Cumberland BC: The Cumberlander Articles Section
Local · 19th June 2011
Zelda Wamzutta
Union Bay - Plaintiffs Alan De Jersey (past UBID chair and current UBID Trustee), David Godfrey (past UBID Trustee), Denis Royer (past UBID Trustee), David McDowell (past UBID Trustee), James Smith (past UBID Trustee), Debora McMahon also known as Debbie Prowse (past UBID Trustee), Brenda Fisher (current UBID Administrator) and Gloria Royer (current UBID staff) may be left as the sole Plaintiffs in the Supreme Court case S-107671 for defamation against Mary Reynolds if the Judge makes the determination on June 28th to remove UBID as the ninth Plaintiff.
These eight people as individuals have sued Mary Reynolds using none of their own money, just taxpayer money.
As reported at the last UBID Board meeting on June 15th, the Hearing originally scheduled for June 14th was postponed to June 28th so that the newly appointed UBID lawyer Robert McQuisten of Staples, McDannold, Stewart could get up to speed on the details of the legal action.
One of the issues still pending is to remove UBID as one of the Plaintiffs. As stated in the Notice of Application dated January 27, 2011 filed by Jason Gratl (solicitor representing Defendant Mary Reynolds) an Order is being sought (among others) as follows:
"An Order striking the claim by the Union Bay Improvement District on the basis that municipal entities lack the legal capacity to bring actions in defamation against their constituents..."
(See weblink
http://unionbaynewsnow.blogspot.com/2011/06/notice-of-application-order-to-strike.html
to the Union Bay News Now Blog for this document in its entirety.)
If the Judge agrees to remove UBID as one of the Plaintiffs in this case, that would leave eight individual Plaintiffs ("The Group of 8") remaining to carry on their defamation claim against Mary Reynolds.
The million-dollar question (or should I say "$50,000 dollar question"?) which many Union Bay residents are asking is as follows:
Would then Plaintiffs De Jersey/Godfrey/2 Royers-Mr and Mrs/McDowell/Smith/McMahon be allowed to continue their claim (now without UBID) using public funds? In other words, without UBID as a Plaintiff are the citizens of Union Bay footing the bill for some individuals who have a gripe against a Landowner?
As I previously mentioned on this blog, the old UBID Board voted to pay $50,000 without taxation to their lawyer Mr. Galambos just three weeks before the new UBID Board took over. (See my last posting "Is UBID Bankrupt? Questions about Exorbitant Legal Costs" - weblink is below)
Presumably some if not most of this $50,000 still remains in Mr. Galambos bank account.
Many Union Bay residents perceive that the original $68,224.89 paid to Galambos was a shameful waste of public monies and should have never been spent on this defamation case. But attempts of these constituents to their elected officials were thwarted when Chair Alan De Jersey barred them from all public UBID meetings. Now there is an additional $50,000 which Mr. Galambos has been paid by the old Board.
Another question, perhaps even more serious, comes to mind: Did the old UBID purposely vote to waive taxation in the $50,000 retainer to Mr. Galambos so that it would be impossible for the public to recover this money?
The relationship between the former UBID Chair Alan De Jersey and Mr. Galambos seems to be rather "cozy".
Mr. Galambos is obviously an acquaintance of former UBID Chair De Jersey's since De Jersey stated in an email that he [De Jersey] "...had worked with him [Galambos] for a number of years while a member of the RCMP...". (See my last post in the Cumberlander.)
In fact, it appears De Jersey has called Mr. Galambos "his good friend" when he introduced him to speak at the Club Assembly Meeting of the Cumberland Rotary last November as follows:
"Michael Galamos [sic], a good friend of President Alan then spoke to us about his experiences in the practice of law as a Crown Prosecutor and as a Defence Counsel."
(See link as follows for entire document in the Official Newsletter of the Rotary Club of Cumberland Centennial dated November 23, 2010 as follows:
http://www.rotarycc.org/Pages/documents/TheMinersLamp23November2010.pdf
This Rotary Club Assembly Meeting, at which Mr. De Jersey's "good friend" Mr. Galambos was the guest speaker, took place on November 16th, the day before the eight Plaintiffs notarized their individual Affidavits when they made their first filing in the defamation case against Mary Reynolds.
Is it possible that Mr. Galambos met in person with the "Group of 8" (Alan De Jersey, David Godfrey, Denis Royer, David McDowell, James Smith, Debora McMahon, Brenda Fisher and Gloria Royer) just before he spoke at the Cumberland Rotary Meeting? If the answer is "yes", then I wonder if UBID funds were used to pay for Mr. Galambos' trip and expenses to travel from Vancouver to address the Cumberland Rotary.
Former UBID Chair De Jersey refers to a Meeting of the Plaintiffs where Trustees Goldwain and Livesey were purposely excluded - which might have taken place on November 16th before the Rotary Club Assembly Meeting - as follows:
"...Since you were not a 'plaintiff' or in support of the action, there was no reason for you to be in attendance [at the meeting with eight other Plaintiffs about the Mary Reynolds litigation]. The decision to proceed with the Consent Order was made at the recommendation of legal counsel, as it brought about similar results without the additional and considerable expense of a Supreme Court hearing. This decision was not made at any 'board meeting'.."
(De Jersey email to Livesey dated 4 January 2011 -- see Attachment)
I believe this direct quote from former UBID Chair De Jersey should be carefully examined by Supreme Court Justice as proof that UBID Trustees (past and present) and Staff made decisions to spend UBID monies without authorization of the full UBID Board.
On or before the June 28th Hearing, the Plaintiffs will have to hand over various documents to the Court such as emails and documents pertinent to the case such as the ones requested of UBID Administrator Brenda Fisher - see page 000227 of the Brenda Fisher Cross Examination at
http://unionbaynewsnow.blogspot.com/2011_03_20_archive.html or see Attachment "Affidavit Fisher" below
These documents supplied by the Plaintiffs might contain some "behind-closed-doors" discussions and decisions made by the old Board regarding this case.
Whether or not the old Board intentionally passed a Resolution paying the additional $50,000 without taxation to Solicitor Galambos so they could use it as individuals (without UBID as a Plaintiff) to continue their case might never be known. However, June 28th will give the public the next chapter of whether "The Group of Eight" will continue on with the case as individuals.
Will the public continue to fund this legal battle?
These eight people as individuals have sued Mary Reynolds using none of their own money, just taxpayer money.
As reported at the last UBID Board meeting on June 15th, the Hearing originally scheduled for June 14th was postponed to June 28th so that the newly appointed UBID lawyer Robert McQuisten of Staples, McDannold, Stewart could get up to speed on the details of the legal action.
One of the issues still pending is to remove UBID as one of the Plaintiffs. As stated in the Notice of Application dated January 27, 2011 filed by Jason Gratl (solicitor representing Defendant Mary Reynolds) an Order is being sought (among others) as follows:
"An Order striking the claim by the Union Bay Improvement District on the basis that municipal entities lack the legal capacity to bring actions in defamation against their constituents..."
(See weblink
http://unionbaynewsnow.blogspot.com/2011/06/notice-of-application-order-to-strike.html
to the Union Bay News Now Blog for this document in its entirety.)
If the Judge agrees to remove UBID as one of the Plaintiffs in this case, that would leave eight individual Plaintiffs ("The Group of 8") remaining to carry on their defamation claim against Mary Reynolds.
The million-dollar question (or should I say "$50,000 dollar question"?) which many Union Bay residents are asking is as follows:
Would then Plaintiffs De Jersey/Godfrey/2 Royers-Mr and Mrs/McDowell/Smith/McMahon be allowed to continue their claim (now without UBID) using public funds? In other words, without UBID as a Plaintiff are the citizens of Union Bay footing the bill for some individuals who have a gripe against a Landowner?
As I previously mentioned on this blog, the old UBID Board voted to pay $50,000 without taxation to their lawyer Mr. Galambos just three weeks before the new UBID Board took over. (See my last posting "Is UBID Bankrupt? Questions about Exorbitant Legal Costs" - weblink is below)
Presumably some if not most of this $50,000 still remains in Mr. Galambos bank account.
Many Union Bay residents perceive that the original $68,224.89 paid to Galambos was a shameful waste of public monies and should have never been spent on this defamation case. But attempts of these constituents to their elected officials were thwarted when Chair Alan De Jersey barred them from all public UBID meetings. Now there is an additional $50,000 which Mr. Galambos has been paid by the old Board.
Another question, perhaps even more serious, comes to mind: Did the old UBID purposely vote to waive taxation in the $50,000 retainer to Mr. Galambos so that it would be impossible for the public to recover this money?
The relationship between the former UBID Chair Alan De Jersey and Mr. Galambos seems to be rather "cozy".
Mr. Galambos is obviously an acquaintance of former UBID Chair De Jersey's since De Jersey stated in an email that he [De Jersey] "...had worked with him [Galambos] for a number of years while a member of the RCMP...". (See my last post in the Cumberlander.)
In fact, it appears De Jersey has called Mr. Galambos "his good friend" when he introduced him to speak at the Club Assembly Meeting of the Cumberland Rotary last November as follows:
"Michael Galamos [sic], a good friend of President Alan then spoke to us about his experiences in the practice of law as a Crown Prosecutor and as a Defence Counsel."
(See link as follows for entire document in the Official Newsletter of the Rotary Club of Cumberland Centennial dated November 23, 2010 as follows:
http://www.rotarycc.org/Pages/documents/TheMinersLamp23November2010.pdf
This Rotary Club Assembly Meeting, at which Mr. De Jersey's "good friend" Mr. Galambos was the guest speaker, took place on November 16th, the day before the eight Plaintiffs notarized their individual Affidavits when they made their first filing in the defamation case against Mary Reynolds.
Is it possible that Mr. Galambos met in person with the "Group of 8" (Alan De Jersey, David Godfrey, Denis Royer, David McDowell, James Smith, Debora McMahon, Brenda Fisher and Gloria Royer) just before he spoke at the Cumberland Rotary Meeting? If the answer is "yes", then I wonder if UBID funds were used to pay for Mr. Galambos' trip and expenses to travel from Vancouver to address the Cumberland Rotary.
Former UBID Chair De Jersey refers to a Meeting of the Plaintiffs where Trustees Goldwain and Livesey were purposely excluded - which might have taken place on November 16th before the Rotary Club Assembly Meeting - as follows:
"...Since you were not a 'plaintiff' or in support of the action, there was no reason for you to be in attendance [at the meeting with eight other Plaintiffs about the Mary Reynolds litigation]. The decision to proceed with the Consent Order was made at the recommendation of legal counsel, as it brought about similar results without the additional and considerable expense of a Supreme Court hearing. This decision was not made at any 'board meeting'.."
(De Jersey email to Livesey dated 4 January 2011 -- see Attachment)
I believe this direct quote from former UBID Chair De Jersey should be carefully examined by Supreme Court Justice as proof that UBID Trustees (past and present) and Staff made decisions to spend UBID monies without authorization of the full UBID Board.
On or before the June 28th Hearing, the Plaintiffs will have to hand over various documents to the Court such as emails and documents pertinent to the case such as the ones requested of UBID Administrator Brenda Fisher - see page 000227 of the Brenda Fisher Cross Examination at
http://unionbaynewsnow.blogspot.com/2011_03_20_archive.html or see Attachment "Affidavit Fisher" below
These documents supplied by the Plaintiffs might contain some "behind-closed-doors" discussions and decisions made by the old Board regarding this case.
Whether or not the old Board intentionally passed a Resolution paying the additional $50,000 without taxation to Solicitor Galambos so they could use it as individuals (without UBID as a Plaintiff) to continue their case might never be known. However, June 28th will give the public the next chapter of whether "The Group of Eight" will continue on with the case as individuals.
Will the public continue to fund this legal battle?
Attachments
De Jersey letter-4Jan2011 (De_Jersey_letter-4Jan11.doc)
Affidavit Fisher-Cross Examination (affidavit_fisher-003.jpg)
De Jersey letter-4Jan2011 (De_Jersey_letter-4Jan11.doc)){kind=small}
Affidavit Fisher-Cross Examination (affidavit_fisher-003.jpg)Union Bay
Comment by carol snaden on 21st June 2011
I don't know all of the details about what is going on in Union Bay but it is a real shame to see your residents battling like this. I wonder if the Community Justice Centre could have helped resolve some of this before it got to the point of lawsuits etc. In the end, no one wins except the lawyers who will make a good pay cheque on this conflict.
I don't know all of the details about what is going on in Union Bay but it is a real shame to see your residents battling like this. I wonder if the Community Justice Centre could have helped resolve some of this before it got to the point of lawsuits etc. In the end, no one wins except the lawyers who will make a good pay cheque on this conflict.