# Meng Wanzhou decision



## gardner (Feb 13, 2014)

I'm disappointed and a little surprised.





__





2020 BCSC 785 United States v. Meng






www.bccourts.ca







> Wanzhou Meng asks for an order discharging her from the extradition process [ ... ] Ms. Meng’s application will be dismissed.


I really thought they would let her walk. Now we're in for another year of escalating bullshit from China.


----------



## dubmac (Jan 9, 2011)

Not to mention two cdns sitting in a detention centre somewhere in Beijing!


----------



## Topo (Aug 31, 2019)

This is really a power struggle between the US and China. Canada's legal system shouldn't be involved in this. The extradition treaties are for people who commit real crimes, like murder etc. Meng Wanzhou is going be pawn in the hands of the US government to be exchanged for something from China (Trump pretty much alluded to that a while back). Now Canada has to deal with this mess.


----------



## doctrine (Sep 30, 2011)

Fraud not a real crime? Nice. But this isn't even a ruling on whether she did anything. That part is coming up.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

MP may give more insight into the judge's ruling, but it appears to me that the judge took US sanctions off the table to the extent that Meng's future will be decided by Canadian laws around fraud. The last line in the judgement hints that the AG could decide if there is "sufficient admissible" evidence to go forward with fraud charges in Canada.

I am wondering what the phrase "admissible evidence" means in this context of a Chinese citizen dealing with a US bank and what evidence is available to the Crown in Canada. Of note, that HSBC bank settled their dispute with a DPA in the US. Could a DPA in Canada be offered the Huawei company ?

Or, could the AG decide there is not enough "admissible evidence" to prove fraud and Meng would be free to go.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

Topo said:


> This is really a power struggle between the US and China. Canada's legal system shouldn't be involved in this. The extradition treaties are for people who commit real crimes, like murder etc. Meng Wanzhou is going be pawn in the hands of the US government to be exchanged for something from China (Trump pretty much alluded to that a while back). Now Canada has to deal with this mess.





doctrine said:


> Fraud not a real crime? Nice. But this isn't even a ruling on whether she did anything. That part is coming up.


@Topo, How much of your money can I steal before it's a crime?


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Meng isn't accused of stealing money. She is accused of misrepresenting Huawei's business dealings in Iran.


----------



## peterk (May 16, 2010)

Just imagine if we had handed her over to the USA immediately, 18 months ago... We'd have endured a couple weeks of tongue lashing from China and so-called human rights organizations in the news, we'd repeatedly have said "sorry, not our problem, just following the law, go to talk to big man down south"

And that would have been that.

Now here we are 1.5 years later and still caught in the middle of things.
Wonder what'll be the next mistaken action our government takes about something bad from China showing up at our doorstep... these things come in 3s, after all. 😝


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

peterk said:


> Just imagine if we had handed her over to the USA immediately, 18 months ago... We'd have endured a couple weeks of tongue lashing from China and so-called human rights organizations in the news, we'd repeatedly have said "sorry, not our problem, just following the law, go to talk to big man down south"
> 
> And that would have been that.
> 
> ...


Well we sent them our emergency medical supplies, just before we needed them.

I'm waiting for Trudeau to claim it's racist to support Democracy in Hong Kong.


----------



## bgc_fan (Apr 5, 2009)

MrMatt said:


> Well we sent them our emergency medical supplies, just before we needed them.
> 
> I'm waiting for Trudeau to claim it's racist to support Democracy in Hong Kong.


Yes, and the idea was to stabilize the situation there before it became a pandemic. Unfortunately it was too little too late. In return, China has been sending back supplies. Even discounting those that don't meet standards, I'm sure the balance has evened out.


----------



## Topo (Aug 31, 2019)

MrMatt said:


> @Topo, How much of your money can I steal before it's a crime?


It is not about stealing money or true fraud. Fraud is the legal cover. It is about breaking US sanctions. Maybe an infraction against the US government, but not for Canada. Would we care if she broke sanctions against Albania set forth by Nigeria? But we would care if an Albanian or Nigerian were defrauded. 

Make no mistake. This is clearly political and we have no business doing their dirty work. Let the US deal with her anyway they want to. None of our business.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

Topo said:


> It is not about stealing money or true fraud. Fraud is the legal cover. It is about breaking US sanctions. Maybe an infraction against the US government, but not for Canada. Would we care if she broke sanctions against Albania set forth by Nigeria? But we would care if an Albanian or Nigerian were defrauded.
> 
> Make no mistake. This is clearly political and we have no business doing their dirty work. Let the US deal with her anyway they want to. None of our business.


Okay, so their motivation is violation of US sanctions. 
I'm not sure if she violated Canadian sanctions.


But the legal charge she is accused of is fraud, which is illegal in both Canada and the US.


----------



## Topo (Aug 31, 2019)

MrMatt said:


> Okay, so their motivation is violation of US sanctions.
> I'm not sure if she violated Canadian sanctions.
> 
> 
> But the legal charge she is accused of is fraud, which is illegal in both Canada and the US.


Exactly. There are no Canadian sanctions to be violated. I am arguing that sanctions are a political tool and not directly related to the administration of justice. We give her to the US, they will immediately turn around and make a deal with China to release her. We are left on the hook with the political damage and it is a mockery of our justice system.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

The sanctions part wouldn't work legally, so the US added in the fraud element some time after the arrest.

So now the question is if Meng committed fraud according to Canadian laws, and there is enough "admissible evidence" to prove she did.

Are we now going to send investigators to China to gather the evidence ? Will the investigators interview HSBC officials involved ?

How likely is it that China will allow Canadian investigators to enter their country and investigate a bank, major company, and their citizens ?

In Canadian criminal law, proceeding with criminal charges requires it be justified in consideration of the public interest for doing so.

What would be in the Canadian's public interest to proceed any further ?

The AG should end it quickly by declaring there is no reasonable expectation of conviction.

They should send Meng home with our deepest apologies, and we should begin mending fences with China.


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

Topo said:


> Exactly. There are no Canadian sanctions to be violated. I am arguing that sanctions are a political tool and not directly related to the administration of justice. We give her to the US, they will immediately turn around and make a deal with China to release her. We are left on the hook with the political damage and it is a mockery of our justice system.


 ... and meanwhile the 2 Canadians continue to sufferably linger in some Hilton cell in China.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

Topo said:


> Exactly. There are no Canadian sanctions to be violated. I am arguing that sanctions are a political tool and not directly related to the administration of justice. We give her to the US, they will immediately turn around and make a deal with China to release her. We are left on the hook with the political damage and it is a mockery of our justice system.


Yes sanctions are a political tool.

However, she is charged with fraud.
This is a crime in Canada.
The US is asking for her extradition for an act that is both a crime in Canada and a crime in the USA.

We're in a tough spot, but this is not the time for political interference with the judicial system.
It is the lives of Canadians, not something truly important like protecting Quebec votes.


----------



## Topo (Aug 31, 2019)

MrMatt said:


> Yes sanctions are a political tool.
> 
> However, she is charged with fraud.
> This is a crime in Canada.
> ...


The two Canadians held in China are also charged with espionage, which a crime in Canada too. Are we supposed to accept that just because they say it? 

We could see through the smoke in both cases. It is not about justice, it is just a political game. Let them play it between themselves.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

Topo said:


> The two Canadians held in China are also charged with espionage, which a crime in Canada too. Are we supposed to accept that just because they say it?
> 
> We could see through the smoke in both cases. It is not about justice, it is just a political game. Let them play it between themselves.


The reality is that we are pretty certain the charges against the Canadians are trumped up, while we're pretty sure that the fraud charges are legit.

I also agree that this is a political mess, and Trudeau should have done a better job defusing it at the time.
Honestly he's made such a mess out of everything I'm not even sure what the appropriate action is now.


----------



## Topo (Aug 31, 2019)

MrMatt said:


> The reality is that we are pretty certain the charges against the Canadians are trumped up, while we're pretty sure that the fraud charges are legit.


I think charges on both sides are "Trumped" up; the sanction violations may be legit, but the fraud is just a technicality.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Simple solution.

The AG says there is no reasonable prospect of conviction and she goes home.


----------



## gardner (Feb 13, 2014)

MrMatt said:


> Yes sanctions are a political tool.
> 
> However, she is charged with fraud.
> This is a crime in Canada.
> The US is asking for her extradition for an act that is both a crime in Canada and a crime in the USA.


The mere fact that there is a crime called fraud in both jurisdictions is not enough. The test is wether the pattern of conduct is criminal in both jurisdictions and the specifics of the alleged case very much matter. Just because the Americans see an actionable fraud offence in an act does not automatically mean that Canada does.

The fraud relates to the alleged misrepresentation of the dealings given to a US subsidiary of the UK/Hong Kong bank that was or would have been a party to the transaction. I don't believe it is alleged that the US subsidiary was or would have been involved. At the time of the transactions there were no operative sanctions in Canada, China, HK or the UK. It is quite evident that the whole thing is only an issue due to the American's intent to insinuate their domestic sanctions policy to operate extraterratorially by means of leverage over businesses that operate in the US.

The Canadian Foreign Extraterratorial Measure Act makes clear that Canada doesn't necessarily stand still for this sort of thing, however the only specific regulation enacted under that act thusfar has to do with American sanctions on Cuba. I personally believe that we should operate it generally, but the AG has to decide. I am a little surprised that at lest the intent of the FEMA was not touched on in the decision.

The judge did think about whether it matters that the US sanctions exist as regards dual criminality and concluded that it certainly does. Absent the sanction rules there is no case to answer. She also considered whether there could be rules or laws in the US that would be rejected as a basis for a fraud charge and she pointed to unconscionable slavery laws that the courts had rejected as a basis for dual criminality in the 19th century. So for her the question come down to: could Canada have regulation similar to the ones in the US, even if it does not at present, and the answer is yes, it clearly could. I think this means that if the alleged fraud had been in relation to a hypothetical slavery or blasphemy regulation then the dual criminality test would have failed. But since it is in relation to a type of regulation Canada has and upholds, even if not an exact one, it does not.


----------



## Topo (Aug 31, 2019)

I don't understand what Trudeau is thinking here:



> “If countries around the world, including China, realize that by arbitrarily arresting random Canadians, they can get what they want out of Canada politically, well that makes an awful lot more Canadians who travel around the world vulnerable to that kind of pressure,”


First, China is a rational player. They are not going to take hostages to settle a dispute about maple syrup or cheese.

Second, China has imprisoned 2 Canadians for one of their nationals. Going forward, there is no reason they would not imprison 2x Canadians for any Meng that we detain. It is not like they would wake up one day and realize "this is not what we should be doing." 

Third, US and the USSR used to exchange prisoners regularly during the cold war. Some of those guys had done way more to threaten national security than Meng could ever imagine of doing. What Meng has done is equivalent to driving at a speed of 95 in a 90 km speed zone. Why shouldn't we do a similar exchange instead of letting Trump do it?

Fourth, we are being severely bullied by both Xi and Trump. Giving in the Xi, at least we get our men back. Giving in to Trump, we get nothing.

Bottom line: Let Xi and Trump play their games on their own turfs.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

Sitting on her for years was not a solution. She should have been freed or extradited. Keeping her only gives China incentive to hold Canadians hostage.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Let her go with a free case of maple syrup,a fine bottle of Canadian wine and Jody Wilson Raybould's deepest apologies.


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

sags said:


> Let her go with a free case of maple syrup,a fine bottle of Canadian wine and J*ody Wilson Raybould's deepest apologies.*


 ... I think Lametti will be seriously offended.


----------



## calm (May 26, 2020)

Trudeau is having to visit the American Capitalists monthly and borrow funds to prevent the Canadian economy from bankruptcy. Trudeau knows which side of his toast has the butter on it.

Trudeau is going to follow any choice that America makes.

Even when Chretien said no troops in Iraq, Canadians assisted in many ways.


----------



## Longtimeago (Aug 8, 2018)

andrewf said:


> Sitting on her for years was not a solution. She should have been freed or extradited. Keeping her only gives China incentive to hold Canadians hostage.


Huh? what are you talking about?

The US asked to have her detained and extradited. They presented their case and under Canadian law, Canada agreed there were legal grounds to detain and extradite her as per our agreements with the USA. 

You write as if Canada is keeping her here, it is HER lawyers who are keeping her here. Canada has already AGREED to extradite her. Canada is 'sitting on her for years', she is sitting in Canada for years.

Don't lose focus on who is doing what andrewf. Canada would have extradited her long ago.


----------



## Longtimeago (Aug 8, 2018)

I am in total agreement with Trudeau. You cannot allow a country to blackmail you into giving them what they want or all they will learn is to do it again the next time they want something from you. You will also simply show others that they could do the same thing. This is not rocket science surely.

What we need is an extradition process that exhausts all legal delays far faster than our present system does.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Trump wants her sent to the US, so obviously we should set her free.......just to piss him off.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

Longtimeago said:


> Huh? what are you talking about?
> 
> The US asked to have her detained and extradited. They presented their case and under Canadian law, Canada agreed there were legal grounds to detain and extradite her as per our agreements with the USA.
> 
> ...


Canada I'm sure could have made efforts to expedite and eliminate delays in legal proceedings. The extradition process is broken if it is impossible to resolve a case in a matter of months.


----------



## Mukhang pera (Feb 26, 2016)

andrewf said:


> Canada I'm sure could have made efforts to expedite and eliminate delays in legal proceedings. The extradition process is broken if it is impossible to resolve a case in a matter of months.


Do you have some knowledge of the source(s) of any delay? Without knowing the reasons for the present, apparent, slow progress of the matter, I would consider it difficult to lay blame for delay at the feet of Canada.

Both the fugitive and the requesting state are represented by experienced counsel. They have a lot to do with how quickly a case proceeds. Often, for reasons not apparent to anyone unconnected with the case, counsel for both sides are content with a less than furious pace. Do we know here if either side is complaining of delay? If they are not, should "Canada" be telling them to pick up the pace? 

If there has been inordinate delay which the fugitive finds objectionable, she can raise that issue before the Minister of Justice at the surrender stage, should the extradition judge grant extradition. The judge cannot invoke s. 11(b) of the Charter (the right to trial within a reasonable time), since the Supreme Court of Canada has ruled that the Charter, s. 11(b), does not apply to extradition proceedings. Section 11(b) does not apply to extraditions: _United States of America _v_. Mellino_ [1987] 1 S.C.R 537; _United States of America _v_. Allard and Charette_ [1987] 1 S.C.R. 564.

But, as explained in the case below, the Minister can take delay into account in deciding whether or not to order surrender.

_United Kingdom of Great Britain_ v. _Leamont_ S.C., Goepel J., 2010 BCSC 1281, Vancouver 25193, September 10, 2010 (oral), 12pp.





__





2010 BCSC 1281 Canada (Attorney General) v. Leamont






www.bccourts.ca





These paragraphs of that judgment are instructive:

[33] With regard to the question of delay, the case law recognizes two kinds of delay in extradition proceedings that will result in a stay of proceedings under s. 7 of the _Charter_. The first is based on some form of “actual prejudice” to an applicant’s right to a fair extradition hearing which has resulted from the delay. The second does not require actual prejudice, but is based on the delay being of such length that it meets a “simply unacceptable” or “shock the conscience” standard. Such a standard may be met where there has been an “inordinate delay” in the extradition proceedings.

[34] In _United States of America v. Gillingham_ (2004), 184 C.C.C. (3d) 97 (B.C.C.A.), Finch C.J.B.C. at paras. 90-94 explained that submissions by an applicant for a stay of proceedings based on actual prejudice to a fair extradition hearing are within the jurisdiction of the extradition judge. An application for a stay of proceedings based on “simply unacceptable” delay is within the purview of the Minister, and is to be determined by the Minister at the Executive Stage, rather than the extradition judge at the Judicial Stage.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

Mukhang pera said:


> Both the fugitive and the requesting state are represented by experienced counsel. They have a lot to do with how quickly a case proceeds. Often, for reasons not apparent to anyone unconnected with the case, counsel for both sides are content with a less than furious pace. Do we know here if either side is complaining of delay? If they are not, should "Canada" be telling them to pick up the pace?


There is a third party at play here, the government of Canada. Because Canada is seen by China to be in a position to intervene, the shorter the time frame in which Canada is in such a position, the better for us and the Canadians China is holding hostage.


----------



## Mukhang pera (Feb 26, 2016)

andrewf said:


> There is a third party at play here, the government of Canada. Because Canada is seen by China to be in a position to intervene, the shorter the time frame in which Canada is in such a position, the better for us and the Canadians China is holding hostage.


In my case, I cannot say what China sees as Canada's position, or much else. I am not close enough to do more than guess.

Probably China sees it that Canada should simply halt the proceedings, ignore its international treaty obligations and send their pal home forthwith (plus, of course, with the standard $10 million green poultice applied for injured feelings). Maybe only a few, like me, see it as a case where the process should be carried out, as in all cases, with no special or differential treatment accorded. 

What if "Canada" (in whatever personage is appropriate I will leave up to you) tomorrow tells the parties: "The extradition hearing is set for next Monday at 9 a.m." So, the parties are forced into meeting a timeframe not of their choosing. Let's say extradition is then ordered. Won't China see it that Canada pressed the matter to a hearing for which the fugitive was not prepared, and with disastrous (if not pre-ordained) results for her? 

In short, I see it that there can be no room in the judicial process for political interference, whatever its form and however well-intended its purpose. I know I am part of a small minority.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

Is there not a bit of difference between calling for an immediate conclusion to the process vs allowing it to stretch on for years? Or are we just waiting for Biden to take office and drop the extradition request? We're allowing Canada to be used as a pawn in a great power struggle between the US and China. I don't understand why we should allow it.


----------



## gardner (Feb 13, 2014)

andrewf said:


> We're allowing Canada to be used as a pawn in a great power struggle between the US and China. I don't understand why we should allow it.


You say that like there is a choice. Canada is a small power and in a pissing match between super-powers, the best we can hope for is to be uninvolved. If we become involved in some way, there is no chance at all we can be other than pawns.

Our best option, which was lost to us in the first seconds, would have been to fail to pick up the phone when the Americans called, have a strict francophone answer, or mistakenly send the CBSA to gate C34 instead of D34 -- ie: avoid becoming involved. Our best hope now is to find some compliant government official to slap her bum or something, creating a mistreatment in custody that could prevent further custody from being possible.

Trickery to escape involvement would have to be less obvious than what I have suggested. The dickishness of the Americans is no less estimable than that of the Chinese. If we abrogated our treaty obligations with them, the consequences could easily extend to practically everybody, not just a couple of unlucky guys.


----------



## gardner (Feb 13, 2014)

Mukhang pera said:


> Won't China see it that Canada pressed the matter to a hearing for which the fugitive was not prepared, and with disastrous (if not pre-ordained) results for her?


Obviously the schedule can be set so short that meaningful preparation is infeasible. But when the schedule extends for years, one wonders what sort of preparation is contemplated. Perhaps Meng's team would feel more prepared when a new government comes to power in the US.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

I googled it and can't find any references to Canada extraditing someone from the US.

The US make requests all the time, including demanding Canadians be extradited to stand trial in the US.

Marc Emery was extradited for selling marijuana seeds through the US postal system.

He was convicted and spent time in a US prison. The US will not turn over American citizens except in certain instances.

It seems to me we need to drop out of the extradition treaty and fashion a new one.

What is interesting in this case, is the AG for Canada at the time of Meng's arrest was Jody Wilson Raybould.

The bank involved was given a deferred prosecution agreement (DPA) in the US which Raybould refused to give SNC Lavalin.

In return for the DPA, the bank provided the information the US is using to form the allegations against Meng.

If the US was that concerned about the situation, why did they give the bank a DPA and a fine ?

It has also now been confirmed in John Bolton's book that Trump sought a trade with Meng for a new trade deal with China.

Canada should not be doing Trump's dirty work for him.


----------



## Longtimeago (Aug 8, 2018)

andrewf said:


> Is there not a bit of difference between calling for an immediate conclusion to the process vs allowing it to stretch on for years? Or are we just waiting for Biden to take office and drop the extradition request? We're allowing Canada to be used as a pawn in a great power struggle between the US and China. I don't understand why we should allow it.


You really don't seem to be getting the message andrewf. Canada has an agreement and therefore have no choice in the matter. Canada is not drawing out the extradition process, the lawyers for Meng and the USA are doing that.

Is it that you can't see that or is it that you don't want to see that? You keep saying things like 'allowing'as if there is a choice.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

The extradition treaty allows the AG to stop the proceedings at any time.

The government has moved away from the claim they "couldn't" do anything, to they "won't do anything" because they don't "negotiate" for release of citizens.

They are conflating a terrorist type of situation with a third party dispute between China and the US. The government should release her immediately.


----------



## gardner (Feb 13, 2014)

sags said:


> I googled it and can't find any references to Canada extraditing someone from the US.


Interesting. I imagine that it happens fairly often, just not in a newsworthy way -- but that is just my assumption. I also suspect that most of the cases are of Canadians wanted back by Canada from the US, not mainly Americans wanted in Canada. There must be actual statistics somewhere.

My own searching I did come up with Anne Sacoolas, an american wanted in the UK for a hit-and-run death. She fled back to the US and the US basically just unilaterally said "no" to extradition requests. They seem prepared, on their side at least, to deny extradition without any discernable process when it suits them.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

It is a troubled system. Canada shouldn't be extraditing people, including Canadians, without Crown prosecutors showing some evidence of crime.

It appears that if another country requests extradition, we are only too happy to hand people over. Other countries don't operate the same way.

We need a public inquiry into the extradition process.



https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/extradition-arrest-canada-diab-1.4683289


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

Longtimeago said:


> You really don't seem to be getting the message andrewf. Canada has an agreement and therefore have no choice in the matter. Canada is not drawing out the extradition process, the lawyers for Meng and the USA are doing that.
> 
> Is it that you can't see that or is it that you don't want to see that? You keep saying things like 'allowing'as if there is a choice.


The judge adjudicating the case works for the government, and determines the pace of proceedings. I don't care if the US and China/Ms. Wanzhou want to draw out the process. If typical extradition requests only take a matter of months to resolve, we should insist that this one be treated no differently.

If we are seriously talking about political intervention to either extradite or release, one would think it less dramatic an intervention to insist there be no undue delay in the process.


----------



## Mukhang pera (Feb 26, 2016)

andrewf said:


> The judge adjudicating the case works for the government, and determines the pace of proceedings.


So much for the notion of 'judicial independence'.


----------



## calm (May 26, 2020)

I think that if a government can hire and pay police to beat and attack poor people, it should be simple to find a judge and a law to walk away from this extradition case.


----------



## gardner (Feb 13, 2014)

calm said:


> I think that if a government can hire and pay police to beat and attack poor people, it should be simple to find a judge and a law to walk away from this extradition case.


... in China. Sure.

The present case is the exact situation where judicial independence and the rule of law is being tested. Either we have that in Canada (and I hope we do) or else we don't, and practically everyone, not just Meng Wanzhou, could be subject to politically motivated persecution at the hands of the state, or at the hands of politically connected folks insulated from legal consequences.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

The extradition treaty is a mess and and an "easy go round" for countries like the US.

They know very well that Canada doesn't extradite for political reasons and there must be a crime that would also be a crime Canada.

But since, the Crown doesn't have to present any evidence, the US just makes up whatever imaginary crime fits the bill..........in both Canada and the US.

When Meng was detained, the US said it was because she violated the US embargo on Iran. When it was noted in the Canadian media that isn't a crime in Canada, the US came up with a different reason. They now claim she committed fraud against a foreign bank because she didn't advise them her employer had dealings with Iran. Seriously.........like Huawei couldn't get a loan without committing fraud ?

It is all bogus, and if we allow Meng to be extradited, we acknowledge we have no sovereign rights. We do whatever the US tells us to do.


----------



## calm (May 26, 2020)

My view of the justice system was formed in 1965 when I was 16.
I pulled a prank and had to appear in court.
I had Elmer Sopha as a lawyer and he was Member of Paliament too.
My lawyer told me that if I paid 300 bucks to the judge he would walk away from the case.
And I happily paid the 300 bucks.


----------



## Mukhang pera (Feb 26, 2016)

calm said:


> My view of the justice system was formed in 1965 when I was 16.
> I pulled a prank and had to appear in court.
> I had Elmer Sopha as a lawyer and he was Member of Paliament too.
> My lawyer told me that if I paid 300 bucks to the judge he would walk away from the case.
> And I happily paid the 300 bucks.


I am only now finding out about corruption in the Canadian judiciary, thanks to calm.

A bit surprising that calm now feels it appropriate to come forward and to admit to the Criminal Code offence of offering a bribe to an "officer". That's a rather heavy duty offence. Not sure it's something about which to boast on a public forum. 

I am also impressed that calm was a well-heeled 16-year old. $300 in 1965, according to the BoC inflation calculator, is the equivalent of $2,445 today. Probably would have been a lot cheaper to simply plead guilty to an offence under provincial legislation (such as the Offence Act in B.C.) and pay a fine of $20 or so in those days.


----------



## Topo (Aug 31, 2019)

The minister of justice has the authority to do what is effectively a prisoner swap that would benefit Canadians. That is part of the legal process too, even though it is not apolitical. 

We actually do not know for a fact that the Canadians have not committed espionage. There is a possibility that they have, in which case it would be a significant offence from China's point of view. Certainly they could have done more harm to China than Meng has done to Canada. We don't know.

I don't care if Meng falsified some documents related to US sanctions. I am sure the US does a lot of that too. A good course of action would be for Canada to put Meng on a plane from YVR heading east. Once the plane clears Canadian airspace, then I couldn't care less if USAF F-16s intercept it, land it in SEA-TAC, and do what they want with Meng.


----------



## gardner (Feb 13, 2014)

sags said:


> The extradition treaty is a mess and and an "easy go round" for countries like the US.


I agree that the American's don't seem to take it seriously. But why would they? Theirs is the ultimate, truest form of justice of which all other nations have a more or less inferior facsimile, if indeed any justice at all.

Anyway, after randomly finding it in googling, I am very interested in how the Anne Sacoolas case plays out. I would think with the American's wanting Julian Assange from the UK _very badly indeed_, they would have an incentive to attempt to give at least the outward appearance of fair reciprocity. But they are immune to irony.


----------

