If you don’t wish to read a long winded blog? Don’t read this one!!!!
What a day! I’m a little tired but I got to try to write a detail blog of my day in action.
It all began this morning when I was told that my letter was indeed printed in the Irving newspaper about Brent Taylor. 
They didn’t used the word - Bigot but that’s ok. I’m still in good communication with the Daily Gleaner. They will print my letters and maybe next time the former C.O.R. Bigot Mla will think before writing his column in the Irving’s paper.
I often wonder how he got that job anyway? I never read his BS!!!
Ok Charlie...Calm down...later on that morning, I met my partner in crime at a certain location and away we went to hunt down Tom Mann.
The young girl wasn’t as calm as the last few occasions because I mentioned to her that the police will definitely be involved. I told her to stay back and just take pictures of the event.
When you do something like this? You must remain cool calm and collective. That's the reason I always have my hands behind my back. An activist must never cross that line.
This has been a very busy summer for me compared to last year?
If the Saint John Police, staff at the Legislature, Brent Taylor and Tom Mann would have just minded their own business? 
Everything would be quiet.
Once at the building of the New Brunswick Union, I decided that I would go inside to give the Unionized workers a fair warning. 
I walked inside but there was nobody present. Maybe they saw me coming???
The last time, I was in this location? There was a woman present. 
We left to go outside but at the last minute, we decided to go upstair. 
Once up the stairway, I came face to face with the same female worker I chatted with on the street the evening before. 
She didn’t have the same friendly expression on her face like the first time we met.
I’m certain that someone told her something because she definitely didn’t have a good attitude with me. This wasn’t an important matter to me because I was looking for Tom Mann..
I asked - Is Tom Mann around?
She never gave me eye contact and said- Tom will not be around this week.
She played the roll of a true high class bureaucrat. Respect for me sure wasn’t in the air!!!
I told her- I just wish to tell you that there’s going to be a protest in front of the building...before I could finish?
She quickly got up and told me that Tom’s secretary should be around and disappeared in the back room. 
We were left alone for a minute and waited for the secretary to walked in.
To my surprised? It wasn’t the secretary. It was the lawyer David brown!!! 
He quickly walked into the room and went straight for the poor girl who was sitting down on a chair and demanded that she didn’t take any pictures!!!
These lawyers are pretty touchy when it comes to have their picture taken I guess?
I asked for Tom Mann and reminded the so call lawyer that I left him my email but Tom never emailed me?
He didn’t say much. I got the same attitude as the last time we met. It was like -Please leave us alone. Get lost!!!
I had my two arms behind my back and said - Listen? It’s Tom Mann who began all this! He’s the one who wrote that letter to the editor. That letter got printed in the Woodstock Bugle and the Daily Gleaner. I’m just here for some answers? I am following the paper trail and it leads me right here!!!
David Brown still didn’t say much! I wasn’t getting anywhere with this guy so I told him that I’m a peaceful person and I just wish to get some answers?
He had the gall to tell me to go see a lawyer? I asked him if he had money for a lawyer?
I wasn’t getting nowhere with David Brown. Surely, the staff in that building must have heard some very bad stories about me! Their attitude wasn’t a good one and I knew it!
An older guy quickly ran up the stairs. Did they call him for backup? Was this going to be a violent confrontation? Was the Union members going to throw me downstairs?
I had to act fast and get to the reason that I was in the building in the first place.
In a friendly way, I said - I just wish to let you know that I’m going to be out front with this till Friday.
You should have seen the look on the lawyer’s face once he saw the bullhorn. 
I believe that I did have his attention.
He told me that he would call the police???
I answered - That’s exactly what I want!!! Maybe the police can investigate this awful situation and we could get some answers? I might add that I would have lots to say en Francais and in English.
Well, I believe that he decided that maybe we could negotiate an end to this awful war of words.
I told the lawyer that coming in here was better than a shot gun??? I believe they knew it wouldn’t be a peaceful week with me standing outside with a bullhorn? I bet the whole building would go on stress leave for the summer months?...lol
He reminded me that Tom Mann is a nice guy.
Sure sound like they believe that I’m going to attack the Union leader physically? Why would I do something like that anyway? He’s not wroth it but if he came after moi? Well, that’s a total different ball game?
I reminded the lawyer that many people told me that Tom Mann was a nice guy.
I once again asked him if he knew Dorothy Dawson? 
I said- You can thank Dorothy for me to be in the Capital. She drove me here three years and gave me her tent! Dorothy is one of the most respected Union activist in the whole province. 
She told me that she was a little disappointed with Tom Mann’s letter to the editor. All we want are answers?
He told me to give him some time and he’ll get back to me.
I reminded the lawyer that the last time I came here? He must have said- That guy is an idiot! Just ignore him!
Well, I will not going nowhere!
The Union leader wrote that letter to the editor to discredit me and I want some answers. I went home dejected because I believe maybe this issue could end? I was ready for a lot of action but it never happen.
My god, I’m pretty busy lately.
Ohhhh??? The radio live talk show with Bruce on CKTP 95.7FM went good. 
We seem to hit it off pretty good. He comes out with an issue and we debate for a few minutes. There’s always something to debate about and this issue is a dozy one!!! 
Stay tune for more action from the capital!!!!!
Wednesday, July 12, 2006
TOM MANN IS ONCE AGAIN HUNTED BY CHARLES!!!!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
26 comments:
If a stranger came into my workplace and stated
"I told the lawyer that coming in here was better than a shot gun???", then I'd be calling the cops. The fact that you said that, shows that you certainly did have violence on your mind.
HEY COWARD???? Read between the lines??? Would you rather be shot dead or listen to me for one week?
Think about it?
ohhhh yeah????? I wasn't a stranger,,,they knew exactly who I was. I've known David Brown for 10 years....not close but know of him in Saint John.
Sadly it is becoming more and more obvious just why you were banned. You have much more in common with those that you profess to be fighting against than you let on. The only difference between you and Mr. Yaylor is he gets paid for his musings. The funny thing is I am beginning to believe that you actually have the potential to scare some people. Not the ones you think you are of course, they really could care less about you. So you stomp around offices (and maybe government buildings?) caring a bullhorn and making vague threats to receptionists. My, your one brave man Charles. Your fast losing any credibility Charles but I have finally realised that unfortunately that's something you will never understand. Self importance becomes you.
Great story Charles, we really enjoyed it. And I've been reading your blog for about 5 months and this is the first time I ever saw you blow up so bad at one of your coward readers!
One way you might scare these coward naysayers off...just a suggestion...start posting IP addresses and server info. That might scare some of them off....or at least SAY that you're going to start posting it.
Gee, why don't you try walking into the Centennial Building and saying "Listen to me for a week or get shot dead." What do you think would happen to you? People have to consider the possibility that maybe you finally snapped and do have intentions of causing physical harm as you've certainly repeatedly talked about on this blog by using violent terminology and insinuations.
You think anybody can read between your incoherent lines? Hilarious.
I don't make it a habit in debating with cowards but I will in this blog.
I got a question???
DID YOU READ THE BLOG?????
Wait? Let me get that part again for you cowards.
There...I found it-
I asked for Tom Mann and reminded the so call lawyer that I left him my email but Tom never emailed me?
I had my two arms behind my back and said - Listen? It’s Tom Mann who began all this! He’s the one who wrote that letter to the editor. That letter got printed in the Woodstock Bugle and the Daily Gleaner. I’m just here for some answers? I am following the paper trail and it leads me right here!!!
Did you understand that line?
I left my email and no answer.
They told me to get a lawyer but I can't afford one.
Any other ideas beside a bullhorn genuises??
As usual, everybody has a point-to a point. There is no doubt that mentioning that 'its better than a shotgun', is a very bad choice of words. People are not used to confrontation, and Charles only has a small readership here, which means those people may very well have no idea who he is.
The above quote about 'listen to me or be shot dead' is just stupid and the writer knows it. Nothing even close to that was said, that's just meant to try to inflame the issue. Charles said a dumb line, but sometimes dumb lines come out when you are actually trying to do something in this world and aren't content, like most New Brunswickers, to be royally screwed and just mutter under their breath about it.
Kudos to Charles for actually admitting that he said it, hopefully he will listen to the grain of truth in those who criticize him by telling him that not only does he have to be careful with his mannerisms, but also with his words.
That definitely was a bad choice of words. No doubt about it. But to labour the point serves no purpose- as Charles says, anybody with other ideas are welcome to post them.
If Mr.Mann is willing to write such things about Charles in the paper, he should have the guts to meet him face to face. He can have a lawyer with him, he can have his staff and police there if he wants. But to make remarks like that and not even meet the person who you are defaming is far ruder than anything Charles has done.
As for those who criticize Charles for actually having a pair and doing something, how many people have talked to their MLA? How many have voiced concerns about the method with which politicians ban people outright? How many people have come to Charles' aid? I don't know of anybody yet who has agreed with the ban, I also don't know anybody who has done anything about it.
When the people refuse to rule, they will be ruled.
CAMP OUT
Maybe it was a bad choice of words but I said it in a joking matter.
Because the lawyer finally agreed to chat with me in a serious way after he saw the bullhorn.
I believe my joke was- This bullhorn is stronger than a shot gun?
The viewers being small in this blog?
I am not certain on that one because it's not everyone who comes here every day so it's steady at 350 per day so who truly knows the numbers?
Charles...you can't call someone a bigot and than expect them to clear their schedule to meet with you. Get a clue, buddy...Than maybe people will begin to take you seriously.
You made an a** of yourself one more time. Why Tom Mann should meet a maniac because that is what you have established yourself to be. People write letters about others all the time. You just respond in the paper which you did. People do not go to the letter writer's home or office and make threat or harass. That is what it amounts to.
You are antagonizing people all over the place. Liberal Party, Conservative Party, Irvings, Rogers and on and on. Whole world is your enemy. It is all in your head. Get help before it is too late and you end up in a cuckoo house. Actually that is where you belong.
Anyone can write against any person but if I'm not allowed to fight back in a letter? Well, there's a problem.
My letter against would have never been printed if I didn't call the Irving paper and told them that I will pursue this issue higher up.
As for the cuckoo house?
If this is where a person who fights for what he or she believes in?
Then so be it! I'm heading right towards that place.
One question? What do you do with a blogger in the Cuckoo house?
Once he or she gets out?
Look out!!!
Just asks the Saint John Police Force.
I'm certain they will say- We should have taken care of him once he was in that cell....
There's only one way to get rid of a Blogger???
You got to shoot them!!!!
You are talking violence again. You do not shoot a kook/blogger like you. You are finding out the hard way as people are walking away from you and avoid you. And you are banned here and banned there. At one time you were banned from UNB. Do you ever learn from your own blunders.
lol...how much money does the Irvings or the government pay you to stay on this blog anyway???
Get a life!!!
Now? UNB??? This was in the summer of 2003 during my protest.
I was collecting signatures for my petition.
Many students use ritalin by snorting it to pass their exams.
The administration agreed with this I guess and they didn't want me to educate the students that drugs is a bad thing I guess?
I go there all the time. I didn't cause problems. I was just educating the students on the danger of prescription drug.
I noticed there's more people from the Moncton area in this blog today. They search charles leblanc and landed here. Is there a story in the Moncton Irving transcript or other media outlets?
It may have been said in a joking manner, but that's the point-people don't know your sense of humour and may not know you. We know what you meant, but they may not. 350 a day is nothing, there are three quarters of a million people in this province, so you can assume when you walk into a building people know who you are and what you want. They may know, but there is no way of knowing that.
That's why I'd say to watch your mouth. 'jokes' like that have a way of haunting a person. You'ver probably seen mafia movies, they are always 'joking' as well "gee, look here, this place looks pretty flammable, better not smoke! I'm just sayin.." A person could very well assume that you mean 'first' you'll try a bullhorn, then something else. I'd knock off 'jokes' like that permanently, they can really get you in trouble.
As for the frequent poster with the complaints about Charles pissing people off, take another look at that list: politicians, corporations, lawyers,etc. You'll notice that the Anti poverty association is not pissed off, neither are the poor or transient. It is the rich and powerful that are pissed off at Charles, and I say congratulations on that Charles!
However, I would disagree that they are actually pissed off. Charles is an inconvenience, nothing more. It fact, he serves a purpose of giving people a place to vent at politicians, which is very cathartic.
Come on Charles, The Gleaner printed your letter because the Irving Empire was afraid of you going over their heads? Going Higher up to whom? You know darn well why they printed it. You simply presented them with a letter with language they could print. Once they edited for you that is. I am surprised that your not screaming bloody murder over that! Or are you just so pleased to see your name in a legitimate paper once again your willing to except what you got? As for agreeing or disagreeing with the ban No one can do either based on the facts as presented so far. There have been no facts. The government is not about to disclose the information and although Charles claims to know all the nasty little details he has decided to keep quite about it himself, choosing to stomp around the city with a bull horn instead. However if your asking in general are there any reasons under which someone might be banned from government buildings then anyone with more than half a brain has to say yes. Those with Less than half a brain I'll let speak for themselves.
I would be honest with ya. In the old days, I would love to see my name in the paper but those days are long gone.
The point was that I wasn't allowed to fight back once Brent Taylor called me - A kook!!!
An idiot, fool, drink, mental case low life or bum is ok!!
BUT A KOOK????
The paper didn't edit the letter and I sure didin't either.
Some reader from this blog did.
I just wanted to prove a point and if that letter would not have gotten printed?
You would have heard this issue from me for years to come?
Just asked the Telegraph Journal if I can hold a grudge???
"hunted", "shot gun" and other terms are not appropriate, even if you think you said it in a jovial tone. It's not funny.
If you feel that way? Call the police.....looks like you believe that I'm a loose cannon?? oh oh..walk into that one? Here we go....
You are not a loose cannon. Just one big KOOK. Get help.
What happened to your big plan of doing something this week that would guarantee the police would be called? Chicken out?
What do you do coward? Just read the comments section? Come on get a life???
The whole story is in here. David Brown would have called the Police.
Go outside for a walk...
At the risk of being belittled like 7:24 anonymous for posting once again. Correct me if wrong but did not your rewritten letter as posted on your site have a paragraph containing your definition of "Bigot"? And was that not missing in the paper? Or are you saying you had that edited out before you sent it? But no, that can't be true I recall you musing on whether the "Bigot" word would make it the day you announced it was to be published.
I believe there was also a sentence saying "I am the blogger who was banned for life". If Charles didn't add that line when he sent it to them then the editors did, and as mentioned in the thread above, they even removed the quotation marks from 'harassed' which is just evil editing. So they definitely did do editing.
That 'd stewart' makes good points up to the end. The Gleaner printed the letter because it was redone. However, removing that paragraph about the 'bigot' remark was also editing that was uncalled for.
However, we have to remember that Charles is REACTING to something done to him, so you can't say "oh, he's using a bullhorn-that shows he shouldn't be banned" or "he's confronting people who support the ban, so they were right to ban him".
None of these things would have occurred if Charles had not been banned from the legislature, and no doubt that was part of the reason for the banning. The reasons for his banning are obvious though, we KNOW the 'facts'. Charles is a pain in the ass, simple as that. The facts from the government were reported by them, that they have to provide a 'safe environment' for their workers. He was close to getting a press pass, or even worse, simply having enough people distrust the government for not letting him have a press pass that something needed to be done.
Of course there are no facts presented that Charles is a threat because none exist. We know that, we read in the blog everyday what Charles does. When he confronts somebody, its right here.
So we can't forget that six politicians met behind closed doors and robbed a man of his basic charter right. And not only that, but a man who performs a public service by consistently covering what the government is doing.
So when you are protesting something obviously you have to do things that aren't part of your regular routine, because just blogging it wouldn't accomplish anything.
But this particular thread is about the 'violent' overtones and I'm almost always on Charles' side, but here I have to say he made a big mistake with that line. It makes no difference what the lawyer thought, it may well have been a joke. However, Charles has treaded in this area before, even, if I recall correctly, posting a picture of a gun. We know you are joking, but you are only human and have gone through a lot, so you can't expect everybody to take such jokes at face value.
So even the pinhead critics here have a point, and hopefully Charles can drop the pride a bit and listen. I even agree that the comments Charles frequently makes about 'getting bloggers mad' is out of line. That IS threatening people, and really has no place in public discourse. Charles is free to do what he likes, and critics are free to criticize when he goes too far.
The best solution is listen to the critics-when even those who support you say there is something to them, then it's well to listen, because the surest way to avoid criticism is to be beyond criticism.
Cut out the violent 'jokes', you are a public figure as much as Tom Mann, and unlike him, all your 'power' rests with one thing-that you have the ear of the public. When you lose that, then nobody will listen to you. As long as you are in the right, which is most of the time, then you have no problem.
Calling people a 'coward' is also out of line. I've suggested before that you return to your policy of ignoring the comments-you have enough to do. As you well know lots of people can't go 'public' for many reasons. Some people have a lot to lose, and that's why some posters aw hile ago were quite hard on you, because people literally see you as the guy who CAN do things they can't, because they have families, etc.
Stay above the fray Charles, the pinhead critics aren't worth your time, and there are enough supporters here that they usually don't go unchallenged anyway-you've got lots to do.
Post a Comment