Why is Cheryl Paynter still CEO of Tourism PEI?

This entry was posted in Provincial Politics and tagged , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

3 Responses to Why is Cheryl Paynter still CEO of Tourism PEI?

  1. Windmill says:

    Remember that institute exhonerated Irwin Ellis a few years ago.

  2. Jeff Davis says:

    I view your posts somewhat hit and miss but applaud your efforts.
    Has anyone filed a formal fraud complaint with the RCMP? Specifically in this post, using section 121 of the Criminal Code of Canada….

    Frauds on the government

    121 (1) Every one commits an offence who

    (a) directly or indirectly

    (i) gives, offers or agrees to give or offer to an official or to any member of his family, or to any one for the benefit of an official, or

    (ii) being an official, demands, accepts or offers or agrees to accept from any person for himself or another person,

    a loan, reward, advantage or benefit of any kind as consideration for cooperation, assistance, exercise of influence or an act or omission in connection with

    (iii) the transaction of business with or any matter of business relating to the government, or

    (iv) a claim against Her Majesty or any benefit that Her Majesty is authorized or is entitled to bestow,

    whether or not, in fact, the official is able to cooperate, render assistance, exercise influence or do or omit to do what is proposed, as the case may be;

    (b) having dealings of any kind with the government, directly or indirectly pays a commission or reward to or confers an advantage or benefit of any kind on an employee or official of the government with which the dealings take place, or to any member of the employee’s or official’s family, or to anyone for the benefit of the employee or official, with respect to those dealings, unless the person has the consent in writing of the head of the branch of government with which the dealings take place;

    (c) being an official or employee of the government, directly or indirectly demands, accepts or offers or agrees to accept from a person who has dealings with the government a commission, reward, advantage or benefit of any kind for themselves or another person, unless they have the consent in writing of the head of the branch of government that employs them or of which they are an official;

    (d) having or pretending to have influence with the government or with a minister of the government or an official, directly or indirectly demands, accepts or offers or agrees to accept, for themselves or another person, a reward, advantage or benefit of any kind as consideration for cooperation, assistance, exercise of influence or an act or omission in connection with

    (i) anything mentioned in subparagraph (a)(iii) or (iv), or

    (ii) the appointment of any person, including themselves, to an office;

    (e) directly or indirectly gives or offers, or agrees to give or offer, to a minister of the government or an official, or to anyone for the benefit of a minister or an official, a reward, advantage or benefit of any kind as consideration for cooperation, assistance, exercise of influence, or an act or omission, by that minister or official, in connection with

    (i) anything mentioned in subparagraph (a)(iii) or (iv), or

    (ii) the appointment of any person, including themselves, to an office; or

    (f) having made a tender to obtain a contract with the government,

    (i) directly or indirectly gives or offers, or agrees to give or offer, to another person who has made a tender, to a member of that person’s family or to another person for the benefit of that person, a reward, advantage or benefit of any kind as consideration for the withdrawal of the tender of that person, or

    (ii) directly or indirectly demands, accepts or offers or agrees to accept from another person who has made a tender a reward, advantage or benefit of any kind for themselves or another person as consideration for the withdrawal of their own tender.

  3. Ivor Sargent says:

    Your points are well taken, Kevin. Fraud is rampant in PEI government circles and there is no system of checks and balances to prevent or to prosecute PEI fraudsters. McInnes Cooper somehow keeps showing up in shady government business.

    I retained the services of Horace Carver QC, then of McInnes Cooper, in 2007 after being notified by Wes Sheridan that I would be prohibited from accessing or developing my coastal property because it was bisected by a so-called historic public highway called Old Queens Road.
    It was not until several years later that I discovered the existence of the “Atlas of Provincial Roads of PEI” which proves that Old Queens Road does not exist. I further discovered that “Old Queens Road” was the illegitimate product of a mysterious executive council order EC2005-677 issued in November 2005, an order that “rescinded the 1897 closure orders” of an extinct coastal wagon trail across privately owned lands for the unstated purpose of land-locking the coastline of Kings County to prevent private development of land in this area to clear the way for the later construction of Sheridan’s 30 megawatt wind farm adjacent to my land.
    The fraudulent scheme was based on a bogus public highway classification for “Non Essential Highways”, (which is a devious synonym for a private road on private property) in Section 17 of the PEI Roads Act. Section 35 of the Roads Act prohibits the Minister of Transportation from issuing an entrance way permit to a “Non Essential Highway.
    McInnes Cooper then worked with Delta Surveys and provincial officials to fabricate a falsified sketch plan showing the location of the fictional road. The falsified sketch plan served as the basis of a “Development and Maintenance Agreement” for a “Non Essential Highway” which obligated me to bulldoze the fictional road through my wooded property, and then to maintain the road at my own expense in return for permission cross the fictional road. McInnes Cooper advised me to accept the falsified sketch plan and the fraudulent “Agreement”, then deposited these documents without my knowledge or consent into the Registry of Deeds for Kings County to alter my property title by transferring ownership of the fictional roadbed from me to the province. The stolen property is now identified as “parcel 00000” in the Geomatics mapping system.
    The provincial government, McInnes Cooper, and Delta Surveys deny any wrongdoing despite the fact that the Island Regulatory Appeals Commission ruled (Order LT11-02) that the “Agreement” appeared to be an illegal document which completely destroyed the value of my property. The government of PEI refused to compensate me for the theft of my land and the devaluation of my property. McInnes Cooper refused to refund the $10,000 in legal fees that I had paid them to defend myself against Wes Sheridan. Delta Surveys refused to refund the $10,000 in survey fees that I had paid for a falsified sketch plan.
    The International Right of Way Association (IRWA) which accredited the provincial officials who dreamed up Old Queens Road refused to discipline these members on the grounds that they did not know that Old Queens Road does not exist. The PEI Law Society refused to discipline Horace Carver/ McInnes Cooper. The Association of PEI Land Surveyors simply ignored the complaint that Brian Potter had certified a falsified survey plan showing a road which does not exist- and which led to the theft of my land and the total devaluation of my property. Crown Attorney C.L. Wedge filed a court motion to cancel my Private Prosecution on the grounds that none of the perpetrators were aware that no road had ever been been designated as a Non Essential Highway or that Old Queens Road literally does not exist.

Leave a Reply