Tag Archives: Patrick Brazeau

Updated Case for Indictment(s) #CBC #censorship re #Harper #PMO #CPC vs #cdnpoli #senca

Alrighty then, something is really rotten here. This “disabled” comment is the second, of only two, comments we have ever attempted to post on the CBC website, the other can be viewed here. Riddle us this gang… Can anyone spot any potential violations as far as “commenting” moderation is concerned? The copypasta of the text is below, along with an updated hashtag plus the screenshot and the links below…

Another CBC Comment Censored
CBC Comment Censored

Your Submission Guidelines?

Comments on this story are pre-moderated. Before they appear, comments are reviewed by moderators to ensure they meet our submission guidelines. Comments are open and welcome for three days after the story is published. We reserve the right to close comments before then.

Your Published Article?

Power & Politics Ballot Box question: Is the Prime Minister responsible for the actions of his office? by Evan Solomon Posted: October 29, 2013 4:10 PM Last Updated: October 29, 2013 4:12 PM http://www.cbc.ca/newsblogs/politics/inside-politics-blog/2013/10/power-politics-ballot-box-question-322.html

Our Attempted Offensive Reply?

Content disabled
Operation Harper

This is a simple case for indictments against many individuals, not only the Prime Ministers Office, House of Commons, Conservative Senate Leadership, Conservative Caucus members involved in Senator’s Mike Duffy, Pamela Wallin and Patrick Brazeau various issues, but Stephen Harper, the seemingly blind and unaware “sitting” Prime Minister and seemingly blind and unaware “active” CEO of the Conservative Party of Canada and it’s wholly owned subsidiary, the Harper Government.

The undeniable plausibility of guilt based upon unproven facts in the case of “Harper v. Senate” are as preposterous as is the assumption of innocence based upon the plausible deniability of proven facts in the case of the “Harper v. Truth”. As a matter of fact, if due process is circumvented in such a selective fashion based upon the “beliefs” of one person who opaquely conducts his “private sector” CEO business for the “base” with his “public sector” PMO responsibility to those he serves, aka: the other 70%+ of Canadians. This hear-no-evil, see-no-evil, speak-no-evil Ministerial/Executive technique becomes very dangerous when the CEO and PMO both “believe” in “spirits” of laws/rules as opposed to “letters” of written laws and rules. Especially when the ideological spirits evoked are opaquely envisioned within an undefined belief system and contained within one mind. This can quickly accelerate into a National security issue and economic threat as the spirits of the laws can be arbitrarily created and selectively applied through all levels of society very quickly. This delves into criminal when the ideological spirits evoked are opaquely envisioned within an undefined belief system.

btw: Nigel Wright? What ever happened to Pitbull Dean Del Mastro?

continue reading source: http://www.cbc.ca/newsblogs/politics/inside-politics-blog/2013/10/power-politics-ballot-box-question-322.html


Remember, politics is a contact sport, like hockey, so please feel free to add quick contributions, observations and relevant information as a comment below!

Contact us if you would like to contribute to our collaborative efforts or would like to share/submit articles, data or additional content, feel free to add feedback, additional info, alternative contact details, related links, articles, anonymous submission, etc. as a comment below, via web-form, through social media outlets or email us directly and confidentially at: dumpharper [at] live [dot] ca


This site may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in an effort to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. and intend its use to be for education and instructional purposes only. Therefore, we believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond “fair use,” you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

ShareAlike Statement: https://dumpharper.wordpress.com/sharealike/

Advertisements

#HarperGate and the Case for Indictment(s): #Harper #PMO #CPC vs #cdnpoli #senca #hoc

As the masses, in the private sector,. wade through the propaganda and spin with regards to the highly publicized and distracting theatre that surrounds the “Senate Scandal” the “case” being presented is rather important to note. This is a simple case for indictments against many individuals, not only the Prime Ministers Office, House of Commons, Conservative Senate Leadership, Conservative Caucus members involved in Senator’s Mike Duffy, Pamela Wallin and Patrick Brazeau various issues, but Stephen Harper, the seemingly blind and unaware “sitting” Prime Minister and seemingly blind and unaware “active” CEO of the Conservative Party of Canada and it’s wholly owned subsidiary, the Harper Government.

The undeniable plausibility of guilt based upon unproven facts in the case of “Harper v. Senate” are as preposterous as is the assumption of innocence based upon the plausible deniability of proven facts in the case of the “Harper v. Truth”. As a matter of fact, if due process is circumvented in such a selective fashion based upon the “beliefs” of one person who opaquely conducts his CEO business for the “base” with his PMO responsibility to those he serves, aka: the other 70%+ of Canadians. This hear-no-evil, see-no-evil, speak-no-evil Ministerial/Executive technique becomes very dangerous when the CEO and PMO both “believe” in “spirits” of laws/rules as opposed to “letters” of written laws and rules. Especially when the ideological spirits evoked are opaquely envisioned within an undefined belief system and contained within one mind. This can quickly accelerate into a National security issue and economic threat as the spirits of the laws can be arbitrarily created and selectively applied through all levels of society very quickly. This delves into criminal when the ideological spirits evoked are opaquely envisioned within an undefined belief system.

btw: Nigel Wright? What ever happened to Pitbull Dean Del Mastro? Oh yea, still getting a pay check and benefits because of something selective due process even though he face mounting charges related to election fraud! Yet, even that investigation seems to be lacking a critical component regards to the relationship of PMO appointed Ministers and Crown Corporations and conspiracies to commit frauds upon the Government.

Below you will find various laws related to corruption, bribery, fraud, etc. that may, or may not, be relevant with regards to the scandals centred within the PMO itself. This is in no way a complete list but snippets from the Criminal Code, International Agreements, RICO and other legal codes that may be referred to. Just reviewing the “text” it would appear as if 1 (one) individual cannot, even if he/she wanted, accept full responsibility for the actions, or lack thereof, of another individual. But hey, we ain’t no lawyers, eh?


INTER-AMERICAN CONVENTION AGAINST CORRUPTION

(Adopted at the third plenary session, held on March 29, 1996)

Article III

Preventive Measures

For the purposes set forth in Article II of this Convention, the States Parties agree to consider the applicability of measures within their own institutional systems to create, maintain and strengthen:

1. Standards of conduct for the correct, honorable, and proper fulfillment of public functions. These standards shall be intended to prevent conflicts of interest and mandate the proper conservation and use of resources entrusted to government officials in the performance of their functions. These standards shall also establish measures and systems requiring government officials to report to appropriate authorities acts of corruption in the performance of public functions. Such measures should help preserve the public’s confidence in the integrity of public servants and government processes.

2. Mechanisms to enforce these standards of conduct.

3. Instruction to government personnel to ensure proper understanding of their responsibilities and the ethical rules governing their activities.

4. Systems for registering the income, assets and liabilities of persons who perform public functions in certain posts as specified by law and, where appropriate, for making such registrations public.

5. Systems of government hiring and procurement of goods and services that assure the openness, equity and efficiency of such systems.

6. Government revenue collection and control systems that deter corruption.

7. Laws that deny favorable tax treatment for any individual or corporation for expenditures made in violation of the anticorruption laws of the States Parties.

8. Systems for protecting public servants and private citizens who, in good faith, report acts of corruption, including protection of their identities, in accordance with their Constitutions and the basic principles of their domestic legal systems.

9. Oversight bodies with a view to implementing modern mechanisms for preventing, detecting, punishing and eradicating corrupt acts.

10. Deterrents to the bribery of domestic and foreign government officials, such as mechanisms to ensure that publicly held companies and other types of associations maintain books and records which, in reasonable detail, accurately reflect the acquisition and disposition of assets, and have sufficient internal accounting controls to enable their officers to detect corrupt acts.
11. Mechanisms to encourage participation by civil society and nongovernmental organizations in efforts to prevent corruption.

12. The study of further preventive measures that take into account the relationship between equitable compensation and probity in public service.

Article VI

Acts of Corruption

1. This Convention is applicable to the following acts of corruption:

a. The solicitation or acceptance, directly or indirectly, by a government official or a person who performs public functions, of any article of monetary value, or other benefit, such as a gift, favor, promise or advantage for himself or for another person or entity, in exchange for any act or omission in the performance of his public functions;

b. The offering or granting, directly or indirectly, to a government official or a person who performs public functions, of any article of monetary value, or other benefit, such as a gift, favor, promise or advantage for himself or for another person or entity, in exchange for any act or omission in the performance of his public functions;

c. Any act or omission in the discharge of his duties by a government official or a person who performs public functions for the purpose of illicitly obtaining benefits for himself or for a third party;

d. The fraudulent use or concealment of property derived from any of the acts referred to in this article; and

e. Participation as a principal, coprincipal, instigator, accomplice or accessory after the fact, or in any other manner, in the commission or attempted commission of, or in any collaboration or conspiracy to commit, any of the acts referred to in this article.

2. This Convention shall also be applicable by mutual agreement between or among two or more States Parties with respect to any other act of corruption not described herein.

continue reading source: http://www.oas.org/juridico/english/Treaties/b-58.html


Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO)

9-110.100

On October 15, 1970, the Organized Crime Control Act of 1970 became law. Title IX of the Act is the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Statute (18 U.S.C. §§ 1961-1968), commonly referred to as the “RICO” statute. The purpose of the RICO statute is “the elimination of the infiltration of organized crime and racketeering into legitimate organizations operating in interstate commerce.” S.Rep. No. 617, 91st Cong., 1st Sess. 76 (1969). However, the statute is sufficiently broad to encompass illegal activities relating to any enterprise affecting interstate or foreign commerce.

continue reading source: http://www.justice.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title9/110mcrm.htm

18 USC Chapter 96 – RACKETEER INFLUENCED AND CORRUPT ORGANIZATIONS

18 USC § 201 – Bribery of public officials and witnesses

a) For the purpose of this section—

(1) the term “public official” means Member of Congress, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner, either before or after such official has qualified, or an officer or employee or person acting for or on behalf of the United States, or any department, agency or branch of Government thereof, including the District of Columbia, in any official function, under or by authority of any such department, agency, or branch of Government, or a juror;

(2) the term “person who has been selected to be a public official” means any person who has been nominated or appointed to be a public official, or has been officially informed that such person will be so nominated or appointed; and

(3) the term “official act” means any decision or action on any question, matter, cause, suit, proceeding or controversy, which may at any time be pending, or which may by law be brought before any public official, in such official’s official capacity, or in such official’s place of trust or profit.

(b) Whoever—
(1) directly or indirectly, corruptly gives, offers or promises anything of value to any public official or person who has been selected to be a public official, or offers or promises any public official or any person who has been selected to be a public official to give anything of value to any other person or entity, with intent—
(A) to influence any official act; or
(B) to influence such public official or person who has been selected to be a public official to commit or aid in committing, or collude in, or allow, any fraud, or make opportunity for the commission of any fraud, on the United States; or
(C) to induce such public official or such person who has been selected to be a public official to do or omit to do any act in violation of the lawful duty of such official or person;

(2) being a public official or person selected to be a public official, directly or indirectly, corruptly demands, seeks, receives, accepts, or agrees to receive or accept anything of value personally or for any other person or entity, in return for:
(A) being influenced in the performance of any official act;
(B) being influenced to commit or aid in committing, or to collude in, or allow, any fraud, or make opportunity for the commission of any fraud, on the United States; or
(C) being induced to do or omit to do any act in violation of the official duty of such official or person;

(3) directly or indirectly, corruptly gives, offers, or promises anything of value to any person, or offers or promises such person to give anything of value to any other person or entity, with intent to influence the testimony under oath or affirmation of such first-mentioned person as a witness upon a trial, hearing, or other proceeding, before any court, any committee of either House or both Houses of Congress, or any agency, commission, or officer authorized by the laws of the United States to hear evidence or take testimony, or with intent to influence such person to absent himself therefrom;

(4) directly or indirectly, corruptly demands, seeks, receives, accepts, or agrees to receive or accept anything of value personally or for any other person or entity in return for being influenced in testimony under oath or affirmation as a witness upon any such trial, hearing, or other proceeding, or in return for absenting himself therefrom;
shall be fined under this title or not more than three times the monetary equivalent of the thing of value, whichever is greater, or imprisoned for not more than fifteen years, or both, and may be disqualified from holding any office of honor, trust, or profit under the United States.

(c) Whoever—

(1) otherwise than as provided by law for the proper discharge of official duty—
(A) directly or indirectly gives, offers, or promises anything of value to any public official, former public official, or person selected to be a public official, for or because of any official act performed or to be performed by such public official, former public official, or person selected to be a public official; or
(B) being a public official, former public official, or person selected to be a public official, otherwise than as provided by law for the proper discharge of official duty, directly or indirectly demands, seeks, receives, accepts, or agrees to receive or accept anything of value personally for or because of any official act performed or to be performed by such official or person;

(2) directly or indirectly, gives, offers, or promises anything of value to any person, for or because of the testimony under oath or affirmation given or to be given by such person as a witness upon a trial, hearing, or other proceeding, before any court, any committee of either House or both Houses of Congress, or any agency, commission, or officer authorized by the laws of the United States to hear evidence or take testimony, or for or because of such person’s absence therefrom;

(3) directly or indirectly, demands, seeks, receives, accepts, or agrees to receive or accept anything of value personally for or because of the testimony under oath or affirmation given or to be given by such person as a witness upon any such trial, hearing, or other proceeding, or for or because of such person’s absence therefrom;

shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than two years, or both.

(d) Paragraphs (3) and (4) of subsection (b) and paragraphs (2) and (3) of subsection (c) shall not be construed to prohibit the payment or receipt of witness fees provided by law, or the payment, by the party upon whose behalf a witness is called and receipt by a witness, of the reasonable cost of travel and subsistence incurred and the reasonable value of time lost in attendance at any such trial, hearing, or proceeding, or in the case of expert witnesses, a reasonable fee for time spent in the preparation of such opinion, and in appearing and testifying.

(e) The offenses and penalties prescribed in this section are separate from and in addition to those prescribed in sections 1503, 1504, and 1505 of this title.

continue reading source: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/part-I/chapter-96


Criminal Code (R.S.C., 1985, c. C-46)

Corruption and Disobedience

Bribery of judicial officers, etc.

119. (1) Every one is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding fourteen years who

(a) being the holder of a judicial office, or being a member of Parliament or of the legislature of a province, directly or indirectly, corruptly accepts, obtains, agrees to accept or attempts to obtain, for themselves or another person, any money, valuable consideration, office, place or employment in respect of anything done or omitted or to be done or omitted by them in their official capacity, or

(b) directly or indirectly, corruptly gives or offers to a person mentioned in paragraph (a), or to anyone for the benefit of that person, any money, valuable consideration, office, place or employment in respect of anything done or omitted or to be done or omitted by that person in their official capacity.

Consent of Attorney General

(2) No proceedings against a person who holds a judicial office shall be instituted under this section without the consent in writing of the Attorney General of Canada.

R.S., 1985, c. C-46, s. 119;
2007, c. 13, s. 3.

Bribery of officers

120. Every one is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding fourteen years who

(a) being a justice, police commissioner, peace officer, public officer or officer of a juvenile court, or being employed in the administration of criminal law, directly or indirectly, corruptly accepts, obtains, agrees to accept or attempts to obtain, for themselves or another person, any money, valuable consideration, office, place or employment with intent

(i) to interfere with the administration of justice,

(ii) to procure or facilitate the commission of an offence, or

(iii) to protect from detection or punishment a person who has committed or who intends to commit an offence; or

(b) directly or indirectly, corruptly gives or offers to a person mentioned in paragraph (a), or to anyone for the benefit of that person, any money, valuable consideration, office, place or employment with intent that the person should do anything mentioned in subparagraph (a)(i), (ii) or (iii).

R.S., 1985, c. C-46, s. 120;
2007, c. 13, s. 4.

Frauds on the government

121.
(1) Every one commits an offence who

(a) directly or indirectly

(i) gives, offers or agrees to give or offer to an official or to any member of his family, or to any one for the benefit of an official, or

(ii) being an official, demands, accepts or offers or agrees to accept from any person for himself or another person,

a loan, reward, advantage or benefit of any kind as consideration for cooperation, assistance, exercise of influence or an act or omission in connection with

(iii) the transaction of business with or any matter of business relating to the government, or

(iv) a claim against Her Majesty or any benefit that Her Majesty is authorized or is entitled to bestow,

whether or not, in fact, the official is able to cooperate, render assistance, exercise influence or do or omit to do what is proposed, as the case may be;

(b) having dealings of any kind with the government, directly or indirectly pays a commission or reward to or confers an advantage or benefit of any kind on an employee or official of the government with which the dealings take place, or to any member of the employee’s or official’s family, or to anyone for the benefit of the employee or official, with respect to those dealings, unless the person has the consent in writing of the head of the branch of government with which the dealings take place;

(c) being an official or employee of the government, directly or indirectly demands, accepts or offers or agrees to accept from a person who has dealings with the government a commission, reward, advantage or benefit of any kind for themselves or another person, unless they have the consent in writing of the head of the branch of government that employs them or of which they are an official;

(d) having or pretending to have influence with the government or with a minister of the government or an official, directly or indirectly demands, accepts or offers or agrees to accept, for themselves or another person, a reward, advantage or benefit of any kind as consideration for cooperation, assistance, exercise of influence or an act or omission in connection with

(i) anything mentioned in subparagraph (a)(iii) or (iv), or

(ii) the appointment of any person, including themselves, to an office;

(e) directly or indirectly gives or offers, or agrees to give or offer, to a minister of the government or an official, or to anyone for the benefit of a minister or an official, a reward, advantage or benefit of any kind as consideration for cooperation, assistance, exercise of influence, or an act or omission, by that minister or official, in connection with

(i) anything mentioned in subparagraph (a)(iii) or (iv), or

(ii) the appointment of any person, including themselves, to an office; or

(f) having made a tender to obtain a contract with the government,

(i) directly or indirectly gives or offers, or agrees to give or offer, to another person who has made a tender, to a member of that person’s family or to another person for the benefit of that person, a reward, advantage or benefit of any kind as consideration for the withdrawal of the tender of that person, or

(ii) directly or indirectly demands, accepts or offers or agrees to accept from another person who has made a tender a reward, advantage or benefit of any kind for themselves or another person as consideration for the withdrawal of their own tender.

Contractor subscribing to election fund

(2) Every one commits an offence who, in order to obtain or retain a contract with the government, or as a term of any such contract, whether express or implied, directly or indirectly subscribes or gives, or agrees to subscribe or give, to any person any valuable consideration

(a) for the purpose of promoting the election of a candidate or a class or party of candidates to Parliament or the legislature of a province; or

(b) with intent to influence or affect in any way the result of an election conducted for the purpose of electing persons to serve in Parliament or the legislature of a province.
Punishment

(3) Every one who commits an offence under this section is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years.

R.S., 1985, c. C-46, s. 121;
2007, c. 13, s. 5.

Breach of trust by public officer

122. Every official who, in connection with the duties of his office, commits fraud or a breach of trust is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years, whether or not the fraud or breach of trust would be an offence if it were committed in relation to a private person.

R.S., c. C-34, s. 111.

Selling or purchasing office

124. Every one who

(a) purports to sell or agrees to sell an appointment to or a resignation from an office, or a consent to any such appointment or resignation, or receives or agrees to receive a reward or profit from the purported sale thereof, or

(b) purports to purchase or gives a reward or profit for the purported purchase of any such appointment, resignation or consent, or agrees or promises to do so,

is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years.

R.S., c. C-34, s. 113.

Influencing or negotiating appointments or dealing in offices

125. Every one who

(a) receives, agrees to receive, gives or procures to be given, directly or indirectly, a reward, advantage or benefit of any kind as consideration for cooperation, assistance or exercise of influence to secure the appointment of any person to an office,

(b) solicits, recommends or negotiates in any manner with respect to an appointment to or resignation from an office, in expectation of a direct or indirect reward, advantage or benefit, or

(c) keeps without lawful authority, the proof of which lies on him, a place for transacting or negotiating any business relating to

(i) the filling of vacancies in offices,

(ii) the sale or purchase of offices, or

(iii) appointments to or resignations from offices,

is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years.

R.S., c. C-34, s. 114.

Disobeying a statute

126.
(1) Every one who, without lawful excuse, contravenes an Act of Parliament by wilfully doing anything that it forbids or by wilfully omitting to do anything that it requires to be done is, unless a punishment is expressly provided by law, guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years.
Attorney General of Canada may act

(2) Any proceedings in respect of a contravention of or conspiracy to contravene an Act mentioned in subsection (1), other than this Act, may be instituted at the instance of the Government of Canada and conducted by or on behalf of that Government.

R.S., 1985, c. C-46, s. 126;
R.S., 1985, c. 27 (1st Supp.), s. 185(F).

Misleading Justice

Perjury

131.
(1) Subject to subsection (3), every one commits perjury who, with intent to mislead, makes before a person who is authorized by law to permit it to be made before him a false statement under oath or solemn affirmation, by affidavit, solemn declaration or deposition or orally, knowing that the statement is false.
Video links, etc.

(1.1) Subject to subsection (3), every person who gives evidence under subsection 46(2) of the Canada Evidence Act, or gives evidence or a statement pursuant to an order made under section 22.2 of the Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Act, commits perjury who, with intent to mislead, makes a false statement knowing that it is false, whether or not the false statement was made under oath or solemn affirmation in accordance with subsection (1), so long as the false statement was made in accordance with any formalities required by the law of the place outside Canada in which the person is virtually present or heard.
Idem

(2) Subsection (1) applies, whether or not a statement referred to in that subsection is made in a judicial proceeding.
Application

(3) Subsections (1) and (1.1) do not apply to a statement referred to in either of those subsections that is made by a person who is not specially permitted, authorized or required by law to make that statement.

R.S., 1985, c. C-46, s. 131;
R.S., 1985, c. 27 (1st Supp.), s. 17;
1999, c. 18, s. 92.

Punishment

132. Every one who commits perjury is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding fourteen years.

R.S., 1985, c. C-46, s. 132;
R.S., 1985, c. 27 (1st Supp.), s. 17;
1998, c. 35, s. 119.

Corroboration

133. No person shall be convicted of an offence under section 132 on the evidence of only one witness unless the evidence of that witness is corroborated in a material particular by evidence that implicates the accused.

R.S., 1985, c. C-46, s. 133;
R.S., 1985, c. 27 (1st Supp.), s. 17.

Idem

134.
(1) Subject to subsection (2), every one who, not being specially permitted, authorized or required by law to make a statement under oath or solemn affirmation, makes such a statement, by affidavit, solemn declaration or deposition or orally before a person who is authorized by law to permit it to be made before him, knowing that the statement is false, is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.
Application

(2) Subsection (1) does not apply to a statement referred to in that subsection that is made in the course of a criminal investigation.

R.S., 1985, c. C-46, s. 134;
R.S., 1985, c. 27 (1st Supp.), s. 17.

Witness giving contradictory evidence

136.
(1) Every one who, being a witness in a judicial proceeding, gives evidence with respect to any matter of fact or knowledge and who subsequently, in a judicial proceeding, gives evidence that is contrary to his previous evidence is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding fourteen years, whether or not the prior or later evidence or either is true, but no person shall be convicted under this section unless the court, judge or provincial court judge, as the case may be, is satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused, in giving evidence in either of the judicial proceedings, intended to mislead.
Marginal note:Evidence in specific cases

(1.1) Evidence given under section 714.1, 714.2, 714.3 or 714.4 or under subsection 46(2) of the Canada Evidence Act or evidence or a statement given pursuant to an order made under section 22.2 of the Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Act is deemed to be evidence given by a witness in a judicial proceeding for the purposes of subsection (1).

Definition of “evidence”

(2) Notwithstanding the definition “evidence” in section 118, “evidence”, for the purposes of this section, does not include evidence that is not material.

Proof of former trial

(2.1) Where a person is charged with an offence under this section, a certificate specifying with reasonable particularity the proceeding in which that person is alleged to have given the evidence in respect of which the offence is charged, is evidence that it was given in a judicial proceeding, without proof of the signature or official character of the person by whom the certificate purports to be signed if it purports to be signed by the clerk of the court or other official having the custody of the record of that proceeding or by his lawful deputy.

Consent required

(3) No proceedings shall be instituted under this section without the consent of the Attorney General.

R.S., 1985, c. C-46, s. 136; R.S., 1985, c. 27 (1st Supp.), ss. 18, 203; 1999, c. 18, s. 93.

Fabricating evidence

137. Every one who, with intent to mislead, fabricates anything with intent that it shall be used as evidence in a judicial proceeding, existing or proposed, by any means other than perjury or incitement to perjury is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding fourteen years.
R.S., c. C-34, s. 125.

Offences relating to affidavits

138. Every one who
(a) signs a writing that purports to be an affidavit or statutory declaration and to have been sworn or declared before him when the writing was not so sworn or declared or when he knows that he has no authority to administer the oath or declaration,
(b) uses or offers for use any writing purporting to be an affidavit or statutory declaration that he knows was not sworn or declared, as the case may be, by the affiant or declarant or before a person authorized in that behalf, or
(c) signs as affiant or declarant a writing that purports to be an affidavit or statutory declaration and to have been sworn or declared by him, as the case may be, when the writing was not so sworn or declared,

is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years.

R.S., c. C-34, s. 126.

Obstructing justice

139.
(1) Every one who wilfully attempts in any manner to obstruct, pervert or defeat the course of justice in a judicial proceeding,

(a) by indemnifying or agreeing to indemnify a surety, in any way and either in whole or in part, or

(b) where he is a surety, by accepting or agreeing to accept a fee or any form of indemnity whether in whole or in part from or in respect of a person who is released or is to be released from custody,

is guilty of

(c) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years, or

(d) an offence punishable on summary conviction.

Idem

(2) Every one who wilfully attempts in any manner other than a manner described in subsection (1) to obstruct, pervert or defeat the course of justice is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years.
Idem

(3) Without restricting the generality of subsection (2), every one shall be deemed wilfully to attempt to obstruct, pervert or defeat the course of justice who in a judicial proceeding, existing or proposed,

(a) dissuades or attempts to dissuade a person by threats, bribes or other corrupt means from giving evidence;

(b) influences or attempts to influence by threats, bribes or other corrupt means a person in his conduct as a juror; or

(c) accepts or obtains, agrees to accept or attempts to obtain a bribe or other corrupt consideration to abstain from giving evidence, or to do or to refrain from doing anything as a juror.

R.S., c. C-34, s. 127;
R.S., c. 2(2nd Supp.), s. 3;
1972, c. 13, s. 8.

Compounding indictable offence

141.
(1) Every one who asks for or obtains or agrees to receive or obtain any valuable consideration for himself or any other person by agreeing to compound or conceal an indictable offence is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years.
Exception for diversion agreements

(2) No offence is committed under subsection (1) where valuable consideration is received or obtained or is to be received or obtained under an agreement for compensation or restitution or personal services that is

(a) entered into with the consent of the Attorney General; or

(b) made as part of a program, approved by the Attorney General, to divert persons charged with indictable offences from criminal proceedings.

R.S., 1985, c. C-46, s. 141;
R.S., 1985, c. 27 (1st Supp.), s. 19.

Exploitation

279.04
(1) For the purposes of sections 279.01 to 279.03, a person exploits another person if they cause them to provide, or offer to provide, labour or a service by engaging in conduct that, in all the circumstances, could reasonably be expected to cause the other person to believe that their safety or the safety of a person known to them would be threatened if they failed to provide, or offer to provide, the labour or service.
Factors

(2) In determining whether an accused exploits another person under subsection (1), the Court may consider, among other factors, whether the accused
(a) used or threatened to use force or another form of coercion;
(b) used deception; or
(c) abused a position of trust, power or authority.
2005, c. 43, s. 3; 2012, c. 15, s. 2.

PART XIII
ATTEMPTS — CONSPIRACIES — ACCESSORIES

Attempts, accessories

463. Except where otherwise expressly provided by law, the following provisions apply in respect of persons who attempt to commit or are accessories after the fact to the commission of offences:

(a) every one who attempts to commit or is an accessory after the fact to the commission of an indictable offence for which, on conviction, an accused is liable to be sentenced to imprisonment for life is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding fourteen years;

(b) every one who attempts to commit or is an accessory after the fact to the commission of an indictable offence for which, on conviction, an accused is liable to imprisonment for fourteen years or less is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term that is one-half of the longest term to which a person who is guilty of that offence is liable;

(c) every one who attempts to commit or is an accessory after the fact to the commission of an offence punishable on summary conviction is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction; and

(d) every one who attempts to commit or is an accessory after the fact to the commission of an offence for which the offender may be prosecuted by indictment or for which he is punishable on summary conviction

(i) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding a term that is one-half of the longest term to which a person who is guilty of that offence is liable, or

(ii) is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.

R.S., 1985, c. C-46, s. 463;
R.S., 1985, c. 27 (1st Supp.), s. 59;
1998, c. 35, s. 120.

Counselling offence that is not committed

464. Except where otherwise expressly provided by law, the following provisions apply in respect of persons who counsel other persons to commit offences, namely,

(a) every one who counsels another person to commit an indictable offence is, if the offence is not committed, guilty of an indictable offence and liable to the same punishment to which a person who attempts to commit that offence is liable; and

(b) every one who counsels another person to commit an offence punishable on summary conviction is, if the offence is not committed, guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.

R.S., 1985, c. C-46, s. 464;
R.S., 1985, c. 27 (1st Supp.), s. 60.

Conspiracy

465.
(1) Except where otherwise expressly provided by law, the following provisions apply in respect of conspiracy:

(a) every one who conspires with any one to commit murder or to cause another person to be murdered, whether in Canada or not, is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to a maximum term of imprisonment for life;

(b) every one who conspires with any one to prosecute a person for an alleged offence, knowing that he did not commit that offence, is guilty of an indictable offence and liable

(i) to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years, if the alleged offence is one for which, on conviction, that person would be liable to be sentenced to imprisonment for life or for a term not exceeding fourteen years, or

(ii) to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years, if the alleged offence is one for which, on conviction, that person would be liable to imprisonment for less than fourteen years;

(c) every one who conspires with any one to commit an indictable offence not provided for in paragraph (a) or (b) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to the same punishment as that to which an accused who is guilty of that offence would, on conviction, be liable; and

(d) every one who conspires with any one to commit an offence punishable on summary conviction is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.

(2) [Repealed, 1985, c. 27 (1st Supp.), s. 61]

Conspiracy to commit offences

(3) Every one who, while in Canada, conspires with any one to do anything referred to in subsection (1) in a place outside Canada that is an offence under the laws of that place shall be deemed to have conspired to do that thing in Canada.
Marginal note:Idem

(4) Every one who, while in a place outside Canada, conspires with any one to do anything referred to in subsection (1) in Canada shall be deemed to have conspired in Canada to do that thing.
Marginal note:Jurisdiction

(5) Where a person is alleged to have conspired to do anything that is an offence by virtue of subsection (3) or (4), proceedings in respect of that offence may, whether or not that person is in Canada, be commenced in any territorial division in Canada, and the accused may be tried and punished in respect of that offence in the same manner as if the offence had been committed in that territorial division.

Appearance of accused at trial

(6) For greater certainty, the provisions of this Act relating to

(a) requirements that an accused appear at and be present during proceedings, and

(b) the exceptions to those requirements,

apply to proceedings commenced in any territorial division pursuant to subsection (5).

Definitions

467.1 (1) The following definitions apply in this Act.

“criminal organization”

« organisation criminelle »

“criminal organization” means a group, however organized, that

(a) is composed of three or more persons in or outside Canada; and

(b) has as one of its main purposes or main activities the facilitation or commission of one or more serious offences that, if committed, would likely result in the direct or indirect receipt of a material benefit, including a financial benefit, by the group or by any of the persons who constitute the group.

It does not include a group of persons that forms randomly for the immediate commission of a single offence.

“serious offence”

« infraction grave »

“serious offence” means an indictable offence under this or any other Act of Parliament for which the maximum punishment is imprisonment for five years or more, or another offence that is prescribed by regulation.

Facilitation

(2) For the purposes of this section and section 467.11, facilitation of an offence does not require knowledge of a particular offence the commission of which is facilitated, or that an offence actually be committed.
Marginal note:Commission of offence

(3) In this section and in sections 467.11 to 467.13, committing an offence means being a party to it or counselling any person to be a party to it.
Marginal note:Regulations

(4) The Governor in Council may make regulations prescribing offences that are included in the definition “serious offence” in subsection (1).

1997, c. 23, s. 11;
2001, c. 32, s. 27.

Participation in activities of criminal organization

467.11 (1) Every person who, for the purpose of enhancing the ability of a criminal organization to facilitate or commit an indictable offence under this or any other Act of Parliament, knowingly, by act or omission, participates in or contributes to any activity of the criminal organization is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years.
Marginal note:Prosecution

(2) In a prosecution for an offence under subsection (1), it is not necessary for the prosecutor to prove that

(a) the criminal organization actually facilitated or committed an indictable offence;

(b) the participation or contribution of the accused actually enhanced the ability of the criminal organization to facilitate or commit an indictable offence;

(c) the accused knew the specific nature of any indictable offence that may have been facilitated or committed by the criminal organization; or

(d) the accused knew the identity of any of the persons who constitute the criminal organization.
Marginal note:Factors

(3) In determining whether an accused participates in or contributes to any activity of a criminal organization, the Court may consider, among other factors, whether the accused

(a) uses a name, word, symbol or other representation that identifies, or is associated with, the criminal organization;

(b) frequently associates with any of the persons who constitute the criminal organization;

(c) receives any benefit from the criminal organization; or

(d) repeatedly engages in activities at the instruction of any of the persons who constitute the criminal organization.

2001, c. 32, s. 27.

Commission of offence for criminal organization

467.12 (1) Every person who commits an indictable offence under this or any other Act of Parliament for the benefit of, at the direction of, or in association with, a criminal organization is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding fourteen years.
Marginal note:Prosecution

(2) In a prosecution for an offence under subsection (1), it is not necessary for the prosecutor to prove that the accused knew the identity of any of the persons who constitute the criminal organization.

2001, c. 32, s. 27.

Instructing commission of offence for criminal organization

467.13 (1) Every person who is one of the persons who constitute a criminal organization and who knowingly instructs, directly or indirectly, any person to commit an offence under this or any other Act of Parliament for the benefit of, at the direction of, or in association with, the criminal organization is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for life.
Marginal note:Prosecution

(2) In a prosecution for an offence under subsection (1), it is not necessary for the prosecutor to prove that

(a) an offence other than the offence under subsection (1) was actually committed;

(b) the accused instructed a particular person to commit an offence; or

(c) the accused knew the identity of all of the persons who constitute the criminal organization.

2001, c. 32, s. 27.

Sentences to be served consecutively

467.14 A sentence imposed on a person for an offence under section 467.11, 467.12 or 467.13 shall be served consecutively to any other punishment imposed on the person for an offence arising out of the same event or series of events and to any other sentence to which the person is subject at the time the sentence is imposed on the person for an offence under any of those sections.

2001, c. 32, s. 27.

Powers of the Attorney General of Canada

467.2 (1) Notwithstanding the definition of “Attorney General” in section 2, the Attorney General of Canada may conduct proceedings in respect of

(a) an offence under section 467.11; or

(b) another criminal organization offence where the alleged offence arises out of conduct that in whole or in part is in relation to an alleged contravention of an Act of Parliament or a regulation made under such an Act, other than this Act or a regulation made under this Act.

For those purposes, the Attorney General of Canada may exercise all the powers and perform all the duties and functions assigned to the Attorney General by or under this Act.
Marginal note:Powers of the Attorney General of a province

(2) Subsection (1) does not affect the authority of the Attorney General of a province to conduct proceedings in respect of an offence referred to in section 467.11, 467.12 or 467.13 or to exercise any of the powers or perform any of the duties and functions assigned to the Attorney General by or under this Act.

1997, c. 23, s. 11;
2001, c. 32, s. 28.

continue reading source: http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/index.html
read the full text here: http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/c-46/FullText.html


Remember, politics is a contact sport, like hockey, so please feel free to add quick contributions, observations and relevant information as a comment below!

Contact us if you would like to contribute to our collaborative efforts or would like to share/submit articles, data or additional content, feel free to add feedback, additional info, alternative contact details, related links, articles, anonymous submission, etc. as a comment below, via web-form, through social media outlets or email us directly and confidentially at: dumpharper [at] live [dot] ca


This site may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in an effort to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. and intend its use to be for education and instructional purposes only. Therefore, we believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond “fair use,” you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

ShareAlike Statement: https://dumpharper.wordpress.com/sharealike/

Stephen Harper’s Senate Woes

It is amazing how things change in Stephen Harper’s Ottawa isn’t it?

Take the curious cases of Mike Duffy and Pamela Wallin for example.  Mike and Pam were appointed to the Senate by Stephen Harper.  This was quite a coup for him… two trained Media celebs to carry the good word of Stephen Harper and to fill his purse with coins of silver.

The fact that attendees to the various Harper functions would bypass a chance to meet Stephen for an opportunity to hobnob with celebrities like Mike or Pam didn’t bother Stephen in the least.  They were professional speakers who could carry the message and as I said, people were willing to part with their hard earned money to see real Celebs.

So what happened?  I’m not entirely sure, but what looked to be an attempt to embarrass the Liberals in the Senate turned nasty on the Harper picks instead.  When the Harper dominated Senate turned its guns on Liberal Senator Mac Harb, trying to show that he was milking or bilking the system to line his pockets, someone noticed that a certain Senator “from” PEI had been living in the Ottawa area for decades.

He was doing the same thing!

And when the nets were cast a bit wider, Pam Wallin hit the radar as well for her travel expenses and the fact that she appears to live in Toronto rather than Saskatchewan like everyone was saying.

Now many want to blame the “Liberal Media” for all of this, but the story broke first in the National Post.  Everyone else showed up after that because they smelled blood in the water.

Then we had Stephen Harper defending Pam Wallin, saying that he had reviewed her expenses and that they were similar to other Parliamentarians from Saskatchewan and defending Mike Duffy after he repaid his excess expenses.  He said Mike was honourable and showed leadership in the Senate by repaying the money.  I think we all remember this, don’t we?

When Deloitte finished their reports on Harb, Duffy, and Brazeau, the Senate Internal Economy Committee (Internal) tabled their reports on the matter and washed their hands of it. 

The reports from Internal said that Harb and Brazeau has been cheating, claiming expenses that they were not entitled to, but the report on Duffy had been white washed to say that Good Old Duff had just been confused by the Senate Rules and besides, he had repaid the money.

And the bucket of paint and brushes appear to have come from the PMO as well as a cheque for $90,000.00 for cover Duffy’s debt.

Senators objected to the obvious kid glove treatment of Duffy compared to the stern admonishments for the enemy Liberal Harb and the Senate embarrassment Brazeau.  The matter was handed over to the RCMP to investigate and let the Senate say we can’t do anything until after the RCMP is done.

The issue lay there for a while until the Fund Raising Reports started to come in.  The Harper Party was being hurt, they weren’t getting the money they were used to.  The Party Base was angry and there was one obvious reason why… actually three.

The Harper Party needed to distance themselves from these three Senators.  Brazeau was already out of the Caucus and out of the Senate as well.  Having been charged with crimes, the Senate was able to put Brazeau on a “Leave of Absence” which the Rules of the Senate allowed for.  Duffy and Wallin both needed to be shoved aside.  Both received orders to quit the Harper Party Caucus.

Duffy maintains that he was bullied into leaving the Caucus by threats of expulsion from the Senate, former Harper Party Government Leader in the Senate Marjory Le Breton refutes this by saying the same thing.  Go figure.

Wallin on the other hand says she was trying to negotiate the wording of her statement that she was willing to recuse herself from the Caucus until the matter of her expenses was cleared up except Senator Le Breton beat her to the punch, pre-emptively announcing that Wallin too had resigned from the Caucus.

Things sat quietly simmering until the recent announcement of Senator Claude Carignan, Leader of the Government in the Senate that he was making a motion to have Senators Duffy, Wallin, and Brazeau suspended from the Senate without pay.

And now Stephen Harper is applauding this move by the man that he appointed to the Senate, who that he named as the Senate Government Leader, but says that he and his office had no influence on this.  Whatever.

Embattled Senators Duffy and Wallin have now gone from Harper Party show ponies to being the sacrificial lambs at the Harper Party altar.  It really must hurt to move from being knights and bishops on the board to being mere pawns in the game…

Surprisingly, a fair number of people from across the political spectrum have risen in defence of Senators Duffy, Wallin, and by association, Brazeau.  The latest move of the Harper Party to suspend people who are merely accused of something rankles people in Canada.

The Harper echo boxes are trying to argue this, but Canadians believe in the law and that the rule of law needs to be used fairly.  What Senator Carignan proposes is not fair, and may not even be allowed under the Rules of the Senate.

Those rules outline the use of Leave of Absence (LoA) and Suspensions in the Senate and the Suspension Rules do not apply to any of the three accused as I read it.  If a Senator is charged with a crime, the Senate may place that Senator on a LoA, and if that Senator is convicted and subject to jail time the Senate may place that Senator on Suspension.

The section of the Rules that deals with LoAs and Suspension also state:

 For greater certainty, the Senate affirms the right of a Senator charged with a criminal offence to be presumed innocent until proven guilty according to law in a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal. No intent to comment on or pass judgment with respect to a Senator shall be imputed to the Senate because of the operation of this rule.”

Emphasis mine, BC

 

Stephen, the issue isn’t about the money.  The money is only a part of it.  The issue is of fairness and rule of law.  I suspect these ideas are foreign to you.  Your statements only refer to expenses and return of money, you disregard the other rules.

Senator Segal gets it, Senator Plett gets it too.  There are reports that some of the MPs in your Caucus get it as well and that they have been contacting their counterparts in the Senate urging them to vote against Senator Carignan’s motion.

I’d suggest the Party Base gets it too.

Mike Duffy says that you told him that the problem was that the Party Base didn’t like the appearance of what he had done.  I’m inclined to believe him.  You did not chastise him for the expenses, you only told him to pay them back.

I’m not a fan of Senators Duffy, Wallin, and Brazeau.  I don’t think that they deserve to sit in the Senate, but I also believe they do not deserve the treatment that you and your people are putting them through.

One last question Stephen, if you can ask Senator Carignan for me… Why is Senator Stewart Olsen not sitting beside the others in the Independent’s Corner.  She did the same thing they did, but she’s allowed to sit in judgement?

Could it be that the Party Base is angry with you, Stephen?

Just wondering, BC