News - Stories and Rants
Wednesday 17 September 2014
Fredericton Councillor Mike O'Brien is asked about Charles LeBlanc Blog being shut down!!!!
This is getting out of control...but what can a poor person do??? This battle will continue for years if the City don't sit down with me and end this Battle.....Thank God it wasn't the Mayor because the situation could have really gotten out of control!!!
Here's the video -
Subscribe to:
Post Comments
(
Atom
)
Or, you can do the smart thing and drop this. You caused the blog to burn, it's your fault. Stop trying to think you're above the law LeBlanc, you're only going to make yourself look worse than you already do (I don't know how much worse you can go). And your clueless supporters can't grasp that reality
ReplyDeleteWell said Charles. He asked for questions and you gave him one. He couldn't answer, so it is obviously an awkward issue for him.They stole your blog, which posted a lot of information about homelessness and the underprivileged.
ReplyDeleteNo wonder they wanted to blog shut down - they wanted to keep lying to people. The City's Report Card gets a D- across the board. As clearly heard in the interview below, the people who fall through the cracks have not been counted, such as those who are refused shelter. Where exactly do they go, Mr. O'Brien, when the shelter has turned them away in winter?
ReplyDeleteThose who live on the streets, in tent city and under the bridge, were not counted. Mr. O'Brien and the City council are presenting numbers of people using the shelters as showing homelessness going down when, in fact, there are hundreds of people just not accounted for.
Disgraceful. For one week Mr. O'Brien should live as a homeless person, who has been refused shelter and therefore gets no welfare check - and make that week a snowstorm with a windchill of minus 30.
@Anonymous18 September 2014 09:22
ReplyDeleteThe Police broke the LAW and Charles wants Justice,where do You equal that to Charles being Above the Law? The Police are Acting Above the Law not Charles You Fool.
Stop confusing the issue charles, they didn't support you being connected to child porn, they objected to you connecting the police to it.
ReplyDeleteMikel, I can only assume you are incredibly simple or are employed by the City of Fredericton. The issue is, the Fredericton City Police, who are under the purview of the City, committed fraud by lying to get information about Charles. That issue has never been resolved and the City wanted the blogsite gone to get rid of the evidence. Why do you think it is fine for the police to get away with lying and forgery? You keep banging on about Charles and just conveniently gloss over criminal acts by the police. What is wrong with you?
ReplyDeleteHey idiot, how many times does it need to be said that you have to actually PROVE a crime. Just because you keep repeating it over and over doesn't make something true. If you knew squat about the law you'd know you have to prove intent, and it wasn't proven. And if you are too numb to even read comments, then stop replying to them. The two are separate events.
ReplyDeleteThe police didn't 'connect charles' with anything. They misrepresented a form which nobody in the world but the IP provider would see. Nobody said that was good, nobody said it was right-but also nobody would have known about it if Charles hadn't kept writing about it. And NONE of that would have even been found out if the CITY, yes, the Mayor and those Councillors, hadn't hired Bernard Richard to do a report. That was taxpayers who paid for Bernard Richard to do a report that Charles wouldn't even take part in because he didn't have a lawyer (although no others had lawyers present either).
Charles then REPEATEDLY made remarks which were quite clearly fraudulent, misleading, inflammatory, irresponsible, creepy, just plain wrong, etc. And he didn't do it just once, he did it over and over. THAT is why the city councillors support the complaint.
Its clear they support the police and haven't even bothered to follow up on the report, since at least one councillor admits to not having read it. But to say that that is the reason why they supported this complaint is just stupid.
So clearly we don't need to 'assume' you are simple, because you keep proving it with your comments.