just how far will harper go to quel dissent?????

[Bill Higgs]

This whole robocop thing really does need to be exposed,  But this 250,000 move by Harper is so obviously an attempt to get the other party to drop the case, He should be charged with impeding the court system.

Seriously his guy moves closer to the "great leader" every day.

 

And to those who ffind things like this distressing I would simply say, Burying our head in the sand like an ostrich has brought us to this point, either continue on burying your head and see what the future holds (things can only get worse). Or open your eyes, stand up and DEMAND better from our politicians.

 

• 

By CBC News, cbc.ca, Updated: August-09-12 12:55 PM

Conservatives ask court challengers for $250K deposit

•  

A lawyer for seven Conservative MPs whose 2011 election wins are being challenged in Federal Court wants to see a $250,000 deposit on costs in case the challengers lose.

Nine Canadians in seven ridings have mounted the court challenge, backed by the Council of Canadians, a regular foe of the Conservative government.

In an email sent to supporters, Council of Canadians chair Maude Barlow says lawyers for the seven Conservative MPs have asked the challengers to put up $250,000 to cover the MPs' costs in case the challengers lose.

The Council of Canadians is backing nine voters who say there is evidence of voter suppression in the last federal election and that the election result should be overturned in ridings where the result was close. They say a pattern of misleading calls, both live and automated robocalls, shows a co-ordinated effort to keep Canadians away from the polls on May 2, 2011.

The news comes out of a case conference Wednesday during which the parties also discussed a request by the applicants for Elections Canada to release more information about its investigation into the calls. The election agency refused to provide the information and asked the court to decide whether it should be handed over.

"While these relentless obstructions by the Conservative Party continue to drive up legal costs, they will not dampen our resolve to defend democracy and restore voters' rights," Barlow said in the email.

The motion will be heard in Federal Court on Sept. 18, Barlow said. The court is also expected to decide that day whether Elections Canada should provide the additional information requested by Steven Shrybman, the lawyer for the applicants.

The applicants have already won a small victory in court when it ruled the case could go ahead despite a motion to dismiss filed by the Conservative MPs. The Conservatives said the case was filed too late, didn't back up the claims of the applicants and had no chance of success. The applicants responded that they brought the case as soon as they became aware of the possibility of a co-ordinated approach to the misleading phone calls.

This isn't the first court case as a result of the 2011 election. Voters in Etobicoke Centre are waiting for the Supreme Court to decide whether they should go back to the polls after an Ontario Superior Court justice found in favour of former Liberal MP Borys Wrzesnewskyj, who challenged Conservative MP Ted Opitz's win because some polling stations were missing the paper work they needed to prove those who voted were qualified to do so.

 

[jud...@gmail.com]

Uhuh.

Sent wirelessly from my BlackBerry device on the Bell network.
Envoyé sans fil par mon terminal mobile BlackBerry sur le réseau de Bell.

---

From: "Bill Higgs" <bill...@xplornet.com>

Sender: odspfi...@googlegroups.com

Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2012 14:01:19 -0400

To: <Undisclosed-Recipient>

ReplyTo: odspfi...@googlegroups.com

Subject: [odspfireside: 47907 ] just how far will harper go to quel dissent?????

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "ODSP Fireside" group.
To change email delivery, nickname or unsubscribe from this group visit: http://groups.google.ca/group/odspfireside/subscribe?hl=en
To post to this group via email, send email to odspfi...@googlegroups.com

[Bear Bear]

We, thankfully, have a loser pay system in Canada. And asking for an up front guarantee from the one who brings the suit is not unusual. It stops frivolous law suits.

Unless you want the nutty American system.

Bear

--

[abrowne]

Bear,

It depends on what you define as frivolous.  This was already brought for

what is known as a summary judgment, which is the protection our courts

provide against frivolous and vexatious lawsuits and the judge hearing it

did not feel the case was frivolous or without merit, so it moved to a

hearing on its merits.  The $250,000 is a form of obfuscation and an

attempt to buy themselves out of trouble, not an honest defence.  If the

Conservatives had nothing to hide, why did they gag Elections Canada,

and put a motion forward prohibiting Elections Canada's own evidence

to be brought to this particular hearing?

Angela

[Bear Bear]

HI Angela.

You make to conflicting argument. The same judge that allowed the case to go forward also allowed the, I forget the legal word, case to make the people bringing the case to show they had the resources to pay if they lost.

It is an interesting and somewhat rare case. But not with out precedent.

The law is there to stop people from going after people, companies, or others from bringing nuisance suits.

I may think a suit has merit. But, if the court disagrees and gives a judgement against me. I must pay for bringing the suit. And it is a legitimate concern of the people I am suing to know if I can pay. Before they spend money on legal fees.

Bear

[Mike Girdlestone]

Hey, I'll be honest & brave enough to say it: many the Conservatives violated election laws during the last election with the Robocall scheme, and they caught and now the the Harper government is pulling out all the stops to avoid dealing with the aftermath, such as by elections. What do except from a government that refuses to listen to its won citizens?! Sound a lot like another politician whose number became with the letter H? Go on, take a guess.

mpstone33

--

[abrowne]

Bear,

That judge did not make that decision; the motion was filed, a

hearing on THAT matter will be put forward September 18, 2012,

and then a decision will be made by either that judge or a different

one.  This motion is just another obfuscation by the Conservatives,

trying to see if they can "win" just by the other party not having

the same amount of money their back up billionnaires are handing

them to fight these things.  How much money one has should not

be the determinant of who gets justice or who gets heard, but only

the merits of the particular case.

 

In fact, I am involved in a number of fundraisers to make sure the

Council of Canadians has their legal bills paid and then some,

because I for one do not like the Conservatives and what they have

been doing to this country.  We are going to be getting private

health care by stealth in this country, as well as losing even more

social programs, including those at the provincial level ... not

because the Conservatives are saying NO to the provinces, but

because they are tightening their grip on equalization, health care

transfers and now their "hands off" approach is encouraging

provinces to take up private health care because their (federal)

efforts have literally starved the system.  We used to get fifty

cent dollars for every health care and social service dollar in

the provinces.  For health care, it is now about twenty four cents,

and for social services, much less than that ...

 

History IS repeating itself.  Read the history about how Hitler

obtained his majority in Germany and people will find too many

parallels happening right here in Canada.

[Bill Higgs]

Its hard enought to go to court when one cant afford legal representation, but to be intimidated with being told, if you lose you gotta pay the other parties overinflated bill

Is enough to make many who have valid cases too afraid to even try.

 

In other words if you have limited resource, you cant go up against an opponent who jhas unlimited income.

Justice is for the wealthy these days.

 

Bill

[Bill Higgs]

We have yet to see just how far he will go to maintain his grasp on power.

I fully expect it to be illegal to protest against his regime, after all he illegally arrested and detained people at the G20 meeting and got away with it, so why should he stop now?

 

I have a novel idea,

The government enacted the "do Not Call" list and then exempted political calls from the list.

Simple solution just change the do not call rules so that people can opt out of politcal calls,  if everyone opted out,. no mor future robocall scandals LOL

 

Bill

 

 

 

By The Canadian Press, cbc.ca, Updated: August-21-12 10:31 PM

Robocall complaints rise to 1,394 'specific occurrences'

•  

The number of complaints about fraudulent or misleading telephone calls in last year's federal election has almost doubled, according to court documents filed by the Commissioner of Canada Elections.

By mid-August, Elections Canada had received 1,394 complaints "alleging specific occurrences" in 234 of Canada's 308 federal ridings, the lawyer for the elections watchdog says.

That's up from the more than 700 specific complaints that the commissioner's office publicly reported in March to clear the air after an online campaign attracted 30,000-plus expressions of concern by Canadians.

But the elections commissioner, in his latest court offering, declined to respond to a number of other disclosure requests by advocacy group the Council of Canadians.

"Like all law enforcement agencies, the Office of the Commissioner treats complaints and the office's ongoing investigations in confidence and discloses neither the information collected nor the source of the information, except as necessary for law enforcement purposes," wrote John Laskin, representing the commissioner's office.

The letter goes on to "emphasize" that the total number of complaints and ridings "does not provide any indication of whether complaints are ... substantiated, or whether complainants reported their voting behaviour to have been affected."

Allegations of fraudulent and misleading phone calls designed to suppress the vote of targeted constituents during the May 2, 2011, election are currently being investigated by the commissioner's office.

Marc Mayrand, the former elections commissioner who retired in June, said this spring that the investigation "touches on the fundamentals of our democracy, how we elect our representatives. I can't see anything more serious than that in our democratic institutions."

The investigation has centred on Guelph, Ont., where a number of residents say they received automated phone calls from someone claiming to be from Elections Canada and directing them to a wrong or non-existent polling station.

While the misleading phone calls appeared to target non-Conservative voters, the Conservative party insists it had no involvement in any such scheme and says it is assisting the investigation.

Court challenge seeks to overturn results

The Council of Canadians, a nationalist, left-leaning advocacy organization, is leading a parallel court battle to contest the election results in seven closely-fought ridings, arguing that misleading calls to voters may have skewed the outcome.

The group wanted specific information from Elections Canada on the location and nature of robocall complaints, and how many separate investigations are underway, in order to bolster its case.

New elections commissioner Yves Cote submitted a lengthy certificate to the Federal Court dated Aug. 17, declining to release much of the requested information.

Cote cited four main reasons for his non-disclosure:

- Protecting the integrity of an ongoing investigation.

- Maintaining public confidence in the fairness of the electoral process and enforcement of the elections rules.

- Protecting the presumption of innocence.

- Ensuring the commissioner remains impartial and non-partisan, and is perceived as such by the public.

"It's important to know (the number of complaints) has increased," Maude Barlow, the chairperson of the Council of Canadians, said in an interview. "That, I think, makes our case stronger and the concern of Canadians stronger."

But Barlow wasn't buying Elections Canada's reasons for not disclosing more, saying the information should be public.

"We we would like to know what ridings, we would like to know the actual nature of the complaints. We feel that people have a right to the kinds of details that simply are not there."

The council's case is to be heard in Federal Court in December.

 

----- Original Message -----

From: Mike Girdlestone

To: odspfi...@googlegroups.com