I'm trying to think of a circumstance

[fellowtraveller]

where i'd believe a single word that comes out of KarlHeinz Schreibers face......

he is 77 years old

He is in a Canadian prison awaiting extradition after a very lengthy legal battle to stay here.

If he is extradited, he will very likely end up dead of old age in a German prison eventually, convicted of a 'lying cime', namely fraud.

He has repeatedly given completely contradictory versions of his relationship with Mulroney.

His 'evidence', as far as I know, is completely uncorroborated.

He claims he won't give evidence at all to a Canadian inquiry from Germany. Without his 'evidence', what is there to talk about?

I'm wondering why Mulroney is so eager to get a full scale inquiry going too.....

I'm starting to wonder why Harper called the inquiry at all, this has every sign of becoming a massive, pointless and expensive cluster****.

But Harper is no fool, perhaps he(and perhaps Mulroney) knows something we don't. I do know one thing: if I was a Canadian public figure, a reporter or an editor, I'd be very careful what I said or printed about Mulroney right now.

[Michael Bluth]

where i'd believe a single word that comes out of KarlHeinz Schreibers face......

Exactly.

At this point his motivation appears to die in a Canadian jail rather than a German one.

[M.Dancer]

His 'evidence', as far as I know, is completely uncorroborated.

Not quite. Whether all the claims are provable is another story....but it is fact that he gave and mulroney received a whack of Cash....not a cheque...and it is fact that Mulroney originalle said he had only met him for a coffee...when we have photo evidence of the two sitting down at Harringto lack (i believe) with a secretary....

[Topaz]

I think most Canadians want to know exactly what the truth is, including why the justice depart. all of sudden stopped looking at the case and then replaced the justice minister. I don't think Harper is as innocent as he wants us to believe or at least some of his ministers. To prove I'm not always down on the Cons let find out what happened to the 40 million that the former Lib members, mainly from Quebec, did with the money. I'm sure Harper wouldn't mind this task, they keep bring it up in the house but never do anything to find it!

[fellowtraveller]

Not quite. Whether all the claims are provable is another story....but it is fact that he gave and mulroney received a whack of Cash....not a cheque...and it is fact that Mulroney originalle said he had only met him for a coffee...when we have photo evidence of the two sitting down at Harringto lack (i believe) with a secretary....

That is not corroboration or evidence of a crime.

Cash is and was legal tender in Canada.

Mulroney declared the income and paid tax on it.

Coffee is a legal drug.

The onl interesting thing there is that the secreatry may have something to add, and that would be corroboration for one of them.

Mulroney left office to practice law. If he claims that Schreiber gave him the money to represent him as a lawyer, then privilege applies. Mulroney cannot explain what it was specifically for unless Schreiber allows him to, and Mulroney can then make up anything to cover his ass if it needs covering.

It comes down to "I said, he said" so far......... Is that really the basis for a fullblown inquiry?

[Carinthia]

Mulroney declared the income and paid tax on it.

He didn't pay taxes on the money until he had to. I hope the taxpayers get back the $2 million. And let's charge Chretian while we're at it. Maybe the two of them can share a cell.

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/02112007/3/tops...ngerous-pm.html

The program also revealed that Mulroney did not pay taxes on the payments in the years he received the money. He later made a voluntary disclosure of the income to Revenue Canada.

[old_bold&cold]

The story that Schrieber wants us all to believe is that he has kept all this stuff on Mulroney quiet until just recently because he did not want to give Mulroney a letter sayiing otherwise, as that was dishonest He claims to have all kinds of stuff about the dealings of corrupt government officials and he would gladly share this if we keep him here for a while more. I assume that Schrieber has probably been told of some health condition that will end his life before a long period, as to fight for the inevitable extradition to just be delayed does not make sense.

He also will have to know that what he says here in a public inquirey would most certainly cause him more problems in Germany. There has to be an end game where all the things make sense, and if he somehow knows he has a definite prognosis, that could be the driving force.

I do not like Mulroney and I did not like when Harper used himas an advisor. Ithought it was a really bad choice. It may prove that I am right. Mulroney did not get enough ego stroking with his book and is looking to this inquirey to give him more of an ego builder. Personally I would like to see Mulroney go down for this and even serve time, but that is just out of revenge to where he took the voters before he left. He will always be a crook in my eyes and I do not think an inquirey will change that. And I am a harper supporter, just what must those who were always against Mulroney must think of him. I think both he and his son need to get out of the public eye and stay out, as they both have no talent to do much but make people wonder how much money does it take to be a show host and crooked lobbyist.

Schrieber will not have much new information to say and we have already heard the main thrust of this info. If he refuses to testify from Germany, then I think we can have al his records seized by the germans and then turned over to us, and the RCMP can again give the German police all they know about Schrieber and his dealings here. I think you will find schrieber will co-operate completely, as it will be a lose lose situation for him, and he will be looking for more comforts in the jail system then trying to negoiate freedom. So on Dec 2 2007 they should put Schrieber on a plane for Germany, and finally put that part to rest. His threat not to talk if sent to Germany was the last straw for me.

As for the inquirey, I hope that it is brought to a fast result by having Mulroney give his testimony about all the things Schrieber has said, and that only. It would then all be available to the RCMP investigation as to criminal wrong doing and should then remain there. The better thing would be for there to be no inquirey and given all the evidence that the RCMP now have, let them decide on the out come and deny Mulroney his stage, and he will then look for his own stage to make his case. That way there would be no cost to the people and I think that is as it should be. If Harper will agree to never allow Mulroney inner circle status any more, and shunned by his party, I think the opposition should then all agree to drop it also. Because we came really close to things costing millions once again. Mulroney will not agree I suppose but he was never a take one for the team type guy now was he.

[fellowtraveller]

The program also revealed that Mulroney did not pay taxes on the payments in the years he received the money. He later made a voluntary disclosure of the income to Revenue Canada.

Do me a favour and write this down: Mulroney has not broken any law regarding taxes on the $300K. CCRA has no issues with what happened. It is not relevant to this discussion.

Do you now understand that?

Personally I would like to see Mulroney go down for this and even serve time,

Before you lock him up, could you explain what 'this' is?

What do you think he did? What exactly?

I wonder if he just took the $300k and stiffed Schreiber, didn't do anything for the money.

[capricorn]

Do me a favour and write this down: Mulroney has not broken any law regarding taxes on the $300K. CCRA has no issues with what happened. It is not relevant to this discussion.

Exactly. I've read the the 300K was a retainer and no tax is owing until the money is used for the intended purpose. I think this is what CCRA ruled on in clearing Mulroney on the late tax filing question. This is a non-issue.

[Moxie]

Exactly. I've read the the 300K was a retainer and no tax is owing until the money is used for the intended purpose. I think this is what CCRA ruled on in clearing Mulroney on the late tax filing question. This is a non-issue.

That is also my perspective Cap, I believe one has three years to declair taxable income. So what exactly did Lian Brian do wrong, he declaired his income, paid taxes on it? What crime has been committed?

Personally, I think this is really going to hurt the Liberals. They were slathering at the mouth on the Hill for an inquiry and the general public is not happy. My local rag has been publishing editorials, mostly from life long Liberals complaining about the cost to the taxpayer, I see some Liberals openly stating they've had enough of the current Liberal Party. They were so desperate for a scandle, they revive the dead. Can they really be surprised if they get haunted?

[Topaz]

That is also my perspective Cap, I believe one has three years to declair taxable income. So what exactly did Lian Brian do wrong, he declaired his income, paid taxes on it? What crime has been committed?

Personally, I think this is really going to hurt the Liberals. They were slathering at the mouth on the Hill for an inquiry and the general public is not happy. My local rag has been publishing editorials, mostly from life long Liberals complaining about the cost to the taxpayer, I see some Liberals openly stating they've had enough of the current Liberal Party. They were so desperate for a scandle, they revive the dead. Can they really be surprised if they get haunted?

Correct me if I'm wrong but what he did wrong was to across the border without delaring the money? You are only allowed 10,000.00 per year. Now if you or I did that what would happen?

[Carinthia]

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.

________________________

You guys can defend him all you want but the whole thing stinks and stinks good!

Edited November 20, 2007 by Carinthia

[fellowtraveller]

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.

________________________

You guys can defend him all you want but the whole thing stinks and stinks good!

The whole passage strikes me as meaningless and largely irrelevant. If CCRA suspected Mulroney of any wrongdoing or evasion at all, they would have charged him without compunction. I have 2 friends that are CCRA auditors and they would be on this like flies on a fresh turd if they though there was any way to collect.

So, if it is a 'retainer', and Mulroney did not do any work for the money, surely Schreiber has filed grievance with the Law Society long ago?

Is it possible that the money is in trust? If it is, a very large number of people are going to look very foolish and Mulroney will likely win some more in lawsuits.

[Fortunata]

But Harper is no fool, perhaps he(and perhaps Mulroney) knows something we don't.

If that's true then it means that this issue has been discussed and Steve may have misled the HoC when he said he hasn't had involvement or knowledge.

[fellowtraveller]

If that's true then it means that this issue has been discussed and Steve may have misled the HoC when he said he hasn't had involvement or knowledge.

Can't he truthfully claim to not know anything about Schreibers dealings with Mulroney, and to have had no contact with Schreiber himself?

Obviously Harper has met Mulroney many times, though I doubt they are very tight. Harper was born out of Reform, the backlash against Mulroney and the main reason the PCs went from a majority to 3 seats in 1993.........

[Michael Bluth]

Can't he truthfully claim to not know anything about Schreibers dealings with Mulroney, and to have had no contact with Schreiber himself?

Obviously Harper has met Mulroney many times, though I doubt they are very tight. Harper was born out of Reform, the backlash against Mulroney and the main reason the PCs went from a majority to 3 seats in 1993.........

Something tells me Harper was shrewd enough to avoid the topic with Mulroney.

Harper and Mulroney probably met at a meet and greet of some kinds when Harper was Jim Hawkes' EA. Doubtful the Prime Minister of the day had much of a substantive conversation with an EA to a backbench MP.

They became closer after Harper took the helm of the CPC.

Doubtful they came close enough for Harper to risk his Prime Ministership over Mulroney's sketchy business dealings.