Wednesday, April 9, 2014


Exclusive to the Strand Blog

A Class Action lawsuit is being considered by a local group of taxpayers.

The revelation that certain participants, supporters and those who assisted in the Conflict of Interest against four councillors are recipients of taxpayer funding in one form or another has prompted a local woman to speak to officials about filing a class action lawsuit for misuse of public tax dollars.

She believes that certain people who funded the lawsuit against the four, by their actions, have violated public trust and should be forced to relinquish all monies received as salaries from the public. This would include those employed by not-for-profit corporations receiving taxpayer assistance whether they're arm's length or not.

When advised of the situation in Fort Erie, a official contacted about the class action possibility, said that a group of taxpayers can file a Class Action Claim for wages that were paid while the person was involved in the lawsuit.  

The names on the list of financiers of the lawsuit is very interesting, but not surprising. So far I have one winner in my bracket. For reference, you might want to see who donated to Doug Martin's 2010 mayoral campaign.  You know, the one he won by five votes.

Background Information:  The recent arrest of former Conservative Senator Patrick Brazeau brings attention to a case of fraud and breach of trust that has brought a great deal of attention to the people. The scandal had to do with the misuse of taxpayer money for expenses of three senators. It has to do with the repayment of monies taken for expenses that were not covered or appropriate. It has to do with the fraudulent misuse of taxpayer dollars. You can see the relevance of the scandal to Fort Erie. In coming weeks, revelations that taxpayer money was misused will be coming forward. Stay tuned and stay informed.

Don't believe me? Research it for yourselves. It's all there; just needs to have the common thread highlighted.


  1. It looks like the Integrity Commissioner will need to work overtime with this list.

    1. The people on the list do not represent the average person in Fort Erie. They are part of a network that has controlled this town for years. They obviously did not like the four councillors' way of representing the people. They want to go back to the days where large campaign donors had an advantage over the average person. Martin received over $22,000. in campaign donations in large amounts up to the limit which is $750. How many people do you know that can afford to give that kind of money to a candidate?

  2. CorruptionFighterApril 9, 2014 at 10:08 PM

    As I have said before, we have been paying to screw ourselves with our own tax $$ . ie dougie's 5 vote recount with AMN. etc etc etc

    In some countries when you violate the public's trust, as has been the norm here for decades, you go to jail. Theft of millions of the public's dollars with the on going Bay Beach fiasco definitely qualifies(that's right it's not over beach lovers). I think dirty doug is long over due for a spell in the crow bar hotel along with a few of his closest cronies.

    DEMAND HIS RESIGNATION !! he would still be getting off very easy.

  3. I made a copy for future reference one thing about this list is how it has grown over the past 35 years, just about everybody in the Chamber of Horrors is on that list. Doug was a President of that outfit when he was elected eons ago, but was turfed out of that ward and next election ran in another ward, were he burrowed his way into a cosy job for life, he held a lot of power because he got hold of the Finance portfolio. and the Bingo licence this put him in the big seat, along with Russell Wilson, Mike Keenan so we have been screwed ever since. all hail to the inter-net now the people can talk to each other, and the truth will make us all free, praise the Lord.

  4. So you have a list of the contributors to the lawsuit against the four?

    1. No. Contrary to certain people's assumption I have no contact with the four councillors. I also have no influence over them. The opinions expressed on my blog are mine alone and those who sent in comments. My information came from "a reliable source."

  5. It would seem to me that the only persons privy to that list would be the judge, the plaintive, the respondents, and their respective lawyers. Would you agree with me on that ?

  6. Good news that someone has the moxie to turn the tables and sue the frivolous "Suers" But its also important that the list of those who financially supported and encouraged the Tim Whitfield suit against the four be released immediately. Until then many innocents are being smeared with speculation. Public disclosure immediately!!!

  7. The others are now trying to distract by worrying about how I came to know the names of financial backers. It doesn't take a Rhodes Scholar to figure that out, given the bragging done on another blog and a quick look at who donated to the mayor's campaign in 2010.

    I also remember the following quote from the judge's ruling: "... If the name or names are disclosed, the respondents would be able to determine if they wish to take further steps. ..." It leaves the door wide open for litigation by the four - or the taxpayers.

    I have heard that the legal bills for this suit are over $100.000 so far. If Whitfield loses, he may have to pay those costs himself. The four are well represented by experienced legal counsel. Whitfield (cough) is represented by a local lawyer who contributed to Martin's 2010 mayoral campaign.

    Such acts have consequences. For decades, the powers that be have run this town the way they saw fit. People have complained about it for years, but no one did much about it - until 2010 when, finally, a majority was elected to council that did not do the mayor's bidding. Of course, since then, they have been subjected to untold harassment and now a lawsuit. They have done much good for the community, such as delivering a budget with the lowest tax hike in years. The Reserve Fund that the town dipped into for the "grant - er, no, it was a loan - er it was a gift" of $500,000 to the race track still has a healthy balance. That is a sign of good fiscal management and a cost conscious council, yet those facts seldom get reported when there's a lawsuit to blather on about.


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.