Wednesday, April 30, 2014

The Canadian Judicial Council: No waiting! Off With their heads! ..... No last minute reprieves!

Mr. Super Self-Rep

Versus


'Stormin' Norman Sabourin The Human Gatekeeping Device

Dear Council Members,

In the invitation dated March 26 you indicated that the special website would remain active until the end of April. As that seems to be a rather short window, I hope that the CJC will remain receptive to any submissions it receives subsequently.

I am choosing not to use that website but to make my submission via this email.

I have had the benefit of some experience with the CJC's complaints process, having filed two complaints - one in 2010 and another in 2012. Both were summarily dismissed, though curiously using different mechanisms. I was very surprised when I received the second letter from Mr. Sabourin in which he cited section 2.2 of the Complaints Procedures and used the word "duty" to describe a very powerful discretion - in fact a judicial discretion.

It took me some time to comprehend what the CJC had done in creating this device. At the time I received the letter I'm not sure if I had any awareness of the sub-delegation issue, but I did have the benefit of having done some reading years ago on statutory drafting and interpretation. Fortuitously, I then found on a British Columbia government website a copy of an article that had been written by a lawyer employed by Justice Canada and published in 2007. It would appear that the intended audience was the public.

A brief discussion of the topics of sub-delegation, duties, and discretionary powers begins on page three. That the article was intended for the general public was confirmed for me when I discovered the legal Latin term it neglects to mention: delegatus non potest delegare. Having found that term I was able to do some further reading on the subject, which led to the conclusion that the CJC went beyond its mandate when it created this very powerful mechanism and handed it to the Executive Director. My assertion is that it is ultra vires The Judges Act and I would not believe a claim that the Council did not understand that at the time it was created.

In due course I was able to find a sufficient record in the documents on the CJC's website to explain when and how this section 2.2 discretion was created.

The 2001-2002 annual report includes the final extant copy of what had been until then a single set of bylaws. The 2002-2003 annual report includes copies of the rewritten bylaws in two distinct sets, one now called the Complaints Procedures and including for the first time the section 2.2 that remains in place today. In my view it is clear that sections 2.1 and 2.2 were drafted in bad faith, with the intention of deceiving the public. It is this language to which the Executive Director was referring in his letter to me when he used the word "duty."

The CJC wants the public to believe that the act of determining that a complaint is "clearly irrational or an obvious abuse of the complaints process" and then on that basis refusing to forward the complaint to the Council is an administrative duty when it is quite obviously a judicial discretion. Some insight into why the Council chose to do this at this time can be found in the 2002 report, The Way Forward, and in particular what it has to say about the role of the Executive Director. I note that the then Executive Director, Jeannie Thomas, was succeeded by Norman Sabourin at the beginning of 2004.

What the CJC created is what I call a "gatekeeper device", and as crude a one as I have yet found. I also note, for the record, that the initial "screening process" that was the responsibility of a Council member prior to the rewriting of the bylaws remains in place in section 3.5. In practice I would say it is just as problematic, but I am not claiming that it is ultra vires The Judges Act. The CJC should understand that I will be sharing this submission with the public.

Sincerely,

Chris Budgell
Vancouver, British Columbia

Tuesday, April 29, 2014

The photocopying machine .....

Good Day Readers:

During court depositions sometimes overly aggressive lawyers can be real dickweeds so deponents must resort to frustrating the .... out of them. The following enactment is based on an actual transcript featuring actors. It's hilarious

Sincerely,
Clare L. Pieuk.




Deposition of Lawrence Patterson in Cuyahoga County Recorder's Office Case

That woman is hopeless out of touch as evidenced by her World War II vintage bicycle!

Good Day Readers:

It's hard to fathom how Alison Redford could be so stupid. Last year her administration passed sunshine laws among the most detailed among the provinces forcing Alberta legislators to post their expenses. Then she goes out financially rapes the public purse like an army of drunken sailors. Did she really think Alberta voters were that thick?

Her misplaced sense of entitlement, arrogance and utter disrespect and contempt for public funds defies logic. She has so damaged the Conservative brand in Alberta even heavy weight Jim Prentice who'll be running for the Party's leadership this fall may have difficulty bring it back from the brink.

Wouldn't it be hilarious while in Palm Springs, rather than the legislature where she belongs, had she collided on her bicycle with the Alberta Legislative Speaker perchance walking down the street because she was completely oblivious to her surroundings.

Sincerely,
Clare L. Pieuk
Absentee politicians policy to be reviewed, Speaker announces after photos of former Alberta Premier

Karen Kleiss
Edmonton Journal
Monday, April 28, 2014

Former Alberta Premier Alison Redford rides a bycycle at a condo complex in Palm Springs Californai on Sunday 27.

EDMONTON - The province announced a review of Alberta’s policy for absentee politicians Monday, after photos surfaced showing former Premier Alison Redford biking in a California resort city.

Gene Zwozdesky, a Tory MLA who sits as Speaker of the house, said he has long planned to review the legislature’s attendance policy and will set the formal process in motion next week at a meeting with house leaders.

“The (law) is obviously something that is in the power of the government to amend or not, and we need to have that discussion, and we need to ensure that whatever the protocols are that guide MLA attendance or absence are still relevant,” Zwozdesky said from London, England, where he is meeting with the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association.

“I’m not trying to foretell what MLAs may decide ... but I have an obligation to lead the discussion, and I’m prepared to do that,” he said.

Redford has been absent from the legislature since she stepped down as premier March 23; she remains a Tory MLA. She was photographed Sunday in Palm Springs, where she has a recreational property. Last week, her staff told Zwozdesky’s office she was declaring her absence under rules that exempt MLAs from being docked pay if they can’t attend due to illness or injury, bereavement, or public or official business outside the legislature.

Asked whether the review was launched in response to Redford’s absence, Zwozdesky said: “This issue has to do with all MLAs, because all MLAs have to play by the same rules. There may be some cases that have got the public’s attention more than others, I’m certainly not immune to that, and we will deal with it as the circumstances arise. I will do whatever is necessary to ensure that the rules have been followed and will be followed in the future.”

Several MLAs have been absent from the legislature for extended periods this session, including Liberal MLA Darshan Kang and Conservative MLAs Ken Lemke, Jeff Johnson and Wayne Cao.

The Legislative Assembly Act sets out the rules for political absenteeism. Section 34 says MLAs can miss up to 10 days of a session annually without explanation, but beyond that, they must provide a legitimate reason: illness, injury, bereavement or official business.

After 10 days of unexplained absence, the MLA is docked pay at a rate set by the Member Services Committee. Currently, the rate listed in the Member’s Allowances Order is $100 a day, plus a $50 deduction from the member’s expense account.

Legislative Assembly Standing Order 10 also says: “Every member is bound to attend the service of the assembly unless notification has been given to the Speaker in accordance with the rules of the assembly.”

Zwozdesky said the first step will be to meet with the house leaders from all of the elected parties, followed by a hearing at the Tory-dominated all-party members’ services committee, and finally a legislative review by elected MLAs.

Premier Dave Hancock said he doesn’t think there has been any abuse of the current system.

“I don’t know why he would be doing it, I don’t know that there has been any abuse of that,” Hancock said. “Members have been away when they’ve needed to be away and that has been communicated.”

Wildrose MLA and members’ services committee member Kerry Towle said a $100-a-day deduction from a $150,000-a-year salary “is not really that much of a disincentive” for missing work.

“We sit the fewest days in all Canada; the legitimate reasons for missing a session day should be pretty limited,” Towle said.

She believes that if a politician wants to miss work, he or she should have to provide the same kind of justification that every other Albertan does.

“If you’re an everyday Albertan and you want to go on stress leave, you have to go to the doctor and get a note,” she said, adding there should be more transparency around why MLAs are absent from the legislature during a sitting.

“If you’re away on legitimate business, it’s really easy to prove that,” Towle said. “I don’t think anyone would have as much of an issue (with Redford’s absence) if it had been clearly stated why.”

kkleiss@edmontonjournal.com
twitter.com/ablegreporter

Eve Adams: "Stephen Harper штовхнув Мій партнер Dimitri Soudas в попу - звільнив його!


Хороші Читачі день (Good Day Readers):

This is what Eve ""Morticia"Ad(d)ams should have included in her Polish language ad: "Stephen Harper kicked my partner Dimitri Soudas in the ass - fired him!"

Удачи! (Good Luck!) Natalia Lishychyna.

Sincerely,
Clare L. Pieuk
Polish ad suggests Eve Adams already MP for Oakville riding

Glen McGregor
Tuesday, April 29, 2014
An advertisement that appeared in a Polish language newspaper distributed in the Toronto area last week suggests that Conservative MP Eve Adams is already the MP for Oakville North – Burlington, the riding at the centre of a vicious nomination battle.

In fact, Adams represents another riding — Mississauga – Brampton South – but hopes to win the Conservative nod to run in the new Oakville seat in 2015. She faces a challenge for the nomination from local chiropractor Natalia Lishchyna.

The line in question translates from Polish to “Member of the Conservative Party for the circle (District) of Oakville North – Burlington.”

If there was already an MP for that riding, he or she might well make the case that the ad breaches his or her privileges, as Liberal MP Irwin Cotler argued when Conservative calls into his Mount Royal riding suggested he was about to retire.

But, in this case, Oakville North - Burlington is a new riding created in the redistribution of electoral district boundaries and is not represented in the House of Commons.

Welcome to 'Friendly Manitoba' Canada's capital of taxpayer financed Federal Judicial Selection Rot (FJSR)!

Good Day Readers:

One comment in National Post columnist Christie Blatchford's article caught CyberSmokeBlog's attention. In describing Lori Douglas' treatment by the Judicial Selection Committee that recommended her appointment and later by the judges and lawyers of the Inquiry stated in part, "..... they collectively have prosecuted and persecuted her." Huh?

Here's what stuck in CSB's craw:

(1) How long has she been on administrative leave now (Over 3-years?) at full salary (approximately $288,000) plus an eye popping benefits package plus access to a judicial expense fund - just ask Manitoba Queen's Bench Chief Justice Glenn Joyal about that one. Further, the Conservatives (Tony Clement) is on the public record as saying the Harper government will introduce legislation to block suspended senators from accumulating pensionable time while their fate is being decided. Should the same not apply to Ms Douglas?

(2) Taxpayers are paying for all her "defence team's" legal costs which must be well into the $100,000's by now for which they have received exactly what save for some juicy, salacious Inquiry testimony?

(3) She's in no danger whatsoever of going to jail. The worst that could happen? She gets tossed out on her arse which would not be the end of the world. Using the Rob Ford business model, she could become a one person self-promotion corporate conglomerate: eventually write a kiss and tell book sell the movie rights; give paid speeches;  write regular articles for a national newspaper or two a la Conrad Black; guest appearances on television shows - hell, even her own television show - she could end up earning more than she did as a Justice. Thank you very much taxpayers! How many of you would like to be proprosecuted and persecuted in this way?

Then along comes "Uncle" Vic who has to be the poster child for advanced FJSR. Thanks guys for making Winnipeg its capital. Perhaps Ricky of Trailer Park Boys said it best when he said to Julian, "The system (of selecting federal judges) is totally ....ed!"

So, Readers, when do you figure Season II of the award winning series The Inquiry will get underway?

Sincerely,
Clare L. Pieuk
Christie Blatchford: The rot in Canada's system of picking federal judges

Monday, April 23, 2014
Manitoba Judges Lori Douglas and former MP and Justice Minister Vic Toews. (Handout: Sean Kilptrick/The Canadian Press)

It’s funny, but the letters recently released by the Canadian Judicial Council in the Lori Douglas matter reveal the real rot in the system — and it has little to do with the so-called “naked judge” scandal.

The rot is in the arrogance of lawyers and judges who perpetrate the fiction that the Canadian system of picking federal judges (which means not just those on the Supreme Court, but also the 1,115 superior and appeal court judges in every province and territory) is pristine and brilliant.

Rather, as the appointments of Manitoba judges Douglas (2005) and the more recent one of former MP and justice minister Vic Toews (2014) illustrate, the system is inherently political, secretive and riven with cronyism.

That it may sometimes also result in a brilliant appointment — and both of those I mention may qualify as such some day — is but a happy accident.

Associate Chief Justice Douglas, of course, is the judge whose husband, Jack King, in mid-mental breakdown posted bedroom pictures of her on a hard-core porn website and then tried to solicit a client to have sex with her — all without her consent or knowledge, as he has long admitted, she has always insisted and the evidence tends to support.
That client, one Alex Chapman, first attempted in 2003 to blackmail Mr. King (with some success, in that Mr. King paid him $25,000 to go away), and then, his natural conspiratorial bent encouraged by his own lawyer, seven years later launched a complaint against Judge Douglas, who by then was a rising star on the Manitoba bench.

It is evidence in that complaint that an inquiry committee of the Canadian Judicial Council began hearing in the summer of 2012.

The committee’s fairness to the judge quickly became a huge issue and the whole thing careened off the rails, with independent counsel Guy Pratte resigning (and with the CJC’s release of its correspondence with Mr. Pratte, with good reason) that fall, and the members of the inquiry committee following suit more than a year later.

(The CJC had argued the letters were sacred and covered by solicitor-client privilege, bizarre since the role of Mr. Pratte as “independent counsel” was to be independent, and that it was above judicial scrutiny. A federal court judge found there was no solicitor-client relationship and ordered the release of the letters. The CJC released the letters, but in the context of an announcement that it was appealing the decision — in other words, the CJC still believes it was right. Oh yes, as an added fillip, the CJC also wants the new inquiry committee to get cracking and says, despite its appeal, the hearing should resume ASAP.)

The most critical allegation against Judge Douglas is that she failed to properly disclose this black cloud when she applied for the bench. She answered no to a question on the form that asked if there was anything in the past or present that could reflect negatively on her.

But the fact is, as no less than former Manitoba Court of Appeal Judge Martin Freedman testified at the hearings, and he was the chair of Manitoba’s Judicial Advisory Committee or JAC at the time, the committee nonetheless had a discussion of Ms. Douglas’s, as she then was, hideous situation.

That discussion included the fact that she was an excellent lawyer; that there had been this incident involving photographs of “a sexual nature”; that she herself “was an innocent … victim in this situation” and that though Judge Freedman and the others naively believed the offending pictures had been permanently removed from the Internet, the committee decided to “flag” the matter to the justice minister’s attention, just in case.
"The entire process — from the appointment of the JAC members to how candidates apply to how they are okayed or not — is opaque and mysterious."
Now, not all those on the committee at the time remembered the discussion as having been as explicit as Mr. Freedman did, but he was the Chair, and he did have at least a procedural note to rely upon.

And at bottom, the committee recommended Ms. Douglas be appointed, though, in a lovely bit of punch-pulling, they didn’t “highly recommend” her, as they had before.

As for Mr. Toews, whose appointment to the bench was widely rumoured as likely even back in 2012, he too first would have been okayed by the Manitoba Judicial Advisory Committee.

The members of this JAC are different from those who chose Lori Douglas, but as with their predecessors, they are either representatives of the Canadian Bar Association, the Law Society of Manitoba or the
judiciary (one member each), more recently the law enforcement community (one member), with the remainder well-connected with the political establishment of the day (one member appointed by the provincial justice minister, three by the federal justice minister).

In 2005, when Judge Douglas got the thumbs-up, the JAC members were well-connected to the federal Liberals; in 2014, when Judge Toews was appointed, they’re connected to the federal Tories.

In her case, at least two members (the chair, Judge Freedman, and a member whose memory of the discussion accords with his) knew in some detail about the scandal in her — or rather, her husband’s — background, and all of them knew the bare bones of it, and yet they gave her the nod anyway.

In Judge Toews’ case, they knew that the appointment broke with the convention of waiting two years after a person leaves government, and did it anyway, in eight months.

And the entire process — from the appointment of the JAC members to how candidates apply to how they are okayed or not — is opaque and mysterious.

(They do things much better for the provincial court in Ontario, where vacancies are advertised and candidates actually interviewed.).

In other words, the world of lawyers and judges welcomed Lori Douglas into their club knowing full well the baggage she carried. Once that baggage became public, however, it was off with her head; they collectively have prosecuted and persecuted her.

The system — the breathtaking arrogance of those within in, from the CJC to the JAC and all the acronyms in between — is the abject failure in this story.

Postmedia News
cblatchford@postmedia.com

Monday, April 28, 2014


Do you want this man handling your baggage?


Sunday, April 27, 2014

Have you seen this woman Absent Alison? Check your fridge!


Found!

Absent Alison Redford spotted in Palm Springs

Tamara Gignac and Clara Ho
Saturday, April 26, 2014

As Alison Redford notified the Alberta Speaker’s office this week that she had a legitimate reason to be absent from the legislature, the former premier was spotted several times in the resort city of Palm Springs.

Redford has not attended the legislative assembly since she stepped down from the job on March 23, but two travellers told the Herald they’ve seen the Calgary-Elbow MLA in the California community in the past week.

Several other people have used Facebook and Twitter to report sightings of Redford in the desert city, where she has a recreational property.

Sasa Kovacevic told the Herald he spotted Redford at Lulu California Bistro — a popular Palm Springs restaurant — the morning of Easter Sunday, two days before the legislature resumed sitting last week.

Kovacevic, an Edmonton resident, said he and his sister were waiting for a table when a woman and girl walked into the eatery. At first he paid no attention to the pair.

“She said she had a reservation for Redford,” Kovacevic said in a phone interview Saturday. “The name caught me so I looked up and I was like, ‘Oh, that’s Alison Redford.’”

Kovacevic said Redford and the girl, presumably her daughter, Sarah, were with them in the waiting area for a few minutes.

“She was dressed very casually. It was quite warm, so you know, just like a nice light dress. She seemed OK, hanging out, relaxing I guess,” he said.

“I think she realized I knew who she was. We exchanged a couple glances, but after, she wouldn’t make eye contact with me.”

No one else in the restaurant seemed to recognize her, Kovacevic said.

He said he was surprised to see Redford in the resort city. “As far as I know, she’s still an MLA and should be in the legislature.”

An employee who answered the phone at Lulu California Bistro confirmed that Redford had a reservation at the restaurant at 11:30 on the morning of April 20.

Photos that appear to show Redford and her daughter dining at an eatery identified as Giuseppe’s Pizza and Pasta in Palm Springs on Friday were also widely circulated on social media. The legislature did not sit on Friday and doesn’t resume until May 5.

Redford, who was first elected as an MLA in 2008, was also spotted at a car rental counter at Palm Springs International Airport on April 22.

“She walked by and I thought, ‘oh, there’s the Premier,’” said a Vancouver businessman who was at the desert airport to pick up a friend arriving on a flight from Calgary.

A man who answered the phone at Redford’s Palm Springs residence Saturday afternoon said she was not there. A phone call to the former premier’s constituency office was not returned.

Redford hasn’t attended the legislature since she resigned from the premier’s post on March 23 amid mounting questions over her travel expenses and her use of the government executive aircraft fleet.

Under provincial laws, MLAs can be absent from the legislature for 10 sitting days in a session before they are docked pay. For each subsequent day’s absence without an explanation, MLAs lose $100 plus $50 from their expense allowance.

Friday, April 25, 2014

Manitoba's favourite Justice to be sworn in!

"Commissioner Paulson, arrest all those people over there they disagree with me, therefore, they stand with the pedophiles and not us!"

Good Day Readers:

A special thank you to staff from The Manitoba Law Courts for advising CyberSmokeBlog newly minted Justice Victor Toews' official swearing in will take place Friday, May 2, 2014 at 1:00 p.m. in Courtroom 2010. The public is welcome.

Perhaps a word of caution is in order. You are expected to exercise proper decorum and protocol at all times otherwise you could be removed on you ass. No laughing, snickering, smirking, booing, hissing, making disparaging comments or gestures, rolling of eyes or otherwise disrupting the somber proceedings will be tolerated.

Jeezus, maybe extra seats will have to be placed on the front lawn to handle the overflow crowd likely to  witness this epic event. Just don't do anything that could eventually cause you to appear before him.

Sincerely,
Clare L. Pieuk

For the first time the reason Pratte "The Cat" scat!

The Douglas Inquiry 101
To be continued .....

Oh stop your bloody whining Stephen Harper! Would you like some cheese to go with your whine?

Harper says Senate reform, abolition 'off table' 'will abide' by court decision

Joan Bryden
Thursday, April 25, 2014

OTTAWA - Stephen Harper says he's disappointed in today's Supreme Court ruling on Senate reform, which he denounces as a "decision for the status quo" that virtually "no Canadian" can support.

That said, a defeated-sounding Harper says the federal government will respect the decision, which unequivocally slammed the door on reforming or abolishing the Senate without reopening the Constitution.

"This is a decision for the status quo, a status quo that is supported by virtually no Canadian," Harper told a business audience at an event in Kitchener-Waterloo, Ontario.

"Given the Supreme Court has said we're essentially stuck with the status quo for the time being, and that significant reform and abolition are off the table, I think it's a decision that I'm disappointed with (and) that a vast majority of Canadians will be very disappointed with."

There is no consensus among the provinces on either reform or abolition of the Senate, nor is there a desire "among anyone" to reopen the Constitution and have "a bunch of constitutional negotiations," he added.

"But obviously, we will respect that decision."

The high court says Harper's hope to impose term limits on senators and create a "consultative election" process to choose nominees cannot be done by the federal government alone.

Instead, such reforms would require constitutional amendments approved by at least seven provinces representing 50 per cent of the population.

The unanimous decision also says abolishing the Senate, something Harper has threatened to do if his reform agenda is stymied, would require the unanimous consent of all 10 provinces.

Harper sought the top court's advice after a number of provinces strenuously objected to the federal government's plans to proceed unilaterally with its reform proposals.

The court says the Senate is key to the political bargain struck at Confederation and can't easily be tinkered with as a result.

"The Senate is one of Canada's foundational political institutions," said the ruling, which was attributed to the court as a whole. "It lies at the heart of the agreements that gave birth to the Canadian federation."

In creating the Senate, the court said the Fathers of Confederation deliberately chose an appointed chamber, which was supposed to be independent, free of partisanship and able to apply "sober second thought" to legislation without blocking the will of the elected House of Commons.

Turning the Senate, directly or indirectly, into an elected chamber "would fundamentally modify the constitutional architecture ... and, by extension, would constitute an amendment to the Constitution," the court said.

"They would weaken the Senate's role of sober second thought and would give it the democratic legitimacy to systematically block the House of Commons, contrary to its constitutional design."

The federal government had argued that consultative elections wouldn't be binding and, since the Prime Minister would remain free to appoint whomever he pleases, the change was simply a housekeeping matter.

While it acknowledged the Prime Minister could, in theory, ignore the results of senatorial elections, the court said: "The purpose of the (reform) is clear: to bring about a Senate with a popular mandate. We cannot assume that future prime ministers will defeat this purpose by ignoring the results of costly and hard-fought consultative elections."

Similarly, the court said imposing a limit on the term of senators, who currently serve until age 75, would also fundamentally change the constitutional architecture, interfering with senators' independence.

No matter how long the fixed term, a limit would "imply a finite time in office and necessarily offer a lesser degree of protection from the potential consequences of freely speaking one's mind on the legislative proposals of the House of Commons."

The Harper government also asked the court if it could unilaterally repeal the constitutional requirement that a senator own at least $4,000 worth of property in the province he or she is appointed to represent.
The justices found the federal government could do that for every province but Quebec
.

Since Quebec is the only province where senators are appointed to specific electoral districts, the province's consent is required to change the property qualification, the ruling said.

Just in! Supreme court of Canada flashes and pees on the Harper government again ....ing HA! HA! HA!

Supreme Court shoots down Harper Senate plans

By Joan Bryden
Thursday, April 25, 2014
Veritas (Truth) guards the entrance of the Supreme Court of Canada as the Peace Tower is seen in the background. The Court has shot down Harper's hopes of a quick fix for the scandal-plagued Senate. (The Canadian Press/Adrian Wyld)

OTTAWA - Stephen Harper's hopes of a quick fix for the scandal-plagued Senate were blown to pieces Friday by the Supreme Court of Canada.

In a historic, unanimous decision, the top court advised that the Prime Minister's proposals to impose term limits on senators and create a "consultative election" process to choose nominees cannot be done by the federal government alone.

Rather, the court said such reforms would require constitutional amendments, approved by at least seven provinces representing 50 per cent of the population — a route fraught with political landmines which Harper had hoped to avoid.

Moreover, the court set the bar even higher for abolishing the Senate, something Harper has threatened to do if his reform agenda is stymied. Getting rid of the chamber altogether would require the unanimous consent of all 10 provinces, the eight justices said.

Harper sought the top court's advice after a number of provinces strenuously objected to the federal government's plans to proceed unilaterally with its reform proposals.

The court accepted the argument of most provinces, that the Senate is a key part of the political bargain struck at Confederation and, consequently, can't easily be tinkered with — no matter how compelling reform or abolition might seem in the wake of the Senate expenses scandal.

"The Senate is one of Canada's foundational political institutions," said the ruling, which was attributed to the court as a whole. "It lies at the heart of the agreements that gave birth to the Canadian federation."

In creating the Senate, the court said the Fathers of Confederation deliberately chose an appointed chamber, which was supposed to be independent, free of partisanship and able to apply "sober second thought" to legislation without blocking the will of the elected House of Commons.

Turning the Senate, directly or indirectly, into an elected chamber "would fundamentally modify the constitutional architecture ... and, by extension, would constitute an amendment to the Constitution," the court said.

"They would weaken the Senate's role of sober second thought and would give it the democratic legitimacy to systematically block the House of Commons, contrary to its constitutional design."

The federal government had argued that consultative elections wouldn't be binding and, since the Prime Minister would remain free to appoint whomever he pleases, the change was simply a housekeeping matter.
While it acknowledged the Prime Minister could, in theory, ignore the results of senatorial elections, the court said: "The purpose of the (reform) is clear: to bring about a Senate with a popular mandate. We cannot assume that future Prime Ministers will defeat this purpose by ignoring the results of costly and hard-fought consultative elections."

Similarly, the court said imposing a limit on the term of senators, who currently serve until age 75, would also fundamentally change the constitutional architecture, interfering with senators' independence.

No matter how long the fixed term, a limit would "imply a finite time in office and necessarily offer a lesser degree of protection from the potential consequences of freely speaking one's mind on the legislative proposals of the House of Commons."

The court noted that various constitutional amending procedures require Senate approval and any change to those amending formulas requires unanimous provincial consent. Hence, abolishing the Senate would change the amending formulas and, thus, must also require unanimous consent.

"The process of constitutional amendment in a unicameral system would be qualitatively different from the current process. There would be one less player in the process, one less mechanism of review."

The Harper government also asked the court if it could unilaterally repeal the constitutional requirement that a senator own at least $4,000 worth of property in the province he or she is appointed to represent.

The justices found the federal government could do that for every province but Quebec.

Since Quebec is the only province where senators are appointed to specific electoral districts, the province's consent is required to change the property qualification, the ruling said.

The Douglas Inquiry ..... the legal establishment's Cirque du Soleil!

From: Chris Budgell [mailto:cjbudgell@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, April 23, 2014 8:24 PM
To: Clare Pieuk; RoadKill Radio
Subject: Cirque du droit administratif

You didn't know I was multi-lingual did you?

http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/Disciplinary+body
+arguing+above+judicial+scrutiny+nude/9767862/story.html

cb
 Спасибі добрим сер cb:

Tres bien fait mon gars! Tres bien fait.Merci bien.Любиш пиріжки пиріжки ..... eh?

You're right to compare the Douglas Inquiry to a circus - Le Cirque du Soleil with the difference various participants are alternatively falling on their heads or asses. Jeesus cb, did you see that? One participant just fell off a trapeze ..... OMG! Another couple collided landing on their heads or was it their asses? It matters not same thing.

Sincerely,
Clare L. Pieuk

P. S.
WTF? Did you see that cb? Four more Douglas Inquiry participants just wiped out in mid-air landing on their heads - or is it their asses?

Disciplinary body arguing it's above judicial scrutiny in nude judge's case

By Colin Perkel
The Canadian Press
Wednesday, April 23, 2014

TORONTO - The council that handles complaints against Canada's judges, including one against a Manitoba justice photographed in the nude, has taken its fight against judicial scrutiny of its own conduct to the Federal Court of Appeal.

In a notice filed this week, the Canadian Judicial Council, which has drawn harsh criticism for its handling of the case, argues Federal Court had no right to review its actions — a fight it lost in lower court last month.

The notice obtained by The Canadian Press alleges Federal Court Judge Richard Mosley made several legal errors in slapping down the Council's assertion that it is not subject to judicial review.

Mosley, the notice maintains, "erred in law and principle, misapprehended the evidence before him, and erred in the application of legal principles to the facts at issue."

The appeal is the latest legal manoeuvre in the 3 1/2-year case against Lori Douglas, currently under suspension as associate chief justice of Manitoba. Douglas has been fighting for her job since her husband posted photos of her posing provocatively on the Internet without her permission.

When Douglas complained to Federal Court that the CJC's inquiry panel was biased against her, the Council argued the courts had no jurisdiction to hear her complaint.

Mosley firmly rejected that notion.

The council is also appealing his ruling that the "independent counsel" retained to help the CJC panel hearing the Douglas case was not subject to solicitor-client privilege.

In light of his decision, Mosley ordered the CJC to give Douglas correspondence related to the resignation of Guy Pratte, who quit as Independent Counsel to the inquiry panel in August 2012.

"(Mosley) erred by relying on irrelevant considerations and ignoring important evidence," the appeal notice claims.

Lawyers for the council nor Douglas could be immediately reached for comment Wednesday.

The Douglas case has focused scrutiny on the judicial council — which comprises the country's Chief and Associate Chief Superior Court Justices.

Veteran lawyer Earl Cherniak, who has acted as Independent Counsel, said previously that Mosley's ruling showed the council system was "highly flawed" and called its conduct in the Douglas case a "stain on the whole system."

Retired Ontario chief justice Patrick LeSage — who spent about 15 years as a council member — called it "odd" the CJC would essentially try to place itself above the law.

The Judicial Council has appointed two judges and a lawyer to replace the five-judge committee that resigned en masse in November amid the controversy, but any hearing is again on indefinite hold given the court appeal.

The CJC has also appointed a new independent counsel, who has already said she believes she is in a solicitor-client relationship with the inquiry committee.

The Judicial Council could recommend Douglas be removed from the bench, although any such decision can only come from Parliament.

Thursday, April 24, 2014

Up next on 24 Seven Ben's 18th birthday blowout and the catwoman!

Good Day Readers:

24 SEVEN can best be described as shameless, self-promoting, touchy-feel good puffery by the Harper government or in layperson's terminology it's a piece of ....!

Do you figure it will feature Ben's 18th birthday blow out at 24 Sussex Drive. Or what about Laureen's goofy cat earsat her internet Cat Video Festival. Was that part of duly departed (at least politically) of now former Conservative Party of Canada Executive Director Dimitri Soudas (fired) who fell madly in love with a member of the Adams family (no, no not this one) directly interfering in her nomination for the upcoming election next year and succeeding in turning it into a horror show..
Recall how the departed Soudas as part of his master plan for getting the Tories re-elected  was to role out Laureen Harper to counter her husband's personality deficit disorder. Don't figure he had this in mind.
    

As for young Ben CyberSmokeBlog has one word of advice:



Drunk teen picked up by paramedics outside 24 Sussex the same night as party for Prime Minister's son

By Meghan Hurley and Glen McGregor
Thursday, April 24, 2014
Paramedics say they were called to the area of 24 Sussex Drive early Sunday morning. (Handout photo/National Capital Commission)

OTTAWA — The PMO refuses to say where Stephen Harper or his wife was the night paramedics were called to the Prime Minister’s official residence to tend to a drunken 18-year-old woman who was outside on the driveway sick.

The call came early Sunday morning, after a Saturday night pool-house party was apparently being held to mark the 18th birthday of Stephen Harper’s son, Ben.

The Prime Minister’s Office has declined to comment about the incident, which took place early Sunday morning.

“I have nothing to add to your story,” the Prime Minister’s spokesman, Jason MacDonald, said in an email to the National Post. The PMO was asked to provide any information on where the Harpers were over the weekend, or if the Prime Minister had any comment on underage drinking in light of Conservative attack ads on Justin Trudeau’s pot legalization policy.

Paramedics say RCMP called them to the Prime Minister’s residence around 1 a.m. in regard to a drunk young woman near the property’s west gate.
However, there has been no confirmation that the unidentified young woman knew Harper’s son or was at a social gathering with him. It got as cold as -2 in Ottawa Sunday morning.

Another young woman, who said she was at the party, said about 20 of Ben Harper’s friends and sports teammates attended, many wearing swimsuits.

“It was just a hanging out, a get-together,” said Devon von Eicken-Bursey, whose boyfriend plays volleyball with Ben.

“There was some drinking and mixing and stuff,” but no one who appeared to be seriously intoxicated, von Eicken-Bursey said. “We were all very controlled.”

She said Ben’s RCMP protective detail was around but she didn’t see either of his parents.

When von Eicken-Bursey and her boyfriend left the party around 1 a.m., she said, police cruisers had just pulled up and asked them if they had seen anyone vomiting.

The RCMP, which provides personal protection to the Prime Minister and his family, said only that it was aware that the Ottawa Paramedic Service had been to the residence.

“This was a medical call and not a police matter,” Corporal Lucy Shorey said in an emailed statement. “It did not involve any of our protectees.”

The underage woman was reportedly taken to hospital with a suspected case of alcohol poisoning.

The legal drinking age in Ontario is 19. However, a parent may supply their own underage child with alcohol in their own home.

It’s not illegal for parents to allow other minors to drink in their home, as long as the parents aren’t supplying the alcohol.

Several of Ben Harper’s friends on Twitter had sent messages that suggest there was a birthday party for him on Saturday night.

happy 18 birthday BFF @Ben_S_Harper see you in a week get jack wasted tn

@Ben_S_Harper happy birthday prince of Canada

Wednesday, April 23, 2014

O's back!

Anonymous has left a new comment on your post, "Is your Member of Parliament lying? More than likely if they're Conservative!"

Hello/Bonjour Clare,

Its been a while! I've relocated to the metropolis! Just watched on BT a news clip about the Metis Culture and Heritage Resource Centre who are asking for emergency funding for their Centre to continue functioning. Apparently the MMF (Manitoba Metis Federation) has not given them their funding for the past 5 months so they have had no choice but to ask for help from the province or the feds or whoever will help them.

Looks like the MMF is up to its old tactics again. Me smells a election coming and my guess is the MCHRC is not worth Big Dave's (President David Chartrand) help. Why is the MMF not giving them their funding? Well my guess is they don't want any new memberships processed through the Resource Centre because they have no control over it. Lets see how head office jigs out of this one. Oh yeah, Dave can't jig. Never could. Never will. I'd say it's time he shuffled along. Personally I'd like to see Dan Vandal as the new MMF Prez. He's sooo Handsome Dan Vandal. Please Dan Help the Metis Resource Centre.

All my love,
Madame O lii Smokes

Dear O:

What a pleasant surprise - a ghost from the past! O goes back several years to the early days of CyberSmokeBlog which has since reinvented itself. It now has much, much bigger fish to fry than David Chartrand and his Provincial Board of Directors.

Regarding, the MCHRC, unfortunately, CSB cannot comment because its been out of the loop for so long.

Dan Vandal? He's announced he'll be seeking the nomination for the riding of Saint Boniface currently held by Shelly Glover, however, there's been no follow up in the media whether he's been successful. Here's the deal O. Sad to say Ms Glover is CyberSmokeBlog's Member of Parliament so you can have her in a one-for-one straight up trade for Dan Vandal. She becomes the next MMF President and he the St. B. MP. The Federation is more her speed.

Apart from his good looks, CSB likes Dan Vandal because it's not aware of any scandal with which he's been involved/linked to after several years serving as a Winnipeg city councillor.

Notice you've relocated to the metropolis which presumably is Winnipeg. When you have a chance you should e-mail me so we can get together for coffee - CyberSmokeBlog has a lot of stories to share with you (best done offline) while you can update CSB on the rough and tumble world of Metis politics. If you do, use pieuk@shaw.ca. Should you send it via the blog to protect contributor identity it will automatically arrive as a non-reply which means it's impossible to send a response.
The 'teef" and "the bell!"

BTW, did you see the recent CBC Doc Zone documentary, The Bell of Batoche?

http://www.cbc.ca/news/aboriginal/bell-of-batoche-may-not-be-from-batoche-cbc-documentary-reveals-1.2604033

O will know the story but for some of the non-Metis readership who may not so long story short. The famous Bell of Batoche went missing several years ago from a war museum in Ontario (originally stolen by troops sent from Ottawa to quell the North-West Rebellion). Speculation was rampant David Chartrand's arch rival and former MMF President Billy Jo Delaronde was one of a small group who'd broken into a small Ontario war museum and absconded with it along with some war medals. Recently, he came out of the closet (so to speak) to announce what many had long suspected he did indeed have the bell.

David Chartrand's reaction? The group who stole it where a bunch of "teefs." The CBC documentary was very, very well-researched, documented and presented by historical researchers - most educational - who made a compelling argument that what had been assumed all along to have been the original Bell of Batoche was, in fact, a bell taken from Frog Lake a small Metis settlement in northern Saskatchewan near the Alberta border. The remains of the real Bell of Batoche (the original had been largely destroyed in a fire save for the clapper) were finally located in another rural Saskatchewan church where they remained for safekeeping.

Since going public, Mr. Delaronde (the master "teef") had toured Metis communities accompanying "the Bell." If true, and the evidence is certainly compelling, "the teef's" got the wrong bell.

Thank you again for contacting CyberSmokeblog!

Best Wishes,
Clare L. Pieuk

Tuesday, April 22, 2014

Mr. Bumble: "The law is an ass!" CyberSmokeBlog: "Still is including the Harper government that crafts it!"

Spoken by Mr. Bumble upon being advised the law assumed that wives' acted according to their husband's direction. (From Charles Dickens Oliver Twist)

Good Day Readers:

The RCMP's recent announcement not to charge Nigel Wright in Duffygate raises a very interesting point. Is it, therefore, legal to make a secret payment to a sitting legislator? Can you imagine what would happen if you tried? Those in the Prime Minister's Office are unelected officials paid for but unaccountable to taxpayers operating with impunity above the law. Mike Duffy has described them a little boys in short pants while Green Party Leader Elizabeth May more recently suggested the PMO was "full of ruthless, cutthroat psychopaths."

One saving grace may be Democracy Watch a non-partisan advocacy group founded by Duff Conacher, a member of the University of Toronto's Faculty of Law, that's contemplating laying a private prosecution to force the Mounties and federal prosecutor(s) to explain precisely why Nigel Wright was not charged.Their public statement told voters/taxpayers nothing.

It's interesting to speculate perhaps a secret deal has been cut. Mike Duffy by all indications is likely to be charged meanwhile the Prime Minister has been publicly dumping all over his former Chief of Staff who has remained silent throughout. Assuming there's a trial will Mr. Wright sing like a canary under oath about the inner workings of the PMO? Talk about sweet revenge!

Perhaps Mr. Bumble got it "Wright" (sorry for the bad pun) after all.

Sincerely,
Clare L. Pieuk
Maher: It's up to our politicians to explain how that secret $90,000 payment can be legal

By Stephen Maher
Saturday, April 19, 2014

OTTAWA — When the RCMP announced on Tuesday that it was not going to charge Nigel Wright in connection with his secret $90,000 payment to Mike Duffy, I felt happy for him, because he seems in many ways an admirable man, whatever mistakes he may have made in this affair, and he appears to have suffered.
But I don’t know Wright. I met him only once, in March 2012, at the going away party for the good-humoured Angelo Persichilli, who worked as Director of Communications to Stephen Harper.

I shook Wright’s hand, introduced myself, and joked that we would miss getting leaks from Persichilli.

Wright laughed politely, because we both knew Persichilli wasn’t leaking me anything.

Wright made a point of not talking to journalists, even those friendliest to the government.

One of the hallmarks of the Prime Minister Wright served is his secretiveness.

Politics is by its nature secretive, but Harper has taken this secrecy further than his predecessors. The people closest to him — Ray Novak and Jenni Byrne — do not talk to reporters. He doesn’t talk to reporters. Wright didn’t talk to reporters.

The people they pay to talk to reporters don’t know what’s going on.

As a result, the press gallery really has no idea what’s happening in the Langevin Building, and we must behave like Kremlinologists, seizing on stray scraps of information, much the way CIA analysts once examined Politburo group photos for clues about who was enjoying Leonid Brezhnev’s favour.

The RCMP investigation into Wright’s payment to Duffy — with its dramatic court documents — pierced the PMO’s secrecy in a way that was difficult for the Harper government but good for our democracy. Democracy is only meaningful to the extent that we know what the government is doing.

Thanks to the RCMP, we know that senior officials in our government were conspiring to cover up tens of thousands of dollars in (seemingly) improper payments to senators. The internal emails and interview transcripts published by the RCMP show Wright, Duffy and a host of lawyers and senators doing all kinds of things they would never do if they didn’t think they could keep it secret.

It looks like poetic justice. Harper’s secretive approach to politics created an environment in which his servants did things that they couldn’t explain once they were exposed.

To avoid the short-term pain caused by revealing improper payments, Harper’s people created a much bigger problem, and gave us all a good long look at the sleazy way the game is played in the big leagues.

This has been fun for those watching at a distance, but unpleasant for everyone involved, including the Prime Minister, who was forced to stand in the House woodenly repeating unconvincing talking points to the NDP’s prosecutorial Thomas Mulcair.

The government has not yet shaken off the miasma of sleaze, and it is starting to look like it never will, although the news that Wright won’t be charged must give Harper hope that there is a path through this mess.

You don’t have to sport tinfoil headgear to note how convenient this is for the government. The Tories have exerted their control over the RCMP in alarming ways, and Harper has repeatedly shown that it is better to be his friend than his enemy.

Consider that the last Commissioner of the RCMP, William Elliott, is living, all expenses paid, in an $8,000-a-month Manhattan luxury apartment, courtesy of our tax dollars. And consider that the previous commissioner, Giuliano Zaccardelli, interfered in the 2006 election by announcing the Mounties were investigating Ralph Goodale for something he didn’t do.

And if you closely consider the political position of senior cops, you can see why they might like to investigate politicians but not charge them.

It is wise to be suspicious of the Royal Conservative Mounted Police, but we have to assume that in this case the Mounties have made the right call for the right reason: that there was no reasonable prospect of convicting Wright. The RCMP consulted with provincial Crown prosecutors in the same office that pressed charges against former Ottawa mayor Larry O’Brien, who we must believe are independent.

And if the Mounties were in the tank for the Tories, would they have pushed this investigation as hard as they have, causing such misery for their political masters?

The way our legal system is set up, we will never know why the Mounties decided not to proceed unless it comes out in court if the force proceeds with charges against Mike Duffy, which is expected in the coming weeks. But it’s up to politicians, not police or judges, to tell us how it is that the prime minister’s chief of staff is able to make a secret payment to a sitting legislator without facing criminal prosecution. (emphasis CyberSmokeBlog)

There is no way that should be legal.

smaher@postmedia.com
@stphnmaher

And then there was this .....
Democracy group wants to lay private charges against Wright

By Stephen Maher
Wednesday, April 23, 2014

A watchdog group is considering laying a private prosecution against Nigel Wright for his secret $90,000 payment to Senator Mike Duffy.

Democracy Watch, a non-partisan advocacy group that pushes for greater accountability, says it will lay charges against Wright unless the RCMP and prosecutors do a better job of explaining why they have decided not to charge the Prime Minister’s former Chief of Staff.

“We don’t even know who the prosecutors that were involved are, the RCMP officials involved in the decision, let alone the reasons,” said Duff Conacher, founder of Democracy Watch.

Last Tuesday, the RCMP announced that “upon completion of the investigation, we have concluded that the evidence gathered does not support criminal charges against Mr. Wright.”

Conacher says the evidence presented in court documents by the RCMP makes that hard to understand.
“Given the clear evidence that Duffy was required to do specific things in return for the payment from Nigel Wright, and given that the laws have never or very rarely been ruled on by the courts, the RCMP or prosecutors must provide a detailed explanation or they will face ongoing questions about what they are covering up and whether they have properly enforced the law in the public interest,” he said.

In documents filed in order to force the production of documents, RCMP investigator Corporal Greg Horton alleged that Wright violated section 119 of the Criminal Code, which forbids anyone from “corruptly” giving or offering money to a parliamentarian “in respect of anything done or omitted or to be done or omitted by that person in their official capacity.”

Former parliamentary Law Clerk Rob Walsh has said that since Wright was not seeking private benefit — like a federal contract or grant — the payment likely doesn’t qualify as “corrupt.”

Conacher, who is a faculty member at the University of Toronto Law School, disagrees with Walsh’s interpretation of “corrupt,” and says the law was designed to prevent even the offer of a payment.

“If you just offer to pay them, then you have violated 119, and thank God it’s written that way,” Conacher said. “Otherwise attempted bribery would be legal. And they could legally take the money and not do the action.”

Conacher has lined up a criminal lawyer to lay an information against Wright with a Justice of the Peace, using evidence from court documents filed by the RCMP. Theoretically, a Justice of the Peace could allow the prosecution to proceed, but in practice, the Provincial Attorney General’s office has the right to block private prosecutions
.
Conacher says he wants the opportunity to ask the RCMP and prosecutors to explain their decisions.

“Hopefully the Justice of the Peace will require them to provide an explanation,” he said. “That’s what we’re looking for.”

Conacher does not trust the independence of the RCMP, and says he believes the decision not to lay charges is a “coverup.”

The RCMP, which is expected to lay charges against Mike Duffy in the weeks ahead, said in an email Tuesday that it can’t explain its decision not to charge Wright.

“We are not in a position to comment on the matter,” said Corporal. Lucy Shorey. “Doing so may jeopardize our ongoing investigation. We can, however, confirm that many witnesses were interviewed and facts were thoroughly examined. Upon completion of the investigation, the evidence gathered did not support the laying of criminal charges against Mr. Wright.”

Wright’s lawyer, Peter Mantas, declined to comment on Tuesday, reiterating a statement from Wright last week, in which he stated his “intention was to secure the repayment of taxpayer funds,” and that he always believed his actions were lawful.

Duffy has also said that he believes his actions were legal, and blamed the Prime Minister’s Office for forcing him to pay back expense payments.

smaher@postmedia.com