the judge's decision, let us refresh everyone's memory of what has gone on since the voters elected four councillors to council on the hope that things would change at town hall. This was the first time in recent history that a decided change has come to town hall, often characterized as run by a bunch of Old Boys who controlled everything that went on in town. The Bay Beach issue drove home the fact that regular people have little to say in this town, hence the election of some new councillors who promised to do their best to end the nepotism, favouritism and possible corruption at town hall. So, the attacks began:

1.) Compliance Audits were requested by Marina Butler for John Hill; Martha Lockwood for Don Lubberts and Larry Graber for Paul Collard. 
      a.) Marina Butler ... is now running for council in Ward 4, now represented by John Hill, She is also vice-president of the Chamber of Commerce.
      b.) Martha Lockwood ... was voted out of council in Ward 5 won by Don Lubberts. Worked for Marina Butler
      c.) Larry Graber ... lost to Paul Collard in Ward 6.

The Compliance Audits cost the taxpayers in excess of $100,000.  The results: all cases were dismissed.

Kimberly Zanko (lost Ward 3 election to incumbent Bob Steckley in 2010 and currently running again) was spokesperson for a billboard on Garrison and a full-colour brochure that appeared in local mailboxes that found fault with the four councillors for their opposition to the controversial Bay Beach Project. Blamed them for scaring away potential developers to the town. Negative quotes in the brochure included Marina Butler. Other than Zanko, there is no responsibility claimed by any group for the billboard. Then there's Peter K's Facebook Fiascos and billboard on Garrison Road. What moron does this sort of thing? 

The WAR AGAINST THE FOUR was topped off by Conflict of Interest suit filed by Tim Whitfield, who lost his council seat to John Hill,one of those named in the suit.  So far, that suit has cost in excess of $100,000. in legal costs. 

What was the purpose of the compliance audit, the negative brochure and the lawsuit?

To unseat four duly-elected town councillors. This vendetta has been in the works since election night in 2010.  It has and will cost the taxpayers hundreds of thousands of dollars. It has been orchestrated by a small group of people who have their own agenda and do not care that they are costing the taxpayers hundreds of thousands of dollars. They do not want these four councillors to work on behalf of regular people. The people behind these actions want to keep the power to themselves.

On March 19, 2014, Superior Court Judge B.H. Mateson issued two orders:

1. John Hill and Donald Lubberts will answer all the refusals that are set out in the chart prepared by the applicant’s solicitor and attached as Schedule “A”.

2. The applicant or his solicitor will provide the name or names of the person or persons who provided the retainer for Mr. Hurren.

As to ruling Number 1, John Hill and Don Lubberts were advised by their attorney to not answer those questions at the time they were first asked. They have both indicated that they will now answer those questions in full. The reason for the initial refusal was because they felt that, in answering the questions, they would be revealing something said in a closed meeting.

Now, to the BIG RULING:

Uh-oh. Tim Whitfiled will have to provide the names of those who financed his lawsuit since he swore in an affidavit that he was approached by Doug Martin to become involved in the lawsuit. Further in the release is the revelation that Martin disclosed details of a closed meeting to Whitfield in his conversation. Hurren tried to save the "confidentiality" of the financial backers by citing attorney/client privilege, but the judge did not agree.

I have already set up a Lawsuit Bracket.  See who ends up in the final four.

My Bracket for the Final Four:

Jim Thibert
Marina Butler
_______ TBA 
________ TBA

This just in: heads are spinning over at that other blog. Sorta like Linda Blair's in the Exorcist. Must be difficult to come up with a way to spin this away from what it is: a S.L.A.P.P. lawsuit paid for by certain people who do not want these four, honest men to continue on council.

Oh, and in case you read the lies at another blog, Don Lubberts and Paul Collard visited the Lobster House on the Bay Beach Property on March 29, 2014, accompanied by a town employee.


  1. So, a number of questions arise in this expected developing saga.

    1. How is it that you , Editor, know that " John Hill and Don Lubberts were advised by their attorney to not answer those questions at the time they were first asked. " ?

    2. While it is quite certain that those individuals that sued "The Town" were not financially responsible for the "maintenance" in their lawsuit, will YOU now reveal who covered their legal expenses.

    1. Guess you didn't red/understand the entire decision. The judge disagreed with the argument of Hill and Lubberts, who were represented by legal counsel, that they might be revealing confidential information from a closed meeting. They did not appeal the ruling and will gladly answer the questions.

      Now, how are you going to spin the ruling that Whitfield/Hurren must provide the names of the financiers. I would bet that they'll settle.

      You can spin it; turn it around. Whatever. Whitfield and company are screwed.

    2. APPARENTLY ....... YOU didn't read / understand my question !!!!!!!!!!!!

      MY question to you was..... " How is it that YOU, Editor, know that " John Hill and Don Lubberts were advised by their attorney to not answer those questions at the time they were first asked. " ?

      There is no mention of their attorney's advise in this matter on the judges report.

      So how did you know that they were advised by their attorney not to answer those questions?

      And, you forgot to answer my second question.

    3. Lawyers often advise their clients not to answer certain questions, especially ones that may breach confidentiality. Better to wait until the judge rules on the issue, which he did. I know this because it is SOP in a situation like this. That is why people hire lawyers to defend them. How do I know this? Because it is obvious that they were acting on the advice of their lawyer. Stop looking for ways to distract. As to the second question: here is my answer. No. Why are you expecting me to reveal something I have no knowledge or duty to reveal. The judge ordered the plaintiff to reveal his financiers.

  2. Bay Beach related still?March 29, 2014 at 6:50 PM

    The "secret" financiers obviously really hate the 4.

    Sounds to me that they could be the same ones who put up the hate billboards and the pamphlet that called the 4 finks.

    1. Yes indeed. I'll bet that there a few very familiar names on that list.

  3. CorruptionFighterMarch 29, 2014 at 8:21 PM

    Follow the BIG money. Who has the Four thwarted ?? That is who is financing the Mayor sueing his own council, the billboards and likely the "we hate the 4 websites" as well. Or best of all, our own mis-directed tax $$. Not like they are not above that. The ol boys think that it's theirs anyways along with anything else in town that they can twist a buck out of (oh lets see, a public beach maybe??).

    Whitfiled is just a convenient patsy for dirty doug as is Martha and a few others. It may be premature but possible the McGuinty gas plant scandal has woke people up to just how criminal big politics can get. If so, dougie you better start wiping all your hard drives clean and destroying 3 decades of evidence. if they come for you, it will not be pretty.

  4. CorruptionFighterMarch 29, 2014 at 8:23 PM

    by the way Madam Editor, who is the a$$wipe demanding you to answer their questions?? I can guess......

  5. Are we now waiting to see if the secret names are divulged? Since they won't want to fess up to their dirty dealings, I presume that means that the nuisance law suit of Conflict of Interest will be withdrawn.

    Whitfield and gang pay their costs as they should for the vendetta.

    Then that means that us taxpayers are responsible for the defence of sitting Councillors. I am not suggesting at all that the four should be on the hook for any of this nonsense.

  6. So the tangled web that was spun by Doug et al, will entrap those that spun the web of deceit , This could be the Albatross that will hang around his lordships neck along with his cronies. Justice will be served finally, the truth will out,. how will Culic spin this one in the Fort Erie Pravda???

  7. the nasties HAD their little tee hee when the Councillors were served.

  8. view_from_the_beachMarch 30, 2014 at 1:54 PM

    Isn't it amusing how the "constipated thinkers" over in ninjaworld immediately come down with diarrhea of the mouth when their dysfunctional little world collides with reality ?

    Fact is ninja..
    Again Martin has shown he couldn't intimidate his opponents like he has his "supporters".

    And I have to ask..
    Do you have any idea how ridiculous your "Lobster House Bitching" sounds?
    "Construction helmets, surveillance cameras.. and approved footwear" ? WTF!

    1. Once again, the NINJAS LIE, LIE, LIE. The visit to the Lobster House by the two councillors was known and they were accompanied by a town employee.

      Ninjas are so upset that their buddies' S.L.A.P.P. lawsuit has been exposed as such that they are looking for anything to hang onto. Note to ninjas: better fire your CB "source." Getting everything wrong. Again.

  9. The ninja's deep concern of the lobster shack's dangerous conditions is just another confirmation of the long term engineered blight that the town inflicts on this site. If I were the owner of the property next door, I would require the town to list me as "additionally insured" for a multimillion dollar umbrella policy covering fire,injury, loss of use, etc. to compensate for gross negligence . They should remove both structures and turn the sales office into a food stand to accommodate beach goers.

    1. CorruptionFighterMarch 30, 2014 at 5:49 PM

      There you go thinking about the greater good of the common citizen again Mr. Soldier. However if they remove these structures AND the pads they sit on, dirty doug and his cronies wouldn't be able to develop our last and best beach and get their huge KICKBACK!!

      As the editor has noted, the dark side will try again after what they hope will be a favourable installment of their like minded crooked friends come October.

      SUPPORT THE FOUR!!, lets take this town back for ALL the people not a greedy insider few grubbing thieves of our public property and taxes.

      Demand this mayor's resignation. I proudly belong to what the dark side has termed a special interest group that is only made up of 99% of this town, the common citizen taxpayer. That's right dirt bags, you're greatly in the minority and if the masses ever find out what you've been up to.......

  10. Yes, 99% is correct. Us good, polite Canadians have allowed these bullies to get away with horrible corruption and immense administrative inefficiency as we are too busy just trying to survive honestly. Most people can't fathom behaving as these bullies have done. Just like high school of the past where the loudest got away with being a bully as everyone shied away from it if not targeted. Well we all need to finally say "enough is enough". It's our tax money these fools are wasting. The "China News" of our local papers is a disgrace as well.

    1. I agree with CF. Doug Martin should resign. He was behind this vexatious lawsuit against four duly-elected councillors. The mayor and his buddies were behind the compliance audit requests ($100,000+ taxpayer money) and the lawsuit ($20,000.+ taxpayer money) against me.

      One can only surmise what the lawsuit will cost the taxpayers.

      All because the mayor and his backers did not like that the balance of power on council shifted away from him and his cronies.


  11. Action Canada has renewed their finance plan to back worth while community projects,the sooner we can get rid of his lordship and his slimey pals, the sooner we can start enhancing our Bay Beach and welcome the visitors to our Town, note, I said our Town!!!!

  12. What amazes me is that some people think they are insulated by money and power. They have always been able to get away with just about anything, however eventually that catches up with them and they get caught up in their own web. Have you noted how quiet "those that are always right" are? They are too busy trying to find a way out.

    1. Yeah, they are trying hard to distract and distort the decision with their "poll" and alleging that Donnie and Paul "broke into" the Lobster House. How lame can they get?

      I'm waiting for James Culic to put his special spin on the decision - if he reports it at all.

  13. I'm thinking the only Conflict of Interest is dougie's own interests got conflicted.

    In his previous term when it mattered to him, he got his 5 to 2 Council votes. He had Martha Lockhart, Tim Whitfield, Rick Shular and Sandy Annuziata to vote HIS way. I have even heard accounts that they went into his office before meetings to get coaxed, imagine if that is true?

    The four he is suing are the majority who were elected by the people.

    One must wonder who else then besides the mayor felt that his will would not prevail since the election. Who else was in on the scheme?

    The lawsuit idea seems to me to have been delusional.

  14. When you hire a lawyer, you hire somebody to represent you,in court,in the old movies it was referred to as having a" mouthpiece " so you keep your mouth shut and let the lawyer do the talking. O J Simpson would now be on death row if he did not listen to what his legal advisors said. basically that's what the protocol is in the judicial sytem.

    1. Of course. Too bad that Whitfield, Martin and Shular didn't keep their mouths shut during their testimony. I hear they got caught up in their own lies.

      Here's a question: how much of the work on this case was done on the taxpayers' time? Why was Whitfield a frequent visitor to the mayor's office during this period of time? Can you smell a plot/campaign against the four councillors? You should and it has cost the taxpayers hundreds of thousands of their hard-earned tax dollars.

      Biggest question that may soon be answered: just who is behind this campaign?

    2. CorruptionFighterMarch 31, 2014 at 4:51 PM

      Likely our very own misdirected tax $$ with some help from Burlington. The dark side thinks it's theirs anyways to do whatever they please.

      It's almost unbelievable.....We're paying to screw ourselves !!

    3. In other breaking news, the province only offered the Fort Erie Racetrack $5.5 million. According to a report by James Culic:

      The track had a budget shortfall of $7.9 million last year, but made up the difference after receiving $5.5 million in transition funding from the province, and by draining the FELRC’s reserve funds of about $2 million.

      There's that $2 million number again. Crops up everywhere these days.


This blog no longer publishes Anonymous comments. Just use a nickname and comments will be considered.To use a nickname, please fill in the area of "Name/URL" with your nickname, It is not necessary to fill in the URL portion.