• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

The Chuck Cadman Merged Thread

JBG said:
I'm a bankruptcy lawyer. Personal injury lawyers are generally considered to te the "ambulance chaser" type lawyers.

You can check my posts on www.mapleleafweb.com and www.bloggingtories.ca . I"m hardly a troll.

I put all lawyers in the same basket until they prove to be normal 8)

You forgot Free Dominion ;)

You're more than welcome here JBG, just stay within the guidelines. We don't limit membership here according to political bent, but we do limit it if the person chooses to become a trouble maker. Enjoy.
 
Back to the topic at hand:

http://westernstandard.blogs.com/shotgun/2008/03/laffaire-cadman.html

L’Affaire Cadman: A Theory of How it Went Down

After a week of careful reading, I have a pretty good theory as to the exact origins of the Chuck Cadman “bribe.”  It’s going to take a few steps, so read carefully.  Imagine this, if you’d like, as being kind of like the ending of one of those Jerry Bruckheimer crime dramas that the public adores for some bizarre reason – flashing to differently-lit moments from the past.

Let’s begin with an agreed summary of the facts.

1) Before he died, Chuck Cadman told his wife, his daughter, and his son-in-law that he was offered a $1 Million life insurance policy as a “bribe” for him voting to bring down the Liberal Government of Paul Martin.

2) On May 19th, 2005 two individuals, Doug Finley and Tom Flanagan, met with Cadman to discuss obtaining his vote for the no-confidence motion against the Liberal Government.

3) The Prime Minister has stated (and Liberals have seized upon him for stating) that an offer was made to Cadman to, “replace financial considerations he might lose due to an election.”

These are universally agreed-upon facts.  Stripped of context – or twisted by those with a partisan agenda – they can be slanted to sound absolutely damning (well, depending upon your view of the world).  However, once we inject two other very relevant facts into the conversation, a very different picture begins to emerge.

First – no insurance company was going to write a life insurance policy for Chuck Cadman on 19 May.  The premiums for a $1 Million policy for a man with terminal cancer would be in excess of $1 Million, due upon signature of the documents.

Yet, all of the reports of what Cadman said have been very specific.  He claimed that he was offered a life insurance policy as a “bribe.”  He – and every other statement made – has been very particular on that point.  This makes no sense at all.  The whole idea of a bribe is that it should be untraceable.  Yet, as anyone with even a passing familiarity with insurance ought to know, a life insurance policy – especially one with odd conditions – is the exact opposite of that.  It must be thoroughly documented.  In triplicate.  Backed up on tape drives.  With multiple signatures.  Bribing someone with an insurance policy would be the white collar equivalent of the criminal trying to run away from the police in the night wearing those sneakers with blinking red lights.

The second fact – about which the media and the government have been oddly silent – is this: there was a large and pre-existing insurance policy which was in play at the time.

As a Member of Parliament, Cadman would have been entitled to a death benefit equal to two years salary – for an MP an amount which would be in the range of over $300,000.  Indeed, since Cadman eventually did die in office, it stands to reason that his family did receive that money.  It was remarked upon at the time as a reason why Cadman, knowing he didn’t have long to live, might have voted to preserve a government he had so long opposed – to keep that death benefit for his family.

Ralph Goodale has suggested that perhaps the offer to Cadman was to cover the difference between what he’d get in death benefits as an MP or as a private citizen.  I think that, at the very least, he’s closer to the truth than most others have been.  But I have a slightly different theory.

Commentators have dismissed as “absurd” the notion that what the Tories offered Cadman was help in running a campaign for re-election.  I think that’s probably a mistake – since I believe that it was exactly what Cadman was offered and what he considered to be a “bribe.”

Remember, even in 2005, there were rumours circulating to the effect that Cadman would vote with the Liberals in order to preserve his Parliamentary life insurance.  It’s not unthinkable – it’s likely, even, that those rumours would have gotten back to Cadman.  It’s also likely – if I heard about them in Coquitlam, British Columbia – that they were all over Ottawa.

Hearing this, Cadman is approached a receives an offer: if he votes to bring down the government, the Tories will ensure that his is easily re-elected to Parliament so that, when the inevitable arrives, he will be able to collect his Parliamentary Death Benefits in full.

Think about it for a second.  This is the one way in which everything that everyone has been saying can be taken as basically true.  The Tories offer Cadman, as they’ve claimed, election assistance in order to “replace financial considerations he might lose due to an election.”  Cadman, on the other hand, is deeply offended by the notion that he would vote to retain a corrupt government in power in order to collect on his Parliamentary life insurance and goes around telling his family that he was offered a life insurance policy as a “bribe.”  However, he makes no public statement to this effect for the simple reason that to do so would inject into the public sphere the idea that his vote in favour of the Liberals was a vote to retain his own life insurance benefits.

It all makes sense.  The original offer.  Cadman’s rejection of it.  The later statements made by multiple individuals.  Then, once the story falls into the hands of other people, it’s transformed into a weapon to be used against the government. 
 
 
recceguy said:
I put all lawyers in the same basket until they prove to be normal 8)

May your panzer develop a severe case of rust, and, Allah willing, you be forced onto trails clouded with old camel excrement. 
 
whiskey601 said:
May your panzer develop a severe case of rust, and, Allah willing, you be forced onto trails clouded with old camel excrement.   

But you proved to be normal in Guelph 8) ;D
 
recceguy said:
But you proved to be normal in Guelph 8) ;D

Uhm, that was Kitchener, but with the wonderful directional sense your crew showed that night, I guess it woldn't have made a difference. :-*
 
Of course there are certain members on this thread who would be shocked....shocked to hear this  >:D I await the media circus and ethics committee probe into these events.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080310.wtrusts10/BNStory/National/home

Mounties were set to charge official in income trust leak
But court ruling gutted secrets law

DANIEL LEBLANC AND STEVEN CHASE

From Monday's Globe and Mail

March 10, 2008 at 3:18 AM EDT

OTTAWA — The RCMP was preparing to charge at least one federal official for leaking Liberal government plans for income trusts in 2005 but was foiled when the official secrets law was gutted by an unrelated court ruling, documents and sources say.

This new information appears to undermine the former Liberal government's assurances that there was no advance leak of their market-moving decision to forgo a tax on trusts in late November of 2005.

The Liberals were sideswiped during the last federal election when the RCMP announced a politically explosive probe into allegations of a leak midway through the campaign. The party claimed vindication when the investigation concluded in February of 2007 without laying any charges for leaking information.

In the end, the Mounties only charged Finance bureaucrat Serge Nadeau under the Criminal Code with breach of trust for allegedly purchasing securities for his own benefit using advance knowledge of the government's trust plans.

However, a draft internal RCMP communications plan from August, 2006, showed they also planned to charge at least one other person – under the Security of Information Act.

At the time, the act included strict provisions that criminalized the leaking of federal secrets.

“The [two sets of] charges relate to the inappropriate dissemination of information and the use to which that was put. The charges differ because of differences in what we believe the individuals who are charged did with the information they had,” the document obtained by The Globe and Mail said.

The RCMP communications plan does not indicate whether the person they were preparing to charge for breaching official secrets law was a civil servant or Liberal political staffer.

A federal official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said at least one person can be thankful that the Ontario Superior Court struck down the provisions against leaks in the Security of Information Act on October 19, 2006.

“That launched a series of unfortunate events or, rather, unfortunate for some and fortunate for others,” the official said.

In a landmark ruling, Madam Justice Lynn Ratushny of the Ontario Superior Court concluded that the provisions against leaking government data in the Security of Information Act were unacceptably broad and vague. The judge ruled against the RCMP seizure of documents belonging to Ottawa Citizen reporter Juliet O'Neill over articles written with leaked government information.

Given that the government didn't appeal that ruling, University of Ottawa law professor David Paciocco said, the provisions against leaking secret information were effectively “struck down.”

The controversy over the Liberals' handling of changes to income trust policy began in late November of 2005. At about 5:45 pm on Nov. 23, then-finance-minister Ralph Goodale revealed that the Liberals would not impose a tax on income trusts – a measure they had contemplated.

But trading of income trusts and related stocks spiked in the hours before the policy announcement, sparking allegations that Ottawa's decision had been leaked in advance.


The RCMP launched a criminal probe about a month later, news of which likely helped defeat the Liberals in the January of 2006 election.

The investigation initially looked at potential breaches of the Security of Information Act and the RCMP only took an interest in Mr. Nadeau's alleged trading after later receiving information from Quebec's securities regulator.

RCMP documents released by the court after Mr. Nadeau was charged last year show that the scope of the Mounties' investigation extended far beyond the civil servant's alleged trading activity.

Transcripts of RCMP interviews with Mr. Goodale and his staff show that, among other things, the Mounties scrutinized consultations between his office and private-sector investment players in the days and hours leading up to the trust announcement.

Mr. Goodale told the Mounties in a March of 2006 interview that two of his staff were tasked in the days before the announcement to “get some private-sector feedback” on the idea of a tax on trusts and other options.

He told the RCMP that his staff later assured him they didn't disclose or signal which option the government would ultimately take.

“They would know having worked through budgets and other very confidential matters within the Department of Finance that there is no definitive information that is to be disclosed,” Mr. Goodale told the RCMP.

Mr. Goodale has repeatedly emphasized he made inquiries among his staff and department and was satisfied that no advance notice was given.

The RCMP also quizzed Mr. Goodale about former Liberal cabinet minister Scott Brison, who'd already admitted to e-mailing a bank official days before the trust announcement, saying the recipient would be happy with the outcome. The Mounties declined any comment on the 2006 internal communications plan.

Mr. Nadeau's legal team said he will be pleading not guilty to the charge of breach of trust and that a preliminary inquiry is set to proceed in June.

The RCMP communication lines were released under the Access to Information Act to researcher Ken Rubin.
 
Bruce Monkhouse said:
Uhm, that was Kitchener, but with the wonderful directional sense your crew showed that night, I guess it woldn't have made a difference. :-*

I'm glad you corrected this "Guelph" tidbit -- I was beginning to think that I was losing it because I don't remember him being amongst the rowdy bunch of us in Guelph. Needless --- I know at least one star from Guelph who proved to be "not normal".
 
Of course there are certain members on this thread who would be shocked....shocked to hear this  Evil I await the media circus and ethics committee probe into these events.

Let's wait and see who gets charged-if anyone.  Until now, despite the opposition allegations of corruption, no Liberal MP has been charged.  Nevertheless, Ralph Goodale's reputation was significantly damaged, to the extent that his leadership ambitions were precluded, at least for the last iteration, and the subsequent investigation found no evidence of wrong doing on his part.  Does he sue the RCMP for sending a leader to an NDP MP for very little reason during an election campaign, something almost unprecedented, or does he sue the opposition for libeling him or demand an apology or complain of a jihad?  No.  He takes it like a man and represents the folks in his Saskatchewan riding.  I think we need more politicians like this.  It is about bloody time the Liberals chose a leader from the west.   
 
stegner said:
Let's wait and see who gets charged-if anyone.  Until now, despite the opposition allegations of corruption, no Liberal MP has been charged.  Nevertheless, Ralph Goodale's reputation was significantly damaged, to the extent that his leadership ambitions were precluded, at least for the last iteration, and the subsequent investigation found no evidence of wrong doing on his part.  Does he sue the RCMP for sending a leader to an NDP MP for very little reason during an election campaign, something almost unprecedented, or does he sue the opposition for libeling him or demand an apology or complain of a jihad?  No.  He takes it like a man and represents the folks in his Saskatchewan riding.   I think we need more politicians like this.   It is about bloody time the Liberals chose a leader from the west.     

Hmmm, did you even bother to read the article?? I guess not as it clearly states exactly WHY no one was/will be charged in the Liberal Income Trust Scandal.

Precisely because the Liberal Government of the day did NOT appeal the judge's decision ... effectively striking down the Law under which they COULD be charged (and the law, co-incidently, under which they were ABOUT to be charged). Mind you, were I the governing Liberals at that time ... I wouldn't have appealed it either were I aware that charges UNDER that law were about to be laid, thus the charges would slide away unbeknowst to the Canadian public such as you and I who were probably buying up those shares being sold off beforehand.  ;)

So, that's my take on it after reading the below ... is it possible that the Liberals governing at the time had an alterior motive for their "Non-appeal" of the judge's decision?? That being that they were aware charges were about to be laid, but that those charges would be moot and non-layable if they simply let the ruling by the judge stand and thus the law struck down?? Convince me otherwise (Geez, I'd love to hear the names of the one the charges were "pending" against, it may itself certainly be 'telling').  ;)
 
However, a draft internal RCMP communications plan from August, 2006, showed they also planned to charge at least one other person – under the Security of Information Act.

So, that's my take on it after reading the below ... is it possible that the Liberals governing at the time had an alterior motive for their "Non-appeal" of the judge's decision?? That being that they were aware charges were about to be laid, but that those charges would be moot and non-layable if they simply let the ruling by the judge stand and thus the law struck down?? Convince me otherwise (Geez, I'd love to hear the names of the one the charges were "pending" against, it may itself certainly be 'telling').  Wink

Armyvern- I don't think the Liberals were governing in August 2006.  In fact, I am pretty sure of it given Harper was elected on January 23, 2006.  Thus, it was not the Liberals who did not appeal it-it was the Conservatives.    You accusations of ulterior motives have no grounds.  Nevertheless, if the law is too vague or nebulous there is a legal doctrine that it may be struck down.  Those darn politicians need to take more care when they are drafting legislation.  A Triple-E Senate would perhaps help this. 
 
There was no ulterior motive or conspiracy: the "unrelated ruling" was to do with the Maher Arar case ... the Security of Information Act (Chretien) was deemed to be insufficiently specific WRT what powers Gov't (in this case the RCMP) had under it.  The RCMP had been under a lot of pressure from the Martin gov't to clear-up leaks, and had obtained a warrant to search a (Ottawa Citizen?) reporter's home.  It was a Freedom of the Press vs. Big Brother, and I suspect that at the time of the decision, the (new, Conservative) gov't agreed witht the judge's decision ... IIRC, Vic Toews said that they were going to generate smaller, more specific, pieces of legislation.

In short, WRT to Thucydides' article it appears that the Liberals (Brison, Goodale?) just got lucky, that's all.
 
Back on topic: the PM has filed a $2.5 million lawsuit against the Liberals. Seems to me the Liberals are so desperate to find dirt on the Conservatives and attack Harper in particular they have lost all ability to discern a real scandal from a fabricated one. It's going to bite them in the ass hard.

PM files $2.5M libel suit against Liberals in Cadman affair
 
If the PM had something to hide, he wouldn't risk taking the Liberals to court, where everything is laid out for all to see.

Say what you want in the House, but outside of it be prepared to pay the consequenses.

I think the Liberals stepped in the doodoo big time.
 
RangerRay said:
If the PM had something to hide, he wouldn't risk taking the Liberals to court, where everything is laid out for all to see.

Say what you want in the House, but outside of it be prepared to pay the consequenses.

I think the Liberals stepped in the doodoo big time.

By law, because he was accused of comitting a crime, the PM has to do nothing. The onus is on the accuser to prove the truth of their comment. This is where the Liberals have made their mistake. They have to prove he did wrong, not the other way around. This is the only part of defamation law that require the accuser to furnish proof.
 
I'm getting a kick out of Dion and company yelling about the PM being a bully because he's sueing them for libel. They know the rules and should learn to abide by them. If you libel or slander someone outside the House of Commons without proof you are open to a lawsuit, whether they are the PM or Joe Bloggins. If you libel someone inside the House and use un-Parliamentary language you get thrown out of the House to cool off for a while and given a time out to consider your unwise choice of words.
 
But, Dion and Co. did not libel Harper outside the House that is why Harper dropped them from the suit- Harper knew in this respect that he did not have a pot to piss in.  Mr. Harper have fun going after the Liberal Party though and let's hope they don't counter-sue for abuse of process.   
 
So you are saying the Liberal Party does things without Mr. Dion knowing about it??.....................sounds like a mutiny.
 
What it seems like to me is that the Liberals sense of entitlement has gotten the better of them.  When Harper was in opposition he took a principaled and generally beneficial approach to opposing the government.  The Liberals as opposition have the Chi and their Karma out of whack, the universe is in turmoil because they aren't in charge.
The orbits have changed and the planet is overheating because they are on the wrong side of the house.  My opinion of course, but It's not hard to imagine Dion as a petulent child.  ;D
 
Back
Top