From the front page of srtv.ca:

The CRTC is continuing a pattern of fraudulent behaviour in its dealings with Star Ray TV. The community TV station filed an application with the CRTC for a low-power television license in June 2004. Since then, the CRTC has been using various bureaucratic devices to ensure that Star Ray TV never gets a hearing. Recently the CRTC sent back the Star Ray TV application claiming it was "incomplete." No explanation was given. This occurred over a year after all application "deficiency" questions were answered and the application declared to be "fully complete." Star Ray TV called the individual responsible for processing the application. This individual stated that he "heard" through the office grapevine that the application had been returned, meaning that he was out of the loop. He was the one that crafted the deficiency questions!

Says Jan Pachul the station's founder; "The CRTC is not above using fraud and breach of trust as tools to keep our locally produced programming off the air. The arrogant CRTC seems to think they are above the law and any kind of behaviour, including criminal behaviour, is acceptable. They have been getting away with white-collar crime for years; I guess they have this notion that laws are only for little people like us. The CRTC has no shame; their only concern is the next CRTC employee that is going to get a big promotion by being hired by a corporation needing special favours from the CRTC. The corruption is easy to figure out, just look at the interventions submitted to the CRTC by major broadcasting organizations and see how many of them have been signed by former CRTC employees."

Recently Star Ray TV has become politically active, writing letters to Prime Minister Harper and other members of parliament. Mr. Harper's office did reply and forwarded Star Ray's letter to Beverly Oda, the new Minister of Heritage. According to the Conservative Party candidate handbook, the Conservative Party "supports the restructuring of the Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission, reducing its mandate to registration and/or marketing of bandwidth and to dealing with international communications negotiations." Star Ray TV maintains that the CRTC is an affront to democracy and should be dismantled.

The CRTC has a long history of denying licenses to new entrants in broadcasting assuming that the application got to the stage of a hearing. Examples include TVN, a company that tried to establish a local station in Niagara Falls, and the Toronto Star that also made a bid for southern Ontario stations, which would have included 85% Canadian content. Community-based broadcasting is a much-needed outlet for Canadian talent to flourish.

It is unknown how many more applicants have been given a similar "run around" to Star Ray TV and denied a hearing. Star Ray TV would like to hear from individuals who have a similar story to tell about the CRTC.

Anyone with CRTC stories can post them on this forum under the topic of "CRTC corruption."

Here is the letter from the CRTC that accompanied our returned application which we originally filed on June 3, 2004:

http://srtv.ca/crtc/crtc06.htm

This letter and the previous one of December 9 2005 are "Prima Facie" evidence that Marc O'Sullivan, Executive Director Broadcasting and Robert Ramsay, Director Broadcast Analysis both of the CRTC did commit the offenses of fraud and breech of trust as defined by the Criminal Code of Canada.

"Prima Facie" is a Latin legal term loosely translated means "on the face." In other words, we don't have to dig deeper than these letters to cast the suspicion that a crime has been committed.

Perhaps these buffoons Mr. O'Sullivan and Mr. Ramsay are unaware of a Supreme Court of Canada ruling in April 1971 (Confederation Broadcasting vs. the CRTC) that affirms a statutory right to a hearing if you file an application with the CRTC.

Both Mr. O'Sullivan and Mr. Ramsay refer to the application in their letters so that CRTC can't deny that an application was filed.

In our legal research we found that if you are a "public official" there is no need to prove intent to defraud for a conviction. The Crown normally has to prove intent to defraud but public officials are held to a higher standard than the general public. The trade off is that they (public officials) get a lesser sentence that the general public upon conviction of fraud.

Presently I have contacted the Auditor General's office about this matter. Hopefully we will get some action from the Auditor General.