‘I knew my wife sent e-mail' – Coleridge

Tracy Holmes - Peace Arch News Published: February 03, 2009

White Rock Coun. James Coleridge now admits he knew the source of a mystery e-mail that accused his opponents in the last civic election of belonging to a secret “real estate slate.” His wife did it using a fake name, he explains in an affidavit filed last week in B.C. Supreme Court. “My wife took it upon herself, without my authorization or knowledge, to send out the slate e-mail, which was based on the research and facts I had compiled and which we both believed and knew to be true,” Coleridge states. The validity of Coleridge’s election to council is being questioned based on the e-mail, which was sent out Oct. 23, 2008. Failed incumbent councillor Matt Todd filed a petition in December to nullify Coleridge’s election, in what Todd said is an effort to improve the community’s trust in politicians. “There has to be some kind of threshold at which it’s just too much, and I believe that threshold was crossed in this election,” Todd said at the time. Todd claims Coleridge’s re-election contravenes a section of the Local Government Act that forbids the use of abduction, duress or fraudulent means to compel or otherwise cause a person to vote or refrain from voting for a particular candidate.

The Oct. 23 e-mail, sent under the name “Alison and Tom Baker,” accused six candidates for White Rock council of being part of a pro-development slate. It was sent to all candidates and undisclosed others – including two Peace Arch News employees – from an Internet Protocol (IP) address that was later traced to Coleridge. Initially, Coleridge denied knowledge of the e-mail’s source. Later, when questioned about the link to his IP address, he claimed he must have been a victim of identity theft. “I’ve been told people can change the information of where an e-mail came from. It’s called e-mail spoofing. It’s a form of identity theft,” Coleridge told the Peace Arch News in a November interview. Friday, Coleridge’s lawyer, Jonathan Baker, said his client had denied any connection to the e-mail in an effort to protect his wife, Anna. “Quite frankly, at that stage, he basically didn’t want to get his wife involved,” Baker said. “He tried to keep her out of it by saying he didn’t do it.” In his affidavit, Coleridge says: “I denied to the media that my wife, writing under an alias, had written the slate e-mail because I wanted to protect her from all of this.” Coleridge Monday declined to comment further, “out of respect for the entire process of the petition.” “I will be happy to comment once the court has announced their decision,” he said by e-mail.

Coleridge maintains in his affidavit that the information that was distributed is true, and that he and his wife had collected it with the intent of using it in his campaign. “I developed a news flyer as part of my campaign literature in which I intended to distinguish my own positions from those who had in the past supported highrises and whom I referred to as the ‘real estate slate.’ By the term ‘real estate slate’ I simply meant those candidates who shared many policies in favour of development generally and highrises in particular. I believed it to be true and considered it to be important, relevant information for voters to consider,” his affidavit states. “After considerable discussion and debate with my wife and friends, I decided not to emphasize the real estate slate theme... “My wife disagreed with my decision not to use the real estate slate material in my news flyer and she let me know in no uncertain terms that she thought the content should be included in the flyer.” Coleridge also states the e-mail went out under an alias, and only to election candidates. He adds he “would have preferred to send it under my own name rather than an alias because I would have included further information.”

Todd said Monday it is unfortunate Coleridge only decided to clarify the issue after court papers were filed. “It would have saved me many thousands of dollars of my own money, and a lot of confusion in the community, if he had just been honest in the beginning,” Todd said. “It’s unfortunate I had to go to the Supreme Court to get him to be honest to the people of White Rock.” Baker disagreed his client violated the Local Government Act. “In this case... the only thing they can say is fraudulent was that Coleridge sent out truthful statements using an alias,” Baker said, noting this is only the second challenge of the act of its kind. “There’s nothing here that would constitute a violation of the statute.” Baker described the petition as little more than a “slapsuit,” and that if it is defeated, he will go after Todd for special costs, including the full cost of the hearing. “I think the purpose of it is to put our client through significant expense,” Baker said. Efforts to speak with Anna Coleridge were unsuccessful. She is expected to testify in court. The hearing is set for four days beginning Feb. 9.