Carinthia

Hiding many thousands of dollars in tin boxes in New York might be a good clue. Why wouldn't he do what any other businessman would do? Keep the money in an interest bearing something or other. And the interest rates in those days weren't too shabby. I'm with the guy from Winnipeg who bluntly said that he didn't believe any of it.

Well... a couple of million anyway...I do exagerate. Besides, the Canucks are losing to San Jose and that makes me bitchy.

Did you happen to hear the resounding THUNK as 30 million Canadians fell off the turnip truck after listening to Mulroney's testimony? Pathetic! As Lyndon McIntyre said on Don Newman's show..."bloated embroidery".

You're welcome Capricorn! It is all so cloudy and I don't think that any proof of anything will ever be found. So I guess in the end we will all have to take our conjectures and interpret them as to about how we personally feel about Mulroney and whether we individually believe him. Schrieber will be interviewed on One On One with Peter Mansbridge on the weekend. Saw some of the interview last night. Now that Schreiber is free on bail he is not quite so free with the damning information, and was almost defending Mulroney. One can only guess what may have promoted this turn about face. That was my take on it anyhow.

Well, I suppose they have to do that but it is a shame.

Who cares how old they were? If they were old enough to have to sex and know what that's all about, then they were old enough to know that what they were doing was wrong. Rape is a crime of violence, sex is only the method in which to administer it.

Whatever!

Couldn't agree more!

Yes, I know that. I was born and raised in England.

Deleted post

The royal family are parasites. A handful of out of touch with reality, filthy rich people, living in absolute obscene luxury, at huge expense to everybody else. Oh, did I mention that I'm anti royalist?

In the 80's there was a man in Canada who was given a light sentence for molesting a 3 year girl. The judge said there was evidence that the little girl had acted in a sexually provactive fashion. I remember the public outcry but I don't remember the final outcome. Another guy in Alberta was given a light sentence after he raped a 9 year old girl because he was drunk. It happens everywhere. Go figure! :angry:

It was reported today that he will have to serve no less than 85% of his sentence.

Not being a millionaire and running in those crowds, I hardly understand the charges, so would have no clue if this is fair or not. As this appears to be a rich mans crime, I have nothing to compare the sentence with as it's not something we see on a regular basis. I will say that after watching him on the tube and listening to his arrogant comments and the fact that he was found guilty, it probably fits just fine. Have fun Connie!! I do think it's bullshit that the rich and famous are allowed to go home for 3 months to "get their affairs in order" when everybody else in the world is led out of the court room in handcuffs and leg irons to begin serving the sentence that very same day. Michael Vick was sentenced today and it doesn't start until March either. What's with this?

Too wide for my screen. I am in the same boat as American Woman, wouldn't have clue how to adjust it on my own.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/sto...y/National/home Although many of the people involved in the discussions between the Mulroney and Schreiber camps have elected not to speak publicly, it can be said with certainty that Mr. Mulroney did not disclose the cash payments as income in the years that he received the money. He later exercised the legal right of any Canadian to come forward to the Canada Revenue Agency and paid what he owed. The CRA created its voluntary disclosure program in 1973 so that taxpayers could declare unreported income without fear of prosecution. Tax lawyers and CRA officials often refer to the program as a “win-win” situation; it's an opportunity for taxpayers to rectify past errors and an opportunity for the government to collect funds it might otherwise never receive. CRA literature calls it a “fairness program that is aimed at providing clients with an opportunity to correct past omissions.” None of the government officials or tax experts interviewed by The Globe and CBC spoke directly about Mr. Mulroney's case; rather, they were asked to answer questions about the process and provide insight into hypothetical situations. CRA officials are forbidden by law from discussing the filings of individual taxpayers. According to the agency's data from 2005-2006, there were 7,300 applications for voluntary disclosures, of which around 2,200 were denied. The program helped uncover $330-million that had yet to be assessed for taxes. One of the key stipulations for making such a disclosure is that the income has to be declared without any hint of an investigation by the agency. In other words, people can't wait until tax investigators discover they made a mistake on their taxes and then try to make things rights by disclosing the income. A valid disclosure must also provide a complete explanation of the circumstances behind the unreported income. Those facts raise questions about when Mr. Mulroney filed his disclosure and what he told investigators about the income. If Mr. Mulroney made his voluntary disclosure any time after Nov. 2, 1995, he would have been aware that he was the subject of an investigation by the RCMP, a highly publicized probe that focused specifically on his relationship with Mr. Schreiber – the very person who provided him the undisclosed income. According to CRA spokeswoman Béatrice Fénelon, a person who is the subject of a criminal investigation can still file a valid voluntary disclosure, but the taxpayer must be completely upfront with investigators. “If he is the subject of an investigation and is aware of it, [he] is under the obligation to disclose that they are under investigation as part of making a complete disclosure of information,” she wrote. Also, Mr. Mulroney's spokesman, Mr. Lavoie, has repeatedly referred to the cash payments as a “retainer.” Stevan Novoselac, a partner at the law firm Gowlings and a tax expert, said in an interview that a retainer isn't taxable income until the funds are taken out of a lawyer's trust account and a bill is rendered to the client. Is it possible that Mr. Mulroney waited to pay his taxes because he had been holding Mr. Schreiber's payment in trust and didn't immediately consider it income? If so, he wouldn't need to file a voluntary tax disclosure. He simply would have disclosed the payment on his annual tax return the same year that he took the $300,000 out of trust. Moreover, Mr. Schreiber maintains he never received a bill for the services Mr. Mulroney provided. ____________________ If Mulroney was receiving the money for services and everything was above board right from the git go, why didn't he just pay the tax when he first received the money? Why didn't he complete the so called services? At least this gives him some more wiggle room.

Your post has jarred much guilt in me. Many years ago I remember my little daughter burying her head in her shirt to breath whenever I lit up in the car. I finally clued in and stopped out of respect for her discomfort. Wonder how many kids hate it but don't or can't act out against a parent who does it?

Speaking of that, why are they there? They can build and store nuclear arms too and nobody else is allowed to. But as the superpower, I guess they know what's best for the rest of us.

There's also the matter of him not declaring his $300,000 to the tax man. He did eventually after the RCMP got involved and he was protected from prosecution under some clause that allows people to be free of prosecution if they "own up". An incentive clause if you will.

Agreed. You are the voice of good reason here. One way or the other he will never see the light of day again.

Huh? That was my point. The job in Afganistan probably would have been completed if the invasion of Iraq had not drained the armed forces.

Canadians went to Afganistan primarily on a peace keeping mission and to help ensure that the Taliban, who were taking women out to baseball fields in the back of pick up trucks and shooting them in the head amongst other horrors, did not regain their reign of terror. If Iraq had not been invaded on a pack of lies, then the job in Afganistan would probably have seen success, as well as Bin Laden may have been caught. Oh but excuse me, the Bin Laden's and the Bush families are "good friends" aren't they?

I would rather see him plea, providing he gets life of course. Why should he spend almost a year in a court room all day when he should be spending the time in a 6' x 8' cell? And less money for the tax payer to spend on this piece of crap.

You nailed it!! Hopefully, the Crown can appeal the sentence and they should. I knew of someone years ago who was convicted of rape and was sentenced to 2 years. The Crown appealed and won. They tacked an additional year on to his sentence. I don't know the circumstances of the Crown being able to do this though. Perhaps public outcry would help? Where do I sign up?

Thank you! That's a relief. Actually, I post on an American forum. The focus there is not political but when politics does rear its head, most are Republican supporters and express huge disgust with Bush/Cheney.