Once Again, McGuinty Gives Ontarioans the Finger

The following, from the pages of CaledoniaWakeupCall, should arouse some interest in Ontario. Apparently, terrorism and insurrection can get you free heat and water along with a new house and land, compliments of the non-terrorist, non-insurrecting taxpayer.

This is an outrage! McGuinty is now saying to the people of Ontario - ok, we've just further used your tax dollars to reward insurrection by underwriting the cost of it to the insurrectors, so, f*ck you, suck it up.

Taxpayers pay for Hydro & Water for Criminals

From: MARIE TRAINER [mailto:mtrainer@haldimandcounty.on.ca]
Sent: August 24, 2006 1:04 PM
To: Burke, John (MAH); Smith, Neil (EDT)
Cc: Lloyd Payne (E-mail)
Subject: hydro bill at DCE

A letter was sent to Dennis Brown asking numerous questions

Normally when a property is sold Haldimand Hydro receives the name and address of the new owner so they can start sending the bills to the proper place

As of now no bills have been paid and there for services should be cut off

It is my understanding all services are to remain on but it does place the county and Haldimand Hydro in a awkward position as in all other cases services would be turned off and an extra charge for reconnection would be incurred

These bills do need to be kept current

Thank you both for your attention to the above matter

Marie

The following is an email from the Ontario Government to Marie Trainer:

From: Burke, John (MAH) [mailto:John.Burke@ontario.ca]
Sent: August 24, 2006 1:23 PM
To: MARIE TRAINER
Cc: Smith, Neil (EDT); BILL PEARCE; Layton, Carol (PIR)
Subject: RE: hydro bill at DCE


Hi Marie:

I thought I had made it clear at a past Liaison Table meeting that the Province had taken over responsibility for water and hydro services to the DCE property. As you know, we are the rightful owner, so it is our responsibility to pay the bills as we do on all property we own. Because we are the owner, it will be up to us to decide if and when services are to be discontinued or adjusted in any way. I hope this clarifies the Provinces position on this matter. Please feel free to contact me should you have any further questions.

Thanks, John

The following excerpts from the Criminal Code of Canada should be required reading for all residents of Ontario. If Marie Trainer has not yet "read the riot act" to site occupiers, she should do so immediately, so that the prosecution of the Attorney General and the leadership of the OPP can start forthwith.

Unlawful Assemblies and Riots

Unlawful assembly

63. (1) An unlawful assembly is an assembly of three or more persons who, with intent to carry out any common purpose, assemble in such a manner or so conduct themselves when they are assembled as to cause persons in the neighbourhood of the assembly to fear, on reasonable grounds, that they

(a) will disturb the peace tumultuously; or

(b) will by that assembly needlessly and without reasonable cause provoke other persons to disturb the peace tumultuously.

Lawful assembly becoming unlawful

(2) Persons who are lawfully assembled may become an unlawful assembly if they conduct themselves with a common purpose in a manner that would have made the assembly unlawful if they had assembled in that manner for that purpose.

Exception

(3) Persons are not unlawfully assembled by reason only that they are assembled to protect the dwelling-house of any one of them against persons who are threatening to break and enter it for the purpose of committing an indictable offence therein.

R.S., c. C-34, s. 64.

Riot

64. A riot is an unlawful assembly that has begun to disturb the peace tumultuously.

R.S., c. C-34, s. 65.

Punishment of rioter

65. Every one who takes part in a riot is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years.

R.S., c. C-34, s. 66.

Punishment for unlawful assembly

66. Every one who is a member of an unlawful assembly is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.

R.S., c. C-34, s. 67.

Reading proclamation

67. A person who is

(a) a justice, mayor or sheriff, or the lawful deputy of a mayor or sheriff,

(b) a warden or deputy warden of a prison, or

(c) the institutional head of a penitentiary, as those expressions are defined in subsection 2(1) of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, or that person’s deputy,

who receives notice that, at any place within the jurisdiction of the person, twelve or more persons are unlawfully and riotously assembled together shall go to that place and, after approaching as near as is safe, if the person is satisfied that a riot is in progress, shall command silence and thereupon make or cause to be made in a loud voice a proclamation in the following words or to the like effect:

Her Majesty the Queen charges and commands all persons being assembled immediately to disperse and peaceably to depart to their habitations or to their lawful business on the pain of being guilty of an offence for which, on conviction, they may be sentenced to imprisonment for life. GOD SAVE THE QUEEN.

R.S., 1985, c. C-46, s. 67; 1994, c. 44, s. 5.

Offences related to proclamation

68. Every one is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for life who

(a) opposes, hinders or assaults, wilfully and with force, a person who begins to make or is about to begin to make or is making the proclamation referred to in section 67 so that it is not made;

(b) does not peaceably disperse and depart from a place where the proclamation referred to in section 67 is made within thirty minutes after it is made; or

(c) does not depart from a place within thirty minutes when he has reasonable grounds to believe that the proclamation referred to in section 67 would have been made in that place if some person had not opposed, hindered or assaulted, wilfully and with force, a person who would have made it.

R.S., c. C-34, s. 69.

Neglect by peace officer

69. A peace officer who receives notice that there is a riot within his jurisdiction and, without reasonable excuse, fails to take all reasonable steps to suppress the riot is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years.

R.S., c. C-34, s. 70.

The forced sale of the land to the Liberal government as a means to get around the provision of section 63.(3)cannot be allowed to stand as a precedent for dealing with an insurrection by any group who has has declared themselves to be a distinct and sovereign nation within Canada.

The Six Nations Confederacy, through its occupation and the events that unfolded from the outset, are clearly in violation of sections 49 (Acts intended to alarm Her Majesty or break public peace) and 51 (Intimidating parliament or legislature) of the Criminal Code, irrespective of whether or not the province has purchased the land, now crown land. If the province will not do its solemn duty, then the the Federal government, through the RCMP, has no choice but to proceed with enforcement of these sections. That negotiations are underway is immaterial, as there is no relevence to property ownership accorded in either section.

Failure of the government to act begs the question the legitimacy of the government and of the OPP. A failure of enforcement action against the occupiers may compel citizens to act on their own behalf, a situation no one wants to see, but may soon become inevitable. Action of the OPP against the citizens of Caledonia in such a circumstance could be construed as a repudiation of the democratic authority of the electorate. As a consequence, the provincial government surrenders its legitimacy, and the Lieutenant Governor should be petitioned to call for the immediate dissolution of this present leglislature.