GWiz Posted March 9, 2011 Report Posted March 9, 2011 And we all just fell off the turnup truck. They knew, everyone knows, this was crooked period. Get ready for a slap on the wrist. It was only the tax payer and the citizens of Canada they stole from. EXACTLY RIGHT! AND I want my money back! Quote There are none so blind, deaf and dumb as those that fail to recognize, understand, and promote TRUTH...- GWiz
Molly Posted March 9, 2011 Report Posted March 9, 2011 If they believed, from legal advice, that this was legal, then there was no attempt to break the law. That would seem fairly obvious. If they believed it was unethical enough to require checking the details with their lawyers to make sure they wouldn't get arrested, then it was clearly an attempt to get away with something they knew they shouldn't do. Quote "Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!" — L. Frank Baum "For Conservatives, ministerial responsibility seems to be a temporary and constantly shifting phenomenon," -- Goodale
Scotty Posted March 9, 2011 Report Posted March 9, 2011 And we all just fell off the turnup truck. They knew, everyone knows, this was crooked period. so you're saying the judge who presided over the initial trial was an incompetent who didn't understand law? Quote It is an inverted moral calculus that tries to persuade the world to demonize one state that tries its civilized best to abide in a difficult time and place, and rides merrily by the examples and practices of dozens of states and leaderships that drop into brutality every day without a twinge of regret or a whisper of condemnation. - Rex Murphy
William Ashley Posted March 9, 2011 Report Posted March 9, 2011 (edited) If they believed, from legal advice, that this was legal, then there was no attempt to break the law. That would seem fairly obvious. Actually they should have consulted with Elections Canada... Elections Canada is the agency that oversees electoral law in Canada. If you have doubts about how the law works you are suppose to contact THEM. They are the elections cops. If someone disagrees with Elections Canada's statements regarding interpretation of electoral law and directives of elections Canada the step would be to challenge it in court BEFORE not after... The courts might overturn the law or request a correction or clarification or the ruling would inprint upon elections canada's policing of the act The other method would be for elections Canada to suggest clarification from parliament on the law, include any needed addendums/annexes to the law to clarify points that were unable to be resolved but still applicable to enforcement. So the CPC should have. 1. Contacted Elections Canada if their intended montetary transfers were within the guidelines of the act (They should have done this for every class of montary usage - since filing these things after does not gaurentee their allowance -- until AFTER the return is filed, any uncertainties are suppose to be cleared up with Elections Canada BEFORE the action is taken. 2. Contact their MP and requested clarification either direct or by petition in parliament 3. Challenged anything they felt breached the law in Elections Canada's statements about the action in court. ------- In the mean time they would be required to refrain from the activity until it was clarified or allowed, otherwise they would risk being in violation of Elections Canada the agency that oversees electoral law in Canada's enforcement stance on the question. Elections Canada is very forth coming in providing information of this sort when it is requested. It may take a few phone calls, and it may not be "what you'd like to hear", but they do provide firm statements that can be used as a base to challenge the enforcement stances in court. If there is a cop standing infront of a street and you don't know if you can cross it, the best way to avoid getting busted is asking the cop if it is ok to cross before doing so. They just arn't using common sense, and for a MAJOR party undertaking any type of monetary transfers that arn't cleared in advance by elections Canada is just plain idiocy or intentional ommission of information hence negligence (a culpable act). It shows their level of either outright criminality or ineptitude, I'm more inclined their minds are weighed to the former not the latter.. They admited to it then lightened it... it is absurd that there are still Harpercaust deniers that are going on like it wasn't illegal and didn't steal from Canadians. We damn well know he did it. Edited March 9, 2011 by William Ashley Quote I was here.
GWiz Posted March 10, 2011 Report Posted March 10, 2011 Actually they should have consulted with Elections Canada... Elections Canada is the agency that oversees electoral law in Canada. If you have doubts about how the law works you are suppose to contact THEM. They are the elections cops. If someone disagrees with Elections Canada's statements regarding interpretation of electoral law and directives of elections Canada the step would be to challenge it in court BEFORE not after... The courts might overturn the law or request a correction or clarification or the ruling would inprint upon elections canada's policing of the act The other method would be for elections Canada to suggest clarification from parliament on the law, include any needed addendums/annexes to the law to clarify points that were unable to be resolved but still applicable to enforcement. So the CPC should have. 1. Contacted Elections Canada if their intended montetary transfers were within the guidelines of the act (They should have done this for every class of montary usage - since filing these things after does not gaurentee their allowance -- until AFTER the return is filed, any uncertainties are suppose to be cleared up with Elections Canada BEFORE the action is taken. 2. Contact their MP and requested clarification either direct or by petition in parliament 3. Challenged anything they felt breached the law in Elections Canada's statements about the action in court. ------- In the mean time they would be required to refrain from the activity until it was clarified or allowed, otherwise they would risk being in violation of Elections Canada the agency that oversees electoral law in Canada's enforcement stance on the question. Elections Canada is very forth coming in providing information of this sort when it is requested. It may take a few phone calls, and it may not be "what you'd like to hear", but they do provide firm statements that can be used as a base to challenge the enforcement stances in court. If there is a cop standing infront of a street and you don't know if you can cross it, the best way to avoid getting busted is asking the cop if it is ok to cross before doing so. They just arn't using common sense, and for a MAJOR party undertaking any type of monetary transfers that arn't cleared in advance by elections Canada is just plain idiocy or intentional ommission of information hence negligence (a culpable act). It shows their level of either outright criminality or ineptitude, I'm more inclined their minds are weighed to the former not the latter.. They admited to it then lightened it... it is absurd that there are still Harpercaust deniers that are going on like it wasn't illegal and didn't steal from Canadians. We damn well know he did it. Very accurate description of the workings of Elections Canada and how Political entities work with them... Incidently, just for EVERYBODY's information, Elections Canada is NOT some strange detached entity, it is a FULLY TAX PAYER FUNDED but INDEPENDENT entity as an integral part of Canada's Parliamentary System... Simply put, ANY "legal" questioning of what "Elections Canada" does, as the Harper Regime is doing NOW, means WE, Canadian Tax Payers, are PAYING for those "challenges" to Election Canada rulings... Not that the HARPER REGIME cares about Canadians or how their TAX MONEY gets spent... Quote There are none so blind, deaf and dumb as those that fail to recognize, understand, and promote TRUTH...- GWiz
Bryan Posted March 10, 2011 Report Posted March 10, 2011 Actually they should have consulted with Elections Canada... Elections Canada is the agency that oversees electoral law in Canada. If you have doubts about how the law works you are suppose to contact THEM. They are the elections cops. If someone disagrees with Elections Canada's statements regarding interpretation of electoral law and directives of elections Canada the step would be to challenge it in court BEFORE not after... The challenge has already been made, and WON by the Bloc though. The precedent was already there. Quote
scribblet Posted March 10, 2011 Report Posted March 10, 2011 .... They admited to it then lightened it... it is absurd that there are still Harpercaust deniers that are going on like it wasn't illegal and didn't steal from Canadians. We damn well know he did it. You need to rephrase your "Harpercaust deniers" it is over the top, not only is it against forum rules, but it denigrates the actual holocaust. It is a slur against a lot of people, not just conservatives. Your hatred is clouding your judgement (or lack thereof) get a grip on reality please, leave such rude references out of your posts. And, as you well know, it is not so cut and dried, if it were, there wouldn't be different court opinions etc. etc. that is apart from the fact you've been shown how other parties do it. Quote Hey Ho - Ontario Liberals Have to Go - Fight Wynne - save our province
capricorn Posted March 10, 2011 Report Posted March 10, 2011 how obtuse are you? --- you have your panties twisted --- Again, how obtuse are you? Feel better now Waldo? Where do you come off labelling this a “regulatory breach”… it’s a breach of the Canada Elections Act. The “Regulatory” designation you’ve latched on to is a categorization of prosecution within the Public Prosecution Service of Canada (PPSC)… in this case, a Regulatory Prosecution as reflects upon statutes within the Canada Elections Act. A Regulatory Prosecution, as distinct from a Drug Prosecution… as distinct from an Economic Crime Prosecution… as distinct from a National Security Prosecution – all of these being types of prosecution within the PPSC. That's because Elections Canada is not prosecuting the case, the PPSC is. The PPSC prosecutes… it prosecutes… in this case, it prosecutes offences under statutes of the Canada Elections Act. With this I agree. yeesh! Again, by the very quotation you, yourself, provided… the PPSC spokesperson indicated their office had decided to pursue summary charges… by Canadian law, summary charges include the provision for both fines and prison time. The Canada Elections Act includes sentencing guidelines that include provision for both fines and prison time. The PPSC will be prosecuting offences under statutes of the Canada Elections Act. I never disputed the Elections Act provides for prison time. I searched and have not found one case where a person spent time in prison for a breach of the Act. I did find one case where a person was sentenced to 30 days house arrest, for charges under the Criminal Code. In the 2000 election, a man walked into a New Glasgow polling station on voting day, placed a note in front of an elections officer, and fled with a ballot box containing 125 ballots.An off-duty officer caught the man, but not before he had thrown the box into a nearby lagoon. The box was recovered, but it wasn't clear if all the ballots were recovered. Voters were asked to cast their votes again, but only 76 returned to do so. Alexander MacKenzie, 51, of Pictou Landing, N.S., was later convicted and sentenced to 30 days of house arrest. http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20060122/elxn_ballotbox_truck_060123/20060123?s_name=election2006&no_ads= From the link note the reaction from an Elections Canada spokesperson. Officials called police, who quickly made an arrest. A 56-year-old faces charges of theft and damage to property. Police also expect to lay charges under the Canada Elections Act.Elections Canada spokesman Dana Doiron said there's no official policy on what to do when a box is stolen. "It doesn't happen so frequently that we have rules,'' said Doiron. "It's just common sense. With witnesses from the candidates, they were able to gather up and put (the ballot box) back together so that they could continue and maintain the integrity of the election.'' "No official policy when an electoral box is stolen". Well, duh, how about a policy to charge the thief. Elections Canada has this entry on the website about this case. The floating ballot boxAbout mid-afternoon on election day, an elector in the Nova Scotia riding of Pictou–Antigonish–Guysborough left a note in the polling station at Pictou Landing, grabbed the ballot box and fled. An off-duty police constable waiting to vote pursued the man, who threw the box containing 125 marked ballots into a waste-treatment lagoon. The constable apprehended him, and later the RCMP and the chief of the local First Nations band launched a rescue mission by boat to retrieve the box, improbably still floating in the lagoon. By that time, the returning officer (thinking that the box was lost forever) had contacted the 125 voters and asked them to vote again; 76 did so. The coated cardboard of the ballot box, we learned from this episode, is much more weatherproof than we realized. The perpetrator was charged with theft of goods with a value of less than $5 000 under the Criminal Code, appeared in court the next day, and was convicted on February 14. Sentencing is expected to take place on March 28. http://elections.ca/content.aspx?section=res&dir=rep/off/sta&document=stat14〈=e That March 28 sentencing was the 30 days house arrest mentioned earlier. So I come back to the original point I made to Scotty after which you inserted yourself into the conversation The Opposition screams "they face jail time", "they're going to jail", "thieves", "fraud" is a bunch of hooey. This is faux outrage and grandstanding hoping for sensational headlines and a few extra votes. Hey, it's what politicians do. Quote "We always want the best man to win an election. Unfortunately, he never runs." Will Rogers
waldo Posted March 10, 2011 Report Posted March 10, 2011 So I come back to the original point I made to Scotty after which you inserted yourself into the conversation. The Opposition screams "they face jail time", "they're going to jail", "thieves", "fraud" is a bunch of hooey. This is faux outrage and grandstanding hoping for sensational headlines and a few extra votes. Hey, it's what politicians do. bullshit... MLW members are free to post at their whim, at their discretion... despite whether you think you had a private discussion that no one else could partake in. If you press the point I will most certainly throw up the quote stream that shows, point in fact, that it was member Scotty and I that were having the discussion... and you planted yourself smack into it. Would you like that replayed for you, hey? I believe the following summarizes completely your failed attempt to deny that prison time is in fact an available sentencing option... for summary charges in Canada... which is what the charges were labeled as per your own provided quote from the PPSC spokesperson... that prison time is in fact in keeping with an available sentencing option afforded via the Canada Elections Act. Hey now... perhaps you could advise just what "penalties" actually means Offhand I can think of restitution as a form of penalty. I'm sure there are others. and there we have it… you can find your way, offhandedly, to identify restitution as a form of penalty. However, your same offhandedness, quite selectively, denies that prison time could also be a form of penalty. You do this simply at your whim… you do it in the face of denying that prison time is a possible punishment associated with summary charges… you do it in the face of denying that prison time is explicitly indicated as a possible punishment associated with breaches of the Canada Elections act. Again, you do this simply at your whim – because you can… somehow, it must give you solace. However, you have shown absolutely nothing to suggest that the PPSC would not be prosecuting breaches of statues of the Canada Elections Act and seeking remedy per the punishment guidelines of the Canada Elections Act… one of those punishment guidelines being, as repeatedly stated, prison time. Quote
SF/PF Posted March 10, 2011 Report Posted March 10, 2011 I've posted plenty of it, and so have several other members in the other threads about this topic. Here's one of the posts: http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index.php?showtopic=18143&view=findpost&p=635050 None of the links provided in that thread show that other parties participated in the same scheme. They used in and out schemes to secure additional campaign cost rebates, which is certainly unethical. The illegality is in the deliberate violation of federal campaign spending limits by trying to hide the money in riding associations. Not in transferring funds to secure larger than deserved rebates. Quote Your political compass Economic Left/Right: -4.88 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.15
scribblet Posted March 10, 2011 Report Posted March 10, 2011 There needs to be an investigation of the other parties whom we know have done the same thing as has been proven. Somethings never change though, the Tories hit over 40 percent in the polls and the gang up process begins supported by our very liberal media. Not to mention Speaker Milliken is a Liberal and retiring, so what does he have to lose, it's a given how he would rule. Quote Hey Ho - Ontario Liberals Have to Go - Fight Wynne - save our province
waldo Posted March 10, 2011 Report Posted March 10, 2011 There needs to be an investigation of the other parties whom we know have done the same thing as has been proven. no - as has been stated now, several times... the like duality of both IN and OUT, particularly the OUT orchestration, is unique to the Harper Government... one manipulated at the highest levels of the Conservative Party... spending limits ala feverish IN & OUT wire transfers, involving brazillions of dollars - hence... the charges. => ...the gang up process begins supported by our very liberal media. => Not to mention Speaker Milliken is a Liberal and retiring, so what does he have to lose, it's a given how he would rule. oh my! Your desperation rules, hey scribbler? The "liberal media"... and the Speaker of the House of Commons. Oh my! Quote
Wild Bill Posted March 10, 2011 Report Posted March 10, 2011 Somethings never change though, the Tories hit over 40 percent in the polls and the gang up process begins supported by our very liberal media. Not entirely, Scrib! I agree there is usually some Liberal bias but outside of Queens U. and Ryerson or the pages of the Star it's not that bad. ALL papers are going to attack ANY party that looks like a runaway winner! That's what sells papers! It has to look like a real race or it gets boring. What are they supposed to do, attack the Liberals or the NDP? They're the parties that don't look like strong contenders. Knocking them would only put people to sleep! Papers need new factors that look like they might change the outcome. That's often hard to find in Canadian politics. Right now, reporting Harper and his Tories in a constantly favourable light would be just more "dog bites man" stuff. Quote "A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul." -- George Bernard Shaw "There is no point in being difficult when, with a little extra effort, you can be completely impossible."
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.