Carinthia
-
Posts
378 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Carinthia
-
-
30 million Canadians listened to Mulroney's testimony? Are you sure about that Carinthia?
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".
-
Carinthia thanks for the link. Nothing in the article contradicts what I said that what Mulroney did is not illegal under our tax laws. Mulroney is due to testify on Thursday at which time he will be asked to explain this matter.
As to whether he provided any service for Schreiber for the $300,000 is another matter altogether. Again, I don't doubt this will be explored by the Ethics committee on Thursday.
I'll take a wait and see attitude.
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.
-
other thing about him is that he probably will have to be kept in solitary confinement for the rest of his life because of the possiblility that the other inmates would kill him or at least beat him up. Bernardo has to be kept segregated as well.
Well, I suppose they have to do that but it is a shame.
-
I read it but I couldn't remember.
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.
-
..... aaaaand - there goes the thread.
Whatever!
-
As the saying goes, Follow the money and then you'll know who was really behind 9/11 and it was a very rich, very large group within the US.
Couldn't agree more!
-
In our case, Canada does not pay any money to the Royal Family.
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:
-
Seems fair to me...however he will probably serve 2-3 years only or is it one of those federal charges where it is mandatory to serve atleast 80%?
It was reported today that he will have to serve no less than 85% of his sentence.
-
So Conrad is facing the heat, I would like to know what everyone thinks/feels about this sentence? Too light or too harsh?
Personally, I feel jovial whenever I hear about white collar thieves going away to prison.
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.
-
It's an undisputed fact that Mulroney voluntarily declared the money to the CRA. Under our tax laws, that money was a retainer and did not have to be declared until the retainer was spent for a service rendered.
I have never seen anything reporting on this. Cite please?
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.
-
Both my parents were smokers, and speaking from experience the second hand smoke damn near killed me. I could barely draw a breath. Adults choose to smoke, children shouldn't have to breathe in toxic fumes because an adult chooses to smoke.
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?
-
The job in Afghanistan will never be completed...the US has been in Germany, Japan and Korea for over 50 years.
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.
-
It has not been established that Mulroney lied under oath. What was reported is that Mulroney underplayed his relationship to Schreiber. Mulroney had never divulged the $300,000. he received from Schreiber because he was never questioned about it. A witness does not have to divulge information voluntarily. That in itself does not mean the witness committed perjury or make the witness a liar.
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.
-
They just said that this is a possibility over the duration of his sentence.
The reason they didn't initially charge his as a dangerous offender as they can do under the law is that muddies the water on the murder charges.
There is a repeat drunk driver who has killed three people in Alberta who they are trying to also convict as a dangerous offender. In that case, there is a lot more evidence that the person is indeed a dangerous offender.
It is a good day for a long and painful investigation and trial.
Agreed. You are the voice of good reason here. One way or the other he will never see the light of day again.
-
..Afghanistan became a pain in the ass before Iraq was ever invaded.
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.
-
Of course you don't...too busy being "disgusted" while the American hegemon continues policies going back over 100 years. It has nothing to do with false pride or making mistakes, and everything to do with a superpower making choices. Shall Americans only support their elected leadership when her battles are won without losses? Why did a president and two PMs retain power after the invasion of Iraq?
If some Canadians are equally "disgusted" with the American administration, perhaps it serves as a distraction for their own domestic impotence in the face of steady action in Afghanistan.
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?
-
Excellent discussion here.
After sentencing comes the question of whether Pickton will be tried for the other 26 murders. I heard some commentators say "why bother?" Excuse me! I think absolutely he should face a second trial. Each of the victims and their families are equally entitled to justice. This should be a no-brainer.
I suppose it could be concluded that in a second trial the same verdict would result, i.e. second degree murder but so what. If there was a second conviction, would he not have to serve these 2 sentences consecutively? If so, this is another valid reason to hold a different trial for the other victims. I have a feeling the crown prosecutor will try to strike a deal for a guilty plea on the other murders but personally, I want to see him face another trial.
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.
-
Because the Canadian justice system puts the rights of the criminals ahead of everyone else's rights.
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?
-
His most definitely is a minority opinion. Most Americans realize the war was a mistake.
More like false pride.
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.
Mulroney's testimony in Parliament
in Federal Politics in Canada
Posted
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.