# Duffy not guilty of all charges



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Mike Duffy was found not guilty on all 31 charges, and the judge chose instead to "roast" the Harper PMO for their deceit in the matter.

Basically Duffy didn't break the rules because there aren't any rules, and he was told what was permissible by the Senate and PMO.

Not guilty of crimes perhaps, but the whole Senate is guilty of acting morally exempt from any obligation to taxpayers.

It is too late for reform. The Senate should be abolished.

The ruling also shows the lack of judgement in the Harper government.

http://www.cbc.ca/news


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

sags said:


> Mike Duffy was found not guilty on all 31 charges, and the judge chose instead to "roast" the Harper PMO for their deceit in the matter.
> 
> Basically Duffy didn't break the rules because there aren't any rules, and he was told what was permissible by the Senate and PMO.
> 
> ...


Judge also mentioned there was no criminal intent on Duffy's part although some personal expenses may have been questionable, these were minor compared to the main issue.bribery on the $90K check.

Now with Duffy innocent on all 31 charges, he can collect his senate salary back to the time he was accused and suspended. 

I'm sure his legal bill, fairly substantial I would think by now, will all be paid by the taxpayers,,again.

And now maybe Pamela Wallin will launch her case against the gov't even if it has changed hands as she had to pay for her expenses.

What a mess! But I anticipated this outcome all along. Harper and his PMO cronies should have been on trial, Duffy was just a patsy,
they threw under the bus.


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

Nothing new here ... double law standards ... one for politicians and another for everyone else.


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

Beaver101 said:


> Nothing new here ... double law standards ... one for politicians and another for everyone else.


Yup. A politician can waste tax payers money, steal taxpayers money, embezzle tax payers money, take bribes under the table and bend the
rules to suit their purposes.


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

And yet Canada ranks as in the top 10 as being least corrupted as per this link,

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corruption_Perceptions_Index


----------



## fraser (May 15, 2010)

The judges comments were a sad commentary on Stephen Harper and the PMO.

I would guess that Mike Duffy is busy writing a book to be published just in time for the Christmas book buying season. Harper and his PMO boys won't like it.

I saw Marjory LaBreton interviewed this week. It was pathetic. It was all "I never did it, it was those other guys in the PMO and Senate". Shameful really. She should have kept her big mouth shut because it made her look rather foolish and extremely insincere.


----------



## Eclectic12 (Oct 20, 2010)

Beaver101 said:


> And yet Canada ranks as in the top 10 as being least corrupted as per this link ...


True ... though I'd prefer we aimed at moving up on the list by addressing some of the silliness that takes aware from more useful spending.


Cheers


----------



## fraser (May 15, 2010)

Corruption implies breaking the law. Duffy was found not guilty.

He may be not guilty and this not corrupt. But that does not mean that his is not a unprincipled bottom feeder who views public service as a chance to suck the public tit dry at every opportunity. His reputation is in tatters and rightfully so.

Big lo0sers in this from my perspective...Stephen Harper, PMO most especially Wright, several leading Conservative Senators, the RCMP (who do not have much further to go down in public opinion-at least not in the west), and of course the Crown Prosecution team.


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

fraser said:


> Corruption implies breaking the law. Duffy was found not guilty.
> 
> He may be not guilty and this not corrupt. But that does not mean that his is not a unprincipled bottom feeder who views public service as a chance to suck the public tit dry at every opportunity. His reputation is in tatters and rightfully so.
> 
> Big lo0sers in this from my perspective...Stephen Harper, PMO most especially Wright, several leading Conservative Senators, the RCMP (who do not have much further to go down in public opinion-at least not in the west), and of course the Crown Prosecution team.




this is true. It's interesting how there are broad similarities to the Ghomeshi case, ie a possible offender is to be presumed innocent until it can be proven beyond reasonable doubt that actual existing laws have been broken.

to have it otherwise - ie to convict on flimsy evidence in a kangaroo court - would destroy canada's laudable justice system, as Marie Henein argued so successfully to Peter Mansbridge.

this leaves a grey zone in which dodgy conduct - Duffy, Ghomeshi, Wallin - can continue to get by, even to flourish.

we can see here the role that the media plays, in exposing Dodgy & bringing it to public attention. Me i think that this is just about right. I think the 5th estate should be in the vanguard in digging up Dodgy, while i also want the legal system to track carefully far behind.


----------



## bariutt (Feb 2, 2013)

Duffy cleared of all charges

Gomeshi cleared of all charges

Karla Homoka back living in Canada enjoying the good life

If this is how the Justice System works in Canada then we all need to hang our heads in shame. 

If I am ever convicted of a serious crime I sure hope my trial is presided over by Justice Charles Vaillancourt. He has been a senior judge living off taxpayers money for many years himself. I would like to get a look at his own personal expense claims. Probably totally out of touch with what would be acceptable in the private sector.

I bet that the verdict would have had a totally different outcome if this trial had been heard in front of a jury of taxpayers.

I think Duffy's lawyer was a very sly individual whereas the Crown prosecuters seemed incompetent once they got Duffy on the stand.


----------



## bariutt (Feb 2, 2013)

Harper tried to toughen up the laws especially when it came to felony crimes.

Jughead Trudeau wants to reverse all of the gains we have made in regards to minimum sentencing and be "kinder" to those convicted.

You can drive drunk as a repeat offender and kill a whole family with your negligence and you will be out walking the streets again after 2 years. Happened with those 3 teenagers struck by a drunk driver in Sudbury and it will happen again with the young billionaire who killed the grandfather and 3 children down in southern Ontario.

With Judge Vaillancourt's decisions this week he has told all senators, MPs and bureaucrats that is perfectly fine to rape and pillage the taxpayer on their expense accounts and absolutely nothing will happen to you.

Mike Duffy's legal bills have exceeded $500,000 by now. I would like to know who has being footing the bill for Duffy because I am sure he has not had this kind of money. The theory has been that a very rich Liberal supporter has been funding Mike Duffy's legal defence as long as the whole effort is structured to defame Stephen Harper and the Conservatives. Judge Vaillancourt seemed perfectly happy to let Harper bashing go on day after day in the court room during the election. One has to wonder if he isn't part of the same plot.


----------



## none (Jan 15, 2013)

Actually no that's not what happened. The laws that the Harper government put in to be hard on crime were so amazing shitty and poorly thought out the supreme court has called them voice. It has nothing to do with politics - the Harper government was simply incompetent.

To add salt to the wound, not only were the jobs unconstitutional, they flew in the face of data. Being 'tough on crime' doesn't actually reduce crime or reduce recidivism. Really all it does is end up causing our taxes to go up and/or divert needed funding from programs that ACTUALLY WORK TO REDUCE CRIME> It's massively retarded.

I'm not anti-conservative per se but I am anti-stupid and the Harper government and many of their supporters ARE/WERE STUPID.


----------



## Rusty O'Toole (Feb 1, 2012)

I would hate to see the Senate go. Reason, any second check is better than nothing. We all know how politicians can be swayed by public opinion and the heat of the moment. The Senate is there to give a mature, cool headed assessment of new laws and prevent bad ones from being passed. To do this they must be independent and immune to being fired or pressured on any excuse. 

We don't appreciate the laws that are never passed, or bad laws that are improved or modified, because the PM and Parliament know the Senate will slap them down.

Can you imagine what Harper would have done if he had a free hand to do whatever the hell he wanted with no consequences? And if that doesn't scare you just imagine Justin Trudeau and his SJW friends with total dictatorial power.


----------



## Daniel A. (Mar 20, 2011)

Harper was never elected to do anything with Tough on crime. It's been proven that the crime rate in Canada has been falling for many years and all that is happening is the jails get fuller.
Taking the power out of judges hands to sentence is counter productive at many levels, there is no one size fits all.

In the case of people that drink & drive they usually have a history of this behavior long before someone is hurt or killed why have their friends and family not taken action long before, there are things that can be done ie reporting them. Harper did everything he could to control the Upper House something that should be of great concern to all Canadians.


----------



## Islenska (May 4, 2011)

The head scratcher is how the judge painted a black picture of Nigel Wright who was played up as Mr Integrity, by the media.

I still would not old Duff handling expense accounts, Pamela either, the gravy trainers!

Entitled, scurrying around our great country, doing what , not sure,,,,


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

Islenska said:


> The head scratcher is how the judge painted a black picture of Nigel Wright who was played up as Mr Integrity, by the media.
> 
> I still would not old Duff handling expense accounts, Pamela either, the gravy trainers!
> 
> Entitled, scurrying around our great country, doing what , not sure,,,,


I'll take a guess..spending tax free money from the taxpayers of Canada. 

Duffer was out doing some promotions for Harper. Walling was flying around on the taxpayers dime to Toronto where she sat on the boards of several corporations that paid her some kind of lavish compensation for being a bored member.

Brazeau was too busy ( getting drunk??) then beating up his live in. 

Harb was busy fixing up his houses in Pembroke and elsewhere in the area to sell for a profit, claiming mileage and expenses on the taxpayers dime.

The others, also had some "expenses" that were not kosher, but their expenses were swept under the rug and rubber stamped as "approved"
by the senate expense committee that had some senators themselves with questionable expenses.

However the biggest travesty perpetrated on the Canadian Taxpayer is Duffy's long criminal trial which will cost millions more than the questionable
spending.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

I was in the courtroom one day and a guy was brought before the Judge accused of theft under $5,000. A silly type of charge to begin with..........since he stole a package of meat from a grocery store.

The cops had chased him all night...........over fences, through backyards........all over the city.

The Judge asked him why he stole the meat. Because we have no money and my family was hungry..........the guy says.

The Crown wants a prison sentence. The Judge says........not going to happen. He sentences the guy to a fine with 6 months to pay. He says that is punishment enough.

He tells the guy to apply to the police force...........they could use somebody who can run all night.

Imagine a scenario where the minimum sentence was 6 months in prison. What good would that have done anyone ?

Police always overcharge. They have a big fat rule book to pick and choose "criminal offenses" from and always "pad" the charges. The Crown always overreaches for sentencing. They want everyone to get a prison sentence.

Thank goodness we have Judges and they have some discretion to prescribe appropriate punishment.

I doubt anyone from the Harper government spent a single day in any courts observing the procession of unfortunate people parading through it every day.

If they had...........maybe they would have had a little more compassion for those who find themselves in that situation.

The reality is that compassion wasn't a trait in evidence for the Harper government.


----------



## none (Jan 15, 2013)

You don't even have to bend to compassion. Just effectiveness, or lack thereof, sinks the harper crime bills.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

The "message" that I thought resonated from the Judge's decision in the Duffy case, was for the Senate, government or somebody to set some clear rules and standards

It would be a more desirable goal than protecting the vacuum of a lack of rules through deception and moral corruption.........as the Harper government did


----------



## olivaw (Nov 21, 2010)

carverman said:


> However the biggest travesty perpetrated on the Canadian Taxpayer is Duffy's long criminal trial which will cost millions more than the questionable
> spending.


If the trial moves us a step closer to abolition of the Senate then it was worth it. As Sags said, the Court ruled that the institution failed to govern itself according to common standards of morality. It's existence is an embarrassment to Canadian democracy.


----------



## none (Jan 15, 2013)

The problem is that the senate actually serves a very important role in Canada's democracy. It's the only potential check on PMO power - which is canada is minimal when there is a majority government.


----------



## olivaw (Nov 21, 2010)

The Senate is _supposed_ to serve as a check on PMO power. Instead it acts as an agent for it. Fortunately the Court stepped in to fill the void left by our sleeping senators.


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

olivaw if the senate would be abolished, what kind of organism do you see in its place & stead, to referee bills & acts from the lower house?

we should not have to rely on the courts to cure the effects of harmful acts, if harmful acts should be passed. Such curing action could take 20, 30, 50 years.


----------



## bgc_fan (Apr 5, 2009)

olivaw said:


> The Senate is _supposed_ to serve as a check on PMO power. Instead it acts as an agent for it. Fortunately the Court stepped in to fill the void left by our sleeping senators.


That was the problem with the Senate as it was. The judge was not impressed with the fact that the Senate was following the orders of Nigel Wright, someone with less legitimacy then the Senate. I am sure the fact that he wasn't charged with bribery may have led to his rant against the PMO. Let's face it, it was pretty funny that only one person was charged with bribery. Not too mention the fact that subverting the Senate and making it a rubber stamp for the PMO should be a chargeable offense.

The right to die legislation is the first test of the 'new' Senate. The Senate is divided because no one is satisfied with the legislation. Because there is no real government pressure to push it through, it will probably get thrown back to the House. Nw if there are legitimate concerns about wording, that's a good thing. However, if they are being contrary for the sake of being contrary, that's a bad thing.


----------



## kcowan (Jul 1, 2010)

sags said:


> Police always overcharge. They have a big fat rule book to pick and choose "criminal offenses" from and always "pad" the charges. The Crown always overreaches for sentencing. They want everyone to get a prison sentence...


Yes I think they always add driving without due care and caution to impaired driving, for example. How do they know that unless they followed the driver? Why would they follow when they could pull him over and administer a breathalyzer?

And then there is texting while driving. Is that not the same as without due care and caution? The police seem to load up in case one of the charges does not stick.


----------



## olivaw (Nov 21, 2010)

humble_pie said:


> olivaw if the senate would be abolished, what kind of organism do you see in its place & stead, to referee bills & acts from the lower house?
> 
> we should not have to rely on the courts to cure the effects of harmful acts, if harmful acts should be passed. Such curing action could take 20, 30, 50 years.


You're probably right. The Court is slow and it is supposed to be the safeguard of last resort. It has, however, been our best safeguard against excesses of the PMO in recent decades. 

My preference is for an elected Senate with term limits and equal representation for provinces and territories. That is probably not acheivable in Canada at this time. The next best thing is to abolish it. The bar may be higher but it is easier to achieve majority support. 

I suppose we could aks the Governor General to review legislation but the GG is appointed by the Prime Minister so the PMO will call the shots. 

Somebody in the JT thread suggested using the Provinces as the safeguard. I'd probably support that idea if they all had an equal say. If we give Quebec and Ontario 25% of the power each (as is the case with the Senate) then we'll set ourselves up for disaster. Imagine the Parti-Quebecois using their 25% to promote Quebec sovereignty,

BGC_Fan raised the right to die legislation. I too will be interested in how the Senate handles this very difficult topic.


----------



## bariutt (Feb 2, 2013)

The senate will never be abolished in my lifetime and certainly not while Jughead Trudeau is in power. 

The best we can hope for is sweeping senate reform.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

We could elect 1 MP and 1 Senator from each riding during federal elections. They would both have the same election term limits.

The problem with the Senate is the same as with all changes. People who are opposed to any change use the "discussion" to throw in needless complications attempting to roadblock any legislation.

Same is happening with marijuana legislation. Some want to take years to "study" and have "input" because of this or because of that complication. We have already spent decades doing that and don't need to repeat it all again.

Hey Justin..............just get it done like you said you were going to. It isn't rocket surgery.


----------



## fraser (May 15, 2010)

The challenge is not Trudeau or any Federal Gov't for that matter. The problem is the Provinces. They have the power to veto and two or three have already stated publicly that they would veto a change from the current status.


----------

