Harper Settles Lawsuit

[jdobbin]

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/conservatives_lawsuit

OTTAWA - The federal Conservative party has quietly settled a lawsuit with a disgruntled former candidate but now faces the possibility of two fresh legal challenges.

Lawyer Alan Riddell, who was stripped of his Tory candidacy in 2005, settled his libel suit against Prime Minister Stephen Harper and party president Don Plett out of court, the party said in a terse, one-line statement on the weekend.

But the Conservatives may soon face lawsuits from two other erstwhile candidates who say they've been defamed by the party's backroom operators.

"Certainly there's pending legal action now," Brent Barr, a businessman from Guelph, Ont., who ran for the Tories in 2006, said Monday in an interview.

Barr, who was suddenly disqualified as a candidate last month for reasons he still doesn't understand, said his lawyers are looking at both suing for defamation and recovering costs he incurred as an active candidate.

"It's not a path that I'm choosing to go down," said Barr.

"They've said things that are absolutely, completely false. That's my bigger issue. They're trying to defame my name, character-assassinate me."

Mark Warner, who was dumped last month as the Tory candidate in Toronto-Centre, said Monday he, too, is considering legal action.

"I'm evaluating all my options. I am concerned about some of what Mr. Plett has been saying publicly and impressions created by his statements. I am consulting lawyers and I am prepared to take appropriate action."

Both disenfranchised candidates won their nominations through riding association votes that followed the prescribed party rules.

I guess when you have a lot of money in the bank, you can settle these lawsuits one after the other. However, you gotta ask, why are there so many ex-candidates who played by the rules considering lawsuits?

Edited November 13, 2007 by jdobbin

[old_bold&cold]

I see that the Liberal supportters are again trying to make something about nothing. This news report has said nothing really. It does not even say who sttled on who or even for what the value would be. It is all very neatly put to bed. If things went the way the Liberal say they did, then there would be some sign of who won what, or settled for what. So like I said not really much of a story here, and not even much whenyou count the recent ones where the CPC decided to not have certain people not run for the party. There is nothing any of them can do as the CPC do have the last say in who runs and who does not. But I will give you some credit on the issue that Harper did say before that he would try to let the local political assmblies be the ones who would make the choices in the majority of cases.

It should have come as no surprise though that he overruled the local candidate, after he was already removed from cacus already before. That was not ever going to fly and it would have really shown Harper to be weak if he allowed it. So that one was not even an issue in my own view, as it really was predetermined.

[runningdog]

It should be very entertaining to watch harper squirm in the weeks that follow. His many bad decisions are finally catching up to him.

[jdobbin]

I see that the Liberal supportters are again trying to make something about nothing. This news report has said nothing really. It does not even say who sttled on who or even for what the value would be. It is all very neatly put to bed. If things went the way the Liberal say they did, then there would be some sign of who won what, or settled for what. So like I said not really much of a story here, and not even much whenyou count the recent ones where the CPC decided to not have certain people not run for the party. There is nothing any of them can do as the CPC do have the last say in who runs and who does not. But I will give you some credit on the issue that Harper did say before that he would try to let the local political assmblies be the ones who would make the choices in the majority of cases.

It should have come as no surprise though that he overruled the local candidate, after he was already removed from cacus already before. That was not ever going to fly and it would have really shown Harper to be weak if he allowed it. So that one was not even an issue in my own view, as it really was predetermined.

It says Harper settled. That means they didn't want this to go to court. And if it was just one candidate, you might have a point but there are now more candidates are sick of being run down in the media by the party and the leader. We'll see how many of these cases they will settle but even Tory allies in the media are saying it doesn't look good when candidates go through proper channels to be selected as candidate and then get pulled and face blistering criticism by party brass for being lazy or worse.

[shavluk]

Maybe if you read it all and were concerned with ethics or being true to your word you would.

I didn't think being honest was something left or right ,,but it should be our right as voters , taxpayers and just citizens.

******If the two former candidates do file suit, it would mark another legal chapter for Conservative party lawyers who have seldom lacked for work in the last two years.

It's an unlikely twist for a party whose 2006 election platform promised to "ensure that party nomination and leadership races are conducted in a fair, transparent and democratic manner" and "prevent party leaders from appointing candidates without the democratic consent of local electoral district associations."

A bitter court battle over the nomination process in Calgary West, the riding of Conservative MP Rob Anders, ground on for months and eventually compelled Anders to repeat the nomination process last spring.

Just last month, the party replaced the riding executive in a Nova Scotia riding after the existing members pledged their continuing support for Independent MP Bill Casey, who was expelled from the Conservative caucus for voting against a budget measure.

The Riddell case dates to the fall of 2005 when the Conservative party decided it wanted to replace its candidate in Ottawa South with Allan Cutler, a former bureaucrat who blew the whistle on the sponsorship scandal.

After repeatedly attempting to disqualify Riddell, who'd run for the Tories in the 2004 election, the party agreed to reimburse him $50,000 in expenses if he would step down voluntarily.

They subsequently refused to pay when the arrangement became public knowledge, and Harper flatly denied in public that any such deal between the party and Riddell had been made.

Riddell sued for libel, essentially arguing the prime minister had accused him of being a liar.

The party released a single-line statement on the weekend, dated Friday, saying they had "mutually settled all legal proceedings."

********

The Party dictates and as such is something that goes against the political system we should have.

[capricorn]

Why wouldn't the Conservative Party settle out of court? It's probably a shrewd move which saved the party millions of dollars.

As if the Liberals have never taken such steps regarding nominated candidates. Maybe the offended candidates who were turfed and replaced by the Liberal Party knew that suing the Liberal Party was futile since the Liberal Party is broke and couldn't pay court imposed damages so why bother.

[jdobbin]

Why wouldn't the Conservative Party settle out of court? It's probably a shrewd move which saved the party millions of dollars.

As if the Liberals have never taken such steps regarding nominated candidates. Maybe the offended candidates who were turfed and replaced by the Liberal Party knew that suing the Liberal Party was futile since the Liberal Party is broke and couldn't pay court imposed damages so why bother.

Didn't say it wasn't a good move for them.

The Liberals have been broke all the last decade?

[capricorn]

Didn't say it wasn't a good move for them.

I never inferred you did.

The Liberals have been broke all the last decade?

Why the reference to the last decade? I sure didn't put that on the table.

It's safe to say the Liberal fortunes have dwindled since the introduction of the amended law on political contributions introduced in the House by Chretien in January 2003. A gift to the Conservatives.

[jdobbin]

I never inferred you did.

Why the reference to the last decade? I sure didn't put that on the table.

It's safe to say the Liberal fortunes have dwindled since the introduction of the amended law on political contributions introduced in the House by Chretien in January 2003. A gift to the Conservatives.

They still had money in the bank going into the last election. Don't think I heard about any lawsuits or settlements back then. Did you?

[capricorn]

They still had money in the bank going into the last election. Don't think I heard about any lawsuits or settlements back then. Did you?

If the Liberals managed to settle those disputes outside a courtroom, good for them. It's also cheaper.

[shavluk]

Why not go to court then Cap if they really had zero to lose?

I and many like me know why they did not.

You only settle when a) you will lose or they will win

Harper is quickly shooting himself needlessly in the foot and shows why he is in such a rush for an election ,,, I see the wheels falling off 6 months in

And some how ol stock and his seadoo comes to mind,,,, hahhah still cracks me up!

[capricorn]

Why not go to court then Cap if they really had zero to lose?

Anyone who is sued and loses there would be a judgment against them. Just because you don't have any money to pay up does not erase the debt. It stays on the books until you can pay. In some cases this is never.

[shavluk]

In what cases Cap?

Here in Canada you have to renew judgements and most parties don't bother after 6 or 7 years in the first time not being collected.

People like me will tell you very clearly that a judgement collects you nothing , already cost you extra and that they can always go bankrupt.

No I stand by what I say although I am an ex revenue Canada legal and licensing manager, a bank manager, a bailiff and a bankruptcy trustee as well.

If the conservatives were a corporation in more ways than just for tax purposes the CEO (harper would be sacked for wasting probably some old ladies donation just for his poor ego and power mongering pride to cause them to have to settle this.

You do realize there are a few lawyers in the conservative party don't you?

This was cheaper than letting all of Canada know what jerks they were to their own members ,,pretty plain and simple.

Edited November 13, 2007 by shavluk

[capricorn]

In what cases Cap?

Here in Canada you have to renew judgements and most parties don't bother after 6 or 7 years in the first time not being collected.

I have never had a judgment against me. I did have a judgment against a landlord which resulted in a lien against his property. I did not have to renew the judgment and it stayed on the books until the landlord sold a property and had to pay me. Other than that, I have no personal experience but I would never give up my rights to a successful suit.

[Hydraboss]

No I stand by what I say although I am an ex revenue Canada legal and licensing manager, a bank manager, a bailiff and a bankruptcy trustee as well.

My god, is there anything you HAVEN'T been? A provincial candidate, a federal candidate, worked for Revenue Canada (you know that's not their name, right?) as a lawyer, and let's not forget.....a millionaire!!!

All this and still taking your candidate picture from a web cam in front of a $25 Ikea lamp. What a load of BS.

As for settling out of court, it is standard procedure in some cases to automatically settle. Take for instance my corporate insurance. If one of our employees is involved in a rear-end collision (where our guy is in the rear position) our insurance company doesn't even investigate it, they just pay out a settlement. Why? They feel it's cheaper in the long run. This too is BS, but there is nothing I can do about it. 1200 vehicles registered and we probably pay out 8-10 a year.

Maybe the Conservatives are doing the same thing? Dunno.

<edit to add>

As for settlements not being enforceable, that tends to apply only to issues of small claims (in Alberta, that's $10,000 or less). Any amounts over that are heard in provincial Court of Queen's Bench and carry a fairly stiff penalty for failing to comply.

Ask Shavluk, he's a lawyer.

Edited November 13, 2007 by Hydraboss

[shavluk]

You crack me up Mr water ego,

Actually that photo was taken a year ago in a beautiful hotel room by my wife as I stayed up all night writing a speech in Old Quebec City to try as a last ditch attempt to reach the 1600 members of the ndp federal convention and get them to know that layton had just played fast and loose with their voting power there. It worked.

I came in second for president of the federal ndp.........yes also last hahha my point had been made and will be in the next election.

Yes I have done a lot ,, I didn't realize all people haven't until I took the time to look outside myself.

I have quite a varied resume actually and although my wife used a $500.00 digital camera I fail to see how bad the photo is , maybe I am just ugly to you? I think that's a mirror in the back ground.(you know its pretty easy to search out stuff)

Make no mistake , today , we are paupers as I have said the corrupt police officer who framed , jailed and caused my loss of 43 rental properties including apartment blocks , houses and even a restaurant did a good job and I got here with $900.00 in 93.

I am and have always been very good with money and have done fairly well rebuilding my life and now building my marina and marine store with and from nothing. Its not what you make ,its what you keep remember.

At 10 years old I had collected beer bottles just to buy milk and bread to feed my 3 sisters and 1 brother as my mom was in a hospital bed in a full body cast , in a comma from spousal abuse and no one knew for weeks that us 5 kids were in fact alone,,,yet cops had been involved? Bizarre by today's standards.

By 17 I had already lived in a 1964 Galaxy 500 Ford outside my high school and then had completed Cornwallis N.S. Armed Forces training on my way to Gage-town N.B. as a specialist.

By 21 I already had 2 kids and was then a Collection Manager with a Bank after establishing records in the collection industry.

By 24 I ran 2 departments of Revenue Canada with 13 employees.

Where I seized 500 million in receivables from one Dome Petroleum and then caused political interference as their stock crumbled.

My 30th birthday was actually spent at the grand opening of my own nightclub , Casper's Place and I had already topped the best sellers list in the real estate business for years.

My 36th birthday unfortunately was spent in a court room as I was pronounced guilty for 2 counts of trafficking for 8.5 grams of cannabis when both the buyer and seller of it were ignored (i have the transcript) apparently they didn't like me telling the courts that yes I smoked cannabis with lawyers and school teachers and it was stupid to be illegal,,,

guilt by association hahhaha assholes and cowards allot in this country are.

You can always see me in old TV shows and movies from the mid 90's when I in fact confirmed that I could never, ever kiss ass or go though hoops for any one ,,so of course that one wouldn't work. blah blah much more ,so what?

I am omitting a lot here because its irrelevant and quite frankly I don't care what you believe as I pay all my own bills.

Cap ,

Your judgement was in fact exercised by your attachment to assets.

Great if you can find some and do that but you still were powerless until he sold or refinanced weren't you?

You didn't have to wait if I had been around , trust me.

I do consulting work re: debt and debt collection to this day and laugh when they show up at my door with judgement they thought was going to get them their money.hahha

I know I am unusual , so what , lots are.

I am a spiritual person , still thankfully open to miracles and found that by dying at 36 it probably saved my life in many ways and opened my eyes for the first time and it has given me the resolve to stop the bullshit still being perpetrated against many of us.

Yes I believe I am qualified to be a Member of Parliament and certainly qualified to post my opinion here , thanks.

No Harper is a control freak ,, and screwed up like he eventually always will , period and the wheels will start to falling off clearer after feb 7 2007 but than again I am also an astrologist hydroblah ,,and lots more

Careful maybe I do Voodoo tooooooo and will get you anyway hahhaha

Whats your claim to fame Mr. Anonymous?

[guyser]

As for settling out of court, it is standard procedure in some cases to automatically settle. Take for instance my corporate insurance. If one of our employees is involved in a rear-end collision (where our guy is in the rear position) our insurance company doesn't even investigate it, they just pay out a settlement. Why? They feel it's cheaper in the long run. This too is BS, but there is nothing I can do about it.

No they pay because that is the law. Has nothing to do with investigating or not, nor whether its cheaper in the long run.

1200 vehicles....you should have a captive.

[M.Dancer]

I came in second for president of the federal ndp.........

Yes and you fail to mention you also came in last ....

[shavluk]

Yes and you fail to mention you also came in last ....

Libra read twice send once maybe.

[Hydraboss]

No they pay because that is the law. Has nothing to do with investigating or not, nor whether its cheaper in the long run.

1200 vehicles....you should have a captive.

1200 vehicles (+/-) aggregate of two operating divisions.

Just went partially self-insured ($50,000 deductable) because the insurance premiums were killing us. It's not always the law when the collision is a rear-ender, just most of the time. Last year alone, we had two incidents where people backed into our guys (one was a parking lot, and I can't remember the other). We were not at fault in either case, but the IC payed out anyway. It's not that it was a lot of money, just frustrating.

Still, probably ended up saving us money in the long run. Oh well, not my decision.

Shavluk:

What's my claim to fame? Not much. Work hard. Coherent when I speak and type. No criminal record. Good enough.

[shavluk]

Ever smoke cannaibis?

If no I would ask if you ever drank alcohol but as its probably yes I would say you are a criminal as much as I am.

Difference is I am a human being.

[Hydraboss]

Alcohol isn't illegal.

If you're human, I'll remain whatever it is that I am.

[shavluk]

Alcohol isn't illegal.

If you're human, I'll remain whatever it is that I am.

Have you ever smoked cannabis hrydra? Is what I meant ,, that was probably a yes ?

You of course drink alcohol I bet but would fail to see the significance , I am again sure.

[Hydraboss]

Have you ever smoked cannabis hrydra? Is what I meant ,, that was probably a yes ?

You of course drink alcohol I bet but would fail to see the significance , I am again sure.

For the last time....

I drink when I want. IT IS NOT ILLEGAL.

I don't smoke pot. IT IS ILLEGAL.

Unlike you, I am not a convicted criminal, not do I wish to be one. I would rather be a contributing member of society.

[shavluk]

For the last time....

I drink when I want. IT IS NOT ILLEGAL.

I don't smoke pot. IT IS ILLEGAL.

Unlike you, I am not a convicted criminal, not do I wish to be one. I would rather be a contributing member of society.

Wont answer eh? VERY Cowardly as you are anonymous here hahhahha

Simple question : have you ever tried cannabis?