On that Hamilton cop, er, thing

— 08.10.2017 09:53 PM

PCs are angrily telling me there’s no criminal investigation.

Libs are angrily telling me there is. QP Briefing, too.

Here’s the cops’ only statement I’m aware of:


Now, if you can see the words “criminal investigation” anywhere in there, let me know. I don’t see ’em, myself.

And, until someone is prepared to pay my legal bills after I falsely accuse someone of being investigated criminally, I will await a clearer statement from the cops.

Until then, let someone else allege a crime took place!


Comments (3)

Right here: live-reporting the Your Ward News-Canada Post hearing

— 08.10.2017 08:52 AM

As you know, a panel is reviewing Minister Judy Foote’s (appropriate, proper) decision to order Canada Post to stop delivering the neo-Nazi rag, Your Ward News. 

Yesterday was day two of the review. I didn’t see any reporters there, so I’ve decided to provide some ongoing updates. I’ll be posting them here, linkless and bulleted, for your enlightenment. 

A summary of yesterday:

  •  The lead panellist started by apologizing for – yet again – sharing the private information of various victims with the neo-Nazis. This has happened more than once, and it has given everyone the impression the panel doesn’t know what it’s doing – or is wholly disorganized. 
  • The day was mostly made up with submissions by the racists (Paul Fromm), or the lawyers who are supporting/working for the racists. They include high-priced criminal lawyer Frank Addario’s firm; Professor Cameron from Osgoode Hall Law school; and the Canadian Civil Liberties Association. 
  • None were particularly effective. Most of their argument went like this: “The Nazis we support haven’t been charged criminally yet, so what’s the problem?” Inviting someone to charge your client criminally doesn’t seem like a very smart strategy, to me. Someone just might, you know, do it. 
  • The Nazis’ lawyers also argued, simultaneously, that the panel had great adjudicative powers, or none at all. Make sense to you? Me neither. 
  • The AG’s lawyer didn’t have a narrative. He argued piecemeal. He got lost in the weeds. Not helpful. 
  • The panel, meanwhile, was clearly (and understandably) vexed that the AG plans to shortly withdraw, and leave the victims to the tender mercies of Addario s cross-examination. Personally, I think they’re right. The authorities let Zundel put the Holocaust on trial; 30 years later, the authorities are about to let the Hitler freaks and white supremacists who run Your Ward News do likewise.
  • I am naturally biased, but my friends who represent CIJA, B’nai Brith and the Wiesenthal Centre clearly have a better understanding of the law and the issues, here. They will be continuing today. 

Today’s report:

  • No media here. Plenty of far-Right kooks, however. 
  • B’nai Brith lawyer smartly argues that Canada Post had a contract, and the contract permitted them to terminate delivery without notice. They terminated, and were right to do so. And they gave reasons. 
  • Mark Freiman, the legal giant who represents CIJA, is up. In the first 30 seconds, he has already pointed out why it is a mistake to permit the Nazis’ lawyers to rebut and rebut and rebut. Brilliant. 
  • Mark points out that the panel can’t “bootstrap” itself into more powers. It can only investigate, report and recommend. That’s it. They are not a court of superior jurisdiction. The Minister still decides. 
  • Mark reminds everyone there are two sections of the Charter at play – yes, the section 2 rights of even Nazis. Yes. But also the (forgotten) rights of minority communities to be protected from government-facilitated discrimation and hatred under section 15. Brilliantly done. 
  • Mark swiftly slices and dices white supremacist leader Paul Fromm. In 30 seconds. Goes on to say he and his ilk seek to foster fear and discrimination. “What is objectionable is hatred and criminally defaming.”
  • Freiman concludes by saying that the Nazis are arguing against “prior restraint” in their case – but they want to restrain Jews, gays, women and other victims from testifying. Rich, that. 
  • The Nazis’ lawyer is going down in flames as the hearing concludes. She/they desperately want to keep victims of these haters from testifying. And we all know why. 

Comments (1)

On that Hamilton police criminal investigation into the PCs: there is none

— 08.10.2017 07:57 AM

This, from CBC:

Hamilton police are looking into a complaint about a Progressive Conservative nomination meeting marred by allegations of ballot box stuffing.

But the service has yet to decide if it will launch a formal investigation.

Ben Levitt won the Hamilton West-Ancaster-Dundas nomination meeting in May, but it was challenged by two would-be candidates — Vikram Singh and Jeff Peller. Both have asked the court for a judicial review.

They allege the process was tainted by fraud and say the result should be overturned.

The allegations in Hamilton West-Ancaster-Dundas are among several Progressive Conservative nomination results being questioned by party members.

See that? “But the service has yet to decide if it will launch a formal investigation.”

That sure as Hell isn’t what QP Briefing reported the other day, and as I breathlessly reported right away:

Hamilton police have launched a criminal investigation into a Progressive Conservative nomination contest clouded with allegations of fraud and ballot-tampering.

The probe comes in the wake of controversy around previous nomination meetings that caused mass resignations from two PC riding associations and alleged breaches of voting rules. The investigation comes after the PCs’ chorus of criticism around the Liberal gas plant scandal and bribery charges related to the Sudbury byelection, both of which will culminate in trials next month.

There is a huge – huge – difference between “looking into a complaint” and “have launched a criminal investigation.”

This is sloppy reporting.  I apologize to my readers for misleading them.  I hope QP Briefing does likewise.

 


Comments (1)

Alberta Conservative fraud?

— 08.10.2017 07:37 AM

Decide for yourself:

A United Conservative Party MLA says there’s nothing wrong with him subletting his downtown Edmonton apartment while claiming thousands of dollars in rent from the public purse.

Derek Fildebrandt, MLA for Strathmore-Brooks, advertises his downtown bachelor suite for rent online as “newly renovated, modernly furnished and very well-kept.”

“It has a sweeping view of the city and is in the thick of the action on Jasper Ave.,” the Airbnb listing says.

Between January and March, eight Airbnb renters reviewed the apartment. Over the same three months, Fildebrandt claimed $7,720 for accommodation in Edmonton.

Here’s the definition of fraud under the Criminal Code of Canada, which still applies in Alberta:

Every one who, by deceit, falsehood or other fraudulent means, whether or not it is a false pretence within the meaning of this Act, defrauds the public or any person, whether ascertained or not, of any property, money or valuable security or any service, (a) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to a term of imprisonment not exceeding fourteen years, where the subject-matter of the offence is a testamentary instrument or the value of the subject-matter of the offence exceeds five thousand dollars…

Now, this Fildebrandt character has been a bottom-feeding scumbag for a long time – see here and here and here.  This Trumpian little creep is everything that is wrong with politics.

But this latest episode takes it to a wholly different level.  What do you think? If Wildrose doesn’t boot him out (again), I’ll be surprised.  And if the cops don’t charge him, I’ll be disappointed.


Comments (4)