Another Compliance Complaint against the City of Mississauga

Scanned, Internet down load or retyped copy. If there are errors, please e-mail me with corrections:

Join the 2003 FOI Campaign

Opening comments: More at the end.

A Compliance Complaint against the City of Mississauga, yes another one!

Subsections;

THE MAIN POINTS IN THIS COMPLIANCE COMPLAINT

1.   "personal information" was inappropriately disclosure to those outside
        the FOI Co-ordinators office and to those who did not require it to do
        their jobs.

2. That the disclosure of my (and likely others), "personal information"
created a basis or prejudice against a FOI requester seeking City
services.

3. That the miss-use or abuse my "personal information" was to serve a
        political agenda and/or to aid the political interference that has limited
        the publics involvement in local government decision making. By way of
        City staff generally interfering with the intent or spirit of Ontario
        legislation and democratic processes.

4. That the inappropriately disclosed "personal information" was
improperly stored and no effort to ensure the confidentially of a FOI
requester "personal information" can be seen.

5. "personal information" was collected for an unlawful purpose by an
institution, the City of Mississauga.

EVENTS.

IN CLOSING. - "CONTENTIOUS ISSUES MANAGEMENT"

The Information and Privacy Commissioner/Ontario
ATTN: Compliance Complaint Intake.
80 Bloor Street W., Suite 1700
Toronto Ont. M5S 2V1

RE: Compliance Complaint.

Dear Sir: Nov. 3 , 2003

OPENING STATEMENT.

This a formal Compliance Complaint.
This is not a request for a reconsideration.
That for the purpose of this complaint, the office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner/Ontario (IPC) should treat the circumstances associated with these events as being fully under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (the Act), and Practices No. 16, part 2.5, as a FOI request was the direct source for these events. That given the degree and extent of the City of Mississauga's FOI Co-ordinators, Joan LeFeuvre, actions as well as, their obvious political implications, the IPC should in this Compliance complaint, hold the City of Mississauga and Joan LeFeuvre to the strictest procedural requirements (such as in Practices No. 16), the intent and spirit of the Act as it is in the public interest to do so. And in the name of Democracy, that so many Canadians died for.

The main source of this Compliance complaint is the wording found IPC Orders M-947 & MO-1519 and how the City used them. That as the IPC is responsible for their wording, there is a great onus and burden on the IPC to ensure its Orders are carried out appropriately to avoid harm to individuals, groups and the community in general. The City of Mississauga's FOI Co-ordinators, Joan LeFeuvre, used the wording in IPC Order MO-1519 and quoted it out of its proper context and far exceed what an Order from
the IPC could authorize. I can see no evidence of an effort by Joan LeFeuvre to contact the City legal staff and/or the IPC to see if her interpretation was correct or that her actions would be appropriate or even
legal under the Act. An important point due to the extreme nature of her interpretation of the IPC's Order. Given the fact that, a person with her long years of experience (as she has informed me of an number of times), would have known the IPC has no legal/legislative authority to order what she did and that an unbiased person would have questioned the meaning of the Order and sought a legal second opinion before under taking the course of action she did, as it fundamentally opposed to the Act's protection of privacy, I would say there is clear evidence of a political agenda being carried out. A letter to her asking for her for clarification and to explain her actions, went unanswered. Not surprising. Her actions should be viewed as an attack on the integrity, intent and the spirit of the Act.
Her actions also set a dangerous precedent regarding the use of "personal information" by an institution, that must be full investigated.

For the record I consider the IPC Orders that deny me and others access to City records regarding the Cawthra Bush as slander, that serves a political agenda and is only possible as the grass roots groups, the Friends of the Cawthra Bush & Greater Mississauga Area (FCB) and the Cawthra Ratepayers' and Residents' Association (CRRA) and myself are too poor to buy justice in the courts. There is precious little in the way of fact or truth in the claims made about me by City of Mississauga staff or in the IPC Orders.

- 1 - - 2 -

I am not a person who can afford a secretary to proof read/retype this. Lawyers to review this and/or other professional services in the drafting of this Compliance complaint. Spelling, proper wording and grammar errors in this letter are to be expected and I should be contacted about them rather then interpreting them in such a fashion as to dismiss some or all of this Compliance complaint. Wording - the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act is enacted legislation, a Statute or the law but
it is not criminal law. I may say that a certain act was unlawful, for simplicity and mean it in the fore-mentioned context, that Act was a breach. When I express myself so, it is based on the facts as I know them and not a legal ruling. That as a person without money for a contest of lawyers, I speak from the position of common sense and know that even if the IPC or courts would not support my observations, as in the past it would be due to lack of money on my part, not the facts! In a Democracy, a citizen has not only a right but a duty to speak out regarding the harm done by government and I fully invoke all rights & privileges there in. Especially as it was presented during an election. The need to express the reasons for this Compliance complaint in my own words is necessary to ensure it is done, for the good of community and to explore all possible aspects of events, to ensure the IPC will have the maximum opportune to remedy the situation.

THE MAIN POINTS IN THIS COMPLIANCE COMPLAINT;

1.     "personal information" was inappropriately disclosure to those outside
        the FOI Co-ordinators office and to those who did not require it to do
        their jobs.

2.     That the disclosure of my (and likely others), "personal information"
        created a basis or prejudice against a FOI requester seeking City
        services.

3.     That the miss-use or abuse my "personal information" was to serve a
        political agenda and/or to aid the political interference that has limited
        the publics involvement in local government decision making. By way of
        City staff generally interfering with the intent or spirit of Ontario
        legislation and democratic processes.

4.     That the inappropriately disclosed "personal information" was
        improperly stored and no effort to ensure the confidentially of a FOI
        requester "personal information" can be seen.

5. "personal information" was collected for an unlawful purpose by an
institution, the City of Mississauga.

AND THAT

A process similar to "contentious issues management" is operating in
Mississauga. Detailed in, IN CLOSING.

- 3 -

1.     "personal information" was inappropriately disclosure to those
               outside the FOI Co-ordinators office and to those who did not
               require it to do their jobs.

Sec. 2(1) of the Act.

"personal information" means recorded information about an identifiable individual, including,

(e) the personal opinions or views of the individual except if they relate to another individual,

(h) the individual's name if it appears with other personal information relating to the individual or where the disclosure of the name would reveal other personal information about the individual;

The "personal information" in question is noted on the Memorandums and E-mails sent out by Joan LeFeuvre, my name and that I was the person that certain IPC Orders were against. As I am well known to City staff they would know who I am and I can easily be identified and tracked down with only my name. Example, my name and address can be found in the City records as addressing Council regarding the Cawthra Bush, letters to Council and on candidate records, that are stored in the Office of the City Clerk and posted on the Internet. There have been numerous newspaper articles about the Cawthra Bush and my running for the Mayor's seat, including my picture. The City does a clipping service to circulate the daily news, throughout City hall. Also, sections (c), (e) and (h) have relevance due to the fact my name was noted as the person two IPC Orders were against and that in those Orders are numerous statements about me of a negative nature and what the IPC calls are quotes from me that could be taken as to my opinions
or views. I would say these quotes are too far out of context to be taken seriously but those who read them would not know this. IPC investigation I94-045M was conducted as Joan LeFeuvre had sent staff letters
with my name and address on them. Further more, politicians and staff have contact databases, such as in the Planning Dept., as a person to contact about a rezoning, in which my address and name would be listed. There are many other ways City staff could track a person down using the resources at City hall.

I am also concerned that others who have made FOI requests on behalf of the FCB & CRRA may also have their "personal information" communicated to other City staff as mine has.

Sec. 32 of the Act.

An institution shall not disclose personal information in its custody or under its control except,

(a) in accordance with Part I;

(d) if the disclosure is made to an officer or employee of the institution who needs the record in the performance of his or her duties and if the disclosure is necessary and proper in the discharge of the institution's functions;

- 4 -

(e) for the purpose of complying with an Act of the Legislature or an Act of Parliament, an agreement or arrangement under such an Act or a treaty;

The IPC has not the legal power to direct a city to order its staff to deny services that are outside of the Act, so (a) does not apply. That also covers (c) and (e) as "personal information" collected from FOI requests, was used to blacklist person regarding non-FOI matters.

As the IPC has made its position clear in Practices No. 16 (see below) and in this quote "There is no reason to identify an individual requesting general records to employees outside the Coordinator's Office." Also, by way of statements by Commissioner Ann Cavoukian - 2000 Annual Report - "A basic premise underlying the operation of all freedom of information schemes is that the identity of a requester should only be disclosed within an institution on a "need to know" basis.", Sec. (d) does not apply either as
in Joan LeFeuvre own words "Memorandum dated March 4, 2002, from Joan LeFeuvre to staff of all City departments with copies sent to the Senior Management team and members of Council." She effectively broadcasted my "personal information", City wide and as the IPC can not be used to impose a ban on non-FOI requests/services, City staff outside the FOI office would not need to know about the IPC Orders or who they were against to do their jobs or be a operationally necessary. Blacklisting is by its nature more a political action and I have been a political rival of the Mayor.

The matter of Joan LeFeuvre being a repeat offender when it comes to disclosing my "personal information", is an important point. Compliance investigations - I94-045M the improper disclosure of FOI records to City staff and I95-091M the improper disclosing FOI records to the Mayor are both directed to Joan LeFeuvre, as she was the person who did the disclosing.

From Practices No. 16 - Maintaining the Confidentiality of Requesters and Privacy Complainants.

2. Access Request Stage - 2.5

"Under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act and the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (the Acts), the disclosure of another individual's personal information to employees within an institution is permitted only in limited circumstances. Outside of these circumstances, the disclosure of the identity of a requester or privacy complainant is improper.

In this issue of IPC Practices, the Information and Privacy Commissioner (IPC) considers the limited occasions when the identity of requesters and complainants may be disclosed within an institution.

It has come to the IPC's attention that institutions sometimes unnecessarily and inappropriately reveal the identity of requesters to employees who do not need this information to process access requests for general records. The IPC has conducted a number of privacy investigations in which it found that disclosing a requester's identity to an employee of an institution was a breach of one of the Acts.

- 5 -

Anyone, including employees of an institution, is entitled to exercise his or her right to access information under the Acts or make a privacy complaint, without being unnecessarily identified and without fear of negative repercussions.

It is extremely important that employees who process requests and privacy complaints are aware that casual conversations with co-workers about a requester or privacy complainant could be an invasion of an individual's privacy.

Sections 42(d) of the provincial Act and 32(d) of the municipal Act permit disclosure of personal information
to officers or employees of an institution if

    *   they need the information to perform their job duties; and
    *   the disclosure is necessary and proper to carry out the institution's
       functions.

Disclosure of personal information to employees, where both of the above conditions have not been met, would constitute a breach of the Acts.

Basic Principles - Access requests for general records

* Employees of an institution responsible for responding to requests generally the Freedom of Information and Privacy Coordinator and assisting staff should not identify any requester when processing requests for
general records. There is no reason to identify an individual requesting general records to employees outside the Coordinator's Office.

Access requests for personal information

* When an individual requests access to his or her own personal information, the Coordinator may need to identify the requester to other employees in order to locate the records or make decisions on access. The
name of the requester should be provided only to those who need it in order to process the request."

Quotes and comments from Orders PO-1826, PO-1997 & PO-1998 in the last section of this Compliance complaint, IN CLOSING, provide more supporting documentation for the argument being made in this portion of this Compliance complaint.

- 6 -

2.    That the disclosure of my (and likely others), "personal information"
             created a basis or prejudice against a FOI requester seeking City
             services.

If a person was to undertake creating a basis or prejudice against a FOI requester(s) seeking City services, they would have done as Joan LeFeuvre did. In Joan LeFeuvre own words "Memorandum dated March 4, 2002, from Joan LeFeuvre to staff of all City departments with copies sent to the Senior
Management team and members of Council." Joan LeFeuvre's broadcast my "personal information", and made reference to the IPC's Order with its highly negative statements about me. That this would likely spread beyond the walls of City hall into the surrounding communities by way of the City employees.

That Joan LeFeuvre's statements in her memorandums and E-mails and the IPC Orders she quoted & otherwise directed City staff towards, labelled me as a person that extreme action had to be taken by the IPC. (Again, I was framed by the City and the IPC, that only due to lack of money were they able to get away with what they have done.) That Joan LeFeuvre's added fuel to this fire of basis or prejudice, if not hate towards me and those who supported the same cause, with her false claim that my actions were such
that a City wide a ban of City services/communications was ordered by the IPC. By suggesting such a thing she blew this issue out of proportion. She changed the way staff treated me. Not only can it be seen in her E-mail dated Feb. 17/03, that resulted in a denial of Planning staff service, when I visited the Planning counter, Aug. 30/03, and spoke to James N. Riddell, Manager, Development Team South - Design Division, he informed me that he would not speak me to me as Joan LeFeuvre had instructed that all my
questions must be submitted as FOI requests to the City. The Councillor, Carmen Corbasson, for my Ward, Ward 1 would not respond to a similar letter as went to the Planning Dept., asking for help. A political basis had been created.

Clearly the basis or prejudice created by Joan LeFeuvre had resulted in not only a denial of service but she was telling City staff to require I make more FOI request and for things that the FOI process was not intended for. FOI requests are not for questioning staff. Further more, as the City has claimed I made too many FOI requests (the result of City actions, stone walling, deem refusals and false claims) and the IPC (wrongly), supported this claim, to follow Joan LeFeuvre directions would result in the same conduct that is noted in M-947 as being frivolous & vexatious. The IPC should that careful note of that.

The harm done to the FCB and CRRA was to deny us a voice in the community by denying us access to City staff, their services and accurate information to participate in local government decision making. Remember the IPC Orders were denying all access to City records, even the Green Party was shut out, as were other members of the community.

- 7 -

Further harm was done these City staff actions, that physically endanger the lives of FCB and CRRA supporters. By informing all City staff that I was a trouble maker and other FCB and CRRA supporters were also declared the same by the IPC, worthy of denial of service, Joan LeFeuvre has put into City staff's mind the idea to look out for us/me, to expect trouble, to expect confrontation even in cases with staff I am meeting for the first time and had not even said a word. That speaking to us/me will mean trouble for staff
from their supervisors and political masters. By informing them there is a history (created by false City statements), they would feel more confident in using excess physical force and getting away with it. That being confrontational, starting fights, calling the police (which has happened) and making further claims against me will be to their advantage at City hall as it would serve its politicians political agenda. Effectively declared open season on us.

It is a commonly used political method throughout the ages to deal with an issue by eliminating those who champion it. To frustrate then, make them waste their time and resources on pointless enterprises (such Appeals to the IPC when it was clear the fix was in, in favor of the City of Mississauga),
instill a feeling of hopelessness or even fear and terror at the thought of dealing with City hall. That resistance is futile. And that can be easily seen in the details of how taxpayers have tried to work with City hall, City hall attacks the people and does not seriously deal with their legitimate concerns, as the use of created conflicts allows the City to them shut out, as seen in how the IPC Orders are used by the City.

Ways the IPC has identified that my "personal information" can be spread throughout and beyond an institution;

From Practices No. 16 - "casual conversations with co-workers about a requester or privacy complainant could be an invasion of an individual's privacy."

Creating basis, prejudice and conflict;

ORDER PO-1826 October 26, 2000 Ministry of the Environment

...

"Findings and Conclusions

In my view, the Ministry has not conducted itself appropriately in this matter. It is apparent that the appellant, by accepting the word of Ministry staff that information would be available by certain dates, suffered prejudice by agreeing not to hold the Ministry to the strict procedural requirements of the Act. Time and again, dates for disclosure agreed upon by the Ministry were not met, with insufficient or no explanation. As a result, in hindsight, the appellant would have been in a much better position had she insisted on full compliance with the statute. This type of conduct is contrary to the public interest, since it essentially forces requesters such as the appellant to rely on the strict provisions of the Act, which results in a more confrontational interaction and ends up using more resources both of the requester and of the Ministry. In my view, it is appropriate for requests of this nature to be handled informally, just as both parties intended; unfortunately, the Ministry's conduct seriously undermined this process."

- 8 -

The IPC has in this case noted what I have for years, that the City of Mississauga was using "the strict procedural requirements of the Act", to deny us/me access to City records and sometimes using it just as the cover story, to keep the Mayor's promise that I would not get City records. She can be heard saying so on my web-site. It is time for the IPC to hold the City to "the strict procedural requirements of the Act", to end this injustice as this "conduct is contrary to the public interest". Before it spreads to other
cities, destroys more groups and the lives of its members. The IPC is on the record as recognizing that those in Ontario government do engage in activities that "results in a more confrontational interaction and ends up using more resources both of the requester and of the Ministry.", what I have noted about the City of Mississauga and its FOI Co-ordinator for years. It is time for the IPC stop giving the City of Mississauga special treatment at the expense of the community, the environment and our Democracy.

- 9 -

3.    That the miss-use or abuse my "personal information" was to serve a
        political agenda and/or to aid the political interference that has limited
        the publics involvement in local government decision making. By way of
        City staff generally interfering with the intent or spirit of Ontario
        legislation and democratic processes.

The evidence to support this is found in what Joan LeFeuvre did and did not do. To judge her you must set before you the high standards that the IPC has made public by way of its publications. That clearly noted that protection of a persons privacy/personal information is one of the highest priorities. That a professional and competent FOI Co-ordinator who is uninfluenced by political agendas would be fully current and aware of what the IPC expects and if in doubt would ask for a second legal opinion.

What she did;

In Joan LeFeuvre own words "Memorandum dated March 4, 2002, from Joan LeFeuvre to staff of all City departments with copies sent to the Senior Management team and members of Council." That in all likelihood, Joan LeFeuvre's broadcast of my "personal information", would spread beyond the walls of City hall into the surrounding communities by way of the City employees. Beyond also meaning to the media. In the case of the media, it would again create a basis and not treat me or the FCB & CRRA's concerns fairly, most likely resulting in not reporting our issues fairly or generally slanting reporting in favor of the City, if at all. This would serve the Mayor's and other politicians at City halls as it would discredit me (with falsehoods). It would discredit the FCB and the CRRA which I lead and with less support from the community there would be less opposition to City plans to destroy the Cawthra Bush. It would also help City politicians political careers, by way of their popularity as there would be one less person to stand up to them and inform the public of what the media is not reporting about them. This method has been used by politicians throughout the ages so there is nothing new or unreasonable in what I am saying.

The Ward 1 Councillor, Carmen Corbasson, for my Ward, would not respond to a similar letter as went to the Planning Dept., asking for help after being sent Joan LeFeuvre's Memorandums and E-mails. This is using IPC Orders to interfere/block communications with an elected official.

When she effectively broadcasted my "personal information", City wide and as the IPC can not be used to impose a ban on non-FOI requests/services, she was blacklisting a person(s) using the Act.
Blacklisting is often a political act and I have been a political rival of the Mayor. The Act and IPC Orders can not be used to cancel out rights or the intent or the spirit of other Ontario legislation such as the Planning Act. Further more, it is not in the public's or the environments interest to do so. To do so is the clearest evidence of wrong doing as City staff outside the FOI office would not need to know about the IPC Orders or who they were against to do their jobs or be a operationally necessary.

- 10 -

If there was a fight between City staff and myself that would greatly serve the City's political agenda as it would be used to defame me publicly. By informing all City staff that I was a trouble maker and other FCB and CRRA supporters were also declared the same by the IPC, worthy of denial of service, Joan LeFeuvre has put into City staff's mind the idea to expect trouble and that there is a history (created by false City statements) of confrontation. City staff would feel more confident in creating conflict, using excess physical force and getting away with it. That being confrontational, starting fights and making further claims against me will be to their advantage at City hall as it would serve its politicians political agenda.

Creating conflict and delaying access to City records is a political agenda as it dis-empowers taxpayers and limits their involvement in local government decision making. To serve that goal Joan LeFeuvre informed City staff that "the City is not required to respond to any communication from him unless it is in response to a properly filed access request". This creates conflict as efforts to try and explain to staff that Joan LeFeuvre can not direct them to do so, results in arguments. A person with Joan
LeFeuvre years of experience would know it is not appropriate to tell a member of the public to forward their questions to City staff by way of FOI requests. So to follow Joan LeFeuvre's directions would result in the same conduct that is noted in M-947 as being frivolous & vexatious. More conflict and delaying while doing pointless FOI requests and Appeals to the IPC, that the IPC will respond with more year long bans on FOI request. As frivolous & vexatious FOI request are contrary to the Act or the law, I would said
Joan LeFeuvre was trying to get me to commit an unlawful act. Playing right in the hands of amoral politicians and their staff.

In my letter dated May 21/01, found in IPC files, FOI Appeal.# 000018-2001 & Order MO-1519, a 29 page letter + enclosures, detailing how Joan LeFeuvre is under the direction or influence of the politicians such as the Mayor of Mississauga, Hazel McCallion.

What she did not do;

Carry out the following sections of the Act;

Sec. 32 of the Act - An institution shall not disclose personal information in its custody or under its
control except,

(a) in accordance with Part I;

- 11 -

(e) for the purpose of complying with an Act of the Legislature or an Act of Parliament, an agreement or arrangement under such an Act or a treaty;

Carry out Practices No. 16 - Maintaining the Confidentiality of Requesters and Privacy Complainants.

I can see no evidence of an effort by Joan LeFeuvre to contact the City legal staff and/or the IPC to see if her interpretation was correct or that her actions would be appropriate and/or legal under Act. An important point due to the extreme nature of her interpretation of the IPC's Orders. Given the fact that, a person with her long years of experience (as she has informed of a number of times), would have known the IPC has no right to order what she did and that an unbiased person would have questioned the meaning of Order MO-1519 and sought a legal second opinion before under taking the course of action she did, as it fundamentally opposed to the Act's protection of privacy. I would say again, there is clear evidence of a political agenda being carried out.

A letter to her asking for her for clarification and to explain her actions, went unanswered. She appears not to want, to hear any opinions that are counter to hers, see no desire to try and work with me to undo the damage she had done. Why is a good question.

She makes no mention that City staff are to keep my name confidential or that her Memorandums and E-mails regarding this matter are to be kept in a secure location. This would aid the spread of knowledge that I was the person refereed to in the IPC Orders.

Further evidence can be found in the rest of this letter to support this matter.

All the circumstances together show it was not just an error or she did not know better.

- 12 -

4.    That the inappropriately disclosed "personal information" was
        improperly stored and no effort to ensure the confidentially of a FOI
        requester "personal information" can be seen.

In Joan LeFeuvre own words "Memorandum dated March 4, 2002, from Joan LeFeuvre to staff of all City departments with copies sent to the Senior Management team and members of Council." I see nothing in the Memorandums and E-mails forwarded to me to suggest City staff who are being informed to blacklist me are to keep the matter confidential. I also see nothing to suggest that these same Memorandums and E-mails are to be kept in a secure location to ensure my and others who have supported
the FCB and CRRA "personal information", remains confidential. Joan LeFeuvre may try and say staff would be aware as a general rule about keeping City matters confidential but due to degree of her release
of "personal information" and the directions that accompanied it, special instructions would have been in order at the least.

From - Practices No. 16 - Employees' obligations

"Any employee who assists the Coordinator in responding to requests for personal information should be reminded that all information about the requester's identity and the request should remain confidential. This information can be disclosed to co-workers, managers, supervisors or officers of the institution only if they need it to perform their duties and carry out a function of the institution.

Similarly, any employee who assists the Coordinator in responding to a complaint should be reminded that the complainant's identity and all other personal information should remain confidential.

Recommended Procedures - Ensure employee awareness

Institutions should implement policies and procedures to ensure that all employees responding to access requests or privacy complaints are aware of their responsibility to protect the confidentiality of the individual. "Employees" may include the Coordinator, staff in the Coordinator's office or anyone else who assists in responding to a request or complaint (e.g., those who retrieve the records or make decisions about access).

Maintain access and complaint files

Institutions should maintain access and complaint files in the Coordinator's office. Where requests and complaints are responded to from decentralized or regional offices, files should be maintained in a manner that adequately limits access to those who need the information to perform their duties.

If an access request or privacy complaint is made by an employee, institutions should not file the request or complaint, or copies of the records, in the employee's personnel file. This ensures that other staff, such as managers, supervisors or human resources officers, do not inadvertently discover that an employee has made an access request or privacy complaint.

Ensure physical security

Access request and complaint files should be stored in a locked drawer or filing cabinet, or other manner which adequately limits access. Similarly,where these files are stored electronically, computer access to these files should be limited to those who need the information to perform their duties."

Quotes and comments from Orders PO-1826, PO-1997 & PO-1998 in the last section of this Compliance complaint, IN CLOSING, provide more supporting documentation for argument being made in this portion of this
Compliance complaint.

- 13 -

5. "personal information" was collected for an unlawful purpose by an
institution, the City of Mississauga.

The City clearly has a blacklist of persons who are to be denied service by City staff and I am on that list, supplied by Joan LeFeuvre using personal information collected from FOI request(s). Joan LeFeuvre states "Memorandum dated March 4, 2002, from Joan LeFeuvre to staff of all City departments with copies sent to the Senior Management team and members of Council." Then are other City Dept.s' like Planning and Building, Recreation and Parks and the Councillors keeping a personal information bank for denial of service, a blacklist, using personal info submitted by people during FOI requests. I know Joan LeFeuvre has specifically noted these City Departments, in the items sent to me and they knew to contact Joan LeFeuvre when a certain person contacted them.

The City has also denied FOI requests to FCB or CRRA supporters, such as the leader of the Green Party, so it is reasonable to suggest they to are on a blacklist. The FCB and CRRA has submitted almost 2,000 names & addresses on petitions or form letters to the City in an effort to save the Cawthra Bush. As the City is basing its claims of denying FOI requests on something, it would be logical that the list of persons who have supported our casue would be used to blacklist their FOI requests. Seeing how they treat me, other City services, especially if it could in some way involved the Cawthra Bush, the IPC should investigate if others are being treated the same way. Given the facts and how Joan LeFeuvre has been carrying out her duties as the City's FOI Co-ordinator, it is not unreasonable to suggest the this. Would it also be right to suggest that names on petitions should not be used to deny FOI requests?

Again, Joan LeFeuvre's interpretation of the IPC Orders were wrong as IPC Orders can not cover non-FOI matters and therefore the "personal information" given to staff would not be necessary for their jobs. The denial of general service from the City of Mississauga is also not appropriate and/or lawful for the same reasons.

The IPC needs to ask about the City of Mississauga's denial of service - blacklist and how it was created.

Sec. 28(1) of the Act.

"28.(1) In this section and in section 29, "personal information" includes information that is not recorded and that is otherwise defined as "personal information" under this Act.

Collection of personal information s. 28(2)

(2) No person shall collect personal information on behalf of an institution unless the collection is expressly authorized by statute, used for the purposes of law enforcement or necessary to the proper administration
of a lawfully authorized activity. "

- 14 -

EVENTS.

In July of this year, a FOI request resulted in the following records being released to me that detailed how the City of Mississauga FOI Co-ordinator, Joan LeFeuvre, had not only released my name to City staff & politicians as a FOI requester but also directly interfered with legitimate effort to communicate with City Planning staff, that resulted in a denial of serviced.

The list of items that Joan LeFeuvre released;

1). Memorandum dated March 4, 2002, from Joan LeFeuvre to Clerk's
Office Staff.

2).    Memorandum dated March 4, 2002, from Joan LeFeuvre to staff of all
         City departments with copies sent to the Senior Management team and
         members of Council.

3). E-mail dated February 14 and February 17, 2003 between Paulina
Mikicich of the Planning and Building Department and Joan LeFeuvre.

4). E-mail dated May 6, 2003 from Joan LeFeuvre to Councillor Corbasson,
her assistant and the Director of Recreation and Parks.

In Joan LeFeuvre own words she sent my "personal information" and identified me as a FOI requester "to staff of all City departments with copies sent to the Senior Management team and members of Council." This resulted in the creation of both a political and service basis, something the IPC has repeatedly stated it is totally against. Also, in Joan LeFeuvre own words she sent my "personal information" and that identified me to City staff as the FOI requester noted in M-947 & MO-1519 to "Paulina Mikicich of the Planning and Building Department", saying "the City is not required to respond to any communication from him unless it is in response to a properly filed access request" & "you not respond to his letter." The Planning process is one that is required to ask the public for comments and
input. The City's FOI Co-ordinator, Joan LeFeuvre, directly blocked my effort to ask City Planners for help in understanding the proposed Official Plan Amendment and Rezoning Application on Northmount Ave, so I could better inform the local community about this issue. The development on Northmount Ave., was for the approval of a large townhouse complex that required an Official Plan Amendment and there also was a Rezoning Application. This was setting a precedent for the area and setting the stage for over-development of the areas large lots. The IPC was used to keep the community out of the Planning process.

I lead, the Friends of the Cawthra Bush & Greater Mississauga Area (FCB) and The Cawthra Ratepayers' and Residents' Association (CRRA) and this is known to the City. When Joan LeFeuvre blocked a community representative, me, in my effort to do my duty and understand an issue facing the Cawthra community, to present the facts and alternatives to them, she blocked a significant part of the community that were counting on me inform them. The FCB and CRRA were formed to protect the Cawthra Bush, a Provincially Significant Wetlands Complex, an Old-growth urban forest which is also home to Jefferson Salamander, declared by the Canadian government to be a threatened species. If there
are more townhouse subdivisions approved on Northmount Ave., then the population will increase by many multiples of its current population. Even today, the City says the Cawthra Bush is over used by the surrounding community or "people are loving it to death". The City's is destroying the Cawthra Bush and the IPC is being used by the City of Mississauga to accomplish that task.

- 15 -

IN CLOSING.

What is happening in Mississauga start back in 1994, when the Mayor, Hazel McCallion, shut down our FOI requests, in an election year, to stop the flow of documents that showed City staff had miss-lead or presented falsehoods to the public when they tried to justify the logging & tree farming in the Cawthra Bush, that was to be applied to all other forested areas, parks etc., the City owned. The City's methods are very similar to the "contentious issue management" that the IPC has expressed so much concern over.

From the IPC's 2000 Annual Report;

"Commissioner Ann Cavoukian discussed the issue of the possible impact of the "contentious issues management" as follows;

We have begun to be concerned that there may be a systemic problem, unrelated to the requirements of the Act, that is contributing to the relatively low compliance rates within the provincial sector.

Although we have not been provided with details or copies of any policy documents, we have learned through our work in mediating and adjudicating provincial appeals that certain access requests that are
determined to be "contentious" are subject to different response and administrative procedures. This "contentious issues management" process is managed by Cabinet Office. Our understanding of the process is sketchy, and ministry Freedom of Information and Privacy Coordinators are extremely reluctant to provide us with details; however, as we understand it, the process generally operates as follows if an access request is made by certain individuals or groups (i.e., media, public interest groups, politicians), and/or the request concerns a topic that is high profile, politically sensitive or current, ministry Freedom of Information and Privacy Coordinators must follow the contentious issues procedures. Once designated into this category, the process requires the immediate notification of the Minister and Deputy Minister, along with the preparation of issue notes, briefing materials, etc. Cabinet Office is often involved in this process.

...

We recognize that the Ontario Cabinet Office's contentious issues management process was designed so as to not interfere with the administration of access requests within the time limits specified in the Act. It is intended to be a "heads up" process, not a "sign off" process. However, it does not always work that way. It is not acceptable for disclosure of records to be delayed past the statutory response date in order to
accommodate an issues management priority. Nor is it acceptable for any contentious issues management process to routinely identify the requester."

It is in the municipal sector this time and may have started here first. The IPC has been instrumental in empowering the City with the means to do what is very clearly, wrong doing by City staff. The details have been presented to the IPC over the years but other members of the community and myself who spoke up against this injustice, to the IPC were just Canadian peasants who could not afford lawyers or court cases, we were ignored.

- 16 -

As in "contentious issues management", "request concerns a topic that is high profile, politically sensitive or current", were treated in such a fashion as to defeat the requirements set out in the Act, to release records. Not even the Green Party has been allowed to make FOI requests about the Cawthra Bush. Now we see the City shutting out those who would fight local development to save a threatened species and a Provincially Significant Wetlands Complex which is an Old-growth urban forest. Affecting development is very political as it affects the money the City can gain by development and later by taxes from home-owners. Keeping taxes down has helped politicians in Mississauga get re-elected, over & over.

There is the matter of political revenge against me for speaking up and critiquing the City's actions & inactions, so often in Council. City politicians and staff did their best to shut us out of the process and from what I know of know of politics in the City of Mississauga, it is not unusually for those who disagreed to be punished.

"immediate notification" & a "management process to routinely identify the requester". In the City correspondence supplied it is clear City staff were informing the FOI Co-ordinator that a person identified as a past FOI requester was attempting to communicate with them and the same FOI Co-ordinator (not legal staff), was telling them not respond. This created denials and of course great delays as Joan LeFeuvre clearly stated "the City is not required to respond to any communications from the appellant (me), unless it is in response to a properly filed access request (in accordance with Order M-947)". Which I am limited to FOI requests 5 per-year and other people are not allowed at all. An Appeal to deal with the idea of submitting questions to staff in a Planning matter would take about a year, it would fail and be long after the development was approved that it could in any way be sorted out.

The "ministry Freedom of Information and Privacy Coordinators are extremely reluctant to provide us with details". I to tried to get the details of how City hall managed their filing system to speed up FOI requests and make them more cost effective but the IPC bend over backwards to ignore the facts and listen to City falsehoods. So much so, that the Canadian Environmental Law Association, stated in writing, regarding the City claims about its file management system "We submit that this claim, on the part of the City, lacks credibility."! In the File for Order M-716.

In "contentious issues management", there is a claim by government that it is just trying to make things run smoother, as the City has claimed many times in its efforts that resulted in two frivolous & vexatious rulings by the IPC that effectively imposes a life time ban on everyone else who tried to make a FOI request about the Cawthra Bush. Very effective at serving a political agenda and ending those pesky FOI requests, I would say.

The key part of "contentious issues management" is the "disclosed within an institution" of "personal information" beyond "a "need to know" basis". This is covered in the body of this complaint. The "heads up", element has happened in Mississauga too and noted in past IPC investigations but now Joan LeFeuvre has found a new way of doing it, informing the politicians who she taken direction from and now she claims the IPC made her do it!
There is one more point here. I regard Joan LeFeuvre City wide broadcast of the IPC Orders to be in the same vain as a victory announcement that the evil and acts of terror by those in City hall to defeat the taxpayers efforts, were finally successful. The Evil doers had won!

- 17 -

"However, it does not always work that way." In this case that would be the Freedom of Information Act, that is has become the political weapon of choice to end taxpayers involvement in their local government and it decision making.

To further address the issue of "contentious issues management" and its affects on FOI requests & FOI requesters, as it relates to this Compliance complaint;

ORDER PO-1826 October 26, 2000 Ministry of the Environment

...

"Findings and Conclusions

The IPC has in this case noted what I have for years, that the City of Mississauga was using "the strict procedural requirements of the Act", to keep the Mayor's promise that I would not get City records. She can be heard saying so on my web-site. It is time for the IPC to hold the City to "the strict procedural requirements of the Act", to end this injustice as this "conduct is contrary to the public interest", before it spreads to other cities, destroys more groups and the lives of its members. The IPC is on the record as recognizing that those in Ontario government do engage in activities that "results in a more confrontational interaction and ends up using more resources both of the requester and of the Ministry." What I have noted about the City of Mississauga and its FOI Co-ordinator for years. It is time for the IPC stop giving the City of Mississauga special treatment at the expense of the community, the environment and our Democracy.

Also, Joan LeFeuvre said "the City is not required to respond to any communication from him unless it is in response to a properly filed access request" & "you not respond to his letter." a clearer example of abusing FOI procedures and of political interference creating "prejudice" against a FOI requester, then noted above. More "confrontational interaction", is what occurred as a result of Joan LeFeuvre telling staff that questions to Planning have to be by way of FOI requests. As noted there was a disagreement in City hall with a Planning manager. Again this aids the City's political agenda as it can be used to defame me and further ban me from services, as the IPC believes the City's negative claims about me, virtually without question. More "confrontational interaction", includes this Compliance complaint.

- 18 -

"The appellant has suggested that some or all of the Ministry's delays in this case were due to what she terms "political interference" by the minister's office. I am not in a position to make a finding on this point, and specifically decline to do so. The Act designates the minister as the "head" of the institution for the purposes of both accountability and decision making. Consequently, there is nothing inherently inappropriate about a minister being involved in the administration of the freedom of information programs
within a ministry. However, in most cases, including the Ministry of the Environment, decision making has been delegated by the minister to appropriate officials within the institution, who have expertise in the operation of both the Act and various ministry programs. In my view, delegations of this nature significantly reduce the legitimate role played by the minister and his/her staff. While I acknowledge that the minister's office may have a legitimate interest in being made aware of decisions taken by delegated decision-makers under the Act a "heads up" function if you will it is not acceptable for any such process to interfere with the timing or other requirements of the Act. In this appeal, the only action required by the
Ministry was to disclose records in accordance with commitments made in the context of an agreement with the appellant. I can accept that the minister's office may want to know when records are being disclosed in accordance with this agreement, but any delays which may have been associated with actions taken by the minister's office would, by definition, be inappropriate."

The City has a By-law that delegates the power of the "head" to the FOI Co-ordinator but from what I see it is more in name then deed. Many of the same methods are used to keep the politicians informed about FOI requests and FOI requesters to the same effect of denial and delay. In the City's case they have taken it a step further to denial of non-FOI or Act services. This is what happens when a government body becomes unaccountable and the laws hold them accountable are beyond the financial reach of most
Ontarians.

"Based on the material before me, I am not in a position to clearly identify any records which are responsive to the request, but which have not been disclosed. Part of the difficulty stems from differences of opinion between the parties over the scope of the request and the interpretation of the informal agreement. It is not possible to make a definitive finding in this respect, given the circumstances, especially because this determination turns largely on issues of credibility."

The Canadian Environmental Law Association, stated in writing, regarding the City claims about its file management system "We submit that this claim, on the part of the City, lacks credibility."! In the File for Order M-716. This is a case where the IPC could do an investigation regarding "political interference". In the past Inquires/Orders that have limited access to City records, as some kind of "political interference" played a role in their outcome. In the above quote it notes the IPC Adjudicator is not in a position to make a decision about records. I would say the facts in my Orders should be all revisited as examples of "political interference" and given what City staff are now doing to deny access to City services, is such to cast serious doubt on past City statements and the City's credibility in general. But is the IPC morally responsible enough to do so?

- 19 -

ORDER PO-1997 March 12, 2002 Ministry of Northern Development & Mines

"It would appear to me that the Ministry has taken an overly restrictive interpretation of the scope of the appellant's request. He was clearly interested in obtaining details regarding the funding of the golf tournament in question, and made efforts to work with the Ministry to define his request as specifically as possible in order to reduce time and costs. Not knowing the specific content of the records, the appellant understandably was handicapped in his ability to identify the requested information precisely and, in my view, it appears that the Ministry may have taken advantage of this situation in defining the scope of the request narrowly. Had there been any doubt as to whether the "non-responsive" information was of interest
to the appellant, a simple phone call to him would have provided the necessary clarity. The Ministry chose not to do so. Although the Ministry has now agreed to treat these "non-responsive" portions as falling within the scope of the appellant's request, I find that they were reasonably responsive all along, and that the Ministry's narrow interpretation of responsiveness contributed to the delays associated with resolving
the issues associated with the appellant's request and appeals."

The City has an "overly restrictive interpretation of the scope of the appellant's request", as a way to deny City records and this is made clear in Inquires/Orders like M-716, M-870, M-947 and MO-1519, which the IPC should revisit. "the appellant understandably was handicapped in his ability to identify the requested information precisely and, in my view, it appears that the Ministry may have taken advantage of this situation in defining the scope of the request narrowly", these are the words I expected the IPC to
say when I Appealed the City denying access to it ARIS of computer file management system (M-716, etc.), that the Canadian Environmental Law Association, backed me up on. However, the IPC was so blind to the City's actions, "political interference" and the IPC Orders so outrageous in light of the facts that I can't help but wonder if the IPC is suffering from some "political interference" and/or agenda. The IPC says "a simple phone call to him would have provided the necessary clarity", the IPC should have said the same thing about the City of Mississauga in the past. The IPC has gone on the record in Orders MO-1519 saying restrictions are placed on communications with FOI staff, in fact this is creating the kind of situation
as noted in Order PO-1997 handicapping a person identified as a FOI requester and wrongly using the Act to do so. The City went to great lengths to make sure I would not be allowed the means to get cost effect
access to records for the benefit of the community. It was not my choice things turned out the way they did.

"CONTENTIOUS ISSUES MANAGEMENT"

"The Ministry's representations confirm that the appellant's request was identified as "contentious" and that it was processed as part of the "heads up contentious issues management process". The Ministry points out that this process is designed to not interfere with the processing of access requests under the Act, and that the effective and prompt implementation of the contentious issues request process is essential to the timely processing of this type of access request."

- 20 -

The IPC empowered the City to do the same to me and my FOI requests in its Orders M-947 & MO-1519, then the City extended it to cover other City services. Maybe the IPC is the source of "contentious issues management" in some ways, with its creation and use of denying access by way of using
frivolous & vexatious rulings.

"While Ministers and Cabinet Office officials may, on occasion, have a legitimate interest in being made aware of decisions taken by delegated decision makers under the Acts, it is not acceptable for the contentious issues management process to routinely identify the requester, delay access, or in any other way interfere with the timing or other requirements of the Act. Truly effective freedom of information laws cannot tolerate political interference in either the decision-making or administrative processes for responding to access requests."

Double speak leaving the door open to abuse. First the IPC says politicians could have legitimate reasons for getting tipped off about FOI request then says "cannot tolerate political interference". No suggestion as to what those legitimate reasons could be. What has happened is my FOI requests and dealing with the City, show what open ended statements can mean and the IPC should forget about FOI Co-ordinators tell politicians about FOI requests or the outcomes of Orders!

"In the circumstances of this appeal, the Ministry acknowledges that the appellant's request was processed through a separate processing stream used for "contentious issue requests". It is not clear whether this is
a Ministry specific stream, or one that is administered by Cabinet Office. In any event, the Ministry acknowledges that the procedures for dealing with "contentious issues requests" must not compromise processing standards for access requests under the Act. This is encouraging. However, it
would appear from the circumstances of this appeal that these contentious issues management procedures may not have been followed. The appellant's original request was submitted to the Ministry on January 24,
2001, and it was only after filing a fee appeal and a subsequent deemed refusal appeal that the appellant was finally provided with a substantive decision under the Act on June 11, 2001, almost 5 months later. This
is clearly not acceptable."

My FOI requests and general request for service are being "processed through a separate processing stream", due to "political interference" at the City. The same negative results are clearly presented in this Compliance complaint. The City has been able to stone wall the community for years, thanks to the IPC! And the ban is effectively forever, on everyone the City cares it to be.

- 21 -

ORDER PO-1998 March 12, 2002 Ministry of the Environment

"CONTENTIOUS ISSUES MANAGEMENT - Identity of the requester"

"The appellant expresses concern that its identity as a requester has been inappropriately disclosed to other individuals within the Ministry (outside of the Freedom of Information Co-ordintor's office)."

"...[the Ministry] has a record of extreme delays in processing requests made by [the appellant]. Discriminatory treatment of [the appellant's] request could be minimized if the appropriate standard of confidentiality were respected."

"The appellant asks me include an order provision requiring the Ministry to refrain from disclosing the appellant's identity when processing information requests, except if absolutely necessary."

Very much as my case is and shows human nature at work. When a person is centred out, by name for special, bad and "Discriminatory treatment", they are denied what they should be entitled to.

"Although the Ministry explains why it is necessary, in exceptional circumstances, to disclose the identity of an individual requester, it does not appear to give sufficient attention to circumstances where a requester,
like the appellant in this case, represents an organization. While the Ministry is correct that the identity of requesters in these circumstances is not personal information, it does not appear to take into account the
fact that IPC Practice 16 also deals with situations where personal information is not at issue. Access to information laws presuppose that the identity of requesters, other than individuals seeking access to their own personal information, is not relevant to a decision concerning access to responsive records. As has been stated in a number of previous orders, access to general records under the Act is tantamount to access to the public generally, irrespective of the identity of a requester or the use to which the records may be put. While I am prepared to accept that stitutions may want to categorize requesters broadly "member of the media", "public interest group", "Member of Provincial Parliament" in order to ensure that Ministers have a "heads up" regarding the disclosure of records that could generate public discussion, this does not extend to the identity of a specific requester. As IPC Practice 16 states, Ministry employees responsible for receiving access requests under the Act must ensure that the identity of a requester is disclosed to others only on a "need to know" basis during the processing of the request. Except in unusual circumstances, there is no need for requesters to be identified because their identity is irrelevant."

The bottom line "there is no need for requesters to be identified because their identity is irrelevant.", is key. In my case I do represent community groups but the City and the IPC refused to recognize them as that would place a far greater onus on the City and the IPC to provide access to City records & services. The IPC and the City can not have it both ways. Another issue that the IPC has not likely looked at is the case where personal information or records are being created about a person interacting with an institution as they do work for a community group. Are those personal records or general records and how should they be treated when requested. In both cases, when dealing with a hostile institution, such as the City of Mississauga, releasing the name of the FOI requester will mean "Discriminatory treatment".

- 22 -

"irrespective of the identity of a requester or the use to which the records may be put", the City has complained about how I used records gained from the City "to employ the F.O.I. process as a means to facilitate libellous and irresponsible allegations regarding the City, its elected officials and staff" (M-947), as I would reveal the truth to the public about what was really going on. In my case, the IPC supports (wrongly) the City false statements about my "attitude". The best example of totally outrageous the IPC is for being the political tool of the City is found in Order M-947. "The City has provided me (IPC), with a copy of a report from one of its staff members", I was never presented a copy of this report, which meant I could not respond to it. There are an number of examples of the City claiming there was inappropriate behaviour, such as at the beginning of this paragraph, general statements and I was not presented with specifics, which again meant I could not meaningfully respond to them. This is very much trial in secret by the IPC as I am denied the evidence against me and the chance to properly respond to it. More like a witch trial by hearsay. Further more, the Act & the IPC was not created to be a forum for government institutions to make complaints against members of the public in order to deny them service, by way of secret trials. The IPC, whether intentionally or by negligence, was telling the City through how it conducted its Inquiries, how it gave preferential treatment to City claims and the wording of its Orders,
that I was being centred out for special abuse, to be denied fairness and justice. The City responded by treating me in the fashion as noted else where in this complaint.

Lastly, I would like to quote from the recent Opinion piece ran in many newspapers written by Ann Cavoukian and Tom Mitchinson.

"Citizens now demand that public business be conducted in a transparent manner and not behind closed doors", this what I have always be asking for, the community has supported my efforts and the IPC and the City ganged up to crucified me!

"The public's demand for greater accountability is getting stronger and "trust me" is just not good enough;", as a person who was doing that very thing I would wonder if this is not some kind of entrapment by the government. To encourage community do-gooders to make FOI requests, then they get treated like me, royally burned for trying to help the community. The IPC calls for "public scrutiny", but would deny a political party's efforts at making a FOI request for the good of the community.

"ensure that citizens understand how decisions are made and have an opportunity to participate in the decision-making process.", I have present this to the IPC and the City as my goal so often that I feel like I am being plagiarized.

This Compliance complaint gives the IPC, the chance to practice
what it preaches.

- 23 -

I am willing to discuss my letter with you, in case the wording seems a little
ambiguous or you want a request explained. My phone number is (***) ***-**** & e-mail donbar@arvotek.net. Web-site - home.eol.ca/~donbar There is an answering machine you can leave private messages on. As long
as you are talking the machine will record. If someone answers the phone before the machine can come on, please ask them to hang up and let the next call ring through. I would appreciate your co-operation in using the answering machine, rather than leaving messages with anyone else answering the telephone.

Please find enclosed:

1). A copy of Joan LeFeuvre's July 9, 2003, FOI decision letter.

2). Memorandum dated March 4, 2002, from Joan LeFeuvre to Clerk's
Office Staff. #1

3).     Memorandum dated March 4, 2002, from Joan LeFeuvre to staff of all
          City departments with copies sent to the Senior Management team
          and members of Council. #2

4).     E-mail dated February 14 and February 17, 2003 between Paulina
          Mikicich of the Planning and Building Department and Joan LeFeuvre.
          #3

5). E-mail dated May 6, 2003 from Joan LeFeuvre to Councillor
Corbasson, her assistant and the Director of Recreation and Parks. #4

6).     A copy of my letter, dated July 18/03, to Joan LeFeuvre asking her to
          explain actions regarding the e-mails and memorandums she has sent
          out.

7).     A copy of my letter, dated Feb. 14/03, asking City Planning Dept., for
          help in understanding the proposed Official Plan Amendment and
         Rezoning Application on Northmount Ave.

8).     A copy of my letter, dated Feb. 14/03, asking the Councillor for Ward 1,
          Carmen Corbasson for help in understanding the proposed Official
          Plan Amendment and Rezoning Application on Northmount Ave.

9).     Two copies from the 2000 election, my Nomination Paper and a
           printout from the internet posting of me as a candidate for the office
           of Mayor of Mississauga.

10). A copy from the Extracts from the minutes of the City of
Mississauga Council meeting held Feb. 23, 1994.

11). A copy of a news article dated Oct. 15, 1997.

Sincerely, Mr. Donald Barber.

PLEEASSE SIGN OUR PETITION
It will make a difference!
Home Page - Main Table of Contents - Back up a page - Back to Top

[ COMMENTS BY DON B. -

]