RCMP raids Tory party headquarters

[Shakeyhands]

The chief electoral officer surprised MPs by disclosing not only that he had opposed the raid's timing – because a Federal Court hearing on the case was scheduled for the next day – but that news reporters and photographers did not even arrive at the Conservative office until more than two hours after the raid began.

The Conservatives were the only party in the last two federal elections to conduct the kind of expense transfers with candidates that led to an investigation by the federal elections commissioner and a search-warrant raid

But on the substance of the real dispute, Mayrand flatly contradicted weeks of talking points by Poilievre in the Commons claiming the Tories simply did what every other party practices.

The chief electoral officer told the committee his office reviewed all campaign expense reports not just for the 2006 election, but also for the 2004 election, to compare spending and expense claims by all parties.

In neither of those campaigns did any other party transfer money to candidates, then back to their parties, or lack the necessary documents, contracts and records to prove the expenses were not part of their national campaigns, which must report expenses separately from candidates under federal election law.

Well, I think those five quotes basically kill any argument for the CPC that have been brought up here....

http://www.thestar.com/News/Canada/article/460845

Edited July 15, 2008 by Shakeyhands

[Savant]

So has anyone seen this blog info about the raid? It would seem that things were not as they appeared to be. A quote from the link...

Seventeen boxes of sensitive Conservative material related to the In-and-Out affair being removed from Conservative Party headquarters by grim-looking Elections Canada officials.

The images from last April were quite powerful.

Would you like an update? Well, for one thing, the boxes didn't leave the building, at least not until the relevancy of the seize material was determined.

And that determination was that over 85% of the material had nothing to do with the question of advertising financing in the 2006 election. That material has been returned, but without a phalanx of cameras recording the march back into Conservative Party headquarters.

And the rest? Virtually all of it was material Elections Canada already had.

As a side note, Liberal party cameramen were not present for the return of the material, for obvious reasons.

[Fortunata]

So has anyone seen this blog info about the raid? It would seem that things were not as they appeared to be. A quote from the link...

Sure, and I'm going to take Steve Janke, a Conservative blogger's word? How about a more credible source?

As a side note, Liberal party cameramen were not present for the return of the material, for obvious reasons.

No Liberals, NDP, Global TV, CTV TV, CBC TV, no CP?? Dam those liberal news outlets!!!

[Savant]

Sure, and I'm going to take Steve Janke, a Conservative blogger's word? How about a more credible source?

No Liberals, NDP, Global TV, CTV TV, CBC TV, no CP?? Dam those liberal news outlets!!!

I put out some feelers, I'll see what they come up with and let you know...

However, let's operate on the premise that this blogger isn't intentionally fabricating the entire story. Would your comment still be the same?

[Visionseeker]

I put out some feelers, I'll see what they come up with and let you know...

However, let's operate on the premise that this blogger isn't intentionally fabricating the entire story. Would your comment still be the same?

Let me see if I understand this. Your issue is that the images associated with the raid are allegedly misleading; maybe they were, maybe they weren’t. But how does any of this de-legitimizes the purpose behind the raid?

[Fortunata]

Would your comment still be the same?

My comment actually is: You cannot gauge corruption by the number of boxes taken nor the number of boxes returned. Elections Canada is not biased against the CPC so you have to wonder what they had asked for repeatedly and not been given; that they had to resort to these measures to get to the truth. And that really is the bottom line - gloss over it how you will.

[Wild Bill]

My comment actually is: You cannot gauge corruption by the number of boxes taken nor the number of boxes returned. Elections Canada is not biased against the CPC so you have to wonder what they had asked for repeatedly and not been given; that they had to resort to these measures to get to the truth. And that really is the bottom line - gloss over it how you will.

You state that "Elections Canada is not biased against the CPC " as if it's a fact, like the sun rising in the east. Is that not rather your own opinion?

If this is your premise then to say " And that really is the bottom line - gloss over it how you will." is really more of a religious than a logical argument. You know, where YOU accept that the Bible is literal truth so therefore your argument is absolute and can't be refuted.

There ARE some valid reasons to suspect Elections Canada has a bias! If you want to believe on faith then that's your own business but you've given a very weak reason to convince someone else.

[Fortunata]

You state that "Elections Canada is not biased against the CPC " as if it's a fact, like the sun rising in the east. Is that not rather your own opinion?

If this is your premise then to say " And that really is the bottom line - gloss over it how you will." is really more of a religious than a logical argument. You know, where YOU accept that the Bible is literal truth so therefore your argument is absolute and can't be refuted.

There ARE some valid reasons to suspect Elections Canada has a bias! If you want to believe on faith then that's your own business but you've given a very weak reason to convince someone else.

Those who think Elections Canada is biased against the CPC are looking for excuses for outrage. Something like all the media are against the CPC. Something like nothing is the CPC's fault - it's everybody/anybody elses. To me it just doesn't fly. Elections Canada wasn't getting what they thought they needed from the CPC so they had to resort to going to get it themselves. It's like so much of what this government does - secrecy, obfuscation, misconstruence to downright lies. And yet the herd justifies every last little bit of moral dishonesty they perpetrate. Nice.

[Wild Bill]

Those who think Elections Canada is biased against the CPC are looking for excuses for outrage. Something like all the media are against the CPC. Something like nothing is the CPC's fault - it's everybody/anybody elses. To me it just doesn't fly. Elections Canada wasn't getting what they thought they needed from the CPC so they had to resort to going to get it themselves. It's like so much of what this government does - secrecy, obfuscation, misconstruence to downright lies. And yet the herd justifies every last little bit of moral dishonesty they perpetrate. Nice.

So what's your solution? Vote Liberal? The party that invented such sleaze?? The NDP, who if they were lab rats couldn't run a maze with their shoes off? Marilyn Churley as the minister in charge of Canada's contribution to the Space Station?

I say again, we get no perfect choices.

[Fortunata]

So what's your solution? Vote Liberal? The party that invented such sleaze?? The NDP, who if they were lab rats couldn't run a maze with their shoes off? Marilyn Churley as the minister in charge of Canada's contribution to the Space Station?

I say again, we get no perfect choices.

I have no solution for you. For me, the choice is quite clear - I won't support unethical politicians. That would make me unethical and I have no wish to burden myself with that particular bad taste. For you ... well maybe your ethic meter isn't set that high and you can vote blue with a clear conscience.

[Alta4ever]

Holy resurrection Batman

I wonder just how many here will apologize and admit they were wrong

UPDATED: CPC vs. Elections Canada: Okay, this time, it actually is a sweeping victory ...

January 18, 2010 11:22 AM | Comments52Recommend22

By Kady O'Malley

Hot off the Federal Court newswire comes word of a pretty darned decisive-sounding win for the Conservatives in their long-running dispute over the in-and-out election financing scheme:

http://www.cbc.ca/politics/insidepolitics/2010/01/cpc-vs-elections-canada-okay-this-time-it-actually-is-a-sweeping-victory.html

[William Ashley]

Holy resurrection Batman

I wonder just how many here will apologize and admit they were wrong

http://www.cbc.ca/politics/insidepolitics/2010/01/cpc-vs-elections-canada-okay-this-time-it-actually-is-a-sweeping-victory.html

What are you talking about? aifact this is still an in and out scheme is othing - it basically says that the expenses were incurred by the local candidate - it does not mean that the funds wern't transfered from the party. They've openly admited going over the spending limits. It still doesn't erase the election fraud that took place.

basically they admited to election fruad and won the right to pay back all the money they illegally spent durign the campaign...

this basically solidifies the fact they committed election fraud and overspent. Paying money back as restitution after the fact doesn't erase the fact they committed election fruad.

Edited January 18, 2010 by William Ashley

[Alta4ever]

What are you talking about? aifact this is still an in and out scheme is othing - it basically says that the expenses were incurred by the local candidate - it does not mean that the funds wern't transfered from the party. They've openly admited going over the spending limits. It still doesn't erase the election fraud that took place.

basically they admited to election fruad and won the right to pay back all the money they illegally spent durign the campaign...

this basically solidifies the fact they committed election fraud and overspent. Paying money back as restitution after the fact doesn't erase the fact they committed election fruad.

It means they won. Elections Canada has to send refunds to those candidates. It means their was no fraud.

[William Ashley]

It means they won. Elections Canada has to send refunds to those candidates. It means their was no fraud.

No it means they overpsent and are offering to pay back their overspending so they can get refunds.

Which doesn't erase the fact it was fraud.

"While the Court does not endorse all of the arguments made by the applicants, the impugned

decisions should be set aside and the matter referred back to the respondent with appropriate

directions."

essentially this says they commited fraud.

1. They did incur the expenses

2. They did incur the expenses contrary to electoral law via illegal party transfers

3. They can pay back the excesses, and get a certificate issued.

4. They did commitfraud and can be charged the illegal expenses they've claimed and received refunding for as they are noted as and admitted to the act.

The problem with the courts is that MP's have higher standing than the cheif electoral officer.

"If the Commissioner believes on reasonable grounds that an offence under this Act has been

committed, the Commissioner may refer the matter to the Director of Public Prosecutions (the DPP)

who shall decide whether to lay a criminal charge (subsection 511(1))."

Them outright admitting to the fraud and illegal usage of illegally transfered funds is evidence submited in court which pretty much seals the fraud.

A DPP hearing is not the same as a federal court administrative law case.

Sadly the DPP is a political appointment only made this last may by the electoral fraud party itself.

"[8] The evidence shows that the Party did in fact finance candidates' contributions using the

following scheme: first, the Fund issued an invoice to the official agent. Simultaneously, the official

agent completed a wire transfer form instructing the same amount indicated in the invoice to be

transferred from the campaign to the Fund. This wire transfer form was signed and sent back to the

Fund, who filled in any missing information. The Fund then prepared a second wire transfer,

directing the same amount of money to be transferred from the Fund to the candidate. Finally, after

the transfer from the Fund was completed, the wire transfer form completed by the official agent

was sent to the bank to have the money paid right back."

The only way to insure non partisan justice on this or reduce the level would be to make the DPP appointed by parliament rather than the attorney general who is selected by the prime minister. Clearly the conflict of interest should be visible. The ongoing perpetuation of corruption in the government should be clearly apparent, and done so by design. To cover up what was claimed to give transparency.

"[55] At this point it should be mentioned that the Commissioner is currently investigating

whether or not the Party or Fund incurred expenses exceeding their election expenses limit contrary

to paragraphs 497(1)(1) and 497(3)(g) of the Act, in addition to whether, contrary to subparagraph

497(3)(m)(ii), the Fund filed an election expenses return that it knew or ought to have known

contained a materially false or misleading statement."

[58] This being said, the Court was informed by counsel at the hearing that the Commissioner’s

investigation, which commenced more than two years ago, is still on-going. There has been no

formal accusation brought by the DPP under the Act against either the Party or the Fund."

Specficially this case was in referance to

"[61] The question that is now before this Court is whether the respondent can legally refuse to

certify for the purposes of reimbursement under section 465 of the Act, the claimed advertising

Page: 19

expenses on the ground that he is not satisfied that these expenses have actually been incurred by

the applicants or the candidates for whom they act as official agents."

Not whether or not this was election fraud because it is clear it was election fraud, but the DPP is a political appointment made by the criminals, and they are the ones who have to commence the criminal charges as per the elections act. It is government corruption when the evidence indicates a fraud occured and the DPP doesn't press charges.

Basically the criminals are saying election Canada isn't doing its job right but the fact is it isn't elections canada that needs the mandamus, it is the DPP who refuses to press charges even though there is evidence of fraud.

Essentially the criminals asked to alter their documents to make them look legal, even though they clearly demonstrate fraud contrary the act occured, and they admitted to it. And they'd like to pay back the money that would be counted as fraudulent, even though it is after the fact.

"62] The applicants are requesting from the Court, a writ of mandamus to force the respondent to

deliver new certificates to the Receiver General, which include the claimed advertising expenses,

and/or a writ of certiorari to set aside the impugned decisions either with or without directions for

the respondent."

This means "we would like elections canada to be run by this judge" rather than the cheif electoral officer.

Judges being political appointments you might wonder who appointe this judge to the federal court.

"As such, the issuance of a writ of mandamus writ does not require the determination of the

appropriate standard of review"

This is the judge saying, sure but I won't take any facts into consideration whatsoever, I'll just ok it without even thinking about its effects cause they asked me to override elections canada.

"With regard to the writ of certiorari, the applicants argue that the CEO has no discretion

under section 465 of the Act to review or consider the accuracy of an electoral campaign return filed

by or on behalf of a candidate pursuant to section 451."

This is saying that the conservatives don't think elections canada should be able to say whether a return is accurate or not.

It goes on to state

"this Court ought to issue a writ of mandamus

requiring the respondent, in accordance with section 465 of the Act, to issue a certificate that

includes the claimed advertising expenses to the Receiver General."

Or in plain english elections canada shouldn't be able to say if a filing is accurate and that they should have to just certify everything as correct, and they'd like the court to force elections canada to ignore the fact the claim is fruadulent.

"[75] With respect to the existence of a “tribunal record,” the Court is left in this case with only

the Candidate Contact Log. Summary (Log), pertaining to the two candidates for which the

applicants were acting as official agents, and the documentation submitted by the applicants or by

the Party on their behalf. Unfortunately, the Logs do not help the Court determine what could have

been the specific reasons, if there were any, to exclude the claimed advertising expenses for the

purpose of reimbursement."

They didn't state then for what they state it now, and we won't worry about using logs that were kept at the time the frauds occured.

"[76] No deference should be shown to the respondent or any other Elections Canada personnel

with respect to the interpretation of the Act. Provided that the requirements mentioned in section

465 are met, the respondent has no discretion to exclude from certification any expense actually

incurred by a candidate that constitutes an “election expense” under section 407."

This states: They don't need to say it was an expense for it to be claimed, but they have to claim it, even if it is fraudulent.

Here it is...

"[77] In view of the foregoing, with respect to the legality of the respondent’s refusal to certify the

claimed advertising expenses on the ground that there is insufficient documentation or proof on

record establishing that these expenses had actually been incurred by the applicants, the Court must

consider the circumstances surrounding the RMB program, as well as the facts which are particular

to the applicants’ situations."

this says: Since they broke election law, because they didn't keep records... hmm.. we will just consider what they say after the fact to determine if they should be able to claim the fruadulent expenses...

corruption much.. Do you notice how 76 directly demonstrates that 77 is a breach of election law.

"In this regard, the applicants submit that the respondent has no jurisdiction to commence an

audit into the accuracy of the information contained in the electoral campaign returns; nor does he

have the power question the authenticity of any document supporting a claim for reimbursement.

The investigating powers of the respondent under section 465 of the Act, if any, amount to “a

document review, and nothing more.”"

The cons say that election canada can't audit expenses filed to determine if they are real or fraudulent, nor can they state that documents are fraudulent.

The cons go on to state:

"[82] Even in the face of a false document, the applicant asserts that the respondent is required to

certify the expense for reimbursement. The only recourse available to the CEO under such

circumstances would be his ability to refer the matter to the Commissioner who, unlike the CEO, is

empowered to conduct investigations and pursue the prosecution of a candidate and/or his official

agent."

The cons assert: Even if they were fruadulent you'd have to certify them anyway. The Cheif electoral officer has to refer frauds to the commisioner and can't refuse to certify fraudulent returns.... corrutpion much.

The cons then requested that: The applicants reply, however, that it is not for the CEO to determine the appropriateness of

the content of ads used by parties and their candidates nor to examine the legality of transfers made

by a party to a campaign (as long as these transfers are reported by the party, which is the case

here).

or more the cheif electoral officer shouldn't say if advertising is local or national --- (why do the two things exist to differentiate spending if it isn't to be taken into consideration.)

The judge says that the differentiation doesn't need to be examined by elections canada.

The cons assert: In fact, party or national issues can be more important and since each candidate

also represents his or her party in the riding, it should be open to them to use and emphasize the

party platform in their advertising campaign.

or basically saying local campaigns are more important to be national issues not local issues.

note emphasis is "to play national TV ads locally as local ads, rather than national ads"

They go on to state:

"The Cheif Electoral Officer has no jurisdiction to regulate the “level playing field” created by the

provisions found in the Act"

or in plain english the Cheif electoral officers job isn't insure compliance with the elections act.

The judge then states:

"The Court dismisses extreme positions taken in this case by the applicants and the

respondent"

plain english:I'm not listening to any of you, while determining this case.

then goes on to state:

the ceo of elections canada can audit, but it needs to certify. (there is your conserviative victory if you'd like to call it that.

however this doesn't remove the fact that fraud occured, only that the requirement to certify fraudulent documents exists.

It would then be the duty of the Cheif electoral offier to notify the comissioner (which the investigation is ongoing)

and to file charges the Director of public prosecutions needs to lay the charges under the act - unfortunately it is a conservative political appointment, not a non partisan public official he is basically a mini me of the attorney generals office, which is totally partisan - for instance the recent insite case, was political opposition to a provincial program.

Edited January 18, 2010 by William Ashley

[Alta4ever]

No it means they overpsent and are offering to pay back their overspending so they can get refunds.

Which doesn't erase the fact it was fraud.

Actually William because you say so doesn`t make it so.

The Canadian Judicial system ruled in the Conservative Parties favour, that these were legitimate expenses by Candidates on advertising. That in and of itself proves without a doubt that there was no fraud. There was no missing information, the judge had, all of the relevent material,, the election canada reports, the campaign expense receipts, the funding information, and the ads themselves. They had all the info needed to make judgement in this case, and wait for it FOUND IN FAVOUR OF THE CONSERVATIVES!

This has me wondering though when are the RCMP going to raid the Liberal party headquarters for Elections Canada over the unpaid leadership debts that are now far over due.

Edited January 18, 2010 by Alta4ever

[William Ashley]

Actually William because you say so doesn`t make it so.

The Canadian Judicial system ruled in the Conservative Parties favour, that these were legitimate expenses by Candidates on advertising.

This does not erase the fact the in and out scheme occured, which is the fraud.

That in and of itself proves without a doubt that there was no fraud.

No the fraud was illegal transfers not use of the illegal transfers.

FOUND IN FAVOUR OF THE CONSERVATIVES!

Actually it wasn't involving theconservative it was 2 of very many instances only 2 of very many conservatives contested this.

The fraud occured you can deny it all you want but the information that fruad occured was in the case itself. This case wasn't about the fraud though, it was about refund of election expenses, a fraud case is brought by the DPP a political appointment re: the attorney general who is someone nominated by harper. This case doesn't erase the fact a fruad occured the evidence supports it and the DPP not acting on that information means corruption is occuring by the Director of public prosecution who is a political appointment by harper and the attorney general, with parliament shut down the opposition can't even complain formally that the DPP ought to act on the frauds criminally.

Bear in mind only 2 of the very many candidates contested elections canadas decision.

Edited January 18, 2010 by William Ashley

[Alta4ever]

No the fraud was illegal transfers not use of the illegal transfers.

Legally a party can transfer funds to a Candidate or Riding association, and all three of those entities can transfer fund among themselves.

So try again.

[William Ashley]

Legally a party can transfer funds to a Candidate or Riding association, and all three of those entities can transfer fund among themselves.

So try again.

There are limits which the conservaitves overpsent do note. This was because they were transfered to them put on their books then the funds were transfered back for illegal usages- effectively creating fraudulent books.

"An investigation by the commissioner of elections into advertising spending during the 2006 campaign will not be affected by Monday's ruling."

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2010/01/18/tories-in-and-out-election-spending.html

Understand that they are two seperate issues and within this case, they admited to fraud.

also recall over 50 candidates were accused an only 2 contested.

Edited January 18, 2010 by William Ashley

[Alta4ever]

There are limits which the conservaitves overpsent do note. This was because they were transfered to them put on their books then the funds were transfered back for illegal usages- effectively creating fraudulent books.

"An investigation by the commissioner of elections into advertising spending during the 2006 campaign will not be affected by Monday's ruling."

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2010/01/18/tories-in-and-out-election-spending.html

Understand that they are two seperate issues and within this case, they admited to fraud.

I guess you missed the title of the Article you linked to

Tories win 'in-and-out' ad spending case

[nicky10013]

I guess you missed the title of the Article you linked to

And you missed that they're still under investigation for other schemes of which you ignored and have been calling out William Ashley over. Down at the bottom. Something tells me you never got that far.

[Shakeyhands]

And you missed that they're still under investigation for other schemes of which you ignored and have been calling out William Ashley over. Down at the bottom. Something tells me you never got that far.

Come on Nicky, be fair. There were some sizable words in that article....

[nicky10013]

Come on Nicky, be fair. There were some sizable words in that article....

Yep...like general...and win. Tough stuff.

[Alta4ever]

And you missed that they're still under investigation for other schemes of which you ignored and have been calling out William Ashley over. Down at the bottom. Something tells me you never got that far.

Last line of the artical, but this set the precedence that all 60 candidates get their expenses back. Since they have found in favor here it will only be time until the "investigation" is settled.

Edited January 19, 2010 by Alta4ever

[Alta4ever]

But you three can go ahead ignore the whole article, for one line at the end.

For you foaming at the mouth morons go ahead and live in your delusions instead of having to admit your wrong.

[nicky10013]

But you three can go ahead ignore the whole article, for one line at the end.

For you foaming at the mouth morons go ahead and live in your delusions instead of having to admit your wrong.

Ahahaha, I'm not the one supporting a party no matter what; weaving through excuses that fit at that given moment in time not caring about what I stated a minute before. So please, go ahead and say that all of us who are so delusional as to not support the CPC are foaming at the mouth.

The court ruling mentions that the Commissioner is still investigating whether the party incurred expenses exceeding its national limit, and whether it filed an election expenses return that contained a "materially false or misleading statement."

But no charges under the Elections Act have so far been laid.

From the Toronto Star.

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/752162--tories-win-in-and-out-battle-with-elections-canada?bn=1