The list of the 67 Tories

[scorpio]

Only one problem. They moved funds around sure but so does every party during an election. That's right every party does the exact same thing.

Except 4 cons and the party were charged.

[madmax]

They need to deregister those 67 Riding Associations.

[Evening Star]

Yeah FAKE reciepts, fraudulant reciepts, made up reciepts that we must have all seen copies of on Power and Politics by now. They were so stupid they even photocopied the fake reciepts they were using complete with the typo "NVOICE" instead op "Invoice". Try again. Pathetic they way you defend election fraud and cheating.

Yes:

To understand what happened next, take the case of one Ontario Conservative candidate.

Her campaign hadn't spent anything near the allowable $80,000 limit for the riding.

The party sent her campaign $29,999 on the strict condition her campaign immediately transfer the same amount back to the national party.

In return, the party issued an invoice showing her campaign had just bought local advertising worth $29,999....

... .

In total, 65 Conservative candidates had submitted nearly identical invoices; only the dollar amounts were different.

The invoices were on the letterhead of the Conservative Party's advertising purchasing agency, Retail Media.

But an Elections Canada investigator later reported that Retail Media didn't seem to know anything about the documents, with a company spokesperson saying they didn’t even look remotely like the firm's standard invoices.

One executive of the ad company "speculated that this invoice must have been altered or created by someone."

from http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2011/03/01/weston-conservative-raid.html

[capricorn]

perhaps you should have simply checked the Canada Elections Act and its enforcement, particularly sentencing avenues available for breaches of the act:

That's all fine and good.

Elections Canada brought the matter to the Public Prosecutor's Office. There's no disputing that the Public Prosecutor's Office is handling the matter for Elections Canada. Do we agree so far?

The Public Prosecutor has stated publicly "the public prosecutor’s office, said a team reviewed all the evidence gathered by elections commissioner William Corbett and decided summary charges, rather than criminal indictments, were the way to proceed. “It’s a Crown decision,” said Brien.

Actions by the Public Prosecutor's Office related to the Elections Canada Act fall under Regulatory prosecutions, as per the link I provided in my previous post. Their own website states clearly that "Outcomes in these cases may generate large fines and penalties". My point being that the Prosecutor's Office does not envisage incarceration as remedial action if found culpable. That's why I wonder about the constant references to "jail time" by the opposition. In my view, it's nothing than a ploy to grab headlines in advance of an election.

[waldo]

perhaps you should have simply checked the Canada Elections Act and its enforcement, particularly sentencing avenues available for breaches of the act:

The Public Prosecutor has stated publicly "the public prosecutor’s office, said a team reviewed all the evidence gathered by elections commissioner William Corbett and decided summary charges, rather than criminal indictments, were the way to proceed. “It’s a Crown decision,” said Brien.

...the correct, complete quote:

Dan Brien, spokesperson for the public prosecutor’s office, said a team reviewed all the evidence gathered by elections commissioner William Corbett and decided summary charges, rather than criminal indictments, were the way to proceed. “It’s a Crown decision,” said Brien.

clearly, you don’t understand what a summary charge offence is in Canadian law - granted, it’s considered less serious than an indictable offence... however; it is still a question of illegality, but one less serious because offences are punishable by shorter prison sentences and smaller fines. As I pointed out, the 2000 electoral reform introduced extensions beyond a prior sole reliance on section 126 of the Criminal Code... the reform introduced provisions, directly within the Canada Elections Act, to deal with acts or omissions contrary to the Canada Elections Act. I highlighted these provisions by quoting from the Sentencing section of the act... the section that highlighted, again, that the act includes penalties that include both fines and prison terms.

so... yes... slammer time is an available sentencing option for what the spokesperson for the Public Prosecutor Office cited as a decision to pursue summary charges - an available sentencing option consistent with Sentencing quidelines of the Canada Elections Act.

[capricorn]

...the correct, complete quote:

Please forgive me for not having provided a complete quote where I omitted the words "Dan Brien" at the beginning of the quote, who happens to be a spokesman for the Public Prosecution's Office. How gauche of me.

so... yes... slammer time is an available sentencing option for what the spokesperson for the Public Prosecutor Office cited as a decision to pursue summary charges - an available sentencing option consistent with Sentencing quidelines of the Canada Elections Act.

The Public Prosecutor is not beholden to the sentencing guidelines of the Canada Elections Act. Their own website omits any mention of jail time and does not enumerate jail time as a remedy where there is a finding of culpability in Regulatory Prosecutions.

[Scotty]

- it was illegal, but not criminal! ("the penalties involved range from a year in prison, a $2,000 fine, or both, or up to a $25,000 fine. Upon sentencing, provisions in the Elections Act also permit a judge to impose additional penalties, including deregistering the party or liquidating assets") ... serious stuff![/indent]

And do you have any information that under this law ANYTHING but a fine has EVER been levied?

[Scotty]

Regardless,

What the hell where these Cons thinking? This is one big Scam against the taxpayer.

I imagine what they were thinking was that it was legal.

[Scotty]

perhaps you should have simply checked the Canada Elections Act and its enforcement, particularly sentencing avenues available for breaches of the act:

Yeah, you'll note that it talks about intent. Since there was no intent I imagine a guilty verdict would result in a small fine.

And as much as the far left is salivating over the possibility of prison terms, no one has ever gone to prison, not even for a day, under this act.

[waldo]

The Public Prosecutor is not beholden to the sentencing guidelines of the Canada Elections Act. Their own website omits any mention of jail time and does not enumerate jail time as a remedy where there is a finding of culpability in Regulatory Prosecutions.

my how you struggle... let me slow it down for you. Again:

=> the Public Prosecution Service that you speak of, indicates a decision was made to pursue

summary charges

- a summary charge offence in Canadian law is still a matter of illegality with offences punishable by shorter

prison sentences and smaller fines

... as compared to indictable offences.

=> I provided you a link to the Canada Elections Act sentencing guidelines that provide for specific ranges of

penalties

for every offence that include

fines and prison terms

.

=> the Public Prosecution Service, particularly in relation to the website quote you reference, speaks to, "outcomes that may generate

fines and penalties

"... now, for the money shot... are you really stating that in this one line statement, in relation to the word "penalties", that "penalties" does not include the option for prison time, particularly as prison time is a penalty specifically signaled out within Elections Canada sentencing guidelines... particularly as prison time is a penalty specifically available as a punishment in relation to summary charges within Canadian law. Hey now... perhaps you could advise just what "penalties" actually means

[waldo]

And do you have any information that under this law ANYTHING but a fine has EVER been levied?

the challenge being made was that slammer time was not a punishable outcome for breaches of the Elections Canada Act... in particular, in relation to the quoted statement, (as quoted several times now), that a decision to pursue summary charges had been made. See dotted line relationships

Summary Charge <> option for slammer time <> Elections Canada Act violation

[waldo]

Yeah, you'll note that it talks about intent. Since there was no intent I imagine a guilty verdict would result in a small fine.

no intent? ... as you imagine, imagine the Harper Conservative shell game... unintended!

[capricorn]

my how you struggle... let me slow it down for you. Again:

Do me a favour and dispense with such asinine comments. Is that too much to ask?

the Public Prosecution Service that you speak of, indicates a decision was made to pursue summary charges - a summary charge offence in Canadian law is still a matter of illegality with offences punishable by shorter prison sentences and smaller fines... as compared to indictable offences.

Illegality as in a regulatory breach, not a criminal offense.

I provided you a link to the Canada Elections Act sentencing guidelines that provide for specific ranges of penalties for every offence that include fines and prison terms.

The operative word being "GUIDELINES". I still maintain that the Public Prosecutor's Office is not beholden to the sentencing guidelines of Elections Canada in rendering penalties under the Regulatory Prosecution process.

the Public Prosecution Service, particularly in relation to the website quote you reference, speaks to, "outcomes that may generate fines and penalties"... now, for the money shot... are you really stating that in this one line statement, in relation to the word "penalties", that "penalties" does not include the option for prison time,

Yes.

The Elections Canada Act speaks of prison terms in its sentencing guidelines. The Public Prosecution Services of Canada does not allude to prison terms specifically as a remedy where there is a successful prosecution.

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.

[capricorn]

Yeah, you'll note that it talks about intent. Since there was no intent I imagine a guilty verdict would result in a small fine.

Waldo's a layman, just as we are. I don't expect Waldo to know what "intent" means in the legal sense.

[youshouldknowbetter]

This seems to make it pretty clear that other parties have not been found to pull this particular stunt of transferring money to local campaigns and transferring it back out right away (and then collecting taxpayer-funded rebates): http://www.cbc.ca/video/#/News/Politics/1244504890/ID=1829499694

Well, If it were that blatant, as Keepitsimple suggests, wouldn't it be a pretty open-and-shut case? Funds were transfered for ad purchaces and at took 5 years to lay any charges or citiations in the case. Did they skirt the rules? Perhaps. Are they "blatant crooks?" Hardly!

And, of course they submitted receipts. They felt that they were plying with in the rules

Dave

www.youshouldknowbetter.com

[scribblet]

The case of the disappearing scandalas Conservative MP destroys Elections Canada CEO’s credibility

http://www.canada.com/mobile/iphone/story.html?id=b92b618d-d777-4539-b553-c34b3a5b0376&p=1

John Robson •

Friday, July 18, 2008

By The Ottawa Citizen

First he asked Mr. Mayrand why slide 6 of his PowerPoint handout to the committee defined "Candidate election expenses" as "any expense incurred, or property or service used to directly promote or oppose a candidate during an election period" when the Elections Canada candidates' handbook for the 2006 election (on p. 25) directly quotes clause 407(1) of the Canada Elections Act that it must be "used directly to promote or oppose a registered party, its leader or a candidate during an election."

Since the crux of this matter is spending by local candidates to promote the national party, the altered wording to leave out "party" is not a trivial omission. (Especially as the latest, 2007 Elections Canada candidates handbook also removes the reference to parties (see p. 27) while citing the same, unaltered, clause 407(1) of the Elections Act.) But Mr. Poilievre wasn't done with his fireworks.

He then read an e-mail worth quoting in full: "Hi Phyllis, We are told by communications folks in BC that these were radio ads with the Candidate's personal tag on the end -- therefore a local expense to be reported under the Candidate's expense ceiling, regardless of who pays. For rebate purposes, we were asked to bill each campaign -- in the case of VanEast, $2,612.00. The good news is that the Federal Party will transfer $2,600 to the Federal Riding Association as we agreed to pay for the ads. We hope that you are able to squeeze this in under the ceiling. Some expenses are not considered election expenses subject to spending limits, such as fundraising costs. Please have a look at the totals and get back to us if you think we have a problem." It was signed by the federal party bookkeeper.

It sounds like sharp practice. But did it require investigation? Mr. Mayrand refused to comment without more information. So Mr. Poilievre revealed that it was an NDP e-mail obtained by the Tories from Elections Canada. Yet Mr. Mayrand testified that no other party had engaged in the sort of "in-and-out" financing that prompted him to refuse dozens of Tory reimbursement claims and ask the Commissioner of Elections Canada to investigate.

The third Mason-style moment concerned Mr. Mayrand's attempt to show that his office had not given the press or the Liberal party a heads-up on the police raid on Conservative Party HQ. In his opening statement the Chief Electoral Officer said an internal review had cleared him and his staff, though when Scott Reid on a point of order required him to table the review he quickly downgraded it to "not truly a report, barely a sheet."

So Mr. Poilievre asked who conducted the review and Mr. Mayrand grudgingly confessed that it was one M. Mayrand. Since he certainly wouldn't let the Tories investigate themselves on the in-and-out affair, Mr. Poilievre called it surprising that he'd think it appropriate to investigate himself on the leak. And it is.

The more I watch this stuff, including the ugly procedural fiddling on Wednesday, the more convinced I am that if there's a scandal here, it doesn't involve the Tories. But nobody seems to care. The opposition want a scandal, the press want a scandal, and since everybody who's anybody knows Conservatives stink, let's not bore ourselves with details on a beautiful summer day.

[Evening Star]

Well, If it were that blatant, as Keepitsimple suggests, wouldn't it be a pretty open-and-shut case? Funds were transfered for ad purchaces and at took 5 years to lay any charges or citiations in the case. Did they skirt the rules? Perhaps. Are they "blatant crooks?" Hardly!

And, of course they submitted receipts. They felt that they were plying with in the rules

Dave

www.youshouldknowbetter.com

They submitted blatantly false receipts, according to my CBC quote upthread.

Edited March 9, 2011 by Evening Star

[waldo]

=> the Public Prosecution Service that you speak of, indicates a decision was made to pursue summary charges - a summary charge offence in Canadian law is still a matter of illegality with offences punishable by shorter prison sentences and smaller fines... as compared to indictable offences.

Illegality as in a regulatory breach, not a criminal offense.

how obtuse are you? I’m making that distinction in the very statements you’re now replying to… notwithstanding, that distinction between illegality and criminality has been made several times now. Just a few posts back, I took particular steps to ensure this point was clear; i.e., that the booster club would latch onto this distinction and we’d see another spinning talking point – “illegal… but not criminal”! Of course, you have your panties twisted over the possibility that the “the 4” could face prison time as a punishment for their breach of the Canada Elections Act. 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.

=> I provided you a link to the Canada Elections Act sentencing guidelines that provide for specific ranges of penalties for every offence that include fines and prison terms.

The operative word being "GUIDELINES". I still maintain that the Public Prosecutor's Office is not beholden to the sentencing guidelines of Elections Canada in rendering penalties under the Regulatory Prosecution process.

you can maintain whatever you want… but you’re wrong. Do you really think the Public Prosecution Service of Canada (PPSC) actually applies the sentencing and/or that it suddenly comes up with it’s own sentencing guidelines, separate from what has been formalized within the Canada Elections Act? If that were to be the case, what’s the point of having a Canada Elections Act? Again, how obtuse are you? The PPSC prosecutes… it prosecutes… in this case, it prosecutes offences under statutes of the Canada Elections Act.

=> the Public Prosecution Service, particularly in relation to the website quote you reference, speaks to, "outcomes that may generate fines and penalties"... now, for the money shot... are you really stating that in this one line statement, in relation to the word "penalties", that "penalties" does not include the option for prison time, particularly as prison time is a penalty specifically signaled out within Elections Canada sentencing guidelines... particularly as prison time is a penalty specifically available as a punishment in relation to summary charges within Canadian law.

Yes.

The Elections Canada Act speaks of prison terms in its sentencing guidelines. The Public Prosecution Services of Canada does not allude to prison terms specifically as a remedy where there is a successful prosecution.

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.

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.

[William Ashley]

The Sponsorship affair was a criminal matter involving the outright theft of government funds, and we still do'nt know how many were involved since, like the Mafia, the Liberals never were willing to talk about it. Most Canadians have little doubt that Jean Chretien and Paul Martin were involved. The cops just couldn't get any of their underlings to turn on them.

The in-out thing is not a criminal matter.

Well technically it is fraud since it deprived the public of tax funds since the scheme allowed them to fraudulently claim tax rebates from the public purse.. they took money from the government they wern't entitled to.

You do understand this isn't as simple as moving money in and out of a fund.. the fact they also claimed tax rebates for those funds.. that they wouldn't be able to claim if they didn't.

This works out to millions of dollars of stolden money, it is definately criminal.

If someone commited fraud by claiming a million dollars in tax deducations they legally wern't entitled to, that is fraud. That is what happened.

Claiming no crime occured is simply a moronic position completely uneducated to what occured. Just because it is public money doesn't mean it isn't theft.

And these arn't deductions they are REBATES, meaning they got paid money they shounld't have.

Once again - not criminal is clearly a conservative lying through their posterior to save it at the cost of honesty they clearly have never possessed.

The charges state "they deliberately" did this

This is like someone robbing a bank then giving some of the money back after they invested it and got a return. Returing the stolden money doesn't correct the error, there is interest and there is the effect of the loss over the period of time until it was returned.. plus the fact they are someone who would rob a bank.

When you let a bank robber control billions of dollars of your money you need to ask - is this bank robber someone I can trust not to steal my money?

Harper is a racoon faced man.

http://www.spinquad.com/forums/image.php?u=16028&dateline=1203956037

we need some coon hunters in the place.

HARPER BAD MAN!

http://www.picturesof.net/_images/Cartoon_Raccoon_Bandit_Royalty_Free_Clipart_Picture_090313-130126-392048.jpg

BAD!

http://www.google.ca/imgres?imgurl=http://www.dlcache.indiatimes.com/imageserve/0eXx3IDdCZ2g8/x160.jpg&imgrefurl=http://oneclick.indiatimes.com/article/0fjn8o0bt2evw%3Fq%3DOttawa&usg=__XRhHFFrNkf1LjDUpIyyrwH7tbMs=&h=160&w=200&sz=10&hl=en&start=2&sig2=5X2Nr4G8AYeuNzmg8IoR_g&zoom=1&itbs=1&tbnid=Z5QSuMDdHdypLM:&tbnh=83&tbnw=104&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dracoon%2Bbandit%2Bharper%26hl%3Den%26gbv%3D2%26tbs%3Disch:1&ei=cSZ3TeidE4rCqwGZyp20CQ

BEWARE THE COONSERVATIVES!!

WE NEED A BOON!

A COON HUNTER!

NO MORE COON PUT HARPER TO THE SPITTOON!

Its your childrens future:

He's gunning for them.

Edited March 9, 2011 by William Ashley

[Bryan]

The more I watch this stuff, including the ugly procedural fiddling on Wednesday, the more convinced I am that if there's a scandal here, it doesn't involve the Tories.

Me too. It's an absolute iron clad fact that all parties financed their campaigns this way. For Elections Canada and the media to continue to claim otherwise is one of the most blatantly dishonest things I've ever seen.

[SF/PF]

I'm having a hard time understanding why this concept is so difficult to grasp.

Whether a charge is a criminal charge or not is determined by what act it falls under. "Criminal" and "non-criminal" have no bearing on the severity of the crime, or the severity of the penalties if convicted. They're "housekeeping" distinctions.

So claims that the charges "are not criminal" are basically meaningless.

[SF/PF]

Me too. It's an absolute iron clad fact that all parties financed their campaigns this way. For Elections Canada and the media to continue to claim otherwise is one of the most blatantly dishonest things I've ever seen.

If it's an "ironclad fact" that other parties have participated in this scheme, I'd sure love to see evidence of it.

So.. how 'bout it?

Despite all the talk that "everyone does it" and "everyone knows everyone else does it," it sure seems to be tough to produce actually evidence for that claim. Seeing as no one has produced a shred of it.

[Bryan]

If it's an "ironclad fact" that other parties have participated in this scheme, I'd sure love to see evidence of it.

So.. how 'bout it?

Despite all the talk that "everyone does it" and "everyone knows everyone else does it," it sure seems to be tough to produce actually evidence for that claim. Seeing as no one has produced a shred of it.

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

[Scotty]

no intent? ... as you imagine, imagine the Harper Conservative shell game... unintended!

If they believed, from legal advice, that this was legal, then there was no attempt to break the law. That would seem fairly obvious.

[madmax]

If they believed, from legal advice, that this was legal, then there was no attempt to break the law. That would seem fairly obvious.

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.