Municipal Affairs Dispatches Mercenaries Part 2 – Kevin Robins Of Transitional Solutions Inc., Michael S. Solowan Of Brownlee LLP, Assistant Deputy Minister Gary Sandberg – Intentionally Mislead The Court, Frame CAO Candidate/Former MP Brian Storseth
Paragraphs  and  of the respondent (Municipal Affairs) October 4, 2017 written submission are misleading the court, regarding Mr. Storseth’s request for a meeting with Kevin Robins and Acting CAO Pat Vincent.
Paragraphs  and  make the claims that the official henchman denied the meeting request, because Mr. Storseth’s request was “highly unprofessional and unethical” and …“the appearance that the candidate knew he was going to be selected”…
The court was misled, by the omission, of the fact that Kevin Robins was planning a meeting with Mr. Storseth, by proxy the Acting CAO Pat Vincent.
The culprits keep secret from the court, a discussion of a potential meeting and purpose of the meeting: “If the matter is not directly related to the process or the outcome of the CAO recruitment initiative he indicated he could possibly entertain such a request. Could you confirm that the purpose of the meeting is not directly related to the CAO recruitment process or the eventual outcome of that process.” Another secret: “Kevin Robins and Doug Lagore – have asked if it would be possible to meet with yourself [Mr. Storseth] and myself [Mr. Vincent] on Thursday February 25th at their offices’…
On February 4, 2016 Kevin Robins, one of the Official Administrator, received an email from the then interim CAO, Pat Vincent, indicating that he had been asked by Mr. Storseth for a meeting with Pat Vincent and Kevin Robins. This request was denied by the Official Administrator. “Mr. Vincent stated [that] Brian Storseth was fairly vague as to the reason for the request and that Mr. Storseth couldn’t reveal all the reasons for his request but that he indicated he might have a solution for Thorhild County moving forward”.
Resolution 125-2016, approved by the Applicants and appointing Mr. Storseth as CAO, was disallowed by the Official Administrators based on the following rationale, taken directly from the March 4, 2016 Report:
[Items a, b, c, contain an assortment of venomous accusations that do not deserve publishing]
d. Mr. Storseth requested a meeting with the CAO and the [Official Administrator] on February 4, 2016 prior to the February 5, 2016 Special Council meeting, where Council, by a 3 to 2 vote directed administration to request Davies Park to proceed with negotiations with this candidate. Both Official Administrators find this request to be highly unprofessional and unethical, and there is the appearance that the candidate knew he was going to be selected prior to the Council voting to proceed with his application.
Email Highlights 1
On Friday, February 5, 2016 at 11:09 AM, Pat Vincent wrote:
I had a chance to speak with Kevin Robins, one of the two official administrators appointed by the Minister of Municipal Affairs, last evening in regard to your request for a meeting with both he and I next Monday.
Mr. Robins expressed his reluctance to meet with one of the candidates in the current CAO recruitment process if the nature of the meeting was pertaining to that matter. He felt it was inappropriate and prejudicial to the outcome of the process if he were to become involved prior to Council making a decision on hiring a new CAO.
If the matter is not directly related to the process or the outcome of the CAO recruitment initiative he indicated he could possibly entertain such a request. Could you confirm that the purpose of the meeting is not directly related to the CAO recruitment process or the eventual outcome of that process.
If you would like to give me a call and chat about the matter please do so. You can reach me at 780 398 2800.
Pat Vincent CLGM
On Friday, February 5, 2016 2:14 PM, Brian Storseth wrote:
Thx Pat this has nothing to do with the CAO position rather as a consultant I feel I have a potential solution to a couple of major issues and I am looking to talk to the administrator as well as yourself to find a path forward.
On Friday, February 5, 2016 at 3:46 PM, Pat Vincent wrote:
I will contact Kevin again with this better understanding and see if we can set up a meeting for Monday. Appreciate your response and providing a better understanding of the purpose for this meeting.
Email Highlights 2
On February 16, 2016 at 1:06 PM, Pat Vincent wrote:
I am pleased to advise you that Council did approve the contract with 1824400 Alberta Ltd. this morning at their special meeting effective March 15, 2016. Further, they approved appointing yourself as CAO effective March 15, 2016. The minutes of the special meeting with [will] be presented at the February 23, 2016 regular meeting for adoption and approval after which the official administrator will make their decision. I do not anticipate any delay in obtaining the official administrator’s endorsement of these Council resolutions.
The official administrators – Kevin Robins and Doug Lagore – have asked if it would be possible to meet with yourself and myself on Thursday, February 25th at their offices which is located at Unit 201 236 – 91 Street Zellwood Corner Edmonton. I would prefer a mid to late afternoon meeting in order to fit the meeting in on that day. Please check your calendar and advise me if this date will work for yourself.
The administrators want to use this as an orientation and just want to go over the procedures and processes that are in place and required.
Pat Vincent CLGM
Michael S. Solowan Swings The Minister’s Sword – Friday July 21, 2017
The Dishonorable Minister of Municipal Affairs, Shaye Anderson, chose to attack 3 Thorhild County councilors and CAO candidate former MP Brian Storseth, with perjurious affidavit and written submission information, provided by ministry contractors and the assistant deputy minister.
The Friday afternoon attack, took place 2 months after the May 19, 2017 county judicial review of 3 ministerial orders, which were a result of the illegal and unlawful municipal inspection. Solowan’s attack on behalf of the minister, was a letter sent to Ms. Bishop (counsel for the 3 dismissed councilors) on July 21, 2017. He stated in the letter that ministerial order MSL:021/16, dismissing 3 councilors, was once again in effect, and the stay order (injunction) granted by the court in March 2016 was no longer in effect.
The letter demanded that the 3 councilors are not to attend the Tuesday July 25, 2017 council meeting in “any elected capacity”. On Monday July 24, 2017 an emergent application was made and the court upheld the stay order (injunction) from March 2016. For some strange reason or reasons, the minister wanted the councilors gone, when the 2017 municipal election was less than 3 months away. This vicious attack served no common sense purpose, rather it created more harm and legal costs for the councilors and Albertans.
Originally there was a court date of October 5, 2016, set for the judicial review of the dismissal ministerial order MSL:021/16. William Olthuis of Alberta Justice, legal counsel for municipal affairs, wrote to Ms. Bishop on August 10, 2016 recommending that the county judicial review of 3 ministerial orders be heard first. And that the court date of October 5, 2016 before Justice Rooke, be adjourned sine die (without a new court date). He also stated that the parties to the dismissal judicial review, will start scheduling a hearing date for the dismissal judicial review, once the county judicial review was concluded.
Ms. Bishop promptly wrote to William Olthuis on May 25, 2017, regarding scheduling a date for the dismissal judicial review. Her communication was just a few days after the county judicial review was concluded. On May 30, 2017 Willian Olthuis’ written response to Ms. Bishop stated that he needed to obtain appropriate instructions. No further communication was received from Alberta Justice. Not until July 21, 2017 when Solowan sprang from the shrubs, sword in hand.
When the idea first surfaced about adjourning the dismissal judicial review court date of October 5, 2016, I raised concerns that the adjournment idea appeared to be a stalling tactic. I tried to convince my colleagues that, if we change anything, since the October 5, 2016 court date was reserved, let the county judicial review commence on that date. If the county judicial review was not using that date, then the dismissal judicial review should be heard on that date as originally planned. This bit of common sense that I suggested, if implemented, would have provided the opportunity to remedy the dismissal on October 5, 2016. Instead of achieving remedy back in 2016, chaos has ensued due to the botched legal advice provided by the lawyers involved in this matter.
Hopefully this post helps the reader comprehend the actual sequence of events related to these disturbing mercenary maneuvers, condoned by Alberta Justice and Municipal Affairs. There are numerous interconnected events that have occurred over several years. Dealing with these events in a legal context creates much confusion for me as a victim without legal training, and the confusion is exponential to those removed from my experiences. My work experience is technical, routinely over the years I have enjoyed translating confusing information for customers, however the legal aspects here are arcane at best and the harm surreal. So my writing is focused toward keeping commentary short and purposeful in providing and explaining the facts of matters.
In closing and for emphasis I share this. If we as individuals choose to ignore intentional injuries caused by government, we are then encouraging an oligarchy to crush any councilor, administrator, and private person it despises.