Previous  1  2

To read our local papers article on her, go to www.waterloochronicle.com, it's on the homepage. Keep in mind though that pictures didn't help her, in fact the company NEVER admits that the pictures or her allegations are wrong or tampered (and photos can easily be doctored). I would suggest that more importantly if somebody is going to do this, as I am contemplating, then they have photographs AND witnesses. Meaning, don't go alone. A witness can lie, but it's hard to prove two stories are lies. <br /> <br /> Because many of these are subcontractors I almost had the weird feeling that the company was trying reverse psychology to help get press on the issue. I have no doubt that things are going to be much 'cleaner' in the near future, it is the far future when it dies down that concerns me more. <br /> <br /> The company's lawsuits maintain that she was 'high handed' and 'aggressive', and in the local paper is already trying to paint itself as the underdog saying that it hasn't been charged with anything and has been recieving threats from locals. The scary thing is that in this country if it was an environmental group, and not a single mother, an awful lot of people would probably side with the company! <br /> <br /> Ironically, in keeping with the gun registry theme which it is maintained is worth billions if only one murder is prevented, here the cost would be one or two full time staff doing what this woman does which could save a life-and there is FAR more evidence that it WOULD save a life, and all for less than a hundred grand-yet it is too much money.<br /> <br /> It's good to see a 'blitz', but of course every developer knows it's coming, and what about afterwards? Would a little legislation or more full time enforcement be too much to ask? <br /> <br /> I should end with the comment, in case you don't read the article, that the woman is already NOT all right. As she says, she 'cries every day', and has the threat of losing everything hanging over her head. I'm trying to get hold of her to see if she has a fund for legal defence and I'll start going door to door looking for funds.

   

Building in water sensitive areas makes profits for certain people around here doesn't it? <br /> <br /> There's plenty of good money to be spent fixing things but if it ain't broke, you can't fix it so lets build over the moraine! Yeah. Makes jobs, makes money, more taxpayers, so this is a good thing...isn't it? Hmm.<br /> <br /> Are you expecting a major population boom in your community? Try building a pipelines. But who could possibly provide such a service? Well, I know this company...<br /> <br /> Who is liable when things go wrong and who makes the profit fixing it. Profits in the beginning, profits in the fixing. Nice. Wish I had that kind of job security. Unfortunately I'm just a grunt taxpayer who has to foot the bill for both.

   

contact info for:<br /> Louisette Lanteigne<br /> [email protected]<br /> <br /> donations can be sent to:<br /> http://ca.geocities.com/[email protected]<br />

   

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO<br /> RE: JAMES GRIESBAUM v. ACTIVA HOLDINGS INC. <br /> <br /> 1] The plaintiff has brought an action seeking damages and other relief as a result of the cessation of his employment with the defendant company.<br /> <br /> [2] During negotiations between the plaintiff and a predecessor of the defendant in respect of whether the plaintiff would accept employment with the corporation, the parties agreed that if he did so, his employment contract would include an income disruption clause providing that if certain circumstances transpired the defendant would pay the plaintiff a termination fee of $250,000 within 30 days of his income disruption. The agreement also provided that immediately upon the plaintiff commencing such employment, the corporation would register a second mortgage in the amount of $250,000 in Griesbaum’s favour in order to secure performance of the aforementioned agreement. This mortgage was to be registered against a parcel containing approximately 145 acres owned by the defendant in Peterborough.<br /> <br /> [3] The plaintiff’s employment with the defendant ended September 3, 2002. The aforementioned mortgage had not been registered, and the $250,000 was not paid within 30 days, as contracted for, or otherwise<br /> <a href="http://www.canlii.org/on/cas/onsc/2003/2003onsc10899.html">continued</a>

   

Previous  1  2