New posts

HazenColbert's posts

14 posts found

Nov. 1, 2016, 11 p.m.
Posts: 0
Joined: Oct. 29, 2016
No Trespassing signs on CMHC lands and trails

maybe you have this indelible characteristic that just drives all the ladies crazy?

At the risk of sounding reasonable, can we get back on point in this thread please.

I think we are posting about CMHC lands.

I am wondering how the existing structures on the lands get treated.

Lee seems to have some information in that regard.

Hazen Colbert

Nov. 1, 2016, 10:17 p.m.
Posts: 0
Joined: Oct. 29, 2016
No Trespassing signs on CMHC lands and trails

'False accusers of "Jam" Gomeshi?' You've got to be kidding me. Same with Bill Cosby, Donald Trump and Jeffrey Dahmer in your view I suppose?

Do not be silly Cam, you are far more intelligent than that.

I was referring to the published results of the legal case in Toronto, not my opinion on the matter. OF course Gomeshi was in the wrong, but I was not the judge, nor were any of us.

Hey I lost to Bond fair and square. Yet I sat in the courtroom as calm as can be. It was Bond's lawyer that went apoplectic. Why?

Hazen Colbert

Nov. 1, 2016, 7:36 p.m.
Posts: 0
Joined: Oct. 29, 2016
No Trespassing signs on CMHC lands and trails

That might just be crazy enough to work!

Now about those six other candidates who finished ahead of him …

One of them passed away with cancer, two others were forced to relocate off the North Shore or face the very same bullying and harassment I have faced from DNV Council for questioning their right to Lord over people. Walton did exactly that to Jim Cuthbert years ago.

Having failed to bully and harass me into leaving, there is now talk of just paying me off to go.

You can't make this stuff up!

Should I stay or should I go?

Hazen Colbert

Nov. 1, 2016, 3:14 p.m.
Posts: 0
Joined: Oct. 29, 2016
No Trespassing signs on CMHC lands and trails

It's sweet that you think that makes a bit of difference. Or that anyone should care enough about such orders to requests transcripts- or that the media should report on such orders.

I can see it now….
[Anchor] We interrupt this late breaking story for an even bigger late breaking story.
[Reporter in front of 800 Smithe] - Yes Kent, we have just gotten word that, in an amazing display of legal acumen, HC has just convinced the judge that a thing that should happen in a court proceeding should happen on a specific date certain.
[Anchor] That is amazing. Tell me sir - has this ever happened before?
[RiF800S] Yes Kent, every day. In fact probably a hundred times a day in court rooms across the province.
[Anchor] Amazing
[RiF800S] Yes indeed, I also hear HC has been just as successful against political opponents that refer to his schooling inaccurately, dog catchers and students abusing bus passes.
[Anchor] God Bless That Man. What a great use of the court's time and energy. Why has no one voted this man into office.
[RiF800S] I have no idea Kent, I have no idea.

But seriously - I do hope HC runs again. I am not a constituent so I couldn't vote for him. But he has my moral support if that means anything (probably not- but he has it anyway)

edit to add - I am going to keep referring to the Mr. Colbert that ran for office differently (usually as HC or Mr. Colbert) than to the individual using the HazenColbert handle here as I am not convinced they are one and the same.

edit, edit to add - I am not actually a Simpsons Cartoon character - I just play one on the internet.

If you would like to continue the discussion on the conflict of interest matter, there is a thread for that matter and we can move there.

I am however not interested in drama and commentary about the merits of other cases or a discussion regarding the Constitutional right of Canadians to access the court system. That matter was decided by the legislators and the courts in the past millennium. If you disagree with the decision of the courts, take it up with the Supreme Court of Canada and also lobby your MP for a change to the Canadian Constitution.

Let us keep this thread focused on the CMHC lands. The new signs have yet to go up, and the particulars of the conditions upon which CMHC will provide access have not been set down.

Regards

Hazen Colbert

Nov. 1, 2016, 1:51 p.m.
Posts: 0
Joined: Oct. 29, 2016
No Trespassing signs on CMHC lands and trails

As I did. Except I used the interwebs - cost me $12.00 I'll never get back. (Thanks Uncle)

HC got a couple preliminary orders. Nothing more, nothing less. He very much lost on the petition. I doubt that there are many reported decisions on setting a date certain. There is no reason to get the transcripts as these types of decisions are mundane and of no concern in the overall picture. The actual official outcome was the petition was struck. He can claim he won the battles along the way - but we know to whom the war went.

Thank for confirming what I stated.

Hazen Colbert got a couple of preliminary orders.

As for the war, again you were not in court. If you had been in court, what you have seen at the conclusion of Justice Greyall's decision was Bond's lawyer, slamming her paraphernalia into a briefcase, and storming out of the courtroom with such a display of venom that one would have thought she was one of the false accusers of Jam Ghomeshi. She left only two other two people in the room, the Clerk and I, aghast. I had never seen such a display of wrath and anger. The Clerk and I were left to ponder between us, "how do we decide who is to write the order, get it vetted and then get the judge to sign." That process began a litany of screw ups by opposing counsel that would have filled a law text. Had I not informed counsel that the matter does not close, until I had also signed the order, there likely would have been no order complete. A soul would perish with the knowledge of how much money the DNV paid for counsel's foul up.

I like to think the war is over. Counsel for Bond definitely does not think it is over. According to a third part neither does Bond. I do not know what vexes him, and frankly I don't care.

There is a need for substantive changes at municipal hall, a broom taken to all of a very long-in-the-tooth and ineffective council and a handshake to several senior staff. That is why I ran in the last municipal election.

Yogi Berra said, "You do not win every game."

I agree. Will I run for office at the NSMBA AGM or in the next municipal election. If I believe I can represent the electorate in either case, I might give it a shot. In the meantime I am doing what I think is best for the North Shore.

Regards

Hazen Colbert

Nov. 1, 2016, 1 p.m.
Posts: 0
Joined: Oct. 29, 2016
No Trespassing signs on CMHC lands and trails

So much winning with you.

I think I will take Bruce's views on the law over yours. After all having "legal acumen" involves the ability to convince the judge you are right. Which HC clearly failed to do. Plus if he was wrong - given Ducky's vast resources I am sure someone would fund the appeal. Also, if he was wrong you wouldn't be looking for "10 others" to join the petition.

So what did HC "win" in the previous hearing prey tell?

Judges, courts and court reporting companies can decide if a decision will be published - although they rarely do unless it is a "final decision". Believe me the court case referenced as Docket S164441 Vancouver Registry is certainly at an end as the petition was struck. Everything before that was likely just preliminary.

If there was another petition that was "adjourned generally" please post it. So far very little of what you have said is independently verifiable so it is hard to take you at your word.

Perhaps you could have quoted from my entire post not just the parts that suited you.

Indeed S-164441 is struck. Nothing prevents another Section 16 Petition from being brought forward. I am not a lawyer so I cannot advise others on what would be contained in the Petition and who must bring it forward. As such it is not my concern.

Everything I have stated is absolutely independently verifiable. All you have to do is go to the Vancouver Registry and ask for the docket lists for June 8, 9 and 28. Then you can make a request for a court transcript service to prepare a transcript for the June 8 and 9 hearings. I was there you were not. So until you have your own evidence to challenge me, my position is the official outcome.

BTW, written decisions are published as routine. Oral decisions are published only upon a request. The transcript service does not unilaterlly publish a document.

P.S. Yes I erred once with using "your honour." It is not an uncommon error by lay people and lawyers, particularly those coming from other provinces.

Regards

Hazen Colbert

Nov. 1, 2016, 11:57 a.m.
Posts: 0
Joined: Oct. 29, 2016
No Trespassing signs on CMHC lands and trails

Let's not get too caught up in Mr. Colbert's "genius"

He didn't read the appropriate act, or if he did he didn't think he needed to follow it. Which is funny as he sought to rely on the same act.

http://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcsc/doc/2016/2016bcsc1703/2016bcsc1703.html?resultIndex=1

It wasn't "adjourned generally" his petition was struck. Gone, finito, Void Ab Initio.. See paragraph 24.

Probably the best part is where he tried to have counsel for Mr. Bond removed as counsel of record. The Grayall J's response is priceless para 33 - "no basis" and then Mr. Colbert suggests that this is the whole reason he showed up aaaand.. "we are adjourned". Dude dropped the judicial mic right there. No wonder HC has had to deal with so many lawyers. They love unrepresented litigants like this. Takes away from the drudgery.

ps. Bruce Greyall J. is a Justice of the Supreme Court his honorific is "My Lord" - not "Your Honour". That is for provincial court judges.

There are so many errors in your analysis I have but no choice to respond.

There were four hearings. The ones on June 8 and 9, 2016 were decided in my favour. The one on June 28, 2016 was adjourned generally. The one on August 18, 2016 was decided in Bond's favour. There is a considerable cost to have an oral decision (the 3 decisions were all oral) transcribed and published, very considerable. I saw no reason to have the first 2 transcribed and published, so I elected not to pay the cost. The DNV paid the cost to have the 4th hearing transcribed so that either the DNV or their lawyer could then send it to the Vancouver Sun and the North Shore News for publication likely for some type of consideration, certainly from the North Shore News. Both outlets conveniently did not report on the first two hearings decided in my favour. The North Shore News had known all along that the first two decisions were in my favour and made a decision not to publish anything about the matter unless it concluded with a dismissal. Some time ago the North Shore News cut a deal with DNV Council not to ever write anything negative about a sitting councilor else Council would pass a resolution banning North Shore News boxes from the streets of the DNV. I challenge anyone to find, ever, a negative word about a member of DNV Council in the North Shore News. Even when disgraced ex-Councillor Alan Nixon was twice found offisde to rules of the BC Real Estate Council, the North Shore News refused to acknowledge the matter.

The decision of the court was based on a technical detail, not merit in law. As such, the entire question of law, but with different particlars, can be returned to the court. While Justice Greyall referenced a failure to serve the DNV and to serve affidavits within a timely fashion as a fatal flaw in the matter, his colleague Justic Macnaughton disagreed with him on June 9, 2016 and alowed the matter to remain open until alleged flaws could be remedied. Greyall also discounted Hunt v Carey as a precedent in the matter, again in contrast to Macnaughton relying on my argument that it was relevant and deciding in my favour. Geyall furhter errored by not considering that the matter must remain open until DNV Council votes "yea" or "nay" on whether Bond contravened the Community Charter. Such a vote never took place. The fundamental matter of whether a member of a BC Society can act for both the Society and a municipality at the same time remains a question for the court to answer. It is absolutely NOT "finito." In fact Bond's actions on behalf of the NSMBA in the No Trespassing signs matter with CMHC is a legitimate basis for another such petition. The only issue is whether 10 people would join for such a petition. That is not my concern. It might be Councillor Bond's concern.

The issue of counsel representing Bond was only one of several particulars. The judge erred in addressing that particular, certainly based on the judgement and written decisions of his colleagues.

The judge's remarks about words I used being unrelated to the petition were ironically related to this web site. I had taken great exception to Bond finding humour in the use of the phrase trail Nazi and swastikas drawn the locations of Monica Craver's home on a map posted on nsmb.com. Counsel for Bond tried to hoodwink the judge into thinking by position on the swastika matter was related to the petition. The judge would have none of it.

Best regards

Hazen Colbert

Nov. 1, 2016, 9:35 a.m.
Posts: 0
Joined: Oct. 29, 2016
No Trespassing signs on CMHC lands and trails

Oh come on people, don't be so harsh on 'Hazen Colbert' !!! I applaud his keenness to run as a director of the NSMBA and to help promote and grow Mountain Biking on the North Shore! All volunteerism should be appreciated.

Hey Haze, if you can persuade Monica to run as well that would be WONDERFUL! You two have such a unique way of looking at things and your fresh perspective would create such an AWESOME synergy with the current NSMBA Program Manager who is well known and regarded for his open-mindedness, receptiveness to ideas that are not his and his contemplative thoughtfullness!!

Also the directors meetings would become so much more interesting with the inclusion of your wit and clear cogent insight! I hope your commitment to transparency will mean that you will keep us all informed of what transpires.

Looking forward to the NSMBA AGM!

Sharon,

You are not going to get the Woodro v Lee thing reset three weeks before the AGM are you?

I have been through it all previously in other provinces, the granddaddy of it all being Chico Racing v 24-Hours of Adrenaline along with Hardwood Hills v _24-Hours-of-Adrenaline. _

Best we all work together. I have a feeling the "Borg" are already planning to assimilate the land we rely on.

Best regards,

Hazen

Oct. 31, 2016, 8:55 p.m.
Posts: 0
Joined: Oct. 29, 2016
No Trespassing signs on CMHC lands and trails

Lets not take up Hazen's time with that. Cannot take off as the wings are not moving relative to the air, so there is no lift.

But Hazen, can you please find out the answer to this. Its been bugging me and NSMBA needs to be accountable for the true answers. If you think that they're trying to bury the truth, keep the answers that are owed to us members secret amoungst themselves, keep pushing!

You stand at a fork in the road. Next to each of the two forks, there stands a guard. You know the following things: 1. One path leads to Paradise, the other to Death. From where you stand, you cannot distinguish between the two paths. Worse, once you start down a path, you cannot turn back. 2. One of the two guards always tells the truth. The other guard always lies. Unfortunately, it is impossible for you to distinguish between the two guards.
You have permission to ask one guard one question to ascertain which path leads to Paradise. Remember that you do not know which guard you're asking - the truth-teller or the liar - and that this single question determines whether you live or die. The question is: What one question asked of one guard guarantees that you are led onto the path to Paradise, regardless of which guard you happen to ask?

LOL

I think that is a riddle not a question :-)

Oct. 31, 2016, 7:31 p.m.
Posts: 0
Joined: Oct. 29, 2016
No Trespassing signs on CMHC lands and trails

What questions have you got for the NSMBA ?

I continue to compile a list of questions from my broad canvass of the larger community and other stakeholders.

If you, or anyone else, would like some questions answered, please post them here and I will include them in my list.

Please respect the process and refrain from threats, defamatory comments and profanity.

Best regards

Hazen Colbert

www.hazencolbert2014.ca

Oct. 31, 2016, 6:45 p.m.
Posts: 0
Joined: Oct. 29, 2016
No Trespassing signs on CMHC lands and trails

Yeah right. So in theory you're saying each and every citizen in the District has some right to demand a meeting with the NSMBA or any other District funded non profit. Really? Or would it be that the contact would be through the municiple government? You have no standing in the local government so you have no right to demand any meeting. You would certainly be welcome at the NSMBA general meeting. As would Mrs. Craver although the audience will be less than receptive.

Thank you to the poster who provided the correct date - November 28, 2016.

No "demands" for a meeting were made. A _request _under the Societies Act was made to the NSMBA. Their lawyer contacted me and asked that I meet with her. I agreed. Such process is the consequence of the new Act and is entirely regular. Any party can request access to certain society records even if they are not a member.

I represent all the residents in my catchment regardless of their political affiliation and for whom they voted. I do not take campaign contributions from special interest groups.

Thank you for your continuing support.

www.hazencolbert2014.ca

Hazen Colbert

Oct. 31, 2016, 4 p.m.
Posts: 0
Joined: Oct. 29, 2016
No Trespassing signs on CMHC lands and trails

I don't get it. Why meet with the NSMBA about issuing permits or signage. Isn't that a landmanager responsibility? Shouldn't he be meeting with DNV, Metro Van and now CMHC/ProvBC about this?

Sharon,

Good question(s).

I am sure Lee can explain the detailed impact of the new BC Societies Act on organizations such as the NSMBA. In simple terms the new Act makes the NSMBA accountable not only to its members but to every person it impacts no matter how small the impact. The NSMBA receives funding from the DNV. As a result, on November 16, 2016 the NSMBA becomes accountable to all DNV ratepayers including I and, I am sure to the consternation of many posters here, Mrs. Monica Craver.

In a related topic, I am considering running for the NSMBA Board of Directors and inquire generally from all posters here who are NSMBA members what matters should the NSMBA be addressing given the new Societies Act.

Best regards

Hazen Colbert

Oct. 29, 2016, 10:51 p.m.
Posts: 0
Joined: Oct. 29, 2016
No Trespassing signs on CMHC lands and trails

I am posting here to clear up some confusion regarding comments directed toward others and me.

I reference the statement by the CMHC issued October 27, 2016 regarding the Blair Rifle Range lands.

I start by acknowledging the good work of the CMHC along with my elected representatives The Hon Terry Beech and The Hon Jonathon Wilkinson, plus The Hon Jane Thornthwaite and the Province of BC on the CMHC file to date.

I specifically refer to these words from CMHC:

The meetings were an important first step in establishing an open dialogue with interested parties, and underscoring CMHC’s commitment to considering all points of view.

I have expressed support for a Land Use review of the CMHC lands including the Blair Rifle Range, along with Mountain and Cove Forest. Those areas were included in plans some 13 years ago but were not included in the DNV’s 2011Official Community Plan (no one seems to know why they were excluded). Some of those lands, particularly the lands in Mountain and Cove Forest that are covered by scrub (cottonwoods etc) are of limited, if any, recreational use and are certainly not urban forest or wilderness area. The land is most suitable for social infrastructure including co-op and seniors housing, the primary land demand on the North Shore at this time.

I will be meeting with the NSMBA and their legal counsel in November in part to discuss public safety and sharing on trails. I will post the minutes from that meeting on my web site.

I, and many others, look forward to participating as per CMHC’s open invitation in dialogue involving the lands.

In the meantime, with less daylight and the inclement weather upon us, remember to keep the rubber side down and the shiny side up, keep looking out for one another and reach for the stars.

Best regards

Hazen Colbert

Oct. 29, 2016, 10:31 a.m.
Posts: 0
Joined: Oct. 29, 2016
Interesting editorial in NS News re. CMHC lands

http://www.nsnews.com/opinion/sullivan-bonehead-pr-hall-of-infamy-s-newest-inductee-1.2378648

It's seeming more and more likely that this was a ploy by CMHC to develop some of the land in question.

Thank you for the link Cam.

I have expressed support for a Land Use review of the CMHC lands including the Blair Rifle Range, along with Mountain and Cove Forest. As Sharon rightly points out, those areas were included in plans some 13 years ago but were not included in the DNV’s 2011Official Community Plan (no one seems to know why they were excluded). Some of those lands, particularly the lands that are covered by scrub (cottonwoods etc) are of limited recreational use but are suitable for social infrastructure including co-op and seniors housing.

I have corresponded with all levels of government regarding the land. I read that the Province, at least, is prepared to allow responsible and reasonable recreational use. I have not yet seen any formal acknowledgement from CMHC. Once that formal acknowledgement is available I will post it on my web site:

http://www.hazencolbert2014.ca/

I will also be meeting with the NSMBA and their legal counsel in November in part to discuss public safety and sharing on trails. I will post the minutes from that meeting on my web site as well.

In the meantime with less daylight and the inclement weather upon us remember to keep the rubber side down and the shiny side up, keep looking out for one another and reach for the stars.

14 posts found

Forum jump: