Trudeau lying about SNC

[GostHacked]

On 4/4/2019 at 11:09 AM, Zeitgeist said:

They’re a massive international operation based in Canada.  I don’t think it’s fair to punish thousands for the crimes of a few.  If we shut them down in Canada then head office jobs and business taxes leave the country.  We need money to pay for those land claims JWR supports. 

I don't care how big they are. And no this is not just a few bad apples. The corruption is part of SNC-Lavalins culture through and through. 20+ years of corruption and blackmailing the Canadian government under the Conservatives and the Liberals. That's nothing more than a mafia and needs to be taken out.

The only one threatening to cut jobs is SNC-Lavalin themselves. They are blackmailing saying that they will move some operations IF they are brought up on corruption charges  MORE the reason to do exactly that. Fuck SNC-Lavalin.  Just look at how the LRT is going in Ottawa.

On 4/4/2019 at 2:10 PM, egghead said:

Not few, the whole upper-level managment are. BTW, it is a safe bet that you are fine that SNC used gov't funding to bribe the foreign officers

Exactly.

[GostHacked]

14 hours ago, Owly said:

Under the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines, a past deferred prosecution will not count toward a defendant's criminal history,

But we live in Canada. So this is not useful at all.

[Rue]

On ‎4‎/‎5‎/‎2019 at 10:24 PM, Owly said:

Company gets fined for legal breaches and gets put under a spotlight to reform or face further prosecution. The blue collar guys/gals get to keep their jobs in the meantime.

You have to do  a lot better than that . First of all go find out the difference between a fine and restitution payments to victims.  Secondly there is no spotlight because  evidence is released.   Next Lavalin's workers that supposedly would lose jobs in Quebec are not blue collar guys or gals and there is zero evidence to indicate any of these guys or false were losing jobs or even would lose jobs and the head of Lavalin is on public record denying any jobs would be lost. The assumption jobs would be lost comes from the assumption that the federal government would ban Lavalin from getting federal government contracts for 10 years. That assumption comes from the fact that the World Bank has suspended funding any Lavalin projects outside Canada for 10 years for bribing foreign governments in Bangladesh and Cambodia. The fact they did that does not mean the federal government would. Next, in fact Lavalin gets very few federal contracts. The vast  majority of their work, over 95% comes from elsewhere in Canada and even more importantly if there was a ban it could only apply to the Canadian subsidiary of Lavalin not its other subsidiaries operating in Canada. The assumption any job would be lost is fabricated. Its not based on reality. That is why even the head of Lavalin shot it down. The head office can not be moved out of Quebec until 2024 due to an agreement they signed with the Caisse Populaires of Quebec. Can you go read it. If they tried to move out before then they would have a huge penalty clause to pay back to the Caisse.

Can you please read the Canadian dpa law and in particular the preconditions, considerations and prohibition that has to be considered by the prosecutor. You have not and that has nothing to do with my defective analysis, it has to do with your willful attempt to bluff your way taking about a law you didn't read. While I am at it, only 4 dpa's have been used in Britain and never in situations for bribing foreign governments. Likewise in the US . 

The US uses dpa's for many legal matters. It averages about 40 a year in the entire country which is when you think about the number of trials across the US an infinitely small no. 

Never has a dpa been used in the US, Britain or anywhere, where it was predicated on the elected leader of the country intervening to pass a retroactive law to have one apply to an on-going criminal case on behalf of the accused.

Now can we get something crystal clear. DPA's were designed for first time offences NOT with repeat offenders and there is a reason for that go find out why if you claim to be an expert.

Next there is a clear prohibition against considering national economic interests as a ground of public interest to use to  justify using a dpa with the very acts of bribery under the very law, Lavalin was charged. How about  you go read that prohibition. It was placed in the dpa precisely to avoid a conflict with a treaty we signed in 1999 with the OECD  where we promised never to allow our own domestic financial considerations to be used as an excuse not to pursue bribing of foreign government officials.

Britain, the US and Australia also signed that treaty.

Next when you throw out the US, Britain and Australia as using dpa's at least find out when they use them. They have never used them in the context Trudeau wanted the dpa used and there is a reason for that.

You aren't going to impress anyone if you try bluff your way through a debate based on reading one summary article of the new law.

Edited April 7, 2019 by Rue

[Rue]

On ‎4‎/‎5‎/‎2019 at 11:05 PM, Owly said:

The act requires they either conform or go to court.

No that is not what it says. Provide the section you think says that. 

[Rue]

On ‎4‎/‎5‎/‎2019 at 11:20 PM, Owly said:

They are eligible for a dpa and that is now in the hands of David Lametti. We shall see.

You can repeat that until doomsday it is false and again you have not read the law nor have you paid attention. The Federal Court if Canada ruled the Chief Prosecutor's ruling that they would not use a dpa is final. Its not appealable. The prosecutor had absolute discretion to decide. The only way Lametti can over turn the prosecutor's decision to reject the dpa is to go to the Federal Court of Appeal, and overturn the Federal Court's decision on the grounds there was an error of law. That would mean ignoring the wording in the dpa law saying the prosecutor's discretion is absolute and also ignoring the preconditions, considerations and prohibition wording in the dpa law.

This notion you have where an elected politician can intervene in an on-going criminal proceeding, pass a retroactive dpa law and use it to shut down a trial when the very wording in the dpa prevents that kind of use is fantasy land.

Also you advance another idiotic notion that  Lametti has power either as Mnr of Justice or AG to overrule his Chief Prosecutor.

Please dpa expert show how he can do that.

 

 

[Rue]

15 hours ago, Owly said:

Under the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines, a past deferred prosecution will not count toward a defendant's criminal history,

Again you just show you do not understand what you read. Each state and county in the US and there are thousands have different laws and  procedures than the federal court. There is no "U.S." sentencing guidelines. You went to wikepedia to read US federal court guidelines.

Using wikepedia to pose as an expert on USA dpa laws is ridiculous. Its far more complex then what you think you refer to.

Next we live in Canada. You need to read the dpa law passed by Trudeau.

Just once read the actual law.

 

 

 

[Zeitgeist]

Yeah I’m hoping Lametti overturns the prosecutor’s decision.  There are different ways to interpret the law and apparently SNC submitted documents on September 17 that either JWR ignored or never saw.  It may have sat on her desk just like the request for exhoneration that came from a wrongful conviction of a man for murder.  We can emphasize the importance of one criterion or more over others in determining whether a DPA applies.  I think Lametti has a good shot at this.  Might want to wait until after the election though.  

[bush_cheney2004]

25 minutes ago, Rue said:

Next we live in Canada. You need to read the dpa law passed by Trudeau.

 

Yes...imagine that....Canada is not the USA...but some folks just can't help themselves.

[OftenWrong]

18 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

Yeah I’m hoping Lametti overturns the prosecutor’s decision.  There are different ways to interpret the law and apparently SNC submitted documents on September 17 that either JWR ignored or never saw.

Most likely such a move would be a big mistake, and may bring down this government.

[Zeitgeist]

2 minutes ago, OftenWrong said:

Most likely such a move would be a big mistake, and may bring down this government.

I wouldn’t do it unless I won a majority.  Then I’d purge all seditious opposition.  These internal disputes have become far too public and damaging to the government.  Something tells me the message from the Libs will be more like, “If you want an omelette, you have to break a few eggs”, rather than sunny ways. 

[egghead]

On 4/5/2019 at 8:18 PM, Realitycheck said:

No jobs are threatened save one...Justin's.

 

Admin can lock the thread now. We have proof that JT did not lie. Giving SNC a DPA indeed will save canadian job, JT's job. 

BTW, can we stop using the job saving excuse? It is becasue it sounds so stupid. How many jobs are the cutting line for a DPA? 8000, 5000, or 100,000?

[Owly]

3 hours ago, GostHacked said:

But we live in Canada. So this is not useful at all.

I was responding to a query from Rue as to how the dpa has been used elsewhere.

[Owly]

2 hours ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

Yes...imagine that....Canada is not the USA...but some folks just can't help themselves.

Now that is rich...coming from you.

[Rue]

2 hours ago, Zeitgeist said:

Yeah I’m hoping Lametti overturns the prosecutor’s decision.  

Lametti can not. Only the Federal Court of Canada can and then it goes back to the Chief Prosecutor so unless you want Lametti to fire her and bring in a new one, she revisits the issue. The allegations of abuse do not deal with the wording in the preconditions, considerations and prohibition Ms. Roussel or any other prosecutor would still be mandated to follow in the dpa law. Unless you are planning on rewriting the dpa law good luck.

[Zeitgeist]

13 minutes ago, Rue said:

Lametti can not. Only the Federal Court of Canada can and then it goes back to the Chief Prosecutor so unless you want Lametti to fire her and bring in a new one, she revisits the issue. The allegations of abuse do not deal with the wording in the preconditions, considerations and prohibition Ms. Roussel or any other prosecutor would still be mandated to follow in the dpa law. Unless you are planning on rewriting the dpa law good luck.

Well if SNC is appealing this, they must have reasons beyond even what I’ve stated.  We don’t have all the details.  My understanding is that the AG can overturn the Chief Prosecutor’s decision.  Firings happen all the time as governments have political positions on most policy matters.  More than anything else I’m playing devil’s advocate because the partisan pile on is obvious.  I don’t like lynch mobs.

[Rue]

4 minutes ago, Owly said:

I was responding to a query from Rue as to how the dpa has been used elsewhere.

No actually you did not. You missed the point completely. The issue is not and was not whether the dpa is used elsewhere, it is under what circumstances has it been used. Using a dpa is not the issue-when and why to use it is. 

United States  has literally hundreds of different courts using a very wide and diverse approach to not just dpa's but plea bargaining, civil court procedures, criminal court procedures. Some are similar to our provincial and federal courts some are not.

The point you missed is the US courts use dpa's for many reasons we would not in Canada. Canadian courts have always been able to use the equivalent of a dpa and other restorative justice initiatives. 

You live in a fantasy Liberal script that you can ignore the very dpa law your PM passed. Can you please read it. Can you please read what the difference is between the Chief Prosecutor and AG and understand why the AG can not order his Chief Prosecutor to ignore the dpa law wording and just use one.

I know in your world having the Prime Minister intervene in an on-going criminal proceeding to shut it down is acceptable and allowing himself to be contacted by the accused repeatedly and promise that accused to shut down the trial is acceptable. I know you think claiming there might be job losses with zero proof of that claim is acceptable. I know you think Lavalin being a repeat offender means nothing to who is entitled to dpa's. I know you think you can ignore the victim impact and in your fantasy partisan world subjectively declare the need of constituents in Trudeau's riding to make profit from a crime are more important than the murders, torture and harm that crime did to others.

I know you think the international treaty we signed pledging we would prosecute to the utmost any Canadian bribing a foreign government means nothing

I now you think bribing a terrorist, war criminal and human rights violator who ordered the torture and murder of thousands and used his troops to invade other countries illegally and massacre victims means nothing. 

Yes I got it. You are a Liberal. You will pose with Syrian refugees but not Libyans with permanent injuries from Ghaddafi. You wil lecture India on how to deal with terrorists while condoning the bribing of terrorists. You cheer on paying Kadr 10 million for being in Guantanamo Bay prison but give not one thought to the victims of Ghaddafi placed in his prisons including the one Lavalin built for $275 million, let alone giving any money to our soldiers who went to Afghanistan to fight terrorists and now suffer from injuries.

At one point I was a Liberal. I liked Paul Martin. Its because of what it now is and what you defend I call it out as a corrupted morally bankrupt excuse of a party and shows what happens when followers who think their shit does not think get drunk on their sense of entitlement.

 

 

 

 

 

[Owly]

The dpa is "brand new" in Canada. You asked how it's been applied elsewhere. I simply refuted your claim that it can't be applied more than once.

[Rue]

21 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

Well if SNC is appealing this, they must have reasons beyond even what I’ve stated.  We don’t have all the details.  My understanding is that the AG can overturn the Chief Prosecutor’s decision.  Firings happen all the time as governments have political positions on most policy matters.  More than anything else I’m playing devil’s advocate because the partisan pile on is obvious.  I don’t like lynch mobs.

In fairness to you the appeal is very new and it narrows in on the only argument they can use "abuse of process". I do not blame you for not knowing about it. Not my intent Z.  As for the AG role, no an AG can not overturn their Chief Prosecutor's decision. They could order the Chief Prosecutor  remedy procedural violations set out by the Federal Court of Appeal if they find any but on the substantial issues of trying to order the Chief Prosecutor to ignore the prohibition in the dpa, not consider the considerations listed and not consider the preconditions listed, no.

 

 

 

 

[Owly]

21 minutes ago, Rue said:

In fairness to you the appeal is very new and it narrows in on the only argument they can use "abuse of process". I do not blame you for not knowing about it. Not my intent Z.  As for the AG role, no an AG can not overturn their Chief Prosecutor's decision. They could order the Chief Prosecutor  remedy procedural violations set out by the Federal Court of Appeal if they find any but on the substantial issues of trying to order the Chief Prosecutor to ignore the prohibition in the dpa, not consider the considerations listed and not consider the preconditions listed, no.

 

 

 

 

Obviously you haven't read, or understood the DPP act which clearly states the AG has direct control over DPP decisions as to prosecutions.

[Rue]

6 minutes ago, Owly said:

The dpa is "brand new" in Canada. You asked how it's been applied elsewhere. I simply refuted your claim that it can't be applied more than once.

The dpa is not brand new in Canada. The equivalent of it has been used in criminal courts in non bribery or major corporate crime cases. Its been used in youth courts and criminal courts for first time offenders, we just never gave it that name.

Next,  you continue to miss the point. The fact a dpa is applied is not the issue. The grounds for when it can be used and what it can be used for are the issues. The dpa law clearly prohibits using national economic interests as a public interest justification to not use a dpa. The considerations as to repeat offences and victim impact also exclude it as well.

The Liberals in effect want the Prosecutor to ignore all the preconditions, considerations and prohibition because they would have to do that to be able to approve one.

Please read the dpa law. Also please understand we have signed an international treaty specifically stating we will NOT use a dpa when it deals with a case of bribing a foreign official.

Trudeau is  hell bent on the notion of trying to force through a dpa without giving any thought to the wording in the dpa, our treaty obligation or the wording in the dpa that gives only the prosecutor the right to consider the dpa wording.  What was the point of drafting he dpa wording as it is, if the intent was to ignore all that wording?

From the little I have seen of the appeal it seems convoluted. How does one abuse a process simply because they exercised the power given to them? Lavalin hasn't shown abuse of process, just disagreement with the prosecutor's finding. They are trying to use an appeal that is predicated on it having to challenge "abuse of process" which is a procedural issue to try overthrow a substantial issue (the conclusions drawn from looking at the considerations and preconditions).

For their to have been an abuse of process Lavalin needs to show some kind of procedural irregularity done by the Prosecutor and even then if that irregularity can be remedied it doesn't change her right to interpret the wording in the dpa law the way she did. The wording provides the prosecutor ample discretion. Lavalin is trying argue the exercising of the discretion given to the Prosecutor in itself is necessarily an abuse of process so can be overturned. No, to be an abuse of process it needs to be more than exercising the powers given to her to come to a decision Lavalin does not like, it requires showing  the Prosecutor did not follow a procedure she should have which they have not done.

A dpa is by its very nature NOT a right, its a privilege.  In any  criminal case where the accused is charged with something they have been convicted of twice, let alone once,  the Prosecutor's hands are tied, they can't preempt the Judge's getting involved. A dpa avoids a Judge getting involved to approve the plea. How does a prosecutor with a repeat offender ignore the provisions of the law that increases the sentence required on each repeat offence.

Never in the history of our laws or the laws of any British law inherited nation has a dpa been used to circumvent a Judge's right to increasing sentencing on repeat offences and determine what that appropriate increase is. Never has a dpa been used in such a manner by anyone and that is why the prosecutor is asked to ask whether the accused is a repeat offender when determining their eligibility for a dpa.

As well, why is their a prohibition against national economic interest being used as a public interest argument to justify a dpa in bribery cases placed in the dpa law? If it was not intended why put it in? It was put in to conform with our agreeing internationally to never allow people charged with bringing foreign governments to avoid a full trial.

We have in Canada what is called the plain meaning rule when reading a law. To argue you can ignore the wording of a law as the Liberals are with their dpa law and which you would have to do to grant a dpa to Lavalin, the wording must have more than one meaning IN WRITING in the law itself. The argument the Liberals use to be able to ignore the content of the dpa law wording because its not convenient to Lavalin is not how law works.

Trudeau and Liberals want no standard of consideration for giving a dpa out and be use it whenever the accused wants one as long as the accused are a business employing people in Trudeau's riding.

 

 

 

[scribblet]

Well, Trudeau is hurting he is now threat to sue Scheer, bring it 9n says Scheer, Trudeau will have to testify under oath, and all documents will be seen.   is Trudeau bluffing...

[Rue]

Owly provide the wording in the dpa law that allows the AG to overrule the prosecutor's decision. You at this point clearly have not read the law. Stop bluffing. Read the law then go find out the role of AG and Chief Prosecutor.  Unlike you I did and made an effort to discuss the actual wording and you will not and now make false statements. Either put up or shut up. 

Edited April 7, 2019 by Rue

[GostHacked]

12 hours ago, Rue said:

Owly provide the wording in the dpa law that allows the AG to overrule the prosecutor's decision. You at this point clearly have not read the law. Stop bluffing. Read the law then go find out the role of AG and Chief Prosecutor.  Unlike you I did and made an effort to discuss the actual wording and you will not and now make false statements. Either put up or shut up. 

I am wondering what people are not able to understand with all this. To me it is clear as day that SNC-Lavalin is nothing more than a mafia.

 

[cannuck]

24 minutes ago, GostHacked said:

I am wondering what people are not able to understand with all this. To me it is clear as day that SNC-Lavalin is nothing more than a mafia.

 

Since something like 45% of the World  Bank's shit list of companies barred from bidding on projects it funds consist of SNC and its subsidiaries, they genuinely lead the world in corrupt construction and engineering business practice.

Edited April 8, 2019 by cannuck

[scribblet]

Even Don Martin says it's an almost unfathomably stupid move.