Majority of 2006 Liberal leadership candidates still struggling to pay

[PIK]

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/Majority+2006+Liberal+leadership+candidates+still+struggling+debt/4793778/story.html

I have to wonder if they were conservatives ,if they would have been able to go this long without paying it off,IMO I doubt it.

Edited September 1, 2011 by PIK

[fellowtraveller]

I expect we'll see the RCMP kicking in the doors at the House of Commons to drag Stephane Dion out in handcuffs. Not.

Who do they owe the money to? What security is typically offered for political loans? It is hard to imagine a bank being this patient.

[cybercoma]

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/Majority+2006+Liberal+leadership+candidates+still+struggling+debt/4793778/story.html

I have to wonder if they were conservatives ,if they would have been able to go this long without paying it off,IMO I doubt it.

Do you have any evidence whatsoever to point to your alleged double-standard?

[fellowtraveller]

I don't know why the Liberal candidates aren't soliciting money from all those Montreal ad agencies they used to support so generously. The total of $800K is a trifle after all.

[PIK]

Do you have any evidence whatsoever to point to your alleged double-standard?

Just if elections canada has any say the cons would have been screwed.

[cybercoma]

Just if elections canada has any say the cons would have been screwed.

Ifs and would-haves do not make evidence.

[Wild Bill]

So the Tories got charged and hauled into the courts over campaign spending accountancy loopholes that the other parties also use (TWICE!) while the Liberals can break all the deadlines about paying their debts.

Of course, there is no double standard! Oh no, you'd have to be crazy to even think it!

Edited September 2, 2011 by Wild Bill

[William Ashley]

So the Tories got charged and hauled into the courts over campaign spending accountancy loopholes that the other parties also use (TWICE!) while the Liberals can break all the deadlines about paying their debts.

Of course, there is no double standard! Oh no, you'd have to be crazy to even think it!

The difference is that the Liberals were "stuck" with the bill... where as the Conservatives intentionally broke the rules (a.k.a. laws) because they didn't agree with how they worked.

Clear difference in intent. If the Liberals suddenly have a few million dollars in donations from random people, I'm sure they would be all keen on that. Unfortunate for some that is not the case for whatever reason members of the party no longer have a thousand dollars here and there to throw around. Oddly the Conservatives seem to be illiciting a lot of donations.. hmmm, I wonder why that is?

While both Debt and Larceny in days old carried death sentences this is not the case today, but this person will keep in mind the err of lorne.

(They are still actually on the books...)

Edited September 3, 2011 by William Ashley

[capricorn]

Oddly the Conservatives seem to be illiciting a lot of donations.. hmmm, I wonder why that is?

Stop teasing and take a wild guess.

[Wild Bill]

The difference is that the Liberals were "stuck" with the bill... where as the Conservatives intentionally broke the rules (a.k.a. laws) because they didn't agree with how they worked.

Clear difference in intent. If the Liberals suddenly have a few million dollars in donations from random people, I'm sure they would be all keen on that. Unfortunate for some that is not the case for whatever reason members of the party no longer have a thousand dollars here and there to throw around. Oddly the Conservatives seem to be illiciting a lot of donations.. hmmm, I wonder why that is?

While both Debt and Larceny in days old carried death sentences this is not the case today, but this person will keep in mind the err of lorne.

(They are still actually on the books...)

Thank you! I will remember your words the next time if ever I am in traffic court.

"Your Honour, Let me off! I had no intent to break the law and speed. My attention wandered and it simply happened!"

If I can, I'll let you know how it works out.

[William Ashley]

Thank you! I will remember your words the next time if ever I am in traffic court.

"Your Honour, Let me off! I had no intent to break the law and speed. My attention wandered and it simply happened!"

If I can, I'll let you know how it works out.

I'm not allowed to give legal advice, it would be illegal - maybe, well I can't say for sure, don't take my comment as advice.

If I were you, I'd do this. Contest the lands jurisdiction and turn it into a land dispute. Since only offences in a few very remote areas (that the natural population was killed on or it was always vacant - even in international law if an island is vacant without habitation its international jurisdiction is not lawful) actually have full jurisidiction, such as parts of Nova Scotia, Newfoundland and a few other areas.

That's my plan. The only speeding ticket I ever got, my request for a translator wasn't provided. Then a third party without my permission paid my ticket so the court date was canceled. I was going to argue both non jurisdiction (my car was legally in Mexico at the time, and the title to the land claim was false due to the land lying within the James Bay watershed rather than Superior watershed, as well as non consent on treaty ceding, as well as technical reading failures (I was going much faster than it read, so the device may have been faulty - or rather I think the posiblity for not going the speed indicated was accurate - likewise the weather was raining that day, and the precipitation could have resulted in a device malfunction) for instance (there are many others) http://www.ainc-inac.gc.ca/ai/mr/is/aol-eng.asp

Speeding is absolute liability for mens rhea, but is not for actus rues or jurisdictional claim.

Absolute liability entails:

"where it is not open to the accused to exculpate himself by showing that he was free of fault."

The judge might lower the fine, but it would not be a defence, my defence however would probably be sufficient based upon the legal position of the occurrence.

Since I had a claim of right due to standing - the agency however was acting non pro socio non pro bono thus exercising a fault in action that did not serve the public benefit and was an infringement of my personal liberties against unauthorized search due to non jurisdictional right.

Although the judge might be a criminal as$ and refuse hearing.

true north - strong and FREE.

My rights under s.14 weren't provided for since I both requested an alternate date and a translator... since I may not understand English or French well enough to understand the proceedings without the aid of a translator. The court should have provided a date I would be in Canada for the hearing, however the crown prosecutor did not provide for my request, and the court did not provide for my requests, at the time, denying my right to a fair trial as per section 14.(it is also absurd to require the physical presence of someone for a non criminal occurrence such as a $100 ticket etc... being over 1000km away (or in my case 3000+km's. A disposition in writting should be sufficient to provide for the facts. It is as absurd as requiring me to present myself to a superior court of justice while in the Ukraine, a consulate or the embassy should suffice.

http://www.paclii.org/PJDP/benchbooks/Kiribati/07_Jurisdiction.shtml

The bottom line is - that in terms of natural justice and other essential legal premises courts cannot judge in territory that is not theirs - except in some very remote instances such as issues arising between members of a society - or acts upon a person of a society. A traffic offence meets neither requirement to extend jurisdiction to a place without right of claim.

Edited September 3, 2011 by William Ashley