Sign up for the battlefordsNOW newsletter

Lawyers representing Red Pheasant council attempt to discredit applicants

Apr 6, 2018 | 8:21 AM

Lawyers representing Red Pheasant Chief and council had their turn in court yesterday as they tried to disprove allegations of corruption during the last election by discrediting the applicant’s evidence.

On Wednesday applicant, representing lawyer and band Member, Michelle Good, gave her argument on why she believed the Red Pheasant March, 2016 election should be void due to alleged voter fraud from elected Chief and council.  

Thursday saw respondent counsel Darren Winegarden and Nicholas Stooshinoff representing Chief Clint Wuttunee and several current councillors in the case, make their arguments against Good.

Winegarden said Good was using affidavits from perjurers as they have admittedly made false statements. Counsel argued their statements should carry no weight as the people who submitted them can’t be trusted.

Council then claimed there was no evidence provided by Good of Wuttunee or councillors specifically offering money for votes. Winegarden added there was evidence of people looking to sell votes, but none of anyone offering to buy any. He said there were no contracts and although money changed hands, there was no proof it was for votes.

Counsel argued many people contact the Chief and council for money on a regular bases for every day needs.

Winegarden said council is inundated with requests for money all the time and called it a “grind” to try and balance the requests and not make things appear corrupt. According to Wuttunee, council helps people out daily all year long. He added Clint claimed to be getting texts at 3 a.m. that day from band members asking for e-transfers. According to the lawyer, it is not uncommon for council to help people out from their own pockets.

This was the basis of the respondents’ argument against the recorded e-transfers from one of the band members who signed an affidavit against Chief and council. Winegarden claimed the transfers were for everyday needs like gas and food and Good had no proof they were for buying a vote.

Counsel brought Lux Benson’s, current councillor and client of the respondents, affidavit into light. According to Winegarden, Benson said back in his grandparents’ day, leaders would hunt and provide for the rest of the band. Counsel claimed band members had a mentality of needing to be provided for by their leaders and hunting has been replaced by the money that councillors receive. He said band members now expect chief and council to provide them money like they would have with meat from the hunt in the past.

Winegarden accused Good of colluding with band members to try and take down Wuttunee and the rest of council. He called Good a chronic appealer and said this was the fourth time she had appealed an election. In Good’s reply later on, she would argue this is only her third.

Council continued by bringing up one of the applicants witnesses who Good claimed was so scared of repercussions, he fled to live in Edmonton. Winegarden pulled up a Facebook post of the same man who was advising others in the post “Don’t be afraid to come forward” and ended the post with “#setthemup.” According to Winegarden, Good had commented “lol” on the post. Council found the hashtag comment particularly disturbing.

According to counsel, someone afraid of repercussions wouldn’t make that post and said during cross examination, the witness admitted to moving to Edmonton for work.

Winegarden then turned the courts attention to the man who claimed Wuttunee gave him a 60 ounce bottle of Captain Morgan’s and money in exchange for him recanting his affidavit against Wuttunee. Counsel brought transcripts of their text messages. In the accounts, Wuttunee asked what the man was drinking that night, to which he replied “Captain Morgan’s.” That comment led council to argue the man was already in possession of the bottle as there was no evidence Wuttunee asked if he needed anything or said he would provide any alcohol.

Winegarden then addressed the claim from Sandra Arias, a former councillor who said during the election she was approached other candidates who offered her 80 ballots to join them because she had worked in position to them on council during previous years. The lawyers asked the court why candidates would ever tell someone about ballots if they didn’t know she was on their side.

Counsel then looked to discredit what was essentially a character witness of Good’s. This witness swore affidavits claiming the band members who recanted their original statements against Wuttunee and council were in fact telling the truth now about being bribed to recant. According to the mans affidavit, he didn’t drink and therefore was more trustworthy. During cross examination, respondents said the same man claimed to have asked Wuttunee for $150 to take a DUI course, proving he was a drinker.

Michelle would later argue in her reply, there is no evidence as to when the man received his DUI.

Judge Madam Justice McVeigh spoke about how saddened she was that people’s personal lives where being dragged out in front of her in order for her to make a decision on if they were credible or not.

Council for the Chief and council also attacked Good’s credibility by pointing out how rare it was for an applicant to also be the legal counsel in hearings like these. They claimed she was leading witnesses during cross examination, telling them when it was ok to answer. Counsel said it made it seem like the witnesses had something to hide and looked to Good for what they were allowed to say.

Good claimed in her reply that she would only prompt them to answer a question when they paused for too long, which she said was from 30 seconds to a minute at times.

Counsel for the Chief and council said the greater burden of proof is on Good in this case and she hadn’t supplied enough factual and undisputable evidence to satisfy the burden of proof.

Winegardenl said the courts need to consider what evidence is and what hearsay is. He added one end would be irrefutable truths like the sky is blue. He said then there is something that is shared like “I saw him park his car over there.” Counsel said next there is hearsay, which is what has been presented in this case. He compared it to broken telephone and said the case has reached a point where people are generating these rumours and outright lies.

In Good’s reply, she took no issues with the fact there are problems with the evidence. She added hearsay has been applied in band election cases and had been given significant weight. Respondent counsel argued in those cases there was an actual paper trail and substantial evidence of contract to buy votes.

Before court wrapped the Madam Justice McVeigh thanked the gallery, which was filled of Good and band council supporters for being respectful and civil. She added it could be upwards of four months until a final decision on the matter is made.

None of the allegations have been proven.

 

As this matter is still before the courts, comments will be closed.

 

greg.higgins@jpbg.ca

On Twitter: @battlefordsnow