David Crowe and the Alberta Greens

Captured from the Greens in Alberta Facebook page on 5 August 2009 in the nick of time:

‘2009-Aug-05: Massive clean-up of the off-topic posts that had cluttered up this group. Any further off-topic discussions (including discussion of the recently deregistered provincial party) will be subject to removal and the individuals posting off-topic may be removed from the group.’

According to a concerned member of the Greens in Alberta Facebook group, ‘Apparently we were hitting too close to the truth. I see that the administrator of the Greens in Alberta group, a close personal friend of Mr. Crowe, has pulled the entire discussion off the site.’

Posted here are pertinent excerpts from the discussion below of Crowe’s prima facie criminal and other dishonest conduct while on the executive board of the Alberta Greens and after he was voted out. Here are documents supporting the alleged party incorporation fraud, the alleged illegal loans, and the alleged false statement to the party auditor concealing them. Crowe responds, and again.


Post #1

Paul Last wrote on July 30, 2009 at 8:43pm

I met with Anglin twice now, and I have talked to him extensively on the telephone. He is personable, very candid and quite believable.

I decided to start a new room for this subject because the information I am going to present is quite lengthy. In fact the information is so lengthy that I am going to present it in multiple posts.

I asked Anglin if he wanted to read my assessment of his position and he said it wasn’t necessary. He did say he would be willing to meet with anyone to answer questions.

When I first met up with Anglin in Edson, he was finishing up a meeting with a couple of lawyers. Apparently Anglin works with a number of lawyers on a number of legal and social justice issues. Before these lawyers departed, I got a sense that they were fully informed of what has been happening with the Alberta Greens. One of them joked to Anglin and asked him just how much evidence of defamation he needed? I sense these lawyers were having fun mocking some of the outrageous derogative remarks made on this Facebook page.

I only mention this as a caution to all the comments that may follow my posts.

As you read my posts, I can verify that I have read every document given to me. I was allowed to make some copies under the condition that I agreed to not share the copies. Anglin said if someone wanted copies of any documents they had to meet with him just as I did. As best as I can ascertain, the following posts are Anglin’s view of the events that so many here have not talked to him about.

Anglin’s only request of me, is to not defend his position or opinion. He said if you have a question for him, he is more than willing to meet with you to answer questions.


Post #2

Paul Last wrote on July 30, 2009 at 8:44pm

I have supported and voted for the Green Party in the past because I believe in the fundamental principles and philosophies of the party. I chose to do my own investigation of the Alberta Greens’ deregistration solely because I wanted to satisfy myself that everything was being done to save the party. If I could help save the party I was willing to do whatever needed to be done.

It is with much regret that I am presenting my finding concerning deregistration of the party, on this Facebook page. I do so with some trepidation, because as I believe, these conversations should never have been posted on a public forum in the first place. In my opinion, on September 28, 2008 the old executive and the new executive should have sat down, for as long as it was necessary, to arrive at a compromise in the best interest of the party and its membership. There were multiple options available to both sides, and it appears to me that pride and self-interest contributed to immature actions that blinded everyone and destroyed the Alberta Greens beyond repair.

I hesitate to make the following comments because I do not want to contribute to the denigration of any single individual or group. In my opinion that has already been done, and there has been far too much animosity and hatred already expressed, yet some, particularly on this website do not seem to have satisfied their appetite and crave still more.

As I have previously stated I read David Crowe’s webpage and I have read Grant Neufeld’s webpage. Each page is an interpretation of the events as they understand it and have so eloquently explained. I have read every post on this Facebook page and I have been privy to reading all the posts, after September 27th on the Alberta Greens website, prior to its removal. I needed to get Anglin’s perspective before I could evaluate or even begin to understand the course of events that led to demise of the Alberta Greens. Most importantly, I wanted to see documents, empirical evidence so to speak, that could substantiate or support an explanation. Fortunately, Anglin has detailed records including documents, letters and several tape recordings of various executive board meetings and phone conversations.

My findings are as objective as one possibly can claim under the circumstances, and my conclusions are my own opinion and offered as a possibility, as opposed to an accusation.

I’ll begin with by stating that I find the behaviour and actions of both factions, the old and new executive in this dispute reprehensible. In my opinion no one person can claim complete innocence and some individuals may be less guilty than others. However, everyone of both the new and old executive is partially responsibility for the demise of the Alberta Greens.

I spoke with Anglin at length, and I have now met with him to view some of the documents he referred to in our conversation. He refuses to participate in a public discussion of this Facebook page, and in hindsight I can see his point, but I still believe his decision, particularly early on, not to engage with members publically on Facebook was fundamentally wrong. He does say he is willing to meet with anyone to discuss and answer questions.

With all the bantering going on in the press and on this Facebook page there appears only be three relevant issues: democratic process, the transfer of the financial information, and the deregistration of the party. Writing from my notes I am going to give Anglin’s explanation to the questions I posed to him. I gathered and arrived at these questions from various conversations and posting by the old executive on the internet, and from my conversation with Anglin.


Post #3

Paul Last wrote on July 30, 2009 at 8:46pm


I read Lawrence Porter’s recently posted statement on democracy on this site to Anglin, and he agrees with Lawrence’s definition. Where he differs with some opinions posted here, in the matter of the democratic process, Anglin says “The pot is calling the kettle black. What the old executive is accusing me of doing is exactly what they do and have been doing”.

Anglin claims he asked for a meeting with George Read in June and July of 2008 and expressed his concerns about George’s leadership. Anglin showed me e-mails to and from Read setting up the meetings and a report later drafted by Read confirming the meetings took place. Anglin claims he made his intentions clear to Read, and just in case his intentions were not conveyed properly, he requested to attend an executive meeting to explain his intentions. I read three e-mails confirming that Anglin request to attend the executive meeting on the Sept 22nd. The e-mails were sent to George Read, David Crowe, and Susan Stratton. In a response to Anglin’s e-mail, Stratton denied Anglin access to the executive meeting, even though the Alberta Greens constitution at the time clearly states all meetings and activities are open to all members.

I listened to a tape recording of the September 22nd executive meeting and in it I identified Susan Stratton and Peter Johnson laughing over the fact that Stratton denied Anglin access to the meeting. Later in the recording Crowe suggested that the motions being submitted to the AGM should be addressed in order. Oldershaw objected to this suggestion because Anglin’s motion arrived approximately three weeks early, which would make his the first motion considered. The conversation that ensued clearly discussed options to prevent both Anglin’s and Erickson’s motions from being presented to the floor of the AGM. In this meeting Oldershaw insisted that only directive motions should be considered and all constitutional motions should be deferred to another time.

Anglin challenged me to find a definition of a directive motion in Robert’s Rules of Order, and I can honestly say I cannot find any mention or definition of a directive motion in Robert’s Rules of Order.

Anglin claims that if he is guilty of stacking the meeting, which he denies then the former executive is guilty of attempting the same offense. Anglin admits he asked his constituents to attend the AGM at their August constituency meeting for the purpose of affecting change. Anglin showed me an e-mail from Oldershaw and several Facebook posting from other sources, seeking to do the same, by asking people to attend the AGM to oppose Anglin’s motion.

Anglin claims the biggest problem at this point was the lack of communication and lack of willingness to sit down and talk before the AGM.

I read several e-mails where Anglin wrote Crowe, Johnson, Stratton and Read and requested to talk. I read a Sept 24th e-mail to Crowe, Stratton, and Johnson where Anglin proposed to delay any leadership race until the regularly scheduled leadership race in 2009. Anglin’s said his proposal would only have been necessary if the leadership review motion passed and only then if a review was called, and only then if Read failed the leadership review. Anglin believes that Read would not have failed a leadership review had he stayed at the AGM.

Anglin claims the accusations accusing him of an undemocratic hostile take-over of the party and changing the name of the party are absolutely false. Anglin claims the September 27, 2008 AGM was duly called and constituted according to the Alberta Greens constitution. The former executive set the rules, the date, the location, and properly announced the AGM. An announcement by the former executive in July and the week prior to the AGM stated “only those who attend will be able to vote”. Anglin claims he had no input into any of these decisions. He claims he followed the rules the former executive set. He says no name change was ever proposed or discussed at the meeting.

Anglin gave me several e-mails to read, dated before the September 27th AGM, where Anglin disagreed with Erickson, and where Anglin told Erickson he would not support any attempt to change the name of the party or to change the principles of the party. I read an e-mail sent by Anglin to the entire executive on September 23rd trying to clarify his position on this matter.

I read a press release sent on Sept 26, 2008 where Anglin announce to the press there was no motion being submitted to change the name of the party.

Answering allegations of a hostile take-over, Anglin states that he supported the nominations of four new people to the executive board and two additional nominations for re-electing existing members. Technically speaking Anglin says Erickson was a former member of the Executive Board, but he does not include him in the existing member category because Erickson was running for new position. The point Anglin made to me was that he supported and voted for Crowe and Burman, and the election of four new members out of a nine member board. Anglin states the board could be considered a ten member board if Ross Adshead’s position as inter-regional coordinator had been counted as a board member. He says he doesn’t understand how the election of four new people to a nine or ten member board can be considered a hostile take-over.

Anglin claims that the issue of democratic fairness revolves around the agreed upon rules governing the democratic process. Anglin says if he is guilty of manipulating the process, what does that say about the people who would hold a secret meeting in the parking lot, or the people who would conspire to manipulate to prevent legally submitted motions from being voted on at the AGM? Anglin states that what he did was completely constitutional. He says allegations of conducting an immoral democratic process have to be applied to both sides of the equation, or not at all. And if the process is deemed an immoral process, someone needs to direct questions to the people who designed the process. Anglin claims he was just adapting to the rules set by others.

Anglin provided me with over a dozen e-mails, dated from September 28, 2009 through the first week in October. In these e-mails Anglin pleads with various former executive members to enter into talks and negotiations, for the purpose of finding a compromise. I read e-mails Anglin sent to Harvey Holloway, Larry Ashmore, Fred Clemens, Valerie Kennedy and Sean Maw asking if they could help mediate in a process to open lines of communications between the old and the new executive.

I read a letter from Anglin’s lawyer, Kurata dated September 28, 2008 addressed to George Read. This letter has been the subject of a number of allegations and misinterpretations. The letter asked both sides to seek out an independent mediator. The letter was not a law suit or a threat of a law suit as some have claimed.

On September 29th Sean Maw proposed a general meeting with all members. Crowe e-mailed Sean Maw on September 30th rejecting Sean Maw’s proposal stating “I will not be responding to your emails on this subject. I do not believe that you have a role to play.”

Anglin claims he attempted to make one particular offer by telephoning Maw and asking Maw to relay an offer. Anglin’s offer proposed that he and Read both resign and have the party call a leadership race. Anglin further proposed that if this was acceptable he (Anglin) would not run for the leadership. Anglin told me that he had complete trust in Maw to deliver the offer. I listened to a taped recorded conference call where Anglin’s offer was discussed by the former executive and it was proposed at that meeting to proceed with the already decided upon re-do of the AGM on November 29, 2008. Anglin interpreted this decision as a complete rejection of his offer.

Anglin says that after he became informed that the former executive were attempting to re-do the AGM on the 29th of November, he opposed it on number constitutional and legal grounds. Referring back to his earlier statement of the “pot calling the kettle black” Anglin claims that the former executive selectively communicated with certain members of the Alberta Greens, while excluding other members from notice. Anglin showed me several communications with his constituents that indicated that many of them were being excluded from notice of the November 29th meeting. I also read some e-mails from various individuals who support Anglin, who received notice from David Crowe that their membership had expired, even though they had purchased a membership within the last six months.

Anglin claims that the November 29th re-do of the AGM attempted to orchestrate a predetermine outcome by granting Madeleine Oldershaw a sole privilege to propose two new motions; a privilege which was not exercisable by any other Alberta Greens members. Oldershaw’s two motions if passed would have automatically work-shopped all other motions, and prevented any constitutional motion from being considered at the AGM re-do.

To support his claims that the former executive is guilty of attempting to manipulate and election process to obtain a desired outcome, Anglin states Oldershaw’s two new motions were going to be submitted to the membership as pre-seconded. Anglin claims that constitutionally motions can only be seconded at an assembly, and there is no known democratic process to pre-second or second a motion before it has been moved. According to Roberts Rules of Order, Anglin claims that all main motions submitted to an assembly have equal consideration. Anglin says Oldershaw’s attempt to propose two new motions, was an omnibus attempt to attach a subsidiary motion to any other main motion, effectively killing the motion before it could be lawfully considered on its own merits. In colloquial terms Anglin says this is called a poison pill. Anglin claims it was an attempt to thwart consideration of both his and Erickson’s motions, and it is not legal under Robert’s Rules of Order.

Anglin also claims the proposed re-do of the elections of officers was an act of blatant manipulation. He claims members of the former executive were being granted access to the membership list while other candidates (Anglin’s supporters) were going to be denied access to the membership list. I read an e-mail sent by Crowe to Jensen stating that Crowe could not supply her with the membership list due to privacy concerns. Anglin claims that all known organizational elections provide membership list to the candidates, so they can campaign.

I have to agree with Anglin’s conclusions on the issuance of membership lists.

Anglin calls the comments by Nick Burman and others who extol the virtues of democratic fairness, (I inserted Nick Burman`s name because of his recent post on this webpage), hypocrites. Anglin says these are the same people who participated in a secret clandestine meeting in the parking lot, for the sole purpose of undermining the assembly`s democratic rights. Anglin noted that Crowe, who had a personal vested interest in the outcome of the proposed Nov 29th re-do, appointed himself the sole unsupervised recipient entrusted to validate and collect the ballots for the November 29th re-do. Anglin questioned how anyone who attended the September 27th AGM in good faith, could possibly trust Crowe to receive the ballots after what Crowe did to them at the September 27th AGM. Anglin continued on and said that before the ballots were destroyed the new executive noted that ballot envelopes were marked in ink as friendly or unfriendly. Anglin surmises that someone was counting votes based on the return address. Anglin told me that in regards to the proposed Nov 29th re-do the only thing missing was to have the Zimbabwe International Elections Monitoring Team give the Alberta Greens their approval.

I asked to see the some of the ballots and Anglin told me that all the ballots were destroyed unopened.

Anglin says it was at this time he and Jensen filed for an injunction to stop the November 29th re-do of the AGM. Anglin claims that all and any accusations that he sued to gain control of the party are absolutely false. He claims that these accusations are being made by people who have little or no understanding of the law. Read and Stratton were named on the motion filed with the court because they were wrongly acting as leader and president of the Alberta Greens. They were not being sued as individuals; the court action was initiated for the sole purpose of stopping any further elections until the matter of the September 27 AGM could be resolved.

I read the court motion filed at the Queen’s Bench in Red Deer, and I can confirm that what Anglin is saying is basically accurate. However I can also understand why some people could easily interpret this motion as a lawsuit against Read and Stratton.

Anglin claims that all his conciliatory offers to negotiate a resolution to the September 27th debacle have been rejected or ignored. He claims he can meet with Brian Mason, David Swann, Paul Hinman, and a number of PC MLAs yet the opposition in his own party will not meet him. Anglin ads, what does that say about my opposition? Anglin says that in order to arrive at a resolution both sides must be willing to meet.

I have not seen any documented evidence from the former executive claiming to ask for or set a meeting with Anglin or his executive, to negotiate a settlement. I have seen much empirical evidence to make me conclude the opposite is true.

Anglin claims that the former executive engaged immediately, on the afternoon of September 27, 2008, in disparaging attacks on him personally. I have read the two e-mails from Read on September 27th and the posting on the Green Party website. In my opinion both Anglin and Read suffered from over sensitivity on that day. However, the personal attacks against Anglin, posted on the Alberta Greens website soon after the AGM, accusing Anglin of spamming pornography is inexcusable, and this in my opinion (and that of many others) is cause for a libel and defamation law suit.

In conclusion, an election can only be nullified when the rules governing an election are so egregiously violated as to cause an objective person to conclude the violation change the outcome of the election. In my opinion Anglin is guilty of manipulating the election process. He admits it. But he did so within the context of the Alberta Greens constitution. I am not condoning his actions but the real problem can be found in the fact that the Alberta Greens constitution was wholly inadequate. I blame Anglin and particularly Erickson for being the cause of this upheaval. I blame the entire former executive for making the whole matter worse. There are no do-overs or re-dos just because someone doesn’t like the outcome of the election. The former executive members’ actions were outside the context of the Alberta Greens constitution. I wonder just how the former executive would be behaving now if they had stayed at the AGM and won the day, and Anglin wanted to re-do the AGM again so he could bring more people out to vote?

Lawrence Porter is correct in his definition of democracy, but once the process begins, changing the rules midstream always causes more problems. If the process is unfair change the process! But don’t condemn people for playing by the rules.

This situation called for maturity and leadership and not one member of the former executive has provided any evidence of either qualities. In my opinion this was a perfect storm of a bunch of children who couldn’t get along in the sand box. I am sad and angry that the incapability’s of so few could cause so much harm to so many. I can only describe the narrow thinking that brought us to this point as selfish.


Post #4

Paul Last wrote on July 30, 2009 at 8:48pm

In my opinion the dispute concerning whether or not the financial information was properly transferred is a classic example of cognitive dissonance. Anglin says the information was never transferred and Crowe says he gave Anglin the information. For the life of me I cannot see why this discussion continues. The agreement signed between Crowe and Anglin stipulated that Crowe was to have turned over all the financial information and provide a certification that all the information was true and accurate, on the date of execution of the agreement.

I have no explanation for Crowe’s actions and so called justifications. The burden of proof to demonstrate good faith is on Crowe. Unless Crowe can produce a receipt for turning over the information -- no proof exists that the information has been turned over. The answer is that simple.

Each side has lawyers acting on their behalf so I just can’t fathom what the problem is and why it has not been resolved. The agreement between the both parties in this matter states that Crowe must turn over the financial information on execution of the agreement. In addition Crowe was to have certified that the financial information was true and accurate. Despite Crowe’s claim that he turned over the financial information; all evidence contradicts his statement and the evidence that Crowe relies upon to prove that he complied with the agreement is unacceptable.

The following responses are my response to the statements posted on Crowe’s his website.
• It is important to note that:
• The new executive did in fact access the data I provided but did not provide the essential files, including the actual MYOB financial database, to the accountant.

I cannot find any empirical evidence to substantiate this claim. As a matter of fact I find cogent evidence that the new executive continually claimed they could not access the data files and could not get access to the electronic files.

• The new executive only contacted me once regarding missing information, and that was for the username and password to access a third party credit card processing website (IATS) that I had forgotten to give them. This was provided within a few hours.

This statement is contradicted by numerous documents and records confirming that the new executive’s lawyer contacted Crowe’s lawyer, Jenuth, by e-mail, telephone, and official correspondences several times. The IATS account was finally turned over May 11; five months after the requests for this information became demands. I read copies of the e-mails and of the official correspondence confirming these requests and demands.

I also read two correspondences (December 6th and March 15th) from Crowe where Crowe wrote that he would only assist the new executive for $200 per hour. Both correspondences appear to be in response (or non-response) to at least two separate requests for financial information. I cannot explain why Crowe would claim the new executive only contacted him once when his own correspondence evidences two requests for financial information. That aside, all the correspondence between lawyers certainly is consistent with the fact that Anglin continually claimed the electronic financials were not turned over.

• The new executive did NOT contact me to ask me for any financial files or membership records at any time.

I refer to my previous answer, and in fact, I read a letter sent to Jenuth dated January 6, 2009 noting that the items in the box were not accompanied by any documents confirming the inventory of included files, documents, records, and/or party paraphernalia. Other official letters requesting or demanding that the electronic files and membership list be turned over to the new executive were sent on December 31, 2008; January 13, 2009; February 5, 2009; and March 31, 2009. Demands specifically included a request for the financial data to be delivered to the new Green Party executive on a CD.

• The new executive were given both electronic and paper copies of a letter listing all the physical documents turned over to them, and all passwords, and other information including the existence of a large electronic archive. They were requested to sign and return this letter to me, the former CFO, when they had verified the contents. They never did this.

The new executive claimed they did not receive any letter listing all the physical documents to be turned over to them (see previous statement), and only after three attempts to acquire an inventory list did Jenuth provide an electronic copy. Once the new executive received an electronic copy of an inventory list of what should have been turned over, the new executive’s lawyer, Kurata, wrote Jenuth on February 5, 2009 to inform him that the electronic files had still not been turned over.

• This trial balance PDF file was in the same ZIP archive as the full MYOB file. The only way that the accountant could have obtained this file is if the new executive downloaded the ZIP archive. Possession of the PDF file by the accountant proves that the new executive also possessed the MYOB accounting file.

Evidence suggests this statement is not true. Anglin provided me with a copy of an e-mail dated November 27, 2008 between Anglin and Kurata, confirming the transfer by Jenuth of the trial balance PDF file to Kurata on the 26th of November. I also read several documents dated in the month of December that referenced the trial balance PDF file. All these correspondences are dated before Crowe’s uploaded the ZIP file on December 23rd.

In an e-mail between Kurata and Jenuth dated January 13, 2009; Anglin specifically made a request to set up a face to face meeting for January 15th to facilitate the transfer of the financial information. In subsequent communications following the January 13th e-mail, Jenuth informs Kurata that the trial balance PDF file e-mailed to Kurata on the 26th of November is a copy of the entire ZIP file that Anglin and Kurata claim they cannot access.

Anglin claims that the box containing the documents turned over by Jenuth was inventoried by all the members of the new executive, in the presence of their lawyer. Letters began almost immediately claiming the electronic files were not turned over and demands were made to have the electronic files burned on a CD. Anglin states he did not get the required files, or the certification, as required by the agreement. Nowhere on Crowe’s webpage does Crowe offer any explanation or evidence of certifying the correctness of the files.


In an e-mail dated January 3rd between David Crowe and Susan Stratton, Crowe states in regards to turning over the First Calgary bank account; Crowe said and I quote, “I could turn over signing authority. I’m not doing anything until I’m asked.” This e-mail was written more than a week after Crowe was required and compelled to turn over all financial information according to the signed agreement.

On May 6, 2009 David Crowe telephoned the Alberta Greens’ auditor without disclosing that the conversation was being tape recorded. Crowe then posted the tape recorded conversation on the internet.

After the firm of Meyers Norris Penny was made aware of the tape recorded conversation posted on the internet; a meeting was called with the Alberta Greens’ executive and its lawyer. Meyers Norris Penny found Crowe’s action to be offensive and noted that the recorded conversation could be misrepresented because parts of the conversation were omitted. In response to Crowe’s actions, MNP wrote a letter to Election Alberta withdrawing as the auditor for the Alberta Greens.

On May 11, 2009 Crowe wrote an e-mail to a member of the Alberta Greens stating that Anglin lost the financial documents that Crowe turned over, and as result Crowe was withholding the files until a new executive was elected. This e-mail is a clear contradiction to claims that Crowe complied with the settlement agreement.

In summary....Why?

Crowe only needed to give the entire file to his lawyer, along with an accompanying letter certifying the accuracy of the information to comply with his agreement, and then demand a receipt. This would have ended this story! I have to believe there would have been less effort required to give MNP the MYOB file than the effort Crowe spent tape recording MNP without their knowledge. The fact that MNP wrote Elections Alberta and claimed Crowe omitted parts of the conversation, constitutes a public condemnation of Crowe’s actions. Crowe’s behaviour is reprehensible. He discredited himself and the party, not to mention that he also displayed a complete lack of integrity when he taped recorded the auditor.

The transfer of the financial information is part of the settlement agreement to bring closure to an existing motion before the Court of the Queen’s Bench. This is a legal matter that is contractual. There has to be a paper trail in place to document each step of the execution of the agreement. Inferring that since Anglin has a copy of the trial balance PDF file, “proves that the new executive also possessed the MYOB accounting file”, is just not acceptable, and certainly not after so many requests and demands were made calling for the delivery of the financial information. Well into April, Jenuth’s own correspondences confirm he was cognizant and aware that Kurata and Anglin did not have access to the information.

The failure to turn over the financial information is Crowe’s responsibility. Even if Crowe turned over the information on December 23rd, as he has declared, it his responsibility to respond to the requests and statements claiming the information was not received. The power and ability to end this controversy was always Crowe’s to exercise. Rather than just call for a face-to-face meeting, as Anglin had already done on January 13th , and turn over the information required; Crowe engaged in series of unexplainable complex actions that required far more energy than if had just turned over the information.

As I stated in the beginning all Crowe needed to do is was to bring the information to his lawyer’s office and have it all inventoried, under his supervision. Once the file was inventoried the file should have been turned over for a signed receipt.


Post #5

Paul Last wrote on July 30, 2009 at 8:51pm


Regarding de-registration of the party, the documents I have reviewed have resulted in some very disturbing matters coming to light. Anglin claims the party was unofficially de-registered to avoid public embarrassment. The official version is that the party was deregistered because it could not comply with the financial reporting provisions required by Sec 42(1) of the Election Finances and Contributions Disclosure Act.

Anglin says two factors weighed heavily in the executive’s decision to acquiesce to de-registration; the new executive had lost all confidence that Crowe would comply with the agreement and hand-over the financial information so that the party could file an annual financial return. Failure to file an annual return is cause for forcible de-registration. And the resignation of MNP as the auditor resulted in MNP making a statement that they would never consider auditing the Alberta Greens without first completing a full forensic audit of the present and past financial filings. A full forensic, Anglin said, audit would cost six figures in accounting fees. MNP can confirm this broad assumption.

MNP’s requirement mandating a forensic audit is directly attributed to several other disclosures that discredited the party’s financial record keeping. I was shown documents that indicate that some of these disclosures also subject the party to possible criminal charges.

On February 7, 2009 in a meeting with Elections Alberta, Lorne Gibson’s, the Chief Electoral Officer, legal counsel informed Anglin that two loans, one made by Stratton and the other by Crowe, on February 8, 2008 violated the Election Finances and Contributions Disclosure Act and are cause to recommend prosecution. The loans raised additional concerns after close examination of the loan documents revealed that Crowe approved his own loan by authorizing the contract with altered signatures. Anglin claims this in itself is not illegal but it raises serious questions about motive. Crowe also approved Stratton’s loan.

I read a letter where the new executive was advised by its counsel that repayment authorized and effected by the present executive would condone the earlier act of the Party borrowing from Crow and Stratton. Kurata further advised that the repayment of the outstanding debt to Crowe and Stratton, when it is ascertained, is a matter which the Chief Electoral Officer must deliberate upon, and the determination of repayment is a matter wholly beyond the discretion of the current Party executive.

Statements provided by two former executive members confirm that there was no approval process conducted to approve the loans and neither member was aware that 7% interest was being paid out to Crowe and Stratton. I was specifically asked not to disclose the names of the former two executives.

Anglin says the loans created even further complications for the party when they became the object of a preliminary criminal investigation. I was shown documents that revealed that the loans were not disclosed on the 2008 election’s return and that signed “Statements of Disclosure” by Susan Stratton and David Crowe; addressed to the Auditor Michael L. Doyle, raise significant questions regarding the accuracy of the financial information being presented for audit.

Anglin claims this document, the statement of disclosure, was a death sentence to the party. Anglin told me that once it was revealed that information was withheld from the auditor (deliberate or not); no auditor, in his or hers right mind, would undertake to audit the Alberta Greens with anything less than a full forensic audit. Anglin says the party just can’t afford an auditor charging from $150-$400 an hour, to spend hours on end trying to verify $7.50 and $10 entries.

Anglin claims that all the efforts he and other spent trying to obtain the electronic files from Crowe seemed to now be wasted. He says that even if Crowe were to turn the records over now, the possibility that the records would raise more questions than less is highly probable.

To support his claim, Anglin refers to the following events and list of entries and information obtained from the PDF trial balance sent to Kurata on November 26, 2008. Anglin claims this information raised the concerns of the former auditor.

On March 25, 2009 Crowe filed a complaint with Elections Alberta and disclosed a list of possible party donors requiring tax receipts. This information was forwarded to the new executive and the list of names revealed that a number of individuals referenced on Crowe’s list of donors could not confirm the accuracy of the amount of their donation recorded. Some people disputed or denied making a donation, some donations were misrepresented and should have been filed as an election donation, and still other individuals claimed that their donation check was never cashed. The party lawyer, Kurata document each case referenced above.

Information transferred to the new executive (the Nov 23, 2008 PDF trial balance) indicates there are two accounts identified as “Donated Goods and Services”. One account shows unexplained or unsupported activity of approximately $14,000 and the latter shows absolutely no activity.

Current records in the party’s possession reveal that a significant amount of the documentation of receipts necessary (50% +) for reconciling the 2008 expenditures are missing or have not been made available.

Former president Susan Stratton and former leader George Read expended $2546.26 of the Green Party’s funds on legal expenses. There is no accompanying documentation to support the expenditure.

Honorarium representing payments of income to non-executive members of the Green Party are not reconcilable. The individuals involved are unresponsive to inquiries, and requests for supporting documentation have gone unanswered.

Honorarium representing a payment of income in the amount of $13,440 to George Read should have been reversed prior to the transition of the leadership. This accounting entry and execution, agreed upon by all parties, was not completed by Crowe and there is no supporting information available to reconcile the accounting for the $13,440.

Anglin threw up his hands at this point and asked me how I would act if I were and an independent auditor? He said, he and the executive are obligated to disclose everything to an auditor. And as soon as it is disclosed that a major accounting firm such as MNP is mandating a forensic audit, and given the silliness of Crowe’s tape-recorded entrapment of the previous auditor, would I dare attempt to certify an audit based on Crowe’s word or work?

I will save my answer to this question for the end of this report.

I asked Anglin about the incorporation of the party and the necessity to incorporate. He laughed at me and said the issue of incorporation sums up the entire former executive intelligence in one bizarre ironic twist.

Anglin claims the issue of not being incorporated was a major concern in December 2008 because legislation specifically required the registration of a corporate entity, before party status could be granted.

Anglin says, at this time, the legal questions confronting the Alberta Greens were two fold. If the corporate entity did not exist, (keeping in mind only a corporate entity can apply for status as a political party), how could the party exist? The second question involved the relevance of the corporate entity GAIA. GAIA was the corporate entity on record that had originally applied for party status back in the early 1990’s. The possibility of requesting a “grandfathering” exemption for GAIA was dismissed as an option, because the former executive did not transfer control of GAIA, and Services Alberta’s, the agency that governs incorporation, rules and regulations have been updated. Services Alberta currently mandates that a political party’s name must be exactly the same as its corporate entity.

The Alberta Greens membership was given this information at a General Meeting held on January 21, 2009. At this meeting, it was conveyed to the General Membership that a forced de-registration was a real possibility, and that de-registration could be imminent. A special resolution was passed at the January meeting granting the new executive the authority to address the issue of incorporation, and incorporate if possible, and/or convene a special general meeting on short notice should time allow. I read the minutes of the January general meeting to confirm this was accurate.

Anglin says that at the February 7, 2009 meeting with Elections Alberta’s Chief Electoral Officer, Lorne Gibson, the question of the corporate registration was resolved. All parties agreed that it appeared the Act did not anticipate the dissolution of a corporate entity without first dissolving the political entity. In conclusion, the Act does not provide any direction beyond the initial requirement mandating that an entity incorporate prior to making an application for party registration. While this interpretation clarified Elections Alberta’s responsibility, it did not address any of the organizational concerns relative to legal liabilities and contractual obligations.

Anglin told me that legislation spans multiple jurisdictional authorities governed by multiple legislative acts, not limited to “The Business Corporations Act”, “The Companies Act”,” The Partnerships Act”, and “The Societies Act”, to name but a few! Elections Alberta, Anglin said, is primarily concerned with the “Election Finances and Contributions Disclosure Act”, and they are content to let their concerns stop there.

Anglin then showed me the corporate documents confirming that the “Alberta Greens” the Green Party of Alberta Society was incorporated on February 25, 2009.

Anglin then produced a document that both shocked and horrified me. Anglin told me that while people such as Lawrence Porter, and other members of the former executive were publically denouncing Anglin about how wrong he is about the necessity to incorporate, some of them must have forgotten that they engaged in the creation of a false document to prove the party was incorporated.

Anglin gave me a copy of a document signed by Oldershaw, Read, Stratton, and Crowe dated June 12, 2008. The document was a corporate resolution designed or constructed to prove the Alberta Greens were incorporated according to “The Business Corporations Act”.

The statement just above the document signature line states, and I will reprint exactly what I am reading on the document, “Resolution passed by all the directors of the Corporation pursuant to the Business Corporations Act (Alberta) as evidence by their signatures.”

After I studied this document I was speechless. Anglin in disgust said, “Can you believe these people?” “They are all over the internet with e-mails and public postings claiming that the party does not need to be incorporated, and all the while they are making this argument as if they are knowledgeable and informed on the subject, when in fact they created and signed this document because it was a requirement to prove they were incorporated.”

The document in question boasts compliance pursuant to the Business Corporations Act and appears to be constructed to misrepresent the party’s status as a corporate entity for the purpose of entering into an agreement with the ING Bank.

Anglin says there are numerous Legislative Acts that address false documents, forgery, and fraud in addition to the criminal code, however, the Business Corporations Act specifically addresses the issue of false and misleading documents in Sec:251(1) where if a person who makes or assists in making a report, return, notice or other document is found guilty of making an untrue statement of a material fact is subject to a fine of not more than $5000 or to imprisonment for a term of not more than 6 months or to both.

Anglin said the issue of de-registration became a fore gone conclusion. The people who signed some of these documents may or may not be prosecuted. He says this is now beyond the control of the internal matters of the Green Party.Anglin claims to be cooperating with the authorities, and he says the Alberta Greens may also be charged because of the actions of the former executive do not necessarily absolve or vindicate the organization.

Anglin philosophically told me that there is no good reasons for a PC member of this government, to have a prosecution of the Green Party go forward. Politically he says, it would be better for them to prosecute the Green Party after its first MLA gets elected not before.

Last but not least Anglin provided me with a tape recorded telephone conversation between Jensen and Crowe dated November 12, 2008 at 11:03 PM. The conversation references an earlier conversation that took place at 7:56 AM from Crowe to Jensen.

The recording I listened to lasted approximately 20 minutes. I am speechless to comment on what I heard and how Crowe so casually explained away the contents of the phone conversation previously on this Facebook page. The conversation I listen to centered on the topic of extortion and blackmail. I did not hear one word discussing any offers for possible negotiations. I listen to this tape recording three different times.

I also listened to a taped recorded executive meeting where Midge Lambert forcible argued with multiple members of the former executive to get Crowe to answer questions about the phone calls. I was struck by how callous some former members handled Lambert`s questions and how easily they carried on after Lambert hung-up on the conference call. The behaviour of the former executive indicates to me that they may have had some previous knowledge of Lambert’s complaint.

I read a copy of a prepared draft motion and accompanying affidavit that has not been filed with the Court of the Queen’s Bench. The motion, if filed is going seek civil action against Crowe for an extortion attempt. Anglin says he has two years from the date of the offense to file.

Whenever I attempt to reason logically on this Facebook page I notice a certain bias and even hostility. I said in the beginning that I have supported and voted for the Green Party in the past because I believe in the fundamental principles and philosophies of the party. I chose to do my own investigation of the Alberta Greens’ de-registration solely because I wanted to satisfy myself that everything was being done to save the party. If I could help save the party I was prepared to do whatever needed to be done.

I had access to a lot more information than what I have commented on here. As I posted earlier Anglin was polite and quite candid. He answered every questioned I posed and provided me with empirical evidence to support his comments when I asked to see the documents. I believe him when he says he wanted to grow this party.

What I discovered is that no one can claim innocence, but I am particularly disgusted with the actions of a few former executive members and some of the people posting on this Facebook page. I believe this situation tumbled out of control because of pride and stupidity. I wish Anglin did not do what he did to begin this chain of events. But I do not excuse the actions of some former executive members that kept driving the nails into the Alberta Greens coffin.

In summary, Anglin’s very first communication to Crowe on the morning of the 28th of September could not have been more accurate. Anglin e-mailed Crowe and said,

“We are at a very important precipice at this very moment in time. There is still time we can resolve this issue, and create something positive, but that can only occur if we talk. We must do it sooner than later!” “You are in a very precarious position as CFO, and I do not want you to be put in a position that could possibly harm your credibility. We desperately need to speak to one another! This can be resolved if we talk!”

Anglin begged to talk in nearly two dozen e-mails sent that very first week after the September 27th AGM. He predicted that the longer this went on the worse the situation would get. His offer to resign and hold a leadership race was certainly one of the best offers put forth as a resolution. I can find no counter offer or alternative offer made by the former executive.

I could rant on and on but it will do me no good! This party is truly dead so let the Alberta Greens epitaph read “Died by Stupidity” and for the sake of the Green Party of Canada I hope everyone stays away from it, lest you infect that party too.


Post #6

Paul Last wrote on July 31, 2009 at 1:12am

What you are choosing to ignore David is that you claim on your website that:

• The new executive did NOT contact me to ask me for any financial files or membership records at any time.

Yet in the communication you just posted it is clear you are responding to a request that Anglin didn’t have the information. You have contradicted yourself!

There are also the numerous communications after January 13th from Kurata to Jenuth claiming that they couldn’t get access to the information reaching well into April. Two of the communications demanded that you turn over the information on CDs because the passwords you provided did not work.

Again, none of this matters! I refer you to the agreement between yourself and Anglin. It was your responsibility to turn the information over with a certification that the information was true and accurate. It was not Anglin’s responsibility to go get the information. You fail to recognize the obligation you undertook when you signed the agreement.


Post #7

David Crowe (Calgary, AB) wrote on July 31, 2009 at 4:18am

What you have posted contains serious falsehoods and defamation.

I have deleted my two postings because I have realized that you are not listening and you do not care about facts (e.g. it is true that we had communications about the bank accounts, PO box etc and it is true that I sent email about the financial documents to Connie several times. It is not true that I ever received any messages about missing financial documents from them except for one message regarding a missing username and password).

If Joe Anglin seriously believes all the slanderous things about me he should say them himself and not use messengers.

I will no longer respond to hearsay.

P.S. You claim to have been a long time supporter yet my recollection is that you never donated to the part or were a member. Is my recollection correct?

Retaining these posts on Facebook will be an indication that you stand behind the truth of what you said here.


Post #8

Paul Last wrote on July 31, 2009 at 6:04pm

It is called cognitive dissonance David. And I think you removed your post because it contradicts your website. But that is my opinion.

When a communication is sent from your lawyer to Anglin’s lawyer or vice-versa, it is if you directly communicated yourself. So if you are thinking that you can take a position that you are not responsible because you are not aware any communications between your lawyer and Anglin’s lawyer; you will have to take that matter up with your lawyer. When you hire a lawyer to speak for you, that is exactly what takes place.

• P.S. You claim to have been a long time supporter yet my recollection is that you never donated to the part or were a member. Is my recollection correct?

Read my post and you will see I already answered your question about donating, and I was not a member in Alberta, and never claimed I was, but what makes you think I wasn’t a member in another province?

What I think is that you have selective recollection, so I think you are only selectively correct. Attack me all you want but I noticed Anglin didn’t attack me once when I presented all the accusation I collect on this website. I asked him a lot tougher questions and he answered every question I posed to him.

What I posted, I obtained from the documents given to me. I would not have posted what I did if I did not read the documents myself. I quoted Anglin where I could and I paraphrased my conversation with him as best I could. The opinions and summations are mine.

From where I sit defamation should be the least of your concerns.


Post #9

Lisa Budney (Edmonton, AB) wrote on July 31, 2009 at 8:22pm

Paul you couldn’t have been a member in another province. The Alberta Greens was a political party with no ties to any other political party. I’m not saying this is the case with you, but it’s a common misconception that the federal GPC is tied to provincial green parties.


Post #10

Paul Last wrote on July 31, 2009 at 10:38pm

In my original comments I said, “I have supported and voted for the Green Party in the past because I believe in the fundamental principles and philosophies of the party.” Feel free to reread my post.

If I expressed that in such a way that you and David mistook that to mean my support was only limited to the Alberta Greens or the Green Party of Canada. I hope you will forgive me and not find fault that I believe in the fundamental principles and philosophies of the party. I have supported the “Green Party”, for quite a long time.

Is this really an issue? There is a criminal investigation underway and the Alberta Greens, particularly the former executive, are at the center of the investigation and the best you can contribute to the topic is to question the origins of my support for the Green Party?

I read so much on this Facebook page. I read all your attacks on Anglin, and I was somewhat sympathetic to all your posts, but when I sat down with Anglin and started to question him, he did not hesitate to answer my questions. He followed it up with documented evidence. What more can I say.

As a suggestion you might want to tone down your patronizing just a little. Forged documents, fraud, embezzlement, attempted extortion, illegal loans, and the party is de-registered, can anyone paint an uglier picture of what went on?

It just a suggestion, but someone may just want to contact Anglin and see the evidence for themselves.


Post #11

Lisa Budney (Edmonton, AB) wrote on August 1, 2009 at 12:02am

I’m contributing information that matters to the forming of a new provincial green party. It’s important to know that provincial green parties are not linked directly to the federal GPC. This has ramifications during policy and platform development... as well as fallout from debacles such as the one you are discussing. The GPC has rightly kept its hands out of this mess and wisely so.

I appreciate you sharing with the world the information you’ve gathered. I believe information like this should be presented to interested members of the public. That’s why I have not contacted Anglin or Jensen. I don’t like back room talks.

I am concerned about the well being of the members of the former and former former executive. I don’t feel the need to compound their stress levels by joining the lineup of people wanting to find out the “truth” from the horses’ mouths. Flogging dead horses will not get green politics back on track in this province. I just hope everyone’s learned from their mistakes and will move on to advance a green party in AB in the near future.


Post #12

Paul Last wrote on August 1, 2009 at 2:57am

Back room talks are commonly known as secretive meetings, such as the meeting held in the parking lot at the Sept 27th AGM or the executive meeting that excluded Anglin from attending on September 22nd 2008. Those would be defined as back room talks.

Direct talks are defined as going directly to the source so as not to rely upon someone else interpretation of the events or facts. The talks that have occurred on this web page, particularly the comments directed at Anglin border on bigotry. At least it refreshing to see you admit you do not see the need to find out the truth. Refreshing but sad!

The comment that you are concerned about the well being of the former executive would be more credible if only you had exercised the same concern when you and others so freely engaged in opprobrious remarks about Anglin.

Getting at the truth is not same as flogging a dead horse. The Green Party of Alberta cannot get registered again until this is reconciled. You or anyone else who thinks they can restart, or start up a Green Party in Alberta will be in for a rude awakening when you try. The problem just doesn’t go away. Regardless of any criminal charges, any former member can sue the former executive for breach of fiduciary trust. Forging false documents makes it very difficult for one to claim they have exercised their fiduciary duty properly.

There are also five liberal candidates and one NDP who can claim damages against a Green party that ran candidates with the use of illegal loans.

It is a hell of a can of worms.


Post #13

Lawrence Porter (Red Deer College) wrote on August 1, 2009 at 3:06am

To be honest Paul I havent had time to rumage through all the information you have provided - Although Im glad you did. I will get around to it very soon. They are some very long posts and im trying to keep up on the discussion.

I would like to hear an argument that would allow the six candidates who lost their seats during the last election because of their failure to get out THEIR vote. Have you looked at the results from these ridings? The PC won because they increased their vote - No doubt that helps you win a riding!

I will point a couple things but Im in a rush and must go.


Post #14

Lawrence Porter (Red Deer College) wrote on August 1, 2009 at 3:06pm

To say this (the point I am talking about in my last post):

You have to prove all candidates in these electoral constituents have had their candidacy funded by these loans. Do you have proof of this? I cant look where the executive sent money during the last election but I have to wonder how much of the deposits were funded by central when both Edwin and Joe received over $10 000 dollars from transfers from central. If these two loans were a substantial part of election expenses then Central put almost all of their eggs in two baskets by giving Joe and Edwin an amount more than the loans! Question to past executive (hopefully you can answer): How many candidate deposits were funded by the central organization?

You also have to prove that they would win in the event these candidates did not run. This is beyond the possible unless you track down every green voter and ask what they had done if their was no green candidate for the area. I have already posted on this matter. For the most part these opposition candidates lost in large part due to an increase in PC voters and a (in some cases) drastic drop in their vote. Do you have proof this was the fault of the greens?

Do claim that these candidates can seek damages against the Greens (or people who operated the party) seems next to impossible to prove. I hope you can prove the points and have not become a mouth piece with a great deal of talking points.


Post #15

Paul Last wrote on August 1, 2009 at 4:53pm


The Green Party ran a campaign with the use of illegal loans. The executive covered up the loans with a false document and then failed to report the loans on the election’s return, falsifying the return. Each offense is a punishable offense, and at least one is a criminal offense. This doesn’t even address the issue of an attempted extortion.

If the party is found guilty, the Green Party would be liable because it ran a fraudulent campaign.

In a civil suit, the only thing any other campaign or candidate needs to prove is financial harm caused by these illegal actions. I used the five Liberals and one NDP as an example because their races were so close, but anyone who can prove financial harm as a result of the Green party’s illegal actions has cause. You can hypothesize all you want about who could or could not claim damages, but you would be better off checking with a lawyer rather than guessing.

Efforts to circumvent the damage caused, by justifying where the party distributed a dollar from an illegal loan verses a dollar from a legitimate donation is rather pathetic, considering the financial return is erroneous. It’s a little like robbing a bank and claiming innocence by saying the money came from your account, because you had enough money on deposit.

Also your facts are incorrect. Go to Elections Alberta and get a copy of the election returns. It is public information. The party didn’t give $10,000 to either Erickson or Anglin. I can’t find the figures at the moment, (I have them) but I seem to remember the party transferred less than $5,000 total that split between those two candidates and Erickson’s campaign got the larger amount of the two. What you just posted is incorrect. The party raised just under 30K total, of which 10,000 was from illegal loans. I can’t find the individual returns at the moment but I seem to remember that Erickson and Anglin’s campaigns combined raise almost double what the party raised.

BTW, if Anglin, Erickson, or any other Green Party candidate could prove that their campaigns were damaged by the illegal activity, they could conceivable hold the party and those responsible for damages. I just do not see how any Green party candidate could logically claim damages. But I do see how a donor to the Green Party could claim damages and demand that their money be returned.


Post #16

Paul Last wrote on August 1, 2009 at 4:57pm

Just as a side not, I file a FOIP request with Elections Alberta for more information about the Alberta Greens, and yesterday they denied my request so now I have to appeal my request. It is amazing what you will find if you ask for documents!


Post #17

Lawrence Porter (Red Deer College) wrote on August 1, 2009 at 5:44pm

Edwin and Joe received over $11 000 in transfers from the party



You are wrong on both accounts. They also did not raise more than $30 000.


Post #18

Madeleine Oldershaw (Calgary, AB) wrote on August 3, 2009 at 1:52am

Paul and Lawrence,

I just returned from a weekend out of town. I know that Dave Crowe and Susan Stratton are both out of town.

I will attempt to respond when I have had a chance to read all you posted.


Post #19

Paul Last wrote on August 3, 2009 at 3:10pm

I stand corrected on the amount raised - good job Lawrence.

I confused expenditures with funds raised. My mistake. Is this the point?


Post #20

Paul Last wrote on August 3, 2009 at 3:44pm

I collected a lot of documents in my investigation. I will make sure I refer to them before I spout off. But I will admit it if I make a mistake.


Post #21

Paul Last wrote on August 3, 2009 at 3:49pm

Lawrence, you and others now need to answer for some of your statements too. You sent out a blast e-mail attacking Anglin personally. Where are your facts that you and others here rely, on to support your attacks of Anglin.

The agreement between Anglin and Crowe specifically states Crowe must turn over the financial data with a letter certifying that the financial information is true and correct? He was supposed to turn it over on the day of execution of the agreement. He didn’t do either. He posted the information on a password protected website that Anglin and his lawyer could not access and Anglin’s lawyer continually communicated that to Crowe’s lawyer.

You so proudly attacked Anglin over the need to incorporate, but there is a document signed by Oldershaw, Stratton, Crowe, and Read. The document falsely claims the party was incorporated according to the “Business Incorporations Act”. If the party was not incorporated this now becomes a forged document. Why do this, if the party does not need to be incorporated?

You support Crowe on your petition but here we find the party ran 21 candidates in the 2008 election that were not members of the party. In the 2008 election, three executive members of the Alberta Greens were not members of the party. Over .33 cents of every election dollar spent was obtained through two illegal loans, (Check with elections Alberta). Crowe approved his own loan, subjecting himself to embezzlement allegations, and two former members of the Executive Board dispute Crowe’s claims the executive approved the loans. The loans were covered up in a false document signed by Crowe and Stratton to the accountant Doyle, and then the loans were not reported (another offense) on the elections return. Crowe taped recorded the new auditor who wrote a letter to Elections Alberta complaining the tape-recorded conversation was posted on the internet omitting part of the conversation. Crowe, Burman, and Oldershaw like to boast Anglin is incompetent, but due to their leadership the party is now being subjected to a criminal investigation to include fraud, forgery, issuing false documents, embezzlement, and extortion.

Turns out Crowe’s reputation is growing. Run a search on Crowe in:



Post #22

Madeleine Oldershaw (Calgary, AB) wrote on August 3, 2009 at 5:39pm

Paul and everyone else,


There are 30 days from July 16 to appeal the de-registration.

The whole world now knows where the Alberta Greens financial data base is located.

The executive, Connie Jensen as President and Joe Anglin as Leader can send it to the accountant, who will complete the financial report, get it audited and send it to Elections Alberta.

THE PARTY WILL BE SAVED. The membership can meet in the Fall and rebuild the party.

Paul, Connie and Joe know this. Please ask Connie and Joe to do it.


Post #23

Madeleine Oldershaw (Calgary, AB) wrote on August 3, 2009 at 9:35pm

Paul, point of clarification please. What document do you have a copy of that is dated June 12 2008?

What is the name of the document?


Post #24

Mary Martin wrote on August 3, 2009 at 10:56pm

Having been taken aback by Mr. Crowe’s response regarding a possible threatening telephone call last November to party president Ms. Jensen, I have stayed quiet until I could learn for myself the nature of his telephone call. Mr. Crowe, you said that you called Ms. Jensen to try to negotiate. I have spoken with Ms. Jensen. A five minute call at approximately 8:00 a.m. in which you read to her some wild, defamatory statements about Joe Anglin; in which you threatened to take these statements to the Calgary Herald for them to “research; ” in which you gave Ms. Jensen and Joe Anglin 24 hours to withdraw their legal action against Ms. Stratton and George Read in order to avoid your taking that information to the Herald; and finally, which you terminated by hanging up on Ms. Jensen. Please, Mr. Crowe. How is this “negotiation?”

Ms. Jensen, btw, immediately filed a report with the Calgary Police and later that day returned the call to you, acting on advice she received. I have heard that call. Her call to you lasted about 20 minutes, and was not terminated by her hanging up on you. However, it does corroborate the threats you made to her in the morning.

In your response regarding this issue, you stated something to the effect that you knew your attempts at “negotiation” would be used against you.
In the business, they probably have several terms for the kind of spin you are attempting here. “Passive aggressive” comes to mind.

The other thing that comes to mind is that if you are willing to play with the truth so blatantly concerning your telephone call, what other truths are you stretching?


Post #25

Garnett Swapp wrote on August 4, 2009 at 5:12am

I had a couple beers with one of Eriksons carpenters on saturday nite. He said the phone call came on Eriksons cell phone not on Colleen Jensens. He said Erikson wanted him to tastify in court but he said he didnt want to get mixed up in it. But he said one of the other carpenters said he was going to tastify. He said Jensen was staying with Erikson in Lethbridge when they was working there.