All serious allegations are not created equal - Macleans.ca
 

All serious allegations are not created equal


 

The Prime Minister explains the difference between Helena Guergis and Devinder Shory.

“Mr. Shory, this is a civil action, it’s not a criminal matter, it’s a private matter,” Harper told reporters at a commemoration of the liberation of Holland. “Its origin is before he became a member of Parliament and it’s before the court, so I’m not going to comment.”


 

All serious allegations are not created equal

  1. I suppose it was foolish of me to hope that "innocent until proven guilty" would have entered the equation somewhere.

    • That would have turned it back around to Helena though.

    • He is innocent until he's proven guilty.

      But I certainly question his judgment in all of this. From the sounds of the CTV article, he would have either known about it or would have been oblivious to the whole thing… thus not being a very good lawyer.

      So, we've either got a very slick lawyer here…. or someone so incompetent they didn't notice anything fraud related while doing millions of dollars worth of transactions (thank God he's on the Joint Security and Regulations Committee!).

      Innocent, though.

    • What does the criminal presumption of innocence have to do with what is, per the PM, clearly a civil matter?

      • Clearly many people posting on here have no clue about the difference between a criminal and civil proceeding. The fact of the matter is, I can, in a few minutes, make anyone I want a defendant in a civil proceeding. All I have to do is draft up a writ or statement of claim naming them as a defendant, walk down to the local courthouse, pay the filing fee and presto! Joe or Jane Bloggs is now a defendant in a civil action.

        Another thing that non-lawyers tend not to appreciate is that it is a standard plaintiff's strategy to name as many defendants in a civil suit as humanly possible. There are several strategic reasons for this, part of it is just plain old shotgun reasoning (make your target as large as possible in the hopes that you'll hit at least something), and part of it is the "deep pockets" rationale (if a whole bunch of defendants turn out to be impecunious and/or judgment-proof, at least you managed to sue at least one from whom you can actually collect).

  2. So Maxime Bernier was a private matter – he gets to stay in caucus.

    Rahim Jaffer was a private matter, but the sh**t hit the fan and Guergis out.

    Shory – private matter so will get to stay in caucus.

    Hmmmm………double-standard for women with Harper?

    Innocent until proven guilty……..well, she's not been proven guilty of anything yet either.

  3. Or until some Private eye calls him – whichever comes first!
    Sheesh – give the man a break wilya!

    • Actually, the PI's call the CPC office.

  4. I wonder if the Toronto Sun is going to run a cover page story calling Shory a b!tch like they did Guergis.

    • It's the Calgary Sun's turn

    • What was the date of the cover story in which they called her a b|tch?

  5. Conservatives:

    (Occasionally) Tough on (Some) Crime (or Accusations Thereof).

    • Conservatives Stand Up for Victims (or those Conservatives accused of) of White-Collar Crime.
      http://www.conservative.ca/press/other_stories/co

      The link to the press release is on Shory's website which I am not sure is sad, ironic or darkly humorous.

    • Conservatives Stand Up for Victims (or those Conservatives accused of) of White-Collar Crime.
      http://www.conservative.ca/press/other_stories/co

      The link to the press release is on Shory's website which I am not sure is sad, ironic or darkly humorous.

      • Or meaningless because he's innocent ?

    • It's astounding how fuzzy people around here are on the distinction between criminal and civil proceedings.

      • It's astounding how fuzzy people around the Conservative party are on the distinction between legitimate business and scamming banks and taxpayers.

        • You think it's easy to make ethics?

          • You think its easy to respect the rule of law and wait for an actual verdict ?

            Some cats jut aren't Canadian enough and dishonour this country with their comments I guess.

          • You think its easy to respect the rule of law and wait for an actual verdict?

            No, it's clearly complicated. Which is why, I think, people would like to hear the PM explain why in one case he thinks that we should do that, while in the other case, he thinks not.

      • There are criminal proceeding pending against Helena Guergis???

  6. Next the Cons will be smearing BMO….

    • "Next the Cons will be smearing BMO…. "

      BMO? Why do you hateour soldiers?

    • Are there any good seats left on Ticket Master?

  7. And down goes the gender card! I must have been half asleep because I didn't even see it coming. I think you could make many arguments supporting that harper has little use for woman or there opinions but I don't think you can directly make that link based on these 3.

    • Well, that plus the 24 women's groups whose funding was cut this week…in favour of Golf Canada Magazine, etc…

      • Not a gender issue at all. It's a "huh?' issue.

        As in: Unknown info given to RCMP who may or may not be investigating = you're out of the party
        vs
        RCMP publicly investigating MP named in a lawsuit alleging fraud = No comment.

        I can't speak to motive, I just wonder what the hell he's thinking?

      • Ladies golf.

    • "I think you could make many arguments supporting that harper has little use for woman or there opinions but I don't think you can directly make that link based on these 3. "

      Oh Harper has no problem with women as long as they aren't third world country residents looking to terminate an unwanted pregnancy and shut the f**k up!

  8. And it seems quite a few people have no clue about the difference between a civil proceeding and no proceeding at all.. which is currently what is against Helena Guergis.

    • Agreed. I still find that whole Guergis thing really odd and confusing.

    • Which is why, in her case, it was not necessary to respect the rule of law and wait for a verdict. Now I get it.

  9. So, apparently the Conservatives have no problem with a major Canadian bank accusing one of its' MPs with mortgage fraud. Good to know.

    • And that's the problem, isn't it? From this point on (the point being Guergis), how Harper handles his caucus' wrongdoings will be measured against how he treated Guergis.

      He pretty much set the standard.

  10. He's waiting until BMO call in the Guys with the Musical Ride Dee – then of course it will be official – he can then dump Devinder!

  11. No shortage of ethical issues with the Alberta Conservatives, especially.

    Well, harp stuck up for Helena until..he stopped. But saying it's not worth comment because it's "civil and not criminal" is a strange defence for a caucus member.

    • What else can he say at this point? Think about it!

      • I get that perhaps the PM feels the need to stay quiet, but it's the discrepancy that's telling, isn't it? Why stay quiet and do nothing about the one MP, while staying quiet and doing ALL SORTS OF THINGS about the other?

        On the one hand, there is an MP facing open accusations before the courts. If one wants, one can see what the accusations are and how the case is progressing. On the other hand, there is an MP facing unclear accusations in the press, with nothing whatsoever before the courts. In both cases, the Prime Minister refuses to comment. Fine. So far, no problem.

        However, in the case of the MP who's facing unclear accusations that haven't even made their way into a court room yet (and which allegations the PM has kept pretty much secret from everyone… to the point that it's not even clear to the public that anyone, anywhere, is even investigating anything) that MP is forced to resign as a cabinet minister, is kicked out of the party's caucus, and is denied the opportunity to run again under the party's banner. On the other hand, the MP facing known, public allegations, in an open court of law? No problems for him.

        That's not odd?

        If Shory is untouchable because his case involves unproven allegations that are before a civil court, why was Guergis turfed for undisclosed accusations that are not before any court?

        What on Earth does the PM think she may have done???

        • Well put. It occurs to me that if harper presses on to cut all ties between Guergis and the CPC, she and Rahim will have absolutely no reason not to start singing about their meetings with conservative MPs and ministers.

          I'd like to hear that song; I bet Raitt and Paradis are the backup singers.

      • What could Harper do? Well, the same thing he did with Guergis: suspend Shory from the caucus until the legal matter is settled. But that would be being consistent and we know Harper is rarely consistent…

        • My question was "what else can he do AT THIS POINT?"

          I expect he will change his tune later, but right now, As far I as I know he (Shory) hadn't even been served with papers.

          • As far I as I know he (Shory) hadn't even been served with papers.

            Yes, but forget being served with papers, Helena hasn't even been given an explanation as to what she's been accused of yet. We're not even really sure if anyone is even investigating Guergis over anything. So, I don't think one can say that we have to wait until Shory has been officially served with papers before doing anything, while in Guergis' case we can do ALL SORTS OF THINGS TO HER before even the ALLEGATIONS against her have been made public.

          • Re: "I expect he will change his tune later…"

            Yeah, we're all used to Harper changing his tune: on income trusts, economic stimulus packages, releasing documents on the Afghan detainee issue, …. guess it's a bit much to expect our PM to reasonably consistent.

            And re: Shory not being served with papers:

            "Devinder Shory, MP for Calgary Northeast, is one of more than 100 people — including other lawyers, mortgage brokers and even staff at the bank itself — targeted in the suit, filed in Calgary by the bank."

            from:http://tinyurl.com/389q3o7

            Hope the Conservative war-room is paying you well, Claudia…

          • I think you might be misunderstanding the difference in a civil suit between commencing the suit by filing it at the court registry, versus actually serving the defendants with the writ or statement of claim. Those are two different things. What is disclosed in your post is the fact that the former has happened, not the latter.

            It is quite obvious that a lot of people on here do not understand basic civil procedure.

          • Yes, thanks Orson, I understand this was the minimal distinction that Claudia was trying to make. Frankly, I don't think the average voter, who didn't go to law school, really cares about the difference between Shory getting served with a writ or claim and having the suit naming Shory as a defendant filed in a court registry.

            I realize there is a place for this kind of nitpicking in our legal system but the real issue here is the fact that an MP has been accused of fraud by one of our major banks. Is BMO or Shory more credible at this point? He should be removed from caucus until cleared of the fraud charges.

          • The other thing we don't know, without seeing an actual statement of claim, is what specifically Shory is accused of in the lawsuit. BMO is alleging that a fraudulent scheme took place. And it's launched a civil suit to try to recover allegedly ill-gotten gains. But that does not necessarily mean that everyone named as a defendant is accused of fraud. That might be the case. But when you have a very large number of defendants like this, it's also possible that some of them are accused of some things, others are accused of other things. For example, it might be that the bank is alleging that some people actually devised the scheme and knew it was fraudulent, while others were negligent and "ought to have known" that the scheme was fraudulent. It's like the difference between malfeasance and misfeasance, or commission versus omission. It would be interesting to see that statement of claim to see what exactly BMO is saying about his role & behaviour.

          • Again though, we don't know what Guergis has been accused of either, and she's be bounced from Cabinet, bounced from caucus, and denied the opportunity to even run as a Conservative candidate again. Why are serious allegations no one's even heard uttered publicly worthy of more swift and decisive action than serious allegations that are the matter of an ongoing public court case?

            At this point, I'm starting to think the PM handed over accusations to the RCMP that Guergis was involved in the Kennedy assassination. What else could warrant such swift and immediate action under such a complete blanket of utter silence?

        • "suspend Shory from the caucus until the legal matter is settled"

          If you're talking about the civil suit — if it just remains a civil suit — are you aware of the fact that most civil actions in this country, if they go to trial, take years — often many years — to play out? Especially a large, complex civil fraud matter like this. So, I'm not saying they should suspend him or they shouldn't, but the fact is if they did take the position that they're suspending him until this civil fraud case is over, that's a de facto permanent suspension from caucus. Just sayin'.

          • I'd be willing to bet that Guergis thinks that a "de facto permanent suspension from caucus" would be perfectly fair for Shory, given that Guergis was handed an ACTUAL permanent suspension from caucus, and she apparently doesn't even know what she's been accused of yet.

          • Oh, she knows, she is playing the victim card, and I am almost sure she wont be running as an MP again not for the the Tories, Liberals or as an Independent, she is done like toast and she knows it!

            I am not sure yet if I am ok with the PM decisition to don't disclose what she is accused of but I am not in favor of it. And for Shory , BMO has sent this to the RCMP and it might become something more, I guess we have to saty tuned!

  12. I hate to say this, but it looks like Harper's own sexism has come into play. If Helena's name had been Hank she probably would have been treated a bit better. The 'new broom' Conservatives have already picked up quite a few dust bunnies.

  13. Prepare for the gory details of the Pakistani community basically in a conspiracy of silence while this fraud against Canadians went down. Are Canadians the victims of predetory racism by underhanded immigrants? The truth will come out.

    Shory will be ejected from caucus in due time.