2 Our understanding of the word "LIE" and the test we apply to its determination:

[lying is] making a statement believed to be false, with the intention of getting another to accept it as true” (Primoratz 1984, 54n2)). This definition does not specify the addressee, however. It may be restated as follows:

(L1) To lie =df to make a believed-false statement to another person with the intention that the other person believe that statement to be true.
L1 is the traditional definition of lying. According to L1, there are at least four necessary conditions for lying.

First, lying requires that a person make a statement (statement condition).

Second, lying requires that the person believe the statement to be false; that is, lying requires that the statement be untruthful (untruthfulness condition).

Third, lying requires that the untruthful statement be made to another person (addressee condition).

Fourth, lying requires that the person intend that that other person believe the untruthful statement to be true (intention to deceive the addressee condition).

These four necessary conditions need to be explained before objections to L1 can be entertained and alternative definitions can be considered.

1 We believe illegally since MFIPPA 3, the act legislating that the "head for FOI" is by bylaw one or more elected councillors or when there is no bylaw, the council as a whole, but more on that in another article coming when the appeal of this response is finally closed by the Privacy Commissioner - 7 months and still waiting!)
Click on the Acrobat button for a copy of the Email from the Ontario BIA, the response of Ms Fettes in which she says that there are no records and the response from the Ministry of Municipal Affairs that provides 20 pages of the records originally authored by Ms Fettes that she said "did not exist".

For the FULL set of records related to the ongoing appeal with the Ontario Privacy Commissioner that includes the letters to the Mayor and Councilor Paterson related to the mysterious "procedural bylaw", please contact us for a copy of the records on CD-Rom.
The residents of Clearview deserve more than this from the same party that is in charge of the records, determines if records can be released and is also responsible for the election process including COUNTING the votes and determining any that are rejected.

The honesty and integrity shown by that party SHOULD be absolute and unquestionable. A request has been made to both council and the Ministry of Municipal Affairs to have this employee terminated WITH CAUSE and there has been NO response to that request from either party, indicating that honesty and integrity by employees is not a requriement for employment in Clearview!

In the event that it is found that the employee failed to comply with the level of honesty and integrity required of these positions it is believed that any termination for cause should NOT include a "pay-off" similar to earlier examples (around $100,000) found in this municipality.
WHY is council ignoring these problems with honesty in Clearview?