As I'm no longer posting over there...

...I'll have to do an end-around to comment.

This is what Mr. Bustamante has to say this afternoon regarding the Bustamante vs Pearson Imbroglio. It can also be found here.

Hi,

Two major section of the Act referred in previous comments:

1. Regarding "No prosecution for an offence under this Act in relation to a regular election shall be commenced after December 1 of the fourth year following the year in which the regular election was held. 2009, c. 33, Sched. 21, s. 8 (68)."

I consulted with my lawyers before presenting the information and the Dec 1 of the fourth years is Dec. 1, 2010 and not Dec. 1, 2009.

And regarding the exception about the:

"However, if the presiding judge finds that the candidate, acting in good faith, committed the offence inadvertently or because of an error in judgment, the penalties described in subsection 80 (2) do not apply. 1996, c. 32, Sched., s. 92 (6); 2002, c. 17, Sched. D, s. 35 (2); 2009, c. 33, Sched. 21, s. 8 (67)."

This is up to judge. He or She will decide if the penalty applies or not after the hearing and a conviction.

Finally: "Do you seriously believe that Ms. Pearson acted in anything but good faith in filing her financial papers?"

This question only can be answered by Maria herself.

Just a final comment: If you fail to stop at a stop sign an a police officer issues you a ticket. Were you acting in bad faith or in good faith?

Mr. Bustamante;

*sigh*

For starters, your facility with analogies and metaphors is woefully underdeveloped (a disappointment) and off-the-mark (expected, all things considered.) Secondly, you're reminding me more and more of the neighbourhood eleven year old girl, bold and brassy, a know-it-all busybody who believes that being 'right' is the most important thing...

...only she ends up being alone in the end, because she's so badly misplayed this whole idea of 'getting along with others'.

Today I had the opportunity to learn more about the specifics of this situation, Mr. Bustamante. Specifics that you wouldn't have been privy to.

The details aren't important...they'll be revealed at the hearing...but what struck me all the more was the delineation afforded, outlining the respective behaviour of the involved parties.

I have prepared a Letter to the Editor at the Stoney Creek News, one that does a good job of expressing not only how I feel about this situation, but (as I'm sure you're going to find), the feelings of a lot of people in the area.

In the meantime, I've responded to your comment here, but have yet to hear back from you.

I've also not received responses to other posts I've made, or emails I've sent.

Thankfully, I have a reasonably thick skin; 'no harm, no foul'.

: )

But I do have to ask how you will respond if, for the sake of speculation, you find that those people you were anticipating will be supportive of you in this action, aren't. Will you be as adamant? Will you stand so fervently by your 'standards and practices' dogma...even if you stand relatively alone?

More to the point, I'm curious as to how you will specifically be addressing Ms Pearson's overall performance as the campaign unfolds. Putting aside your suit, putting aside your enthusiasm-fueled exhortations for people to 'Vote for Pablo!', I'd like to see you address in full why her performance warrants you being the better choice for voters...and how specifically you'll be dealing with specific issues by way of specific solutions.

I'm sure I'm not alone in thinking that this would be a far better use of your time and energies than what you've made your front-and-center plank in your platform, that of some spotlit mélange akin to a mud-slinging witch-hunt.