About Those Folks You Elected To Handle Your Landowner Finances

 

 

UBID vs Margot Rutherford UBID vs School District No 71

 

Court Documents for viewing below.

Remember that little problem with the purchase of the school property?  No?  That would be due to the fact not one of those folks you elected thought you needed to know.  The problem wasn’t revealed until there was a major change in the UBID Board.

The present Board is every bit as good as the previous ones.  They have adopted the same habits of secrecy and brought the ‘chosen one’ attitude to new levels for the public to view at their monthly meetings.  A Chair who declares the rules are His.  This same individual is up for re election in a few weeks and has this shitty privileged attitude.

Landowners are not informed of the actions until it is too late – just like the purchase of the school property.  Word has it that those folks you elected waived the title search so the problem never showed up until it was too late.  Word has it UBID didn’t bother with a lawyer and used a Notary instead.  So now UBID is suing the Notary, Margot Rutherford and  School District 71, who sold the property.  How did UBID get a mortgage from our local friendly Credit Union without clear title?  Who was looking out for your finances?  Remember, this was a reverse vote.  If a certain number of landowners were against the purchase and advised in writing by a specified time, the sale would have fallen through.  Instead, everything was done to speed up the possession date.

There is nothing but financial misery ahead due to the inaction of landowners holding elected individuals accountable.  You’re not getting what you pay for and don’t seem to mind.

Here is the lawsuit against School District 71 for your viewing pleasure:  https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B3dbeg9xQCwQM21qazhlcVU0ZTA/edit?usp=sharing

Here is the lawsuit against Margot Rutherford for your viewing pleasure:  https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B3dbeg9xQCwQVUVhMy0zZlBkRzg/edit?usp=sharing

The following is what I compiled up until now.

http://maryreynoldsunionbayblog.blogspot.ca/2012/01/union-bay-improvement-school-property.html

Three Bullies: Bryan Baker, Alan de Jersey and Kim Jonsson

Who is the ringleader here?

Who else belongs to this cowardly group?  These folks seem to know an awful lot of people.  Wonder how many emails are being deleted?

Mr. de Jersey is no doubt stuck in a tight spot.  How many people has he encouraged to have such hatred towards someone they don’t know?  Will they rally around Mr. de Jersey, Kim Jonsson and Bryan Baker defending their honour, spouting all the good work they do?  Let’s get it all out in the public so people get the whole story from both sides.

creep bryan bakercurling de jersey95946comox09goodwin

For comparison, here’s what Kim Jonsson posted on Alan de Jersey’s Facebook regarding Clifford Olson.

jonsson on clifford olson

This is what Kim Jonsson stated in her email to Alan de Jersey regarding me:

Untitled 5

Is this the normal Alan de Jersey finds acceptable?

RCMP has a bullying problem, watchdog says

bullies rcmp

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2013/02/14/rcmp-watchdog-report-bullying_n_2687077.html?utm_hp_ref=canada

The RCMP has a bullying problem that needs to be countered by better training and record-keeping, the force’s watchdog says in a long-awaited report released today.

The RCMP public complaints commission launched its investigation in November 2011 in reaction to widespread reports from female Mounties about systemic sexual harassment.

The report released Thursday looks at 718 harassment complaints filed between 2005 and 2011, representing about 2.5 per cent of all employees at the RCMP.

Commission chairman Ian McPhail said about 90 per cent of the complaints involved bullying, rather than sexual harassment.

“Yes, there’s a problem of harassment, but overwhelmingly the problem was abuse of authority,” he told CBC News.

Buddies Sharing Information?

Mr. de Jersey continues to display the problems that have been identified within the RCMP. Individuals who view themselves above others and get an automatic ‘pass’ because of the RCMP connection.

Result: abuse.

de jer cumb feb 8 2013 post gone

The comment Mr. de Jersey posted regarding a restraining order was news to me and I have no idea whether it is accurate or not.  Mr. de Jersey took out the comment “You are so obnoxious and unstable even your own family initiated a restraining order against you!”

I have the following questions:
If this information is in fact true, how did Mr. de Jersey become aware of it? Was it obtained through the local RCMP detachment? Does Mr. de Jersey have the authority to make this information public? Do the others involved in this supposed initiation of a restraining order know Mr. de Jersey is publicly sharing matters which no doubt are expected to remain confidential?  Is there a breach in security at the local RCMP?

Why would Mr. de Jersey in an emotional outburst on The Cumberlander website directed towards me, who he claims is unstable, tell me about a restraining order which obviously was not pursued? If Mr. de Jersey believes I’m so unstable, what was his intent by bringing up something that never developed?  Wouldn’t this be viewed as something really stupid for a cop to do?  What is Mr. de Jersey’s motive?

Mr. de Jersey doesn’t care who he involves as he tries to squirm out of a situation.

I imagine the Cumberlander post will disappear pretty soon as Mr. de Jersey can’t take the heat.

http://www.thecumberlander.ca/show2139a/The_Cumberlander_is_not_Credible

Mr. de Jersey Referring to Me as a Nut Case

I noticed Mr. de Jersey has removed the post he added yesterday.  No wonder.  This is what Alan de Jersey stated and appeared today on the Cumberlander

de jer cumb feb 8 2013

This is what it looks like now:  http://www.thecumberlander.ca/show2139a/The_Cumberlander_is_not_Credible

EDIT Feb. 9, 2013  Mr. de Jersey has reposted his comment excluding the ‘restraining order’ comment.  I believe Mr. de Jersey slipped and showed the depths he will go to in order to discredit me.  I won’t be going to the police.  It’s up to Crown counsel anyway.  They’ll say the courts are backed up and the issue will die.  I’ll let this play out in public.

Original version:

de jer cumb feb 8 2013 post gone

Here is the ‘new’ version

de jer edit comment feb 9 2013

What?

The comment ‘Proved Nothing’ has me shaking my head.   How do you communicate with someone who refuses to deal with the issue by diverting the attention elsewhere?

Bottom line:  If Mr. de Jersey believes what he states about me, then go to the police and have me charged.  I want an investigation.  I have a lot to say.

de jersey feb 4

The Cumberlander Feb. 4, 2013

http://www.thecumberlander.ca/show2139a45s/The_Cumberlander_is_not_Credible