G-2512-04: Affidavit of Tom Jackson

GOVERNANCE AND MANAGEMENT RESOURCES COMMITTEE ALONE

BETWEEN:

TOM JACKSON; (PLAINTIFF)

- and -

CHAIRMAN RITTER and PRESIDENT CEO MEASNER;

And MEYERS NORRIS PENNEY

DEFENDANTS

AFFIDAVIT OF TOM JACKSON

I TOM JACKSON, of Flagstaff County, in the Province of Alberta, MAKE OATH
AND SAY THAT:
  1. I am a farmer and candidate for the 2004 position of director of The Canadian Wheat Board Election in district 4.
     
  2. I am Tom Jackson the intervener in Federal Court T-2191-04 injunction hearing and was part of the December 20th 2004 Court Hearing into T-2191-04, heard by Madame Justice MacTavish in Ottawa Canada.
     
  3. I, Tom Jackson, did the following investigation into certain actions committed under the Authority of: Chairman Ritter, President/CEO Measner; and employee's responsible to these two CWB Directors, included is the Election Coordinator Meyers Norris Penny ("MNP").
     
  4. I phoned from my farm, the CWB Country Services Department ("CSD") 1-800-ASK4CWB toll free number at 3:26th December 21st 2004, for advice on how to receive "consent" to deliver grain, to an elevator point other than the one named in my valid permit book, pursuant to Paragraph 2 of the Supplementary Affidavit of Deborah Harri, marked as Exhibit "A" to this my Affidavit; following is the CWB Act:
Quote:
"Conditions for delivery of grain to elevator

24. (1) Notwithstanding anything in the Canada Grain Act, except with the permission of the Corporation, no person shall deliver grain to an elevator, and no manager or operator thereof shall receive delivery of grain unless

(d) the grain is delivered at the delivery point named in the permit book; and..."
  1. The "CSD" did not know how to help me receive this "consent"(or permission), and put me on hold until about 3:41pm, when CWB General Legal Council Jim McLandress was put on the call to give me advice. When I asked him how to receive the "consent" as required by Paragraph 2 of Exhibit "A" to this Affidavit, Jim laughed and said "Tom, you know better than this".
     
  2. Then at 3:44 PM Dec. 21st 2004 CWB Legal Council Jim McLandress stated that "Tom you know the Act does not require our consent".
     
  3. Then around 10 AM December 22, 2004, I called CWB Legal Council Jim McLandress on his 204-984-2413 line, because of his number of requests that I return his calls from the late afternoon of December 21st 2004. "CWB" Legal Council Jim McLandress told me he would be getting the information on how farmers were exempted from "CWB" Act 24(1)(d) back to me through the "CWB" "CSD".
     
  4. On December 22, 2004 midmorning call I then asked CWB Legal Council Jim McLandress if he had been the Notary on the Supplementary Affidavit of Deborah Harri... he said that he did not have it right in front of him... but that he thought he was.
     
  5. Then on this morning of December 22, 2004 at 10:49 I again called the 1-800ASK4CWB farmer help information line asking for the further information CWB Legal Council Jim McLandress had promised regarding CWB "permission" to deliver grain. I was served by "Janet" and she told me when asked about the "consent" required from the "CWB" to deliver grain to an elevator point other than the one listed in my permit book; "Janet" (of the CWB Help Centre) said that all farmers are free to deliver where ever they wanted without the CWB's consent.
     
  6. I, Tom Jackson have not ever been required to have the consent or the permission of the CWB; to deliver to an elevator point, which was different than the one designated in my permit book.
     
  7. I, Tom Jackson make this Affidavit in support and belief of the submission that the Defendants, Chairman Ritter and Director President/CEO Measner, had authority over, and responsibility for; the actions of Deborah Harri and CWB Legal Council Jim McLandress and their representations to The Federal Court of Canada Trial Division.
     
  8. I, Tom Jackson believe the Affidavits and Submissions which were entered into the official T-2191-04 record by the Defendants, substantially and negatively affected my ability to submit all of the important 2004 election irregularities into T-2191 injunction hearing on December 20th 2004, including forcing this hearing to proceed without enough time.
     
  9. I, Tom Jackson believe that, further, issues were entered in the official T-2191-04 record by the Defendants that negatively affected my ability to submit all of the important election irregularities into T-2191 injunction hearing on December 20th 2004; that any subsequent hearings into these matters that may have occured, are now more unlikely because the Defendants represented the Combine to Customer Alumni ("CCA") meeting January 3-5 2005 in Calgary Alberta as, "a major consultation with farm leaders"; as represented in Madame Justice MacTavish's own words at point 71 of her ruling on the 23rd of December 2004.
     
  10. I, Tom Jackson believe that the Defendants representing this CCA meeting as "a major consultation with farm leaders regarding the future of the CWB" which all CWB Directors needed and had to attend, created substantial real problems through proceeding with this representation in an Affidavit by Deborah Harri; which encouraged the disposal of the T2191-04 injunction request by Madame Justice MacTavish.
     
  11. I, Tom Jackson, Called the producer help line 800ASK4CWB on the afternoon of December 23rd 2004 after I received the T-2191-04 Judgement, and asked what "major consultation with farm leaders regarding the future of the CWB" was occurring in early January of 2005, I drew a blank response from the lady at the help line... that they did not know what I was asking about at first.
     
  12. I, Tom Jackson was transferred within the CWB, after some time passed, to what I believed was an information officer fellow of the CWB who tried to down play the importance of the January 3-5 2005 meeting, while indicating to me that "CWB Accountability Meetings" were of major importance instead; then he proceeded to indicate that Mr. Brian Trueblood would be looking after my interests and the interests of other producers like me, at the C to C Alumni meeting in Calgary January 3-5th 2005.
     
  13. I, Tom Jackson called Mr. Brian Trueblood of Dapp, AB on the 24th of December 2004 at 5:10 pm, expecting to discuss my CWB concerns so that he might take forward these issues to the Meeting in Calgary, only to learn directly from Mr. Trueblood that he had briefly considered going to the CCA, for about 40 seconds I believe he said, then stated he rejected that Idea because the CCA meeting would not provide a constructive forum for a major consultation with farm leaders regarding the future of the CWB; as the CWB controls the microphones and wouldn't listen anyway. Mr. Brian Trueblood then indicated to me that he had not responded in any way to confirm his attendance at the CCA Meeting in Calgary January 3-5th.
     
  14. I, Tom Jackson question why neither Richard Strankman nor myself were told to hold our early Jan. 2005 schedules open for this CCA meeting in Calgary, as either of us could be required to attend if we are elected in District 4.
     
  15. I, Tom Jackson talked on December 27th 2004 to Mr. Jim Ness, a sitting member of the Alberta Grain Commission, also a CCA; Mr. Ness was not invited to the Alumni meeting in Calgary, and when he inquired about attending this meeting in mid December the CWB employees responsible did not return Mr. Ness's phone call requesting an opportunity to attend this CCA Meeting.
     
  16. I, Tom Jackson talked to Mr. Darrell Holmstrom, also a CCA, and Mr. Holmstrom indicated to me on the 26th of December 2004 that he had not been informed about, or invited to, the CCA meeting in Calgary January 3-5th 2005.
     
  17. I Tom Jackson heard a local CWB Farm Business Representative ("FBR") and District 5 Director Mr. Oberg chattering about this same CWB Combine to Customer Alumni 2005 meeting to take place in Calgary: on November 4th 2004, at the Alliance, AB Independent District 4 Election Forum, and did overheard their voices that were loud enough to hear that the selection process was specifically limited to a majority of "friendly [single desk]" local supporters, selected by FBR's and "single desk" friendly directors, all the while smirking and grinning at me.
     
  18. Exhibit "B" to this my Affidavit, is an Affidavit by Richard Strankman further documenting the Defendants irregularities in this election process; of which both Richard and I attempted to bring to the attention of Madame Justice MacTavish on the 20th of December 2004 hearing; where we both attended together in Federal Court in Edmonton our issues were not entered into the record, full discovery into the extent of election irregularities were hindered by the lack of time and at the objection of the Defendants and or their Legal Council.
     
  19. The Affidavit of Richard Strankman, is Exhibit "B" to this my Affidavit.
     
  20. I, Tom Jackson testify that when Richard Strankman and I discussed the issue of him receiving a 2004 CWB ballot, yet not being on the December 1st published CWB voter's list, Richard Strankman and I confirmed this numerous times; that the 2004 Election Coordinator Peter Eckersley admitted to Richard that he has a different "master voters list;" that the CWB election coordinator claims Richard's family farm name is on this other voters list. Simply put, I testify that it appears that another list exists that is not public nor has been available to District 4 candidates Tom Jackson or Richard Strankman (nor to any other Candidate in this 2004 election as far as we know) to examine; another 2004 election voters list the Defendants should know exists: and that it is planned that the Defendants will use this secret list for the CWB election tabulation on December 29th 2004. I further testify that Richard Strankman and I were disallowed from bringing this issue specifically to the T-2191-04 hearing, because of the Defendants position that they were attempting to completely dispose of those seeking more complete information; "Fishing" I believe they called it, for 2004 election irregularities; and complained about the inconvenience the "Cloud" of embarrassment had caused the Defendants: therefore they appeared hostile to new information about election irregularities, the Defendants through their legal council encouraged the Honourable Federal Court to maintain a similar negative position, therefore indicating that the Defendants were not interested in discovering further information that was available to be brought in to the December 20th Injunction T-2191-04 Hearing.
     
  21. I, Tom Jackson do testify that the last MNP ballot information I was sent was an e-mail at 3:43 PM December 10th 2004, stating that 15,273 ballots in total had been returned; 32.2% ballot total return of all Districts:4551 ballots for district 4; 4041 ballots for district 6; 4293 ballots for district 8; and 2388 ballots for district 10; and that this e-mail said:
Quote:
"Attached please find the Voter Response for the last "official day" of the election.

This report does not include ballot envelopes received that were postmarked after December 3rd, or invalid ballot envelopes that were received during the election period."
  1. I, Tom Jackson, because of a neglect to report all information regarding the ballot envelopes or "scannable ballots" by the election coordinator MNP, do not know how many "total ballots" were returned in the 2004 election, or how many "scannable ballots" should or will be counted at the proposed tabulation on December 29th 2004 planned tabulation date.
     
  2. I Tom Jackson testify that I request that the principals stated in the CODE OF CONDUCT AND CONFLICT OF INTEREST GUIDELINES ("CCCIG") May 31 2001, and or CCCIG Election Period Code of Conduct for Current Directors: Rule 9.1.1; Rule 9.1.2 PRINCIPALS (a) and (d); Rule 9.1.3 ETHICAL STANDARDS (a), (g), (i): November 27, 2003 Revision; do request GRMC Directors use these CCCIG standards of minimum performance; levels to bring Justice, Integrity, Honesty, and further the requirement also for the public perception of Justice, Integrity, Honesty in this 2004 CWB Election: that these highest standards which are required by the CCCIG in totality be used in this our CWB 2004 Election process; including the GMRC's judgment of whether or not this election should be repeated in District 4.
     
  3. I, Tom Jackson testify to the fact that my nominator number 17 Mr. Wes Spalding was not sent a ballot: after notification that only three of what I understood was my first 25 listed nominators were not valid [ following e-mail listed IV page Page 11 of 27], Darrell Holmstrom, Barb Holmstrom, and Terry Hamilton. I further testify that when I was helping Wes Spalding November 22nd, with harvesting his barley, he advised me that he did not get a ballot package as of that day; I testify that I Believe an error had been made by the Defendants, and that the Defendants after days of consideration, refused to issue a ballot to Mr. Wes Spalding even though the Plaintiff offered that if a valid permit could have been obtained in time for a ballot to be sent and returned in this 2004 District 4 election, would the Defendant's issue the voter's package. I, Tom Jackson was told there was no way a ballot would be issued by the Election Coordinator (MNP's Gwen Ginter and Peter Eckersley), even though it is admitted by the Defendants that they were busy correcting other errors they themselves, as well, had created in the first place. (Again see December 2, 2004 Western Producer T-2191-04 Exhibit "A" to the Affidavit of Arthur Mainil).
     
  4. I, Tom Jackson do testify that Darrell and Barb Holmstrom were not sent their $10,000.00 as promised by Chairman Ritter himself, on or about November 2 4 2004, through a personal assurance to District 2 Director Jim Chatenay on or about that day; later the next week Holmstroms were being subjected to reported badgering and insulting phone calls by the employees of Director President and CEO Measner, at the time the Defendants knew, or should have known that, the Holmstroms had unvoted ballots to complete and return in the District 4 2004 Election the week of December 1st 2004.
     
  5. I, Tom Jackson testify this background information on the Holmstroms: That Darrell and Barb Holmstrom were valid District 4 nominators of mine in the 2000 CWB election, rented me land so I could run as a candidate in District 4 during the 2000 CWB election, and were associated with me in our business jointly as seed growers and represented as such in my biography in the 2000 CWB election; and that the Defendants were responsible to know this information; further that I understand the Holmstroms did not request to be transferred to District 2; did not produce grain (normal meanings of words used) in district 2 over the past 4 years. Finally, for what reason the Defendants switched or allowed the Holmstroms to be switched to district 2, I and the Holmstroms do not understand why this should have happened.
     
  6. I, Tom Jackson personally had the Defendants manually interfere in my election district choice:
Quote:
Canadian Wheat Board Act Regulations;
Voters
s.5.(2)
No producer may vote more than once in an election

Voters List
s.6.(2).
A producer who produces grain in more than one district may only be included in one voters list, which is chosen by the producer.


I testify that this Interference of the Defendants caused the designation of my 2002 valid permit to be moved to a district (District 4) where I was prevented from voting in the 2002 District 1 election, when I had produced grain on my farm in District 1 and believed I should have been sent a District 1 ballot package. Further, at about the same time in Oct/Nov. of 2002, I testify that my brother Colin Jackson was prevented from voting in the 2002 District 1 election, because he received his ballot package one day after the election period deadline, the Defendants only mailed the valid ballot package only two days before the mail deadline or close of the 2002 election period.
  1. I, Tom Jackson, personally, during three forum events; was aggressively attacked verbally by Chairman Ritter, acting apparently in his capacity as District 4 Director and Chairman, during the 2004 District 4 forums:
     
    1. First in the Biggar Community Hall 319 1st Avenue East at about 9:00 PM at Biggar SK:
       
      1. flatly stating that he had personally investigated all cases involving the forgiveness of 2001-02 PPO Liquidation Damages [$427,000.00 "Bad Debt" page 46 01-02 Financial Results]; including the Holmstroms personal situation:
         
      2. on this occasion also mentioning his standing as a lawyer and his legal training;
         
      3. further indicating to his satisfaction all cases were dealt with in a fair and equitable manner during this Official forum;
         
      4. further indicating I did not have a clue about the Holmstrom issue I was speaking about.

        In the presence all forum participants including the CBC Saskatoon and Western Producer Reporters who scoffed at me after the vicious personal attack;
         
    2. Secondly at the Wainwright Communiplex 700 2nd Ave West about 8:30 PM Nov. 15, 2004 in Wainwright AB:
       
      1. stating again that he had personally investigated these cases involving the forgiveness of 2001-02 PPO Liquidation Damages [$427,000.00 "Bad Debt" page 46 01-02 Financial Results]; including the Holmstroms personal situation:
         
      2. again indicating to his satisfaction all cases were dealt with in a fair and equitable manner during this Official forum in front of media attending this forum;

        and;
         
    3. Thirdly on Nov. 16, 2004 at about 8:30 PM at the Kindersley SK Independently organized Forum in a similar manner to the Wainwright Forum; that I, Tom Jackson, had no business bringing up this issue, and that I did not know what I was talking about;
       
  2. I, Tom Jackson testify that:
     
    1. while about two thirds of all PPO liquidation damages were forgiven in the 2001-02 crop year; Entries amounting to $427,000.00 (marked as bad debt) of $649,000.00 [pg.46 01-02 Financial Results] are shown on the 2001-02 official CWB statements; neither I or the Holmstroms have been given any written reasons since July of 2002 why $427,000.00 was forgiven to the benefit of some PPO Contracted Producers, while the Holmstroms were excluded from this policy of forgiveness;
       
    2. that after numerous verbal promises to resolve this PPO liquidation damages situation during at least two yearly consecutive corporate accountability meetings, settlement of the Holmstroms issue by Chairman Ritter was created, the Defendant Ritter agreed to the refunding of $10,000.00 of the approximate $18,000.00 PPO Liquidation Damage levied and told District 2 Director Jim Chatenay [who was still their director as they had not yet been officially transferred to the district 4 voters list until December 1st 2004] on or about the 24th of November 2004, which was testified to me at about 9:00pm when I called him, as good news, (and in turn relayed to the Holmstroms) by the aforementioned District 2 Director that evening.
       
  3. I, Tom Jackson still had three nominators by CWB error placed in District 2 who were not added to the District 4 voters list until December 1st 2004; Included are the following e-mails records of how this occurred:
Quote:
I.
Sent: Mon 11/29/2004 11:01 AM
C.c._____________
Subject: Nominators

Good morning Tom...

I've now followed up on your query concerning your nominators, and wish to advise as follows:

We have confirmed that Darrell Holmstrom, Terry Hamilton and Barb Holmstrom are entitled to vote in district 4, and we have Express Posted ballots out to them which they will hopefully receive by Wednesday at the latest. I would also confirm that they were sent a Voter Confirmation for District 2 in September, and so did have the opportunity to change this themselves.

I would also advise that Wes Spalding does not have a valid permit, and unfortunately we are past the Statutory Declaration deadline, and so I am unable to issue him a ballot at this time.

Peter S Eckersley, FCA
1401 Princess Avenue, Brandon, MB, R7A 7L7
Ofc 204-571-7650, Cel 204-729-7283


II.
Sent: Wed 11/24/2004 1:38 PM
C.c. ___________
Subject: The Holmstrom's

They appear on our listing still as district 2. I've sent an email to the CWB asking them to map their land description and see what district they should be in. If they on fact should be in district 4, I'll expresspost them district 4 ballots.

Gwen Ginter
Meyers Norris Penny
(204)727-0661 Ext 319


This even though a CWB/MNP promise was made to switch the Holmstoms and Mr. Hamilton back to District 4 by e-mail October 22;

Quote:
III.
Sent: October 22, 2004 2:38 PM
C.c.__________
Subject: 3 nominators listed in district 2

Regarding the three nominators I listed previously, I've talked to the CWB. Back in 2000 or 2001, the three permits books were possibly filled in at a delivery point located in District 2. They got switched at that time from 4 to 2. This has been corrected. They now are listed in district 4. Unfortunately this was not quick enough to change the labels before they went to print. So what we will do is manually cancel the ballots for district 2 for the 3 producers and manually issue them new ones for district 4. They will receive both ballots, likely a few days apart. If they send back the district 2 ballots they will appear as a cancelled ballot on our system, will not be opened or counted. Only the district 4 ballots will be used in the election.

If you could pass this information along to your friends that would be greatly appreciated.

If you have any more questions, please do not hesitate to call.

Gwen Ginter
Meyers Norris Penny
(204)727-0661 Ext 319


IV.
Sent: Fri 10/22/2004 8:03 AM
C.c.______________
Subject: Nominators

Good Morning Tom

Just to let you know, that there were 25 signatures, that checked out. Also as a note of interest, there were three that appeared in district 2. Darrell Holmstrom, Terry Hamilton, and Barb Holmstrom.

Upon receiving originals, you will be sent the voters list and your information will be posted to the website.

Gwen Ginter
Meyers Norris Penny
(204)727-0661 Ext 319
  1. I Tom Jackson testify that the following e-mails was sent to me by Mr. Peter Eckersley, and that the following e-mails were evidence of correspondence created as the result of important telephone conversations during Mid-November of 2004:
Quote:
V.
Sent: Fri 11/26/2004 12:37 PM
C.c.____________
Subject: E-Mail Addresses

Hi Tom...

First of all, please accept my apologies for not getting back to you sooner. I referred the question on providing e-mail addresses to our corporate lawyer as I felt that the request was reasonable, and he did get back to me earlier this week, but the situation of the new voters caused quite a disruption here, and I'm afraid that I got distracted and thus didn't reply until now.

Our lawyer has advised that the Privacy Act restrictions that apply to the voter phone numbers would apply to the e-mail addresses as well, and we have therefore been advised that we should not release them (even if we had them), as we would definitely be violating the Privacy Act

I do believe however that providing the e-mail addresses has merit, and so I will be making a recommendation at the end of this election that the Regulations be amended to specify that e-mail addresses be released where available.

I don't know how far this will go as it will require parliamentary change, but times have changed since the Regs were enacted, and e-mail is becoming an even more common media that the mail.

Sorry that I can't do more this go around

Peter

Peter S Eckersley, FCA
1401 Princess Avenue, Brandon, MB, R7A 7L7
Ofc 204-571-7650, Cel 204-729-7283


VI.
Sent: Wed 11/24/2004 5:08 PM
C.c. deborah_harri@cwb.ca
Subject: Voter Response Update

As previously indicated, I am pleased to provide you with the attached Voter Response update as of 5:00 pm today ( Wednesday )

(See attached file: Voter Response Summary.xls)

I also wish to advise that there are approximately 175 - 200 or so new voters being added to the voters list for each district, and we are currently in the process of processing these new voters, and issuing them ballots

The circumstances surrounding these new voters are as follows:

The new voters are producers who have valid permits, but have not delivered grain against the permit in the past 2 years.

As a result, the CWB initially disqualified them from voting since they had no transactions with the Board, but when the Regulations were researched, it was determined that these producers were in fact, entitled to vote since all that was required, was a valid permit.

As a result, we are now focussing our efforts to get these new ballots out via express post by tomorrow. ( Thursday ) and as soon as this is completed, we will reconcile all of the changes, and I will send you the updates for your reference.

Peter S Eckersley, FCA
1401 Princess Avenue, Brandon, MB, R7A 7L7
Ofc 204-571-7650, Cel 204-729-7283


VII.
Sent: Thu 11/25/2004 3:13 PM
C.c. deborah_harri@cwb.ca
Subject: Changes and additions to the voters list

Attached please find update files for each voting district containing the changes to the Voters List that have been processed since November 15th.

As I mentioned to you in my e-mail of yesterday, there have been a number of changes, including the addition of around 200 voters to the role for each district.

The circumstances surrounding these additions have been further clarified as follows:

Since the last election, the CWB segregated producers that had CWB permits but no deliveries, from those producers that were doing business with the Board. This was done for internal operating reasons including cost control I'm told.

When the 2004 final voters list was prepared, these "inactive but valid permits" were inadvertantly not added to the voters list. This was a human error and not a conscious intent to disqualify anyone, as I had originally understood and reported to you.

The omission came to light just a couple of days ago, and the final additions were provided to us this morning.

Voters packages have now been prepared and issued to all affected voters. Most will hopefully receive their ballots by Friday or Monday, and will therefore still have ample time to drop them in the mail by the Friday December 3rd deadline.

(See attached file: Changes for District 10 as of Nov 25th.xls)(See attached file: Changes for District 06 as of Nov 25th.xls)(See attached file: Changes for District 08 as of Nov 25th.xls)(See attached file: Changes for District 04 as of Nov 25th.xls)

You will note that these lists are cumulative, but I have reflected the changes to Nov 24th in yellow shading, and the new producers in blue shading for your convenience

The password on these files remains unchanged

Peter S Eckersley, FCA
1401 Princess Avenue, Brandon, MB, R7A 7L7
Ofc 204-571-7650, Cel 204-729-7283
  1. I, Tom Jackson testify that I spoke to Mr. Peter Eckersley in mid November, a number of times; about voters list problems, including district transfers, voters not getting ballots, and the serious issues these problems created for the 2004 CWB Election process; Peter then admitted to me that it was a terrible mess, that something had to be done, and the way he would deal with it was to recommend many changes for future CWB Elections.
     
  2. I, Tom Jackson do testify that the recent policy of the Defendants to incorporate the single desk" into: the vision, mission, and goals of the CWB; has been transferred into the day to day operations of the CWB; and further that this operational shift is at least partially responsible, if not almost fully responsible, for the 2004 CWB election irregularities increasing dramatically over the 2002 CWB election problems.
     
  3. I Tom Jackson testify that Exhibit "H" to this my Affidavit is; the T-2191-04 Affidavit of Gwen Ginter dated December 17th 2004; that this Exhibit "H" is in combination with Exhibits "C", "D", "E", "F" and, "G" to this my Affidavit, and together, they produce a combination of evidence that leads me to believe that some producers were required to sign false Statutory Declarations to obtain valid ballots: (T-2191-04 Supplementary Intervener Tom Jackson's testimony to the Dec. 20th 2004 Injunction Hearing) While the December 20th T-2191-04 hearing did not allow verbal testimony at the hearing that day; that other producers like Richard Strankman were not required to fill out statutory declarations to be sent a ballot package in a similar situations by the Defendants.
     
  4. I, Tom Jackson testify that Peter Eckersley told the Western Producer on "the regulations don't say that the initial voter's list can't be adjusted, and they also allow voters to be registered less than 25 days before the deadline." This evidence is contained as Exhibit "I" to this my Affidavit (Western Producer article dated December 2nd, 2004) which is contained in T-2191-04 Exhibit "A" referred to in the Affidavit of Arthur Mainil.
     
  5. I, Tom Jackson testify that the Exhibit "I" statement of the election coordinator shows serious irregularities by the Defendants, as no other election form was available to be used by those voters defined in Exhibits "C" to "H", besides the Statutory Declarations (which were to only be completed by voters who did not have a valid permit) and these wrong statutory instruments were intentionally sent the Shaw family (Exhibits "C" to "F" of the T-2191-04 Supplementary Intervener Request & Affidavit by Tom Jackson), who were clearly required to proceed with an extra step to receive their ballots packages from the Defendants; and that this extra requirement was required by the Defendants and their agents alone.
     
  6. I, Tom Jackson testify that there were other serious issues found by Madame Justice MacTavish in her judgement on December 23rd 2004. I quote: 
Quote:
"Is There a Serious Issue Here?

52.
I have carefully considered all of Mr. Mainil's and Mr. Jackson's submissions with respect to what they say are the various errors committed by the CWB and/or MNP with respect to the conduct of the 2004 Directors' election.

53.
It is clear that MNP is in technical breach of section 20 (2) of the Regulations, which stipulates that:

The Election Co-ordinator, in the presence of independent scrutineers appointed by the Minister, shall in the following order:

b.
sort the ballots by electoral district ... (emphasis added)

54.
It is common ground that MNP has already sorted the ballots, by district, outside the presence of the independent scrutineers.

55.
I need not decide whether, by itself, this would constitute a serious issue, as I am satisfied that a serious issue exists with respect to the failure of the CWB and MNP to include the Omitted Producers on the voters list."

58.
In the case of the Omitted Producers, ballots were mailed to these individuals approximately one week before the close of the election period, seriously limiting the time available to both voters and candidates to do any of these things. Further, the affidavit of Peter Eckersley, filed on behalf of MNP, discloses that at least some of the ballots likely did not reach voters prior to the close of the election period.

59.
This is arguably more than a 'technical breach', and in my view, constitutes a serious issue."
  1. I, Tom Jackson testify that the Defendants caused a very difficult problem for the reputation of the CWB Corporation by submitting to the Federal Court of Canada T-2191-04:
Quote:
"30... Neither the Canadian Wheat Board Act or the Regulations provide for any process whereby the validity of an election can be challenged. Furthermore, neither the Act nor the regulations provide any specific guidance as to the standard upon which the conduct of an election is to be judged."


I testify that I heard Mr. Arthur Mainil read this statement twice, into the record T-2191-04 of the Federal Court of Canada, on the 20th of December, 2004.
  1. I, Tom Jackson heard testimony on December 20th 2004 about the ads placed on numerous radio stations in Alberta on the week of December 1st 2004, (I personally heard it on three Alberta radio stations) that had the MNP Actor said; "I am going to vote for the Director with the most knowledge and experience..." and that particularly in district 4 where the Defendant Chairman Ritter used the "the Director with the most knowledge and experience" line when ever he had the opportunity; this particularly was a fraud perpetrated upon myself and Richard Strankman. It was admitted to me personally, on the evening of 30th of November 2004 by Meyers Norris Penny Regina partner Mr. Johnathan Small, on his cell number, witnessed on a 3 way call started by Mr. Art Mainil; that these Election Coordinator ads should not express any opinion on who a producer was to vote for, if they were to be perceived by producers and general public as neutral and impartial election information ads.
     
  2. I request the CWB GMRC investigate these CWB election and management irregularities and make a recommendation to the full CWB Board asking for a new vote in District 4, or in 4, 6, and District 8.
     
  3. I make this Affidavit Bonafide

Sworn before me at the Town of Killam, in the Province of Alberta, this 28 day December, 2004

(Signed by a Notary Public in and for the province of Alberta)

TOM JACKSON

(Signed by Tom Jackson)