Monday, August 4, 2014



I knew all along who the "unnamed," now convicted and sentenced embezzler was in the Bridges Scandal.  A lot of political capital must have been spent to get such a good deal for Carole. Also, why was it necessary for her name to be withheld from the media while the matter was being resolved? Notice how very, very quiet Russ Wilson has been the past few months. I heard that the investigation into the matter was very thorough and Russ Wilson was very nervous. Seems that Russ falls victim to these money shortages wherever he goes. Way back to his days on Customs and, of course, the Bingo Years. Now Bridges. Gillespie has not revealed why she took the money and has offered full restitution along with her 18 month soft sentence. And that is odd in itself. Perhaps they didn't vet Gillespie at all because she did have some red flags on her resume.  Here is the link to the article:  

Carole Gillespie was sentenced for fraud in the Bridges embezzlement scandal.


Question: why are certain members of the Chamber of Commerce and a service club crowding the ballots in the upcoming municipal election?

The answer is: they're continuing the agenda they created shortly after the 2010 municipal elections.  That agenda was to eliminate or destroy four councillors who were all elected by comfortable margins and who were elected by people who were tired of the direction the previous council had taken, especially with regard to the Bay Beach Development of a twelve story condo on public property at the edge of the public beach.

Almost immediately, some chamber members got together and erected a billboard along Garrison Road calling the four "liars."  Then came the infamous full-colour leaflet presented under the guise of "citizens for a prosperous future" or some such title complete with quotes from now candidates Kimberly Zanko (who ultimately admitted she was the spokesperson for the anonymous group) and Marina Butler, a candidate for Ward 4 who also sought a compliance audit on the newly elected councillor of the ward, John Hill, in 2010.

Of course, Martha Lockwood, who mercifully lost her re-election bid for Ward 5 to Don Lubberts, had to pile on for a compliance audit of Donnie. And there were others, some in retaliation for the audits of Hill, Lubberts and Collard.  All of this cost the taxpayers a lot of money and all of this was a waste of time.

It seems that anyone willing to pay the yearly fee can be a member of the Chamber of Commerce. It does not care if the business address provided is not correct or that the business has not had an inspection by the health department in over three years; nor does it care that the business address in a closed-up, for sale property.  All is fine if one pays his or her dues. Heck, you can get to be President even if your business has gone bankrupt or you have no viable business.  As long as one pays their dues and is welcomed into the inner circle, they are OK.  As to this "inner circle" as in one of the Circles of Hell of Dante, they are practicing the art of political alchemy. combining the desire for the community to have a healthy business climate with their desire to control the governing process.  The Four Councillors' election in 2010 and the near election of Ann Marie Noyes put the Circle of Hell members on high alert and they will continue to attack The Four and anyone else who does not agree with their agenda.

Just take a quick look at the present list of candidates, available to download HERE.  Lots of members of the Chamber of Commerce and also members of a certain service club.  Seems that service club is encouraging its members to run for office or it's a great big coincidence. Many if us don't believe in coincidences.

If you like the idea of a group of business people running your town, under the auspices of the chief poobah of the economic development corporation, then fill your boots. (Of course your boots would already be filled if you wade around those waters.)

And the fun is just getting started.

Editor's Note:  In the previous thread there was a discussion about a meeting attended by some newly elected councillors and one incumbent back in 2010.  I wish to correct one part of my statement about that in what is the complete description of the event:

The meeting, at a private home, was attended by Ward 1 Councillor Stephen Passero; Ward 3 Councillor Bob Steckley; Ward 4 Councillor John Hill; Ward 5 Councillor Don Lubberts; and Ward 6 Councillor Paul Collard.  The purpose of the meeting was to ask for a 90 day adjournment of the Ontario Municipal Board Hearings that were taking place regarding the proposed Bay Beach condo development as appealed by thirteen local people. The newly-elected councillors wanted the time to review all the paperwork and information that had been available to previous members of council to get up to speed on the hearings. The four councillors signed an affidavit making the request; Passero did not sign the affidavit.  This meeting had nothing to do with the later lawsuit filed by another group of people in the effort to stop the development.  That lawsuit was heard in Ontario Superior Court in Toronto, totally unrelated to the OMB hearings which were held in Fort Erie.

I did not remember that an affidavit was signed at that meeting regarding the OMB case as the writer to this blog mistakenly referred to the Superior Court Case which was not even on the docket at the time the councillors held the meeting. Hope this sets the matter straight as to what really happened.