RCMP raids Tory party headquarters

[Argus]

What are you talking about? aifact this is still an in and out scheme is othing -

Have you got that in English somewhere? My gibberish translator is out.

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.

Apparently you haven't grasped the delicacy of the term "in out", as in the allegation the funds were sent to the local candidate by the party, then transferred right back again illegally. The federal court has ruled the money was spent legally by the local candidates. Case closed. End of story.

They've openly admited going over the spending limits. It still doesn't erase the election fraud that took place.

The judge apparently disagrees with your learned and no-doubt unbiased determination. Tough luck, eh?

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

Uhm, no, they denied any fraud, and the judge agreed with them, ordered Elections Canada to pay them their tax deductions for the election expenses, and ordered them to pay the party's legal bills as well.

this basically solidifies the fact they committed election fraud and overspent.

Yes, in a world where up means down, black means white, and sanity is not essential to making pronunciations on web sites about legal decisions.

[Argus]

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.

As I understand it, the gist of that investigation was that the party spent money illegally. It was only illegal if the party as opposed to the candidates spent it. The judge has ruled the candidates spent it and I see little basis, then, for any success in the supposed "advertising investigation".

[nicky10013]

As I understand it, the gist of that investigation was that the party spent money illegally. It was only illegal if the party as opposed to the candidates spent it. The judge has ruled the candidates spent it and I see little basis, then, for any success in the supposed "advertising investigation".

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.

[whowhere]

Canada is not a very nice country. It's a very awful, sadistically corrupt nation with sheeps clothing. This happenning with our highest political party doesn't suprise me though. I've been in this country my whole life. I know Canada like the back of my hand. Another day, another Canadian dies on a waiting list and the media sleeps and politicians lie and the dumb Canadians believe as they say.

I thought I was the only one slandering Canada. Canada is really about the corrupt who know how to use Canada as a vehicle to exploit the naive. Corruption is relative as is citizen well being. Depending on who you compare Canadians to, they say we have it good. When you compare us to PEER countries, not so fast. Canada is in a hole socially and economically. The question is, Can Canada find its legs and navigate itself to being a Country of winners? I haven't read this thread but if corruption is found at the tory headquarters by the RCMP, that has to be grounds for that Party to step aside and have the official opposition form the government. Corruption cannot be tolerated by the Party that is the PM and the Cabinet. That party has lost its right to exist in parliament.

The GG can forget about Prorogueing and being Harpers Puppet, she should step up and not stand for this Corruption and fire the PM and the Cabinet.

[William Ashley]

As I understand it, the gist of that investigation was that the party spent money illegally. It was only illegal if the party as opposed to the candidates spent it. The judge has ruled the candidates spent it and I see little basis, then, for any success in the supposed "advertising investigation".

You have no clue, which isn't suprising considering your posts to date.

2 of the over 50 members accused of fraud took elections canada to federal court to get their return back (tax payer funds for their advertising campaign), this wasn't elections canada prosecution.

The facts in this case established that they illegally spent funds in an in and out scheme.

The judge stated however that it is the comissioner who should handle criminal charges if there is an irregularity, and the funds should be returned to the 2 of over 50.

The court stated that it isn't the Cheif electoral officers role to investigate it is the comissioners but they can audit.

The judge actually indicated an instance of fraud in their ruling - part 73 and part 74, which was a reporting fraud.

This issue errupted when a campaign worker notified elections canada of the frauds. However the national party shut down the local ridings - effectively the national party was running a portion of the local ridings expenses - which is illegal due to overspending and fraudulent - missleading reporting methods (also not keeping records which would be required for an accurate audit. The didn't claim the expenses - but later did after the fact.

[William Ashley]

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.

Actually each case is different. Also if they all admit to fruad they won't be able to spend that money anywhere put prison.

[Alta4ever]

Actually each case is different. Also if they all admit to fruad they won't be able to spend that money anywhere put prison.

There is a 86 page judgement from the judge on this case that doesn't seem to fit what you are saying. In fact it directly contradicts your claims. Precedent has been set and since you don't seem to understand anything about our government, our judicial system, and our country this will be my last response to you since I am tired of reading your ignorant uniformed posts. I am adding you to the ignore list.

[William Ashley]

Have you got that in English somewhere? My gibberish translator is out.

My posts are frequently edited to cause spelling errors and typos, by an unknown party. Could be site moderators or other.

Apparently you haven't grasped the delicacy of the term "in out", as in the allegation the funds were sent to the local candidate by the party, then transferred right back again illegally. The federal court has ruled the money was spent legally by the local candidates. Case closed. End of story.

By 2 of the over 50 candiates...

it started with the official agent of Tory candidate Elizabeth Pagtakhan stating $29,999.70 an election expense was for national advertising she further stated there was no way we can spend our limit so we were asked by the Party if we can help contribute" to national advertising.

Conservative officials request that Elections Canada deal directly with the party, not individual candidates

May 14, 2007 Conservative Party seeks judicial review of Mr. Mayrand's expense decision in federal court

. They also noted that airtime blocks were booked weeks before the ads ran, or the money had been paid to the ridings

Funds were transferred into and out of each of the bank accounts of the 67 campaigns ... entirely under the control of and at the direction of officials of the Conservative Fund of Canada and/or the Conservative Party of Canada... The purpose of the in and out transfers was to provide participating candidates with documentation to support their reimbursement claims for these election expenses

The judge apparently disagrees with your learned and no-doubt unbiased determination. Tough luck, eh?

No the judge actually doens't disagree with my statements. The judge stated that the Cheif electoral officer isn't suppose to deny fruadulent expenses for reimbursement. That is all that this case determined.

Uhm, no, they denied any fraud, and the judge agreed with them

They admited to records fraud, and actually admited that it was national advertising. The party lawyers hushed things up, then a sham of a civil suit was held to determine that elections canada is suppose to allow fraud to occur in the review stages.

them to pay the party's legal bills as well.

The case wasn't "the party" it was 2 of over 50 candiates. You might ask why the other 50+ candidates didn't do anything, maybe its cause they knew it was for national advertising. Lying about something doesn't make it any more true.

[capricorn]

My posts are frequently edited to cause spelling errors and typos, by an unknown party. Could be site moderators or other.

Cue The Twilight Zone theme.

"Doo doo doo doo, doo doo doo doo...."

[Argus]

You have no clue, which isn't suprising considering your posts to date.

Sorry. Does the sanity confuse you?

2 of the over 50 members accused of fraud took elections canada to federal court to get their return back (tax payer funds for their advertising campaign), this wasn't elections canada prosecution.

The facts in this case established that they illegally spent funds in an in and out scheme.

They were the test cases. All the rest will now demand their funds, and Elections Canada will have to pay them, as well.

Elections Canada determined that they would not provide them with the funds because the adveritising scheme did not qualify. According to EC the funds spent on advertising were not spent by the local campaigns. The judge has ruled otherwise.

None of this, by the way, at least, not on planet Earth, constituted Elections Fraud, a phrase you seem to be flinging around like a gleeful child playing in its own excrement. Elections Canada simply said that according to their interpretion of the rules, that "in and out" funding scheme did not qualify. Again, the judge disagreed.

Now based on that spending not qualifying as local spending, EC suggested the Conservatives as a party had then overspent its limit. But as the judge has allowed the spending as coming from the locals, that case now collapses too.

This issue errupted when a campaign worker notified elections canada of the frauds. However the national party shut down the local ridings - effectively the national party was running a portion of the local ridings expenses - which is illegal due to overspending and fraudulent - missleading reporting methods (also not keeping records which would be required for an accurate audit.

Except it's not. With the judge's finding that the money was spent legally by the locals, any suggestion that there was overspending on the part of the federal party collapses, as does the reporting issue. Too bad, so sad, but you'll have to find some other nutjob issue to go wacky about.

[Argus]

My posts are frequently edited to cause spelling errors and typos, by an unknown party. Could be site moderators or other.

Is it possible they also edit your posts to make you sound like a wack job? Because you ought to protest, if that's the case.

[William Ashley]

There is a 86 page judgement from the judge on this case that doesn't seem to fit what you are saying. In fact it directly contradicts your claims. Precedent has been set and since you don't seem to understand anything about our government, our judicial system, and our country this will be my last response to you since I am tired of reading your ignorant uniformed posts. I am adding you to the ignore list.

Deny all you'd like. Who is the ignorant one?

[fellowtraveller]

Is there any chance that the CBC, our nonpartisan and completely unbiased national broadcaster, will mention this case anytime soon? There was megacoverage live at Tory headquarters went it first hit the media, where are they today?

[William Ashley]

They were the test cases.

Why would you only run test cases? Why would that be?

All the rest will now demand their funds, and Elections Canada will have to pay them, as well.

Actually elections Canada won't have to pay them. Although they should be throwing them all in jail and out of office for election fraud.

Elections Canada determined that they would not provide them with the funds because the adveritising scheme did not qualify.

Actually when the official agent for a campaign states they committed election fraud this is pretty good reason not to refund them. When their campaign broke election law in overspending none of their party members should get refunds, as a mater of fact the party should be disqualified from running in the future if it was intentional. Also the fact that misreporting is a breach of law, they still shouldn't get refunded, and they should be barred from reelection.

According to EC the funds spent on advertising were not spent by the local campaigns. The judge has ruled otherwise.

Elections Canada is an independent organization. Court decisions do not effect operations of elections Canada short of a court order. Each individual case should be examined. If you don't think there are irregularities, or that national ads were played locally then I think discussing this is irrelevant as you can't think with common sense. Elections Canada should be able to determine whether an ad is local or national, and it should be clear if the national campaign makes it, books it and pays for it in advance, then there is a little to wonder whether it is the local campaign or the national campaign that this is intended for. Also you should realize that the federal court isn't the highest court in this case, and this judge clearly is ignoring important facts, beause they arn't relavant to the reimbursement issue, but are relevant to the election fraud issue. If you can't see how an administrative case and the scope of it, doesn't relate to the larger election fraud then you simply don't understand the justice system.

The campaign did commit election fraud by misfiling overspending, and using a loophole that books money in a fraudulent manner to hide real funds usage. Frankly if these were regional media buys why did they happen identically in more than 50 ridings? Doesn't seem to local to me? Is that the intent? Does this mean any buy of the CBC only effects the HQ region of the CBC or every riding that those ads play in. This identical ad ran in over half the ridings in the country? Is that not national?

Elections Canada simply said that according to their interpretion of the rules, that "in and out" funding scheme did not qualify. Again, the judge disagreed.

again you havn't read the ruling. This wasn't a ruling on the in and out case, it was a ruling which stated that fraudlent reporting still needs to be refunded and the comissioner should then take over in investigating the case.

Now based on that spending not qualifying as local spending, EC suggested the Conservatives as a party had then overspent its limit.

Is paying a local campaign not spending, and is getting contribution from a local campaign not a donation? How does a donation effect spending? If you overspend on any level you are still overspending. Local donations only effect local ridings, federal donations only effect the federal campaign . Local ridings are still responsible for all revenue during a campaign and responsible for all their spending. They are double diping, that is illegal.

But as the judge has allowed the spending as coming from the locals, that case now collapses too.

I disagree there are local and federal spending limits for a reason. This spending is spending and intake is intake. You can't fudge both ways. The fact that the national campaign ran the banking and books to overstep the reality of the funds usage demonstrates the criminal intent on the fraud that occured. They tried to hide spending by removing the local campaign spending records.

If you are aware of how it was done then it should be clearly demonstrated that the campaign overspent due to donations to local campaigns, but it received donations. It did indeed send money, the issue is that the local campaign and national campaign are forging their books to mask money transfers after spending actually occured from one source. The source spending shows that the national campaign booked and paid for the advertising, then when reporting back to elections canada, the local campaign claimed national campaign expenses. The spending was done with national campaign accounts and funds, not local accounts. That is not only election fraud but it is also criminal offence of pergury.

All funds transfers and bookings were done by the Conservative Fund of Canada and the Conservative Party of Canada not local campaigns.

More than one person attested to this fact inlcuding a former conservative MP (namely garth turner). You have multiple people attesting to the fraud occuring, and you have multiple people stating that the spending was done intentionally to defraud elections Canada. Are you denying these facts?

Edited January 20, 2010 by William Ashley

[maple_leafs182]

I know most won't agree with me and I probably stand alone on my stance, but as a political group representing their own country, they should have a respect.. an honor for the good and just reasons in our laws. They should not be searching out loopholes to 'cheat' our own system. That is un noble, and extremely troubling.

no man your not alone, I agree with you.