Scanned, recopied or Internet copy, if there are errors, please e-mail me with corrections: Opening comments: More at the end. To the main Judicial Inquiry page - to the Hazel McCallion page. Mississauga News - Aug. 10, 2010 - Letter by Warren Adamson, Mississauga. Obvious bias Dear Editor:Your Aug. 4 editorial “What price truth?” is supremely ironic in light of the editorial’s obvious bias. Its message is anything but “the truth.” In fact, it’s a collection of innuendo and premature conclusions regarding your assessment of both the implications and the veracity of the testimony elicited from Peter McCallion. Nowhere do you suggest a side to any of Peter McCallion’s testimony that would establish the possibility of his honesty. To my knowledge, naivete is not considered a crime within Canadian jurisprudence. In my experience, naivete is not considered to be an acceptable attribute of respected journalists. Peter McCallion described his role in WCD (World Class Developments) as that of a realtor. Clearly, he did not incorporate WCD; that was done by Leo Couprie, Tony DeCicco and Emilio Bisceglia, the primary investors in WCD. It is entirely conceivable that, rather than pay McCallion a commission, they put him into WCD with a small carried interest which would be his reward for the ultimate success of the venture. But you have chosen to simply dismiss the credibility of McCallion by stating, “...he believed himself to simply be a real estate agent, even after he signed papers giving him 80 per cent of WCD’s shares, a transaction his mother signed as a witness.” Furthermore, you impugn Mayor (Hazel) McCallion because virtually any reader would infer from your words that she read the document (she signed). But that’s precisely what witnesses do not do. Their sole duty is to attest to the validity of others’ signatures. If it was your intention to mislead Mississaugans and to brand Peter McCallion as a liar and a deceiver, you can claim success. Fortunately for him and the mayor, it is Justice Cunningham and not The Mississauga News or Councillor Carolyn Parrish who will pass judgement on McCallion’s evidence. Comments by others - 35 - to this web-page at time of posting; The Mississauga Muse Aug 13, 2010 2:33 PM @ Tony, speaking of Traditional Media... (I know you know this but others might not) The Mississauga News has created an archive of every article pertaining to the Inquiry. You'll find " Judicial inquiry coverage" in the top right of this page or go to http://tinyurl.com/3a2yw4m * Agree Tony Jackson Aug 12, 2010 1:20 PM Adamson (FoH) This is a "Hazel v.s. People of Mississauga" corruption issue. In a democratic system, it's the RESPONSIBILITY of the Press to report corruption in public offices. The MIssissauga News is doing just that (recently). * Agree 5 The Mississauga Muse Aug 12, 2010 12:17 PM @ Uatu, ConcernedResident and Mantis are NOT "closed minds". But EVIL You wrote, the the Fiends of Hazel, "do not respond to logic and they hate facts. For them, there are two kinds of facts: the ones you ignore and the ones you make up. You CANNOT reason with closed minds." It isn't about closed minds, Uatu. There are people who ORCHESTRATED the fraud and then did their all to cover it up (notice Craig Coleman's testimony regarding effort to SEAL the court file). I've often said that regular citizens can't fight this evil cronyism --that only those who have "industrial strength lawyers" have a chance. Well I see this as AIMCo fighting for TRUEth on *our* behalf! (I'm actively cheering for their lawyer!) Have to wonder how many OMERS "partners" had their own WTF moments with surprise settlements but they didn't have the finestkind-quality of people for Fight-Back that AIMCo does. * Agree 2 bettyyeti Aug 12, 2010 12:07 PM AND WHEN THIS IS ALL OVER... ..How will McCallion conduct herself? Will she be remorseful? Will she apologize to the people of Mississauga? Will she ever admit to ANYTHING? I think not. The cost of the inquiry is taxpayer money well spent so far, because it has exposed the bullying, oppression and sense of entitlement that has become the norm with McCallion at the helm of our fair city. It's time to house clean. Let's hope that McCallion will do the honorable thing and retire in shame. * Agree 4 Uatu Aug 12, 2010 11:45 AM @ComeOn The reason you almost never see me or the Muse or some of the reasonable people here respond to the lies and garbage spewed out by the hazelbots is that it is fruitless. They do not respond to logic and they hate facts. For them, there are two kinds of facts: the ones you ignore and the ones you make up. You CANNOT reason with closed minds, especially ones conditioned to smear and insult anyone who dares to suggest that their Mayor-worship might be undeserved. Of course they insult you, they've got nothing else and they feel anger because they know you're right and they're full of crap. Prediction: the response from the hazelbots to this comment will be a) mark it offensive, and b) post a comment containing at least one lie and one personal insult. I'll ignore it of course. * Agree 2 ComeOn Aug 12, 2010 11:33 AM Hazel McCallion Scandal Needs To Be Paid By Hazel McCallion What cost truth. Clearly the Mayor had no intention of ever disclosing this tangled web of intrigue. Clearly the Mayor had no intention of admitting to countless meetings she attended to help her son's company. How to get the truth when those who have created the mess will not come clean? Even Pat Saito, Katie Mahoney, Mia Prentice and Pat Mullin have gone silent in the press defending this sad sad state of affairs. Silent now are the crazy emotional rants of witch hunt as fact after fact points to horrendous abuses and bizarre defences like Peter is not a child and I do not remember signing my name I do not remember signing my name.... I do not care who would win the Kentucky Derby if the Mayor and opponent X were horses. I care that this Mayor has clearly gone down a road of behaviour that is simply unacceptable to any reasonable person. The time has come to resign Ms. McCallion and then defend yourself in court such as you may when all of this heads there next. We need a Mayor who remembers signi * Agree 4 ComeOn Aug 12, 2010 11:24 AM CR's Fantasy Land Refuses to See Hazel McCallion Scandal CR -- So once again you gloss over all of the facts and evidence presented. You dismiss these things as presented by "Barbarites" offer no alternative explanation -- say alien abduction -- and just ramble on with personal attacks. Let me clarify that I do not care who runs in the next election for Mayor but this one needs to step down. The mounting evidence is shocking. Now we have Mr. O'Brien with no notes but insists the City soliictor is wrong. We have the City solicitor with notes that clearly state both the Mayor and Mr. O'Brien are in trouble. For separate reasons mind you but still in trouble. You do not even glance at this as a problem but move on to more BS. I have repeatedly raised specific documents, testimony some made by the Mayor and ask you to explain how all of this could be if it were not an abuse of office -- you sir contribute nothing to the discussion but insults. * Agree 6 The Mississauga Muse Aug 12, 2010 9:51 AM @ Stephen Wahl re: "witch-hunt", "waste of money", "politically-motivated" and other prolefeed Re-read Adamson's letter. I'd say this reads straight off the Fiends of Hazel's notebook, but it's clear from Dave O'Brien they don't keep notes! As an astute reader pointed out, no one's going to record, "Spoke with Mayor today on ways we can manipulate the media and minimize.." I liked what Coleman (AIMCo) said in his testimony. How AIMCo and OMERS had essentially the same data but reached different conclusions. That's Science talking. It is entirely possible that Justice Cunningham and me-here who's been following along examining the same evidence (and has video of Enersource, Our Future Mississauga debates etc) might say "I conclude there is no conflict of interest" and I'd be okay with it. This was a REAL Inquiry --zero doubt. Only way it could've been better is for them to SWOOP in unannounced and grab all documents before they could be dest.. unavailable. * Agree 1 Stephen Wahl Aug 12, 2010 9:39 AM Now another question In so many comments, newspaper articles and even in the City Council Chambers, the term, “witch-hunt” is used. In this name calling game that everyone loves to play; who are you calling the witches; and, who are the hunters? * Agree 1 The Mississauga Muse Aug 12, 2010 9:09 AM CONTINUED BY MR. CLIFFORD LAX: ...And this is a message that you left for the Mayor indicating: "I just watched the show. You did a great job. Not one call on the issue. That tells you the public are not bothered by this. I'll talk to you tomorrow. Good job on the show." Do you recall what show you were referring to? A: That would be the Mayor's monthly television program, her -- her Mayor's Hour on Rogers. Q: And the issue, I take it, that you were referring to was the issue raised in a Toronto Star article...: All right. And is this the issue that you were referring to when you said that the Mayor had done a great job on her television show? A: I believe so, yes. Q: And that the fact that nobody had called the show about this potential conflict of interest was an indication that there was no real public interest in this matter? A: That would have been my -- my message to her, yes. * Agree 1 ConcernedResident Aug 12, 2010 9:04 AM @Spudder Unlike you Barbarians, I speak to avearge people. Most are appalled at the risings costs of this witch-hunt. What was once $2.5MM will easily be north or $7.5MM when done. What good could have been done with that $$? To the average citizen, they know that this is a blatent attempt by one councillor to try to bring down the Mayor. A councillor, who, by the way, does not have the courage to take on the Mayor, mono-a-mono. * Agree Stephen Wahl Aug 12, 2010 8:39 AM My question answered Yesterday my question, “Why oh why” RE Carolyn Parrish reference, at 08:51h was answered by 09:08h. The answer basically boils down to this; Carolyn, like so many other strong personalities in high profile positions, is an obvious and easy target. Easy and obvious; like shooting fish in a barrel and bear baiting. Activities which in my opinion are not much of a challenge and not very sportsman like. * Agree 1 The Mississauga Muse Aug 12, 2010 8:35 AM Anyone else notice the lack of professionalism that is OMERS? The huge diff between AIM-CO and OMERS? The testimony of Craig Coleman (Hawthorne Realty Advisors to AIM-CO) and man talk about PROFESSIONAL! What a *contrast* to the shifty OMERS cabal! Coleman/Hawthorne have notes, records, ---a MEMORY!... Had to laugh at Clifford Lax taking O'Brien through the City Solicitor's extensive notes about her conversations with him and how he disagreed with them. Without *any* of his own and previous testimony littered with "I don't remember I don't recall"s. And THIS was a former city manager and a current OMERS Big Shot. What I especially loved about the AIMCO testimony is it conveyed "we are professional. we are accountable". (And OMERS was concerned about their reputation. HAHAHAHAhahaha! They are true MYTHissaugans in their business plan. Claim one thing publicly. Good Gawd, Don't take notes! And then disagree with meticulous records of those who.). I really respect that Coleman guy. I learned a LOT from his time on the stand! * Agree 2 The Spudder Aug 11, 2010 11:39 PM @CR Only one drinking th kool-aid, really!!! Why don't you come down out of Hazel's behind and start talking to the average person. They have enough sense to see the light. You might also want to watch the inquire because it seems the the Commissioner and his lawyer are drinking the kool-aid. This is inquiry is like an onion, the more layers you peel the more it stinks. * Agree 2 ConcernedResident Aug 11, 2010 7:48 PM @ComeOn It's stupid comments about Mantis and I being the same poster that make me challenge the validity of ANYTHING you post. Remember, just like Dororthy in the Wizard of Oz, if you repeat it enough it may come true. You can shout scandal all you want, but you're the only one drinking that kool-aid. * Agree The Mississauga Muse Aug 11, 2010 5:41 PM @ ComeOn and also Stephen... odd but I saw a communication from Jim Murray I have to review the video but the exhibits were going up on the screen. Communications from the Mayor's office and this document comes up with Jim Murray's name at the top. No discussion so I assume projected in error. Still. Made me wonder why there's a communication with Murray's name on it. Also, the first witness, Craig Coleman was excellent. Very clear to me that if it weren't fer them boys out-west, we'd have never known any of this --I'm certainly going to call two things "fraud". And to them certainly I'm grateful. I sure "get" OMERS a lot more now! * Agree 2 The Mississauga Muse Aug 11, 2010 5:35 PM @ The Spudder re: conflict of interest You wrote, "Doesn't matter if Peter McCallion was an agent or part owner of WCD. The offer by WCD was conditional on the hotle, no hotel, no deal and no real estate commission to Peter. No matter how you slice this, agent or owner, Hazel had a conflict." Every one I've heard at the Inquiry agrees. Dave O'Brien spent the vast majority of his dodging and umming avoiding the conflict of interest question. It was only at the very *very*end, when lawyer-after-lawyer went at him, did McDowell go up one last time and finally get O'Brien to admit, that yes, there was a conflict of interest. Have to laugh at a communication that surfaced, where O'Brien congratulates the Mayor on her The Mayor's Hour and no member of the public had raised the Inquiry issue. Happy that the public wasn't all that attentive on the issue. Fascinating fascinating fascinating! * Agree 1 The Mississauga Muse Aug 11, 2010 5:29 PM I can't WAIT for today's transcript to come out! I'm still INCREDULOUS! You-all know David "I don't remember, I don't recall" O'Brien. Well today, Clifford Lax took him through City Solicitor Mary Ellen Bench's thorough notes summarizing their conversations. You ready for this? He actually disagreed with a few of Ms. Bench's entries! Lax reminded O'Brien about the superb quality of Bench's documentation, but O'Brien hung tough with the George Costanza Defense! Next. Like Peter McCallion, there doesn't seem to be a single note, Post-It or napkin where O'Brien keeps records of meetings. This is in stark contrast to the people from out-west (AIMCO). Won't rely on my memory and will wait for the transcript to share relevant exchanges. * Agree 1 The Mississauga Muse Aug 11, 2010 5:15 PM From the Mississauga Judicial Inquiry court transcripts --DECEIT 02. Peter McCallion testimony "A" is Peter McCallion. "Q: Now, when you borrowed the fifty thousand (50,000), or when you guaranteed the debt of --of World Class Developments, personally, you knew that you did not have the wherewithal to order that guarantee if demand was made on it? A: Correct." * Agree 1 The Mississauga Muse Aug 11, 2010 5:15 PM From the Mississauga Judicial Inquiry court transcripts --DECEIT 01. Peter McCallion testimony ("A" is Peter McCallion) "Q. We see that, first of all, on behalf of World Class Developments Limited, we have a signature. Whose signature is that? A: That's mine. Q: Per Peter McCallion, ASO. Is that correct, sir? A: Correct. Q: Now, you apparently signed this on July 27th, 2007? A: Yes. Q: At the time, did you understand what ASO meant? A: Yes. Q: What did you understand it to mean? A: As signing officer. Q: To the right of that we see co-signer. We see your signature, or what appears to be your signature again; is that correct, sir? A: Correct, yes. Q: You signed that as well? A: Yes, I did." * Agree 1 ComeOn Aug 11, 2010 4:30 PM All Together Now -- Hazel McCallion Scandal is Hazel's Fault I am fascinated by how CR/Mantis (convincing logging in a few minutes later as your alter ego) you do not take issue with fact after fact after fact that keeps coming up and putting yet another torpedo in the good ship McCallion. One guy floats along with a tinfoil headed theory on how Peter -- known to be involved in countless land deals in Mississauga -- is a village idiot so he could not have done anything wrong. Then you go on to accuse everyone who disagrees with you (anyone with a brain) as a Barbarite (sp). Give me something that explains this? Do you live in your parents basement and the radon gas has gotten to you? Did you wrap the tinfoil around your heads a little too tightly this morning? How is it that every thinking person can see plain facts but you Mr. McCallion only see what you want to see? * Agree 1 The Spudder Aug 11, 2010 2:56 PM Agent Doesn't matter if Peter McCallion was an agent or part owner of WCD. The offer by WCD was conditional on the hotle, no hotel, no deal and no real estate commission to Peter. No matter how you slice this, agent or owner, Hazel had a conflict. As long as the purchase was condtional on certian things that the City had to do, the Mayor should have not involved herself in any discussions. That is a fact. If you don't see that then you are blinded by the Hazelite. * Agree 3 The Spudder Aug 11, 2010 2:53 PM Warren, Warren, Warren First of all why would someone who is just a real estate agent for the company put $100,000 into a company to keep it afloat. I deal with real estate agents everyday, none of them would do that unless they had an ownership stake. So let's get this straight, he is this visionary but doesn't know he has 16% ownership in WCD. Come On. * Agree 3 ConcernedResident Aug 11, 2010 12:02 PM @Mantis Welcome back. Been a while. The inmates have been trying to control the asylum. Accusations that are yet unproven being held up as fac. The theory has been if you repeat it enough, others will start to believe it. Even if it is nit true. * Agree Mantis Aug 11, 2010 11:54 AM Excellent Letter This is an excellent letter that re-states what I and others have been saying all along. The wacky Barberites on this site hold up anything negative about McCallion as golden nuggets of self-evident truth whileg at the same time denying, distorting or ignoring anything positive. Thankfully most people in Mississauga think along the lines of the writer of this letter - unlike the usual suspects around here, we understand concepts such as EVIDENCE. The funniest thing ever was where "Mississauga Muse" posted one of her huge rants saying that unless the inquiry finds fault with McCallion, it will all have bene a sham. In fact, what these people believe is that the inquiry should have started with it's report and then tailored the facts to fit that. * Agree Uatu Aug 11, 2010 9:40 AM Another Fiend of Hazel beats up a straw man When faced with unpleasant facts, make up your own and then attack them! That's the hazelbot way. Adamson portrays the Mississauga News as unfair for not presenting anything to show the possibility that Peter McCallion was simply naive. As the Muse suggests, either he has not paid any attention to McCallion's (or anyone else's) testimony or he is being dishonest. The MN doesn't mention the possibility because Peter McCallion, aside from saying that he was naive, gave no evidence to support his claim. Mostly he "forgot" what happened. The hard evidence that has been presented undermines his "naivete" at every turn. THAT was the whole point of the editorial. The point at which the MN was still obliged to suggest that he might actually be naive was passed long ago. Only a hazelbot could write the trash Adamson did. * Agree 2 Think About It Aug 11, 2010 9:34 AM Peter McCallion had lost his license as a WCD realtor if the author had read the story and observed the court documents, he's omitted The one and only answer * Agree 1 ConcernedResident Aug 11, 2010 9:08 AM Answer Because Ms Parrish is seen by many (rightly or wrongly) to be the instigator of this inquiry. She is the Mayor's most vocal critic, and let's face it, her past indulgence for speaking before the brain gets going, and the outlandish comments that come out make her a most visible target. * Agree Stephen Wahl Aug 11, 2010 8:51 AM Why oh why? Why does everyone who has a negative opinion about the need for, or the validity of the Inquiry; have to mention Carolyn Parrish? Could this be because of some sort of obvious bias, prejudice or dislike of Carolyn; or, are they simply, in their learned opinion, espousing some sort of fact based truth based on testimony from the transcripts of the Inquiry? * Agree 1 ConcernedResident Aug 11, 2010 8:47 AM @Warren Adamson You make some very interesting points, and from your letter, seem to have some insight. The Muse must agree, as it has come after you with both guns a blazin'! * Agree The Mississauga Muse Aug 11, 2010 8:36 AM Adamson writes, "Fortunately for him and the mayor, it is Justice Cunningham and not The Mississauga News or Councillor Carolyn Parrish who will pass judgement on McCallion’s evidence." Part 2 Then there's this from the court transcripts. "A" is Peter McCallion. "Q: Now, when you borrowed the fifty thousand (50,000), or when you guaranteed the debt of --of World Class Developments, personally, you knew that you did not have the wherewithal to order that guarantee if demand was made on it? A: Correct." * Agree 1 The Mississauga Muse Aug 11, 2010 8:33 AM Adamson writes, "Fortunately for him and the mayor, it is Justice Cunningham and not The Mississauga News or Councillor Carolyn Parrish who will pass judgement on McCallion’s evidence." Thank the **STARS** for that score! Justice Cunningham knows about The Peter's fakery. Guess Adamson has no problem with this Inquiry exchange confirming Peter McCallion's deception --I'd call it fraud. ("A" is Peter McCallion) "Q. We see that, first of all, on behalf of World Class Developments Limited, we have a signature. Whose signature is that? A: That's mine. Q: Per Peter McCallion, ASO. Is that correct, sir? A: Correct. Q: Now, you apparently signed this on July 27th, 2007? A: Yes. Q: At the time, did you understand what ASO meant? A: Yes. Q: What did you understand it to mean? A: As signing officer. Q: To the right of that we see co-signer. We see your signature, or what appears to be your signature again; is that correct, sir? A: Correct, yes. Q: You signed that as well? A: Yes, I did." * Agree The Mississauga Muse Aug 11, 2010 8:05 AM Clearly Warren Adamson hasn't read the July 27/28 Judicial Inquiry transcripts. Or watched the telecasts! Anderson wrote, "Nowhere do you suggest a side to any of Peter McCallion’s testimony that would establish the possibility of his honesty." HEY DUDE! READ THE TRANSCRIPTS AND YOU'LL SEE THAT PETER MCCALLION NEVER OFFERED ANY EVIDENCE THAT WOULD ESTABLISH THE POSSIBILITY OF HIS HONESTY! And regarding, "If it was your intention to mislead Mississaugans and to brand Peter McCallion as a liar and a deceiver, you can claim success." Actually it's MOM'S LAWYER who's been presenting evidence that The Peter is a deceiver. As for lying, does "I don't remember" count? * Agree 1 Home Page - Main Table of Contents - Back up a page - Back to Top [COMMENTS BY DON B. - ] |
Your Financial Donations are Greatly Appreciated The • |