Monday, 26 January 2015

Chief would throw his police officers under ‘the bus’

Here we go again! Another revelation brought to us by way of another headline from the ‘STANDARD’

Whatever the ‘STANDARD’ newspaper’s motive they have decided to host the ‘first of what will be a monthly sit-down with Niagara Regional Police Chief Jeff McGuire that will be broadcast online.

Now isn’t that just great! 

Our Chief of Police immediately launches into a diatribe of suddenly depriving a police officer and family their expected income predicated on a simple accusation (NOT A CONVICTION).

There are many ways to address this issue without such draconian action.

Did the wizards of the ‘STANDARD’ notice that the chief, while ‘gung ho’ on throwing a police officer, and family, under ‘the bus’ for simply being accused, he completely avoided the bigger question of why he keeps dozens of convicted criminals on our NRP; some of which are known and convicted for violence against innocent citizens.

Regardless of whatever qualities this chief of the Niagara Regional Police has, it is inconceivable that he would not see that this is a juxtaposition that cannot be reconciled.

 We are sad to report that Mr. Haskell’s customary comments under The St. Catharines' ‘STANDARD’ articles are now being blocked or immediately removed.
Mark Cressman Publisher, St.Catharines Standard Wrote
 I don't have anything to do with deleting comments.  Please direct these emails to Peter Conradi at or Erica Bajer at

For more Information Click Here

Thursday, 15 January 2015

Right from Wrong

Not even two weeks into the new year of 2015 the St. Catharines ‘STANDARD’ showed their true colors when it comes to their political bent.

The January 8 headline reads; Politicians ‘prostitutes for the money’ predicated on a difficult decision whether or not to accept Solar Panels along with an 8% bribe.

The January 9 headline reads; ‘Conservative puppet masters rule in Niagara’  again predicated on fear that a left leaning candidate might have to run again against a new candidate instead of being acclaimed because of money. And just when has a lefty ever worried about cost?

The January 13 headline reads; Dual reps makes sense but... "To get anything through the Region these days means meeting with the approval of the right-wing cabal that imagines itself a Great Power, a gang of latter-day Machiavellis striking a blow for partisan conservatives by dealing with road repairs and sewage. Today they take Niagara, tomorrow Berlin … or at least East Main St. in Welland".

Another January 13 headline reads; Council's decision served the puppet masters complete with a lefty rant of, "Because the Conservative puppet masters in Niagara didn’t want the Liberal Edgar to fill a regional council seat. Pat yourself on the back, city council. You delivered for them".
Another headline on January 3o reads; Mayor sermonizes, congregation awaits results and this for the second time in the first month, we find the ‘STANDARD’ paying Mr. Doug Herod to use his considerable writing talent to debase our new Mayor’s very first ‘State of the City address” and Herod delivered for his masters by starting out with; ‘St. Catharines Mayor Walter Sendzik turned the annual state-of-the-city address Friday into a tent revival meeting, with the mayor serving as the newly appointed, roll-up-your-sleeves, kinetic evangelist. All that was missing was a few well-placed shouts of Hallelujah! from the audience. Clearly, someone forgot to adequately spike the Kool-Aid.’

Apparently the ''STANDARD' is petulant regarding the fact that it was the fed-up Niagara voters that gave 11 Regional Councilors the boot (two others quit for reason) not Conservative puppet masters or even the very active Liberal puppet masters!

Surely the 'STANDARD' could show a little patience! The 'STANDARD' should give the new councils time to prove themselves before they sling their slurs.

Is it good journalism to skew reports in favour of one's political party instead of reporting so much news and 'behind the scenes Machiavellian schemes' that the 'STANDARD' seems to miss? 

  Besides, what does the previous 'STANDARD' favored councils have to brag about? Is it just possible that it was the Regional Council's Liberal cabal (MOB) that stuck us with such a funding gap? The Niagara Liberals have done to Niagara's economy exactly what the Ontario Liberals have done to Ontario's economy

Because of feckless lefties on our Police Services Board we now have dozens of convicted criminals on our NRP!

The ‘STANDARD’ would rather skewer active councilors than expose lefty wrong doing as in the Tim Lewis Story or the tragic Cry for Help from a victim of the regional housing fiasco and the list goes on
Niagara Citizens are waking up to the reasons that decades long Liberals don’t face pertinent questions regarding their failures.
And if cover-up and favoritism fails, simply block (Muzzle) anyone who disagrees with the Patricians ant the STANDARD.
So much for free speech!

Interesting article by Grant Lafleche, a longtime, award-winning reporter at The Catharine’s Standard daily newspaper who says, "it is easy to be for free speech when the speech in question is what you like". 

"You have to be in favour of free speech for the views you dislike, or you are not in favour of free speech".

That obviously does not apply with the STANDARD Newspaper that Grant Lefleche works for.

Perhaps Mr. Lafleche could find out and tell us the reason that Preston Haskell has been denied his freedom of speech by Grant’s newspaper, while their favourites spew hatred and harm to others?

Examples below...

Matt Harris you turned out to be a rat...boot licking rat falling at the feet of Lord Watler....shame on you

I say that all these jerks who refuse to do the right and moral thing should dump their crap on Preston's property. Sounds like he approves of your civil disobedience and completely understands you. He feels your pain.
Use google maps to find his property.

 Learning RIGHT from WRONG 


 We are sad to report that Mr. Haskell’s customary comments under The St. Catharines' ‘STANDARD’ articles are now being blocked or immediately removed.
Mark Cressman Publisher, St.Catharines Standard Wrote
 I don't have anything to do with deleting comments.  Please direct these emails to Peter Conradi at or Erica Bajer at

For more Information Click Here

Tuesday, 13 January 2015

Here we go again!

Another ‘anyone but Petrowski campaign’

Even before Andy Petrowski first ran for elected office he made himself a target of the ‘Old Boys’ on regional council by attacking one of the most sinful and tyrannical bylaws ever perpetrated on the citizens of Niagara. When the dust settled the bylaw that barred the public from their own public forum was rescinded, mostly because of the tongue-lashing from the outraged voices on CKTB radio.

Petrowski’s efforts on behalf of the taxpayer kicked-off one of the most disgusting attacks on a sitting Regional Councilor in Niagara’s history. He was the victim of every kind of distortion, lies, and false accusations; from every department under the control of the stinky ‘Old Guard’ socialists worried about their ‘Gravy Train’.

During the 2014 election we witnessed the fact that the public saw through the ‘Old Guard’s Charade’ and turfed out some of the miscreants at the ballot box.  Even the Regional Chair got the boot with only 7 favorable votes.

But, here we go again! Predicated on the mere thought that Councilor Andrew Petrowski might be elected to the underwhelming Niagara Regional Police Services Board we suffered having feckless Ontario sponsored board members disparaging Petrowski to the public and even going so far as to pressure regional council members not to vote for Petrowski for the NRPS board!

And just what do we get following the election of Petrowski to the police board? According to the ‘Standard’ we get the Vice chair Vaughn Stewart spewing chair D’Angela’s now famous diatribe that, “The Police Act is very specific about what we can’t do”.  Stewart said of board members. “It takes a while to really learn what you can and can’t do”

That’s just fine, but nobody asked the NRPSB to do anything it can’t do!

Vaughn Stewart stated, “For example, in the Police Act, we are strictly forbidden from telling the chief how to do day-to-day operations. We set policy. We don’t direct police officers to do things. If someone does, they would find themselves off the board in a hurry.”

The only thing asked of you and your ineffective board was; ‘Who do we see about the fact that we have admitted and convicted armed and dangerous criminals on our Niagara Regional Police force?’

So tell us Mr. Vaughn Stewart, just what policy did you set? Surely you didn’t set policy allowing the police chief to operate outside of accepted norms? And perhaps you would tell us how long it takes to understand that wrong is wrong?

No Sir, Mr. Vaughn Stewart, the NRPSB has the power to set policy constraining the police chief from harboring convicted violent criminals, senseless bullies, thieves, smugglers, tattlers, dangerous drunk drivers and lying perjurers on our police force.

Unlike the Toronto Police Board, which refused to renew the contract of their G20 police chief, our Chairman of the NRPSB Henry D'Angela, heaped high praise on NRP Chief Jeff McGuire and then extended Chief McGuire's contract to the year 2020.

NRP Chief McGuire and the past NRPSB have brought the NRP into noted disrepute.

Since 'News Alert Niagara' was the source defining what was going on at our NRP and its board it must be assumed that 'News alert Niagara' is responsible for the Region's contingent on the board to be so unceremoniously dumped.
The chairman of the police board could only muster two votes and those two votes from his seconders.
Regional Chair Burroughs got the boot from both his Regional Chairmanship (only 7 votes) as well as being kicked off the police board.

 We are sad to report that Mr. Haskell’s customary comments under The St. Catharines' ‘STANDARD’ articles are now being blocked or immediately removed.
Mark Cressman Publisher, St.Catharines Standard Wrote
 I don't have anything to do with deleting comments.  Please direct these emails to Peter Conradi at or Erica Bajer at

 For more Information Click Here

Thursday, 8 January 2015

Your Property is Your Property

It is virtually impossible to explain the force and effect of the Letters Patent in 700 to 800 words, in conjunction with the various constitutional documents. 

Letters Patent granting the land is the alienation of the Crown territorial domain, which can only be done by means of the Crown granting land, patenting the land, these documents being sealed under the Great Seal open to everyone to see, and being registered in a land registry.  They are a contract between the patentee, the patentee's heirs and assigns forever, with the Sovereign, depending on the wording of the patent.  These documents are created under the instruction of the Sovereign.  Government is restricted by a statutory novation and as all authority stems from the Crown, of which to violate these documents is to dishonour the Crown.  Supportive of the Nullum Tempus Act, placing a common law restriction on the Crown of 60 years, there is Section 3 of the Real Properties Limitations Act, which states:

Limitation where the Crown interested

   3.  (1)  No entry, distress, or action shall be made or brought on behalf of Her Majesty against any person for the recovery of or respecting any land or rent, or of land or for or concerning any revenues, rents, issues or profits, but within sixty years next after the right to make such entry or distress or to bring such action has first accrued to Her Majesty.  R.S.O. 1990, c. L.15, s. 3 (1).

The alienation of the Crown domain, means that the Queen in right of Ontario hasn't any right, title or interest in or to the lands described.  This is stated in 1994, Ontario (Attorney General) v. Rowntree Beach Assn

In Privy Council Appeal of 1934, The Attorney General of Manitoba and others v. The Attorney General of Canada, the process is explained.

"British subjects or intending British subjects were empowered to make application for entry for a homestead; if the application were accepted on payment of the prescribed fee, the receipt given by the local agent of the Government was to be a "certificate of entry," entitling the recipient to take, occupy, use and cultivate the land entered for, and to hold possession thereof to the exclusion of any other person, and to bring and maintain actions for trespass committed on the land.  These rights, however, were subject to the proviso that occupancy, use and possession of land should by subject to the provisions of the Act or of any other Act affecting it, or of any regulations made thereunder (section 11 (2)).  By section 11 (6) it was provided that any entry for a homestead should be for the sole us and benefit of the entrant, failing which the Minister should have a discretion to cancel the entry.  An entrant was bound to perfect his entry by taking up possession of the land and beginning residence thereon within six months from the date of the certificate, failing which the entry was liable to be cancelled; it might also be cancelled if the entrant in any year failed to fulfil the requirements of the Act.  ….  At the end of three years, the entrant might be granted letters patent for the land, which thereupon vested in the entrant in fee simple.  Before, however, letters patent could be issued the entrant was required to have fulfilled certain conditions, and in particular to have erected a habitable house on the plot and to have cultivated such an area of land in each years as to satisfy the Minister…But until the letters patent are granted the freehold is in the Crown;…" 

            The definition of “Freehold tenure is without any incidents or obligations for the benefit of the Crown. All lands granted by the Crown in fee simple are granted in free and common socage - freehold tenure.  A fee simple may be transferred without licence or fine and the new owner holds from the Crown in the same manner as the previous tenant held from the Crown.” (Ownership and Title to Real Property,   

I hope this allows for better clarification in regards to some other in depth research into the Letters Patent.  Suffice it to say, they are not a license, they are the root of title and the removal of the Crown domain.  Private property is private property, or there wouldn't be a need for an Expropriations Act, or restrictions set down by the Supreme Court, on government and the Crown. According to the Supreme Court of Canada, the private property owner can do with their property as he/ she or it sees fit, but not to the detriment of their neighbour.  This is common courtesy and is the common law.

We are sad to report that Mr. Haskell’s customary comments under The St. Catharines' ‘STANDARD’ articles are now being blocked or immediately removed.
Mark Cressman Publisher, St.Catharines Standard Wrote
 I don't have anything to do with deleting comments.  Please direct these emails to Peter Conradi at or Erica Bajer at

 For more Information Click Here