Page 3
Wed. Jan 10th 2007: DENIED PERMISSION TO HAVE OBSERVERS PRESENT AT THIS SOCIAL BENEFITS TRIBUNAL
HEARING
My reply Wed. Jan 10th 2007:
THIS LOOKS LIKE AN ATTEMPT AT A COVER-UP. I HAVE INSISTED ON THE RIGHT TO HAVE
OBERVERS PRESENT IN THE WAITING ROOM, SO I CAN BRIEF THEM IMMEDIATELY AFTER THE
HEARING.
Mon. January 15th 2007 – two days
before the hearing: CITY OF OTTAWA SUBMITS ANOTHER DOCUMENT PURPORTING TO
DISMISS MY CASE
My response the same day: (a) DOCUMENT NOT
SUBMITTED WITHIN THE TIME FRAME REQUIRED BY LAW , AND (b) THE WHOLE SET OF ARGUMENTS IS NONSENSE
ANYWAY.
Report on Social Benefits Tribunal hearing
Wed. January 17th 2007: SATISFACTORY. WRITTEN DECISION WITHIN 60
DAYS, EXPECTED TO BE SATISFACTORY. IMPORTANCE, AND MY ARGUMENTS, APPARENTLY
UNDERSTOOD.
Decision of the Social Benefits Tribunal,
dated February 23rd 2007: APPEAL DENIED. TWO FATAL FLAWS IN THEIR ARGUMENTS: (1) THEY ADMIT THAT A CURRENT
TRIBUNAL MEMBER WAS PARTLY RESPONSIBLE FOR CREATING THE PROBLEM IN THE FIRST
PLACE, BUT DENY THAT THIS IS OF ANY CONSEQUENCE TO THE DECISION TO DENY MY
APPEAL, (2) COMPLETELY INCORRECT ASSUMPTION CONCERNING OUR FINANCIAL POSITION,
IN WHICH THEY ALLEGE THAT CERTAIN LIQUID CASH ASSETS WOULD HAVE BEEN AVAILABLE
TO US IN 1995 IF WE HAD SOLD A SMALL
RENTAL PROPERTY IN MONTREAL. IN FACT, IF WE HAD SOLD THE PROPERTY, WE WOULD
HAVE GOT NOTHING BECAUSE OF THE SLUMP
IN MONTREAL REAL ESTATE BETWEEN 1995 AND WHEN WE BOUGHT THE PROPERTY IN
1988.
THE DECISION: CLICK HERE MY RESPONSE TO IT: CLICK HERE
ADDITIONAL SUPPORTING DOCUMENT: CLICK HERE
March 22, 2007: FORMAL APPLICATION FOR
RE-CONSIDERATION SUBMITTED. ADDITIONAL DOCUMENT INCLUDED PROVES OUR FINANCIAL
POSITION ACTUALLY WORSE THAN PREVIOUSLY INDICATED AT THE JAN. 17 HEARING
June 15, 2007: ORIGINAL DECISION UPHELD.
NEW DOCUMENT IGNORED BY THE JUDGE, WHO IS ANOTHER MEMBER OF THE SOCIAL BENEFITS
TRIBUNAL
June 29, 2007: MY RESPONSE TO LAST ITEM:
THE JUDGE DELIBERATELY IGNORED INFORMATION PREVIOUSLY SUBMITTED
-
IN PARTICULAR, (i) HOW CURRENT TRIBUNAL MEMBER ROGER R. PRESSEAULT, IN
1995, WAS INVOLVED IN INITIATING THE
SUCCESSION OF PROBLEMS WHICH LED TO THIS SITUATION, AND (ii) THE FINANCIAL REALITIES CONCERNING OUR
MONTREAL PROPERTY.
August 7th 2007:
ANOTHER THREAT OF LEGAL ACTION FROM CITY OF OTTAWA
Friday
August 10th 2007: I REITERATE MY POSITION. INFORMED MY M.P.P., THE HON. JIM WATSON,
AMONG OTHERS, INCLUDING ALL ONTARIO
M.P.P.’S. “SLOPPY BANG-UP JOB”, BY ALL THOSE NAMED IN THIS FAX I SENT TO SOCIAL BENEFITS TRIBUNAL ON THIS DAY:-
September 24th 2008: STATEMENT OF ACCOUNT FROM THE CITY OF OTTAWA
IN RESPECT OF THE $5107.55 OUTSTANDING AMOUNT.
November 10th 2008: LETTER
FROM VICE-CHAIR OF THE TRIBUNAL, MS. MARY LEE – AGAIN DELIBERATELY IGNORING THE
FACTS AS PREVIOUSLY PRESENTED AND DOCUMENTED.
June 8th 2009: FAX FROM ME
TO MS. MARY LEE, IN RESPONSE TO PREVIOUS ITEM. SO FAR AS I AM CONCERNED, THEY
DON’T KNOW WHAT THEY ARE DOING AND ARE TRYING TO COVER IT ALL UP. SO MS. LEE CAN
EITHER FIX THE LAW PROPERLY OR GET OUT.
IN OCTOBER 2008, I INITIATED A FORMAL DOCUMENTED COMPLAINT
TO THE OMBUDSMAN ONTARIO OFFICE, CONCERNING THE CONDUCT OF THE SOCIAL BENEFITS
TRIBUNAL AND CERTAIN OF ITS MEMBERS..
HERE IS THE INITIAL RESPONSE FROM THE
OMBUDSMAN OFFICE, DATED SEPTEMBER 24, 2009 - FROM MS. JENNY RYU, EARLY
RESOLUTION OFFICER:-
I FOUND THIS RESPONSE TO BE UNSATISFACTORY
ON THE GROUNDS THAT IT INDICATED A FURTHER ATTEMPT BY SOCIAL BENEFIT TRIBUNAL
MEMBERS TO JUSTIFY THEIR ACTIONS BY IGNORING KEY FACTS. THEY COULD HAVE WAIVED
CERTAIN POINTS OF LAW IN MY CASE ON THE
GROUNDS OF INAPPLICABILITY AND IRRELEVANCE IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, BUT CHOSE NOT
TO DO SO. HERE IS MY RESPONSE TO MS. JENNY RYU, DATED OCT 02ND
2009:-
IN REPLY TO THIS I RECEIVED A LETTER
FROM MR. TOM BARBER – ASSISTANT
MANAGER, EARLY RESOLUTIONS – SUPPORTING MS. JENNY RYU’S POSITION.
THIS AND MS. JENNY RYU’S LETTER CONSTITUTE
CLEAR EVIDENCE OF NEFARIOUS MANIPULATION
BY CERTAIN SOCIAL BENEFIT TRIBUNAL MEMBERS WHO ARE CONCERNED PURELY WITH
PROTECTING THEIR OWN POSITIONS AT THE EXPENSE OF THE TRUE FACTS OF WHAT
HAPPENED. HENCE MY OPEN LETTER DATED DECEMBER 18TH 2009 TO THE
OMBUDSMAN OF ONTARIO, ANDRE MARIN.
ALL PERSONS FOUND TO BE PARTIES TO CORRUPTION AND
UN-PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT AT MY EXPENSE ARE LIABLE TO PUBLIC EXPOSURE AND
CENSURE. PENALTY COULD INCLUDE LOSS OF
JOB AND CAREER. BE WARNED, OR PAY THE PRICE.
---------------------