Tuesday, July 19, 2022

About The United People of Canada ...

Finally, CBC wades into the fray. Methinks this story is just starting.

(Wag of the tail to anonymous commenter.)

AFTERSNARK: Here's what I find so irredeemably baffling in that article (emphasis added):

"Some people have speculated, 'Oh did some Freedom Convoy funds get used to purchase a building here?' I can say for a fact that is not the case," Komer said.

"I don't know what did or didn't happen with … that stuff but this is completely funds that we're raising privately through community contributors."

The biggest contributor so far gave because of the "good work we're doing in the community," Komer said, but he declined to say more about them because he hadn't talked to donors about sharing their names with the media.

What "good work?" One searches in vain at tupoc.ca for any hint of that group's accomplishments, locally or elsewhere.

WAIT, SO THEY'RE BUYING? Original reports suggested that TUPOC was simply leasing the church, but this part of the CBC piece clearly implies a purchase is in the offing (emphasis added):

"We're in a due diligence process right now with the current owners," he said when asked about the status of the building. "It's under a contract of purchase and sale agreement."

An online real estate posting for the address at 310 St. Patrick St., was still active as of Monday morning, with an asking price of $5,950,000.

Land registry documents show a numbered company traced back to Patrick McDonald, one of the investors who bought the church after it was deconsecrated in 2007, still owns the property.

CBC has attempted to contact McDonald since Friday, but he has not responded.

Asked where the organization found funds for a purchase of that size, Komer said the main funding source is through community bonds and added more information would be shared online later.

How in the name of Pat King's ass crack does a mystery group come up with a cool six million, given a total lack of accomplishments of any kind?


Here's TUPOC director William Komer:

"Komer said the organization has retained legal counsel that is ready to intervene if necessary."

Would it be untoward to have asked who that legal counsel was? Seriously, when someone insists they've retained legal counsel, is it appropriate to ask who that might be?

ABOUT THOSE FINANCES ... Given that there is apparently a conditional purchase offer from TUPOC for this $6M property on the table, this inspires two rather obvious questions.

First, if we assume a typical mortgage with a down payment of say, 20%, where does TUPOC think the remaining $5M is going to come from? In short, what is their long-term business model? Assuming a sizable monthly mortgage payment, where does TUPOC imagine that money will come from? Selling merch? Renting co-working space? The largesse and gullibility of the local community? What is the actual business plan here that justifies that sort of property?

More importantly, though, if we assume a moderate initial down payment of 20%, that is still over a million dollars. Who is fronting that money? And what sane bank would even consider giving a mortgage to a not-for-profit that has existed for only four months, and which has been massively unforthcoming about their details?

In short, how do a handful of Freedom Convoyers waltz into town and find enough cash to buy a $6M building that would be the perfect base of operations and staging area for yet another violent assault on Parliament?

So many questions, so many sleazebags refusing to answer them.

Do better, CBC.


Anonymous said...

"I'm not aware that this individual who it's a fact is married to Tamara Lich has ever supported the Freedom Convoy, not to my knowledge," he said.

Who talks like this unless they are trying to avoid answering the question?
It's a convoy front.

Anonymous said...

"We're also not Nazis, racist, misogynist, or whatever else."
- William Komer, The United People of Canada

It seems that certain Nazis, racists, misogynists, or whatever else need their safe space.
How cute.

Anonymous said...

The one person who's actually putting his face on this is one of their Directors, William Komer. A visit to his linked-in listing reveals a couple of interesting things.

He’s associated with organizations that feature the same kind of incomprehensible gibberish as the United Peoples pages. Example: he’s on the board of this organization. https://bethanyshope.org/event/summer-camp-volunteer-training/ . Read the description of this "training event" and see if you can make any sense out of a goal like: "Collaboratively administrate empowered markets via plug-and-play networks. Dynamically procrastinate B2C users after installed base benefits. Dramatically visualize customer directed convergence without revolutionary ROI. Efficiently unleash cross-media information without cross-media value. Quickly maximize timely deliverables for real-time schemas. Dramatically maintain clicks-and-mortar functional solutions."

Another of the affiliations listed on his linked in page is this one: http://www.koolgroups.com/index.html, which, you will note, provides event management and catering services. If - and of course I have no idea whether this is the case - but IF Komer is raising money through the “united peoples” not for profit, then contracting his own company to provide these services… well, darn, he's been taking lessons from the Democracy Fund and Ezra!

Purple library guy said...

I read that description and instantly said "Bingo!"
I think there were enough buzzwords to fill my whole card, actually.

MgS said...

"Community Bonds" - why does that read to my cynical eye like "we're fleecing a bunch of rubes who will never see a dime of interest back"? Like seriously, WTF is a "community bond", and just where are they selling them?

As for the "business plan", I'll put money that it boils down to "this is going to become our logistics base for the next occupation". The one thing about old churches - they have a ton of space in them - way more than you're going to need to store a few BBQs and propane tanks for their weekly hoe-downs.

Nothing good will come of this.

Anonymous said...

Seriously, when someone insists they've retained legal counsel, is it appropriate to ask why they think they need it?