Paging Pierre Poutine in Thunder Bay!"

Good Day Readers:

Know what was worse than a robocall? A voice mail message from "The Duffinator!" God it was awful listening to his bilingual fractured French extolling the virtues of Shelly "Scott Brison called me stupid!" Glover prior to the last election. Any thought we might have had of voting for her immediately dissipated after that.

Sincerely,
Clare L. Pieuk

Cool water!

Charge your iPhone With Water

MFC has built a portable fuel cell called Powertrekk, which recharges a smartphone with just water. MFC's Chief Executive Bjoern Westerholm shows WSJ how he $225 charger works.

"But, but Your Lordship please don't shoot me ....."

North Georgia judge investigated for brandishing fun in court

By Bill Rankin

Saturday, February 25, 2012

A North Georgia judge is being investigated for pulling out a handgun during a hearing this week as a woman testified about being an assault victim.

Judge David E. Barrett

County Superior Court Judge David E. Barrett pulled out his pistol Wednesday not in anger, but out of frustration and to make "a poor rhetorical point," District Attorney Jeff Langley said Saturday. Langley, who was in the courtroom when it happened, said the Judicial Qualifications Commission has launched an investigation of the judge.

"It was totally inappropriate conduct for a courtroom," Langley said. The district attorney said that he approached the bench after Barrett pulled out his gun and told the judge to put his pistol away. The judge did so and the hearing continued, Langley said.

Barrett, chief judge of the Enotah Judicial Circuit, did not immediately respond to emails or to phone calls left at his office Saturday. Under Georgia law, judges are allowed to carry a concealed weapon on the bench, but it is a crime to point a pistol at another person when there is no justification to do so.

Jeff Davis, director of the Judicial Qualifications Commission, said Saturday he could neither confirm nor deny whether the judicial watchdog agency was investigating Barrett.

The bizarre conduct occurred Wednesday during a bond hearing and a request for a temporary protective order against Scott Sugarman, a former Hall County sheriff's deputy who was recently arrested on a number of charges, including rape and aggravated assault with a handgun. Sugarman has pleaded not guilty.

The woman who filed the charges against Sugarman was on the witness stand and had testified Sugarman had abused her and, on one occasion, had put a gun to her head. During the latter part of her testimony, the woman was not being cooperative, Langley said.

Barrett told the woman she was "killing her case" and pulled out his gun and, feigning to offer it to her, said, "You might as well shoot your lawyer," Langley said.

At that point, Langley said, he approached the bench and told the judge to put the gun away.

The woman's lawyer, Andrea Conarro of Dahlonega, on Saturday described the scene, as Barrett swept the pistol across the courtroom, "as one of those slow motion kind of events."

"Later, as it sunk in, I was upset, and I felt like a tragedy had been created," she said, adding that by "tragedy" she meant what could happen to Barrett because of what he did.

Both Conarro and Langley said the woman, whose name is being withheld because The Atlanta Journal-Constitution does not disclose the names of victims of alleged sexual assault, did not appear to be traumatized.

"My client thought it was a test, that he was trying to see how she would respond, like it was a credibility determination," Conarro said.

Said Langley, "When it happened, I objected and sought to take control of the situation and terminate that conduct immediately."

Boing! Boing! Boing!

Fraudulent calls a sophisticated attempt to disrupt an election

Steven Chase and Daniel Leblanc
Ottawa and Edmonton
Wednesday, February 29, 2012

Prime Minister Stephen Harper greets supporters during an election campaign really in Guelph on April 4, 2011. (Chris Wattie/Reuters)

A political operative hiding behind the alias “Pierre Poutine” engineered an off-the-books scheme using robo-calls and a disposable cellphone to discourage opposition voters from casting ballots in an Ontario riding last May, Elections Canada alleges.
(Did you receive an election-day robo-call? We want to hear from you.)


More related to this story

• Fraudulent call was ‘a low-down trick,’ Guelph voter says
• ‘Pierre Poutine’ used prepaid cellphone to dupe voters
• In the robo-call affair, time and the law favour the Tories

Video

The Globe's John Ibbitson on the robo-call controversy

Media

Recording of fake Elections Canada robo-call

Video

Commons supports robo-call probe

Documents retrieved from an Edmonton court for the first time describe in detail exactly how Canada’s elections watchdog believes someone linked to the Conservative campaign in Guelph, Ontario tried to suppress the vote for rival candidates on May 2, 2011. This comes as opposition parties accuse the Tories of election misdeeds across a broader array of ridings – about 30 throughout the country.

The allegations laid out by Elections Canada paint a picture of a sophisticated dirty tricks campaign, one that is likely to damage the governing Conservatives despite their insistence that any wrongdoing was the work of a rogue political aide.

Former chief electoral officer Jean-Pierre Kingsley said he has never encountered a vote suppression scheme on the scale of the one alleged in Guelph.

“Absolutely not, I can say that honestly,” he said in an interview. “This is the first I hear of something of this scope.”

Late Tuesday, Michael Sona, the former Conservative staffer linked to the controversy, broke his silence to protest his innocence and say he hoped the “real guilty party” would be found.

Elections Canada has been investigating complaints of voters being called and misdirected to the wrong polling station in the last federal election, and their probe has centred on Guelph. The Liberals ultimately held the riding in the May 2 ballot and even increased their margin of victory.

But Elections Canada alleges somebody in the campaign of Conservative candidate Marty Burke had a “customer relationship” with RackNine, an Alberta firm that distributes telephone messages and was used in the attempt to misdirect voters in Guelph. It says in court filings it believes this relationship “related to the misleading calls made to Guelph area electors.”

Agency investigator Allan Mathews says in court documents that he found Guelph Conservative campaign phones called RackNine 30 times during the election campaign, but he nevertheless found no Burke campaign receipts for payments to the Alberta company.

“I believe the individuals(s) behind the misleading calls … would not want a local campaign to be identified with the calls, as they amount to improper activity, and consequently I believe that any expense would likely be omitted from a campaign return,” Mr. Mathews said in the court filing.

The Elections Canada probe found three Burke campaign phones dialled RackNine during the campaign.
However, Andrew Prescott, deputy campaign manager for Mr. Burke’s campaign, said Tuesday he used the phones to call RackNine for legitimate reasons. He said RackNine was used in part to deliver messages countering a series of fraudulent calls Conservative voters received telling them polls were closing early.
He said the reason RackNine didn’t show up on Mr. Burke’s expense forms was because he was working for the campaign as an individual contractor and was not billing Mr. Burke for the cost of the calls. Mr. Prescott said he did nothing wrong and is cooperating with the Elections Canada probe.

Elections Canada’s Mr. Mathews said in court filings he believes the Guelph robo-calls are linked to a Virgin Mobile disposable cellphone registered to the improbably named “Pierre Poutine of Separatist Street” in Joliette, Que. The inspiration for this alias is unknown, but there is a Pierre’s Poutine restaurant in Guelph.
Disposable phones – also called “burner phones” – are prepaid phones with lax registration requirements.
The alias Pierre Poutine hid the identity of whomever owned the cellphone, which was only activated in late April of 2011.

NDP MP Pat Martin pounced on the use of a disposable phone, saying it shows how untoward the scheme was. “Only dope dealers and Hells Angels and Tony Soprano use burner cellphones,” he said.

It turned out to be an exceptionally important piece of evidence for Elections Canada.
Guelph voters with call display reported seeing its number – 450-760-7746 – show up when they received the robo-calls misdirecting them to an exceptionally busy polling station.

In reality, the automated calls originated from RackNine in Alberta. Elections Canada alleges, however, that a tactic known as “spoofing” was used to instead make it seem as if they were coming from this 450-area code cellphone.

The agency suggests the robo-calls caused chaos on election day as an estimated 150 to 200 voters showed up at the wrong polling station and were told they had to vote elsewhere. A polling official at the station in the Old Quebec Street Mall described for Elections Canada how “some electors just stormed out of the polling station” while others “ripped up their [voter identification cards] which suggested they had no longer any intention of casting a ballot.”

Elections Canada makes it clear in court filings that it does not believe the robo-calling firm, RackNine, engaged in suspicious activity.

Separately, Mr. Sona – who worked on the Burke campaign in Guelph – told CTV News that his hands were clean.

“I have remained silent to this point with the hope that the real guilty party would be apprehended,” Michael Sona said.

“I had no involvement in the fraudulent phone calls, which also targeted our supporters as can be attested to by our local campaign team and phone records.”

He said he only resigned as an aide to Mississauga MP Eve Adams last week because allegations made it impossible to do his job.

Mr. Sona made news during the 2011 election campaign when he publicly objected to a polling station at the University of Guelph. The director of communications for Mr. Burke, Mr. Sona burst into the front foyer of the campus University Centre declaring the polling station illegal, according to accounts from students who described themselves as non-partisan.

With a report from Kim Mackrael in Toronto

More related to this story

• We want to hear from you: Did you receive an election-day robo-call?
• Former Tory staffer urges ‘guilty party’ to take blame in robo-call controversy
• Tories throw ministerial responsibility under robo-call bus
• Conservatives bank on robo-call storm blowing itself out
• Tories try to contain dirty-tricks damage to lone Ontario riding
• Mike Duffy points finger at ‘third parties’ amid election-mischief furor
• Harper ignores opposition calls for by-elections in ridings hit by robo-calls
• Tories want answers on voter suppression too

Classic textbook House of Commons pot calling kettle black?

'Pierre Poutine' fingered in Elections Canada robo-call probe



Pierre Lachapelle is the owner of Pierre's Poutne restaurant in downtown Geulph. His restaruant is near the phony voting site where automated phone calls steered voters.

By Bruce Champion-Smith

A disposable cellphone behind the robe-calls to Guelph voters in the 2011 election was registered to Pierre Poutine, of Separatist Street in Joliette, Quebec.

"Commissioner Paulson, arrest that man immediately without a warrant he doesn't support C-30 so he's a child pornographer!"

Poll suggests Canadians support online surveillance bill - to a point

By Sarah Schmidt, Postmedia News
Tuesday, February 28, 2012

The federal government's online surveillance bill triggered an anonymous online campaign that aired details of Public Safety Minister Vic Toews messy divorce. (Photograph Chris Wattie, Ruuters/Postmedia News)

OTTAWA — A majority of Canadians say they support the federal government's proposed online surveillance bill, but that support fizzles when it comes to the most contentious parts of the legislation, a new poll suggests.


The national survey by Ipsos Reid, conducted exclusively for Postmedia News and Global TV amid a political uproar over the reach of the bill, found 56 per cent of respondents said they support it as it stands, with 15 per cent saying they "strongly support" it compared to 41 per cent who "somewhat support" the bill.


But just one quarter (23 per cent) would support legislation that enables police to access their subscriber information, such as their name and address, without a warrant, with only seven per cent strongly supporting this provision compared to 53 per cent who strongly oppose the warrantless access to basic subscriber info.


And only one in three (35 per cent) would support legislation that makes it legal for Internet Service Providers to retain personal subscriber data, such as emails and web surfing activities, so that police may access them at a future date.


These two provisions are currently in the proposed legislation, and it is unclear if the Conservative government will support amendments to these and other provisions expected to the tabled by the Opposition. One of their primary complaints is that Bill C-30 overreaches and invades the privacy of law-abiding citizens by allowing police to build a detailed profile of people using their digital footprint — without any judicial oversight


"I love these kinds of polls because they have people who believe in the principle of it but are confused and a little troubled by the possible implications of it," John Wright, senior vice-president of Ipsos Reid, said in an interview Tuesday.


"It's a very Canadian response to things, where you agree with the thrust of it but you think there's probably better ways to achieve it."


Conservatives continue to defend the bill in the House of Commons, even as Prime Minister Stephen Harper has signalled the government is open to amendments in the face of fierce opposition that includes Canada's privacy commissioners.


The bill also triggered an anonymous online campaign that aired details of Public Safety Minister Vic Toews' messy divorce. After the Vikileaks30 Twitter account went viral, an Ottawa Citizen investigation traced the account to a House of Commons IP address. The subsequent investigation by the Speaker's Office identified a Liberal staffer as the culprit.


Adam Carroll resigned Monday, followed by an apology by interim Liberal leader Bob Rae. The Conservatives also had to apologize to the New Democrats after they falsely accused the NDP of the Vikileaks30 "dirty tricks."


The bill will now be studied under these heightened tensions by a parliamentary committee before the House of Commons votes to support the bill in principle.


In addition to name, address, phone number, email address and name of service provider identifier, the proposed bill would require companies to hand over the Internet protocol address. The opposition parties and Canada's privacy commissioners say this will allow police to build a detailed profile of people, including law-abiding citizens, using their digital footprint — without any judicial oversight.


The proposed bill would also require Internet service providers and cellphone companies to install equipment for real-time surveillance and will create new police powers designed to access the surveillance data. This means police can order a telecom company to preserve data for a specified period, but must first obtain a warrant to read the actual content.


Despite the support in general terms for the bill, most believe (80 per cent) that if the bill is enacted, it may lead to government or police spying on Canadians for "activities outside the realm of illegal activity."


In addition to this seemingly contradictory message, responses to other questions paint a deeply divided public. The results also show a gender divide and an age gap, with women and older Canadians more likely to support the bill.


The bill, initially called the "Lawful Access Act" by the Conservatives, has since been rebranded the "Protecting Children from Internet Predators Act." Before tabling the bill, Toews told a critic "he can either stand with us or with the child pornographers."


Half of those polled (49 per cent) agree that "those who oppose Bill C-30 as it currently stands are actually enabling child pornographers," while the other half (51 per cent) disagree that this is the case.


Meanwhile, half of the survey's respondents (52 per cent) believe that the "bill modernizes the law by giving police long-awaited technological capabilities to catch online criminals, while the other half (48 per cent) believe the bill "is an invasion of the Canadian Charter right to personal privacy and that the police and government would have too much power."


Overall, while there is near uniformity across the provinces, the data show women are "considerably" more likely than men to be supportive of the legislation (65 to 46 per cent). The gap is equally large when it comes to Canadians aged 55 or more (64 per cent) compared to those ages 18 to 34 (44 per cent).


And parents of children aged 17 or younger are much more likely to support the bill than those households without kids (64 to 54 per cent).


Those who use the Internet "all the time" are the least likely (50 per cent) to supportive of the bill, compared to those who use the Internet "not that often" (66 per cent).


Ipsos Reid conducted the online poll of 1,018 adults between February 24 and 27, with an estimated margin of error of 3.1 percentage points, 19 times out of 20.

sschmidt@postmedia.com

Here Chancellor have some more beer!

Quick! Name Manitoba's current senators? You don't know or care do you?

Halifax MP Leslie : I'm stumped on senators, I bet you are too

By Paul McLeod/Ottawa Bureau
Monday, February 27, 2012

Halifax MP Megan Leslie says the senate is so unimportant that she doubts most Nova Scotians know who their senators are. (The Canadian Press)

Halifax MP Megan Leslie says senators are so unimportant, she can’t even name all the ones from Nova Scotia. She doubts most people could.

“I am hard pressed to actually name the senators from Nova Scotia,” she said Monday in the House of Commons.

“I am a member of Parliament for the province of Nova Scotia and I cannot tell you their names.

“They are non-existent in our province. They are not out there meeting with people. They are not out there talking about issues. I don’t know what they do.”

The New Democrat made her comments during debate on the government’s Senate reform bill. Leslie’s position, and that of the NDP, is that the Senate should be flat-out abolished.

Leslie did go on to praise local senators James Cowan, Donald Oliver and Jane Cordy for their community work.

(Told that Leslie knew his name, Cowan responded: “Oh good, that Christmas card wasn’t in vain then.” He also suggested she consult Google for the names of all nine Nova Scotia senators.)

In a later interview, The Chronicle Herald asked Leslie to name Nova Scotia’s nine senators, who are all either Conservatives or Liberals. She got as far as six, with a couple of half-names such as “a MacDonald” — in this case, Senator Michael MacDonald, a Conservative.

The pop quiz was somewhat skewed because by this time News 95.7 radio host Jordi Morgan had already sent Leslie a Wikipedia article listing the senators.

The name recognition issue might extend both ways. Whether an unintentional slip or a subtle dig, a couple of senators contacted Monday referred to the Halifax MP as “Leslie Megan.”

Leslie’s main point was that while many senators might be good and intelligent people, they toe the party line instead of sticking up for their regions. Regional advocacy was the original intention of the upper house of Parliament.

“They cannot put their party allegiance aside,” she said. “They are doing what the centre is telling them to do, and they are not standing up for Nova Scotia.”

Sen. Kelvin Ogilvie, a Conservative, remarked that Leslie wasn’t allowing reality to interfere with her campaign to kill the Senate.

Ogilvie said senators are closely involved in their communities but less well-known than elected MPs because senators are supposed to focus on analytical committee work and avoid political ground wars.
“That means that you don’t have to eat every rubber chicken that is going in your constituency or kiss every baby that’s born,” he said. “You can use that time to actually analyze very substantive issues.”

As for senators standing against their parties, Ogilvie asked when Leslie ever voted against the NDP. Senator. Gerald Comeau asked the same question.

Comeau, a Conservative, said many regional concerns are raised in caucus meetings. He said the influence of most senators would be exerted before legislation was even introduced, and having to publicly oppose your party would signal a failure to explain your case at the caucus level.

As for the value of the Senate, Cowan noted that earlier Monday he and his Liberal colleagues had introduced legislation to amend the government’s omnibus crime bill. The amendments were originally brought up in the House of Commons but the government voted them down, only realizing when it was too late that they were necessary.

Cowan noted several examples of problems in legislation that passed through the House of Commons only to be caught in the Senate.

But Cowan, Ogilvie and Comeau all said they favour some degree of Senate reform, ranging from term limits to an elected Senate.

Scandal du jour!

Robocall scandal allegations unprecedented says former elections boss

By Michelle Zilio
Postmedia News
Tuesday, February 28, 2012

Jean-Pierre Kingsley, Canada's former Chief Electoral Officer, says recent allegations of systematic voter-suppression phone calls are unprecedented in Canada's electoral history. (Photograph by: Bruno Schlumberger)


OTTAWA — Canada's former chief electoral officer says recent allegations of systematic voter-suppression phone calls are unprecedented in the country's electoral history.


"We have never seen anything like this alleged case in terms of this potential organization and impact in terms of numbers," said Jean-Pierre Kingsley, Canada's chief electoral officer from 1990 to 2007.


"People vote twice, people destroy the signs, but this automated means and this use of call centres is the first time the allegations go as far as they are going. They're serious."


Last week's Ottawa Citizen-Postmedia News investigation revealed evidence of fraudulent pre-recorded phone calls made during the May federal election in Guelph through services provided by the Edmonton-based voice-broadcast company RackNine Inc. Further developments in the story suggest that harassing live phone calls were made by callers posing as Liberal candidates in swing ridings. The National Post and the Toronto Star also report that more live phone calls had been made in the Thunder Bay area, with callers phoning on behalf of the Conservative Party to alert voters of purported polling location changes.


Kingsley said the allegations may fall under one section of the Canadian Elections Act — section 482(b), which finds anyone who "induces a person to vote or refrain from voting or to vote or refrain from voting for a particular candidate at an election" guilty of intimidation of the electoral process.


Whether the calls were pre-recorded or live is irrelevant, said Kingsley.


"If someone is representing themselves to be Elections Canada, giving false information, changing the polls, and the purpose is to confuse electors to the extent that you're attempting to discourage them from voting, then that is against the statute, in my view," said Kingsley. "This is not small potatoes because what you are trying to do is interfere with the right of Canadians to vote and that is a constitutional right in Canada."


Regardless of whether they work independently, for a political party, or for a voice-broadcasting company, anyone convicted under s. 482(b) faces, on a summary conviction, a maximum $2,000 fine, or a maximum of one year in prison, or both. On an indictment, individuals found guilty face a maximum of five years in prison, a maximum $5,000 fine, or both.


However, Jack Siegel, a Toronto-based lawyer who practises election and political law, said the chances of an indictment are slim to none, assuming the file even reaches the courts.


"After 25 years of practising law I've seen two or three files hands-on where choice was to be made and every case was summary," said Siegel.


Last November, the Conservative Fund was fined $52,000 by the Elections Act for breaking election laws. Siegel said the fact that the case took the summary route is probably a good indication that, if the allegations of the harassing phone calls went to court, they would follow a similar path. However, he also noted that the direction of the case is decided ultimately by the prosecutor.


While it is impossible at this point for experts to speculate as to who is responsible for the calls, Kingsley said that if live callers were aware they were posing as someone else, both they and the organizers of the call centres could be in deep water.


"The people who were making those calls, if they knew what they were doing, in my view, this could also constitute an infraction to the statute," he said. "If you're hired by somebody to say you're somebody else and you know that, then you're really asking for trouble."


This violation, however, is not found in the Canada Elections Act. Instead, Section 403 of the Criminal Code finds individuals who fraudulently impersonate others "(a) with intent to gain advantage for themselves or another person" or "(c) with intent to cause disadvantage to the person being personated or another person" guilty of identity fraud. On an indictment, the convicted faces up to 10 years in prison.


As the scandal continues to develop, Siegel said the first thing that has to be determined is who arranged the calls — the Conservative Party, the voice-broadcasting companies or a third party.


"As long as there is disclosure . . . it's hard for RackNine or any other company to be unable to say who booked the account. Then it falls to that person to say, 'Yes, I did it or here's who I gave the passwords to record these message. You better ask them'," said Siegel. "It's a matter of following it up the food chain."

Update!

Good Day Readers:

You may recall late last week we sent Michael Enright host of CBC Radio's weekly public affairs program The Sunday Edition (9:00 - 12:00 national network) the following:

Dear Mr. Enright:


Recently, we had occasion to attend a high-profile lengthy murder trial still underway in Winnipeg. One of the many witnesses was an RCMP Officer from Churchill, Manitoba. Because of procedural delays, the Corporal had to be held over a couple extra days. As word spread among the attending public, he was increasingly approached and asked about the polar bears during recesses.


We were particularly fascinated by a couple stories he told about wolves which ran completely counter to the popular conception. You can read about it in our Friday, February 24 posting, "Believe it!"


Fast forward to earlier this morning and your interview with new RCMP Commissioner Robert Paulson on occasion of his first 100 days in office. At one point the Commissioner mentioned there are countless success stories that never get told given the media's tendency to focus on the negative.


Well, we invite any Mountie anywhere with a feel good story to contact us. They can self-identify, use "Anonymous" or a pseudonym of their choosing.

We received the following yesterday:

Thanks, Clare ... an excellent point. We may use a portion of your letter on this weeks' show.

Best Wishes,
Susan Mahoney
Acting Executive Producer
The Sunday Edition

Update
After Corporal Friesen departed we realized we'd neglected to give him CyberSmokeBlog's address so he could check out our upcoming posting about wolves. Fortunately, in talking with the Crown prosecuting the second degree murder trial (Wendy Dawson), he'll be returning latter this week on business and plans to spend a little time observing proceedings. We'll be able to give him a heads up to stay close to his radio on Sunday morning if he can.

Ongoing technical problems at Queen's Bench File Registry?

Dear CyberSmokeBlog:


The internet web server at www.jus.gov.mb.ca has been displaying the message:


"Court Registry System - The site is currently down for maintenance."


In excess of a week now of which I am aware. While the site has displayed the same message for brief periods of time in the past, usually minutes or hours, it appears that the site has currently been made unavailable to the public, either deliberately or unintentionally far in excess of past routine maintenance and/or updates.


Would you please determine if there is a short term technical problem that an or will be corrected in short order, or  if there has been a policy change in regards to making this service available to the public.


Thank you in advance for your assistance.


Manitoba Curmudgeon@shaw.ca
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 Dear Curmudgeon:

Since we got to your e-mail around 6:30 yesterday evening we randomly tried the site 3-times one of which displayed the error message. We severely doubt there's anything sinister involved, rather, a simple technical glitch. If  Queen's Bench File Registry were to suspend this service the legal community would be rioting in the streets - if that's possible for them.

While at The Law Courts this morning we'll give a copy of your e-mail to the appropriate officials along with our electronic address and an invitation to respond. Any reply received will be published. While still on the subject of QBFR, for about a week now we've been unsuccessfully on the trail of FD08-01-86932 better known as Lorraine Kathleen Fehr versus Victor Eric Toews. Seems it's never available. As best we can ascertain it appears it's resident with an administration official(s)  somewhere within The Law Courts - having a good read are we?

Shortly, we'll be contacting a senior administrative official in writing requesting instructions on the procedure for formally requesting access to this file.

Sincerely,
Clare L. Pieuk

Never mind robocalls you need speed-dial-a-lawyer!

Hello Again Readers:

For the second time within days a Winnipeg Member of Parliament has received another defamation warning letter. From the Feburary 26, 2012 Canadian Press article, More ridings were hit by alleged voter suppression: opposition .....

Meanwhile, lawyers for RackNine Incorporated, an Edmonton- based automated dialling company that worked on the Conservative campaign, has sent a letter to Mr. Martin demanding an apology or face a defamation suit for comments he made about the company.


Mr. Martin says he has no intention of apologizing.

Why Pat Martin doesn't save his comments for the House of Commons where he's defamation proof is beyond us. There he could knock himself out defaming whoever and whatever until he's blue in the face or the cows come home - whichever comes first. Silly, silly man!

Sincerely,
Clare L. Pieuk  

Libel Notice - Pat Martin

A bicycle, a mountie and the holy spirit!

Good Evening Readers:

Spent the day at the Mark Stobbe second degree murder trial - a couple interesting developments. So far a multitude of witnesses have been called all testifying they saw a large person on a bicycle near where Beverley Rowbotham's body was found. However, the gentleman on the stand claimed he passed within approximately 30 feet in his car of someone wearing dark clothing. When asked if he could identify the bicycle he indicated it looked like Ms Rowbotham's mauve raleigh resting in the courtroom. Surprisingly, defence counsel Tim Killeen did not challenge.

The morning's final witness was an RCMP officer who was part of a three member team who surveilled Mr. Stobbe for 12-days beginning in late October of 2000. Ever curious we asked a lawyer whether police require a warrant. Answer? No.

Postscript
Had to smile. In courtroom 226 presided over by Justice Gerald L. Chartier there was a pre-trial conference for Smith versus Holy Spirit. Wonder who represented Holy Spirit?

Sorry Vic!

Good Day Readers:

It's hard to feel sorry for Vic Toews. Given he's a politician on the national scene, did he make any effort to have a judge seal his divorce file at the time? Would such a request have been granted? As far back as a couple years the Winnipeg Sun was reporting on it. Hell, even Wikipedia carries this comment:

 In 2008, Toews divorced from his wife of 30 years, Lorraine Kathleen Fehr, after it was discovered that he fathered a child with a younger woman who may have been his child's babysitter. This incident later became publicized in February 2012, when an anonymous Twitter account began revealing information from Toews' divorce affidavit as reaction to the introduction of Bill-30.


For better or worse, good or bad politics is a game of knives. Be forewarned those choosing to enter public life. If you have skeleton(s) in your closet ..... The open courts principle in Canada is far, far more important than someone like Vic Toews. Sorry Vic, details of your divorce, like everyone else's, is public domain information so don't complain.

Besides, dirty tricks is nothing new just look at the latest Robocalls controversy.

Sincerely,
Clare L. Pieuk

Internet surveillance bill backlash, internet ‘guerilla war’ take Canada across political Rubicon, ‘hugely disturbing’

MPs say Anonymous ‘smears and attacks’ against Public Safety Minister Vic Toews should be viewed as a form of cowardice.

By Tim Naumetz

Monday, February, 27, 2012

PARLIAMENT HILL—Public Safety Minister Vic Toews’ explosive suggestion that opponents of the government’s sweeping internet surveillance bill side with child pornographers, and the threat of government control over the web, have sparked an internet “guerrilla war” between the Conservatives and anonymous foes that the government may be unable to defeat, says Nanos Research pollster Nik Nanos.

And, after opponents of the legislation, Bill C-30, circulated personal details of Mr. Toews’ divorce on the worldwide activist internet platform Anonymous, along with a warning that more was coming and other Members of Parliament had to watch their words, NDP MP Charlie Angus (Timmins-James Bay, Ontario) told The Hill Times the furor Mr. Toews and the legislation sparked have taken Canada across a “political Rubicon.”

Conservative MP Dean Del Mastro (Peterborough, Ontario) said he believes the Anonymous threat against MPs, warning them not to try to “score political points” by linking Anonymous to any specific political party, looked like an attempt at intimidation.

“It certainly appears to be,” Mr. Del Mastro who told The Hill Times in an earlier email following the Anonymous posts: “I believe that Anonymous smears and attacks should be viewed as a form of cowardice and discouraged by all members of a decent and democratic society.”

The employment of Anonymous, an information disclosure weapon for a range of global activists, covering everything from the Israeli-Palestinian conflict to globalization to anti-capitalism, and other web platforms that can be used anonymously, such as Twitter, has taken the Conservative government into a realm of politics it has not before faced, Mr. Nanos said.

“I think this is a particular issue where the Conservatives are going to deal with a different kind of guerrilla warfare, probably a type of guerrilla warfare that they can’t win, because of the anonymity on the world wide web and the fact that people of like mind who disagree with the government can wage their own dirty tricks campaign,” Mr. Nanos said.

Mr. Nanos argued the Conservatives walked into the confrontation without realizing the difference between threatened government control over the internet, and its implications for web freedom, and the smaller numbers of citizens who were affected each time through a series of controversial measures the Conservatives have undertaken since 2006.

“The thing is that this particular issue affects the day to day lives of almost all Canadians, whether they’re socializing or doing business or seeking out information online, you’re going to tune into this particular issue because it means that there is a possibility that someone could snoop into your behaviour,” Mr. Nanos said.
“One of the great attractions that the internet has, the world wide web, is not just the scope of information and the richness of information that’s out there, but the whole idea that there is not a lot of government intervention in the internet,” he said. “That’s probably one of the reasons why many Canadians think that the internet is a vibrant, active place, because the hand of the government is not heavy in the internet, in the free world.”

“Canadians do know that technology cannot only be an enabler of freedom but also an enabler of greater control, I think that’s why Canadians are particularly sensitive to this issue, more so than a lot of the other controversial issues that the Conservatives have dealt with, because this not only could affect their day to day lives, it also is part of a world view on the internet being free and open,” Mr. Nanos said.

“The irony is that the internet has been a key vehicle for transparency in government, maybe Wikileaks is damaging to certain people in the public policy process, but it’s not in terms of transparency and accountability,” said Mr. Nanos.

Mr. Angus, while laying blame on Mr. Toews, said the anonymous nature of the battle, however, could undermine political life in Canada, even though the Anonymous activists have taken the same side on Bill C-30. In fact, there is no guarantee the Anonymous attacks from Mr. Toews were from activists; they might have been from his enemies in other political parties.

Mr. Toews’ divorce affidavits were posted on YouTube through Anonymous after The Ottawa Citizen published a report saying it had tracked down initial tweets containing the same divorce information on an anonymous Twitter account, Vikileaks, and that the computer used for the Twitter posts was in the House of Commons.

“I’m very disturbed by this sort of anonymous attacks that can be generated,” said Mr. Angus. “I think we have crossed a political Rubicon. It’s been coming, Twitter is really a bully’s alley in a lot of ways, the ability of people to get anonymous names and then just send hate stuff to MPs, or to each other.”

Page 2 of 2

“I think Vic Toews didn’t handle himself very well, I think his sort of over-the-top, bombastic rhetoric created a push back, but now I think, for political operatives, they could use similar tactics to hide fake name groups to go after political enemies, so there’s a hugely disturbing element in what’s happening,” Mr. Angus said.

“At the same time, these are the kind of groups that C-30 could go after, I think the government has opened up a Pandora’s Box and there’s a lot of stuff coming out that’s not good for the body politic,” Mr. Angus said.

“Some of this stuff is small potatoes, but I think it’s going to dawn on political operatives to say ‘Well, let’s just set up a fake Twitter account under a fake name for a fake reason and dump dirt on our opponents.’

That’s disturbing,” Mr. Angus said.

Mr. Toews’s unknown attackers through Anonymous—after their first disclosure of the divorce proceedings, followed by detailed information about the young woman Mr. Toews left his former wife for, and allegations he arranged a job for her at the office of another Manitoba MP—warned last week that he should expect further attacks.

“Let it be known this is only a taste of the information we have access to and this is only the beginning,” the computerized voice of a woman posted on YouTube said.

“And to the rest of the Parliament of Canada, you would do well to mind your words about Anonymous,” the voice said. “Any attempt to score political points by claiming we are associated with a particular party will not be met kindly. Your party affiliations are utterly irrelevant to us.”

The RCMP, meanwhile, is investigating complaints from either Mr. Toews or someone on his behalf that he has received separate violent threats, and House of Commons Speaker Andrew Scheer (Regina-Qu’Appelle, Saskatchewan) has launched an internal Commons investigation to find the computer source of the Vikileaks divorce postings in Twitter, along with an investigation into complaints from Mr. Toews that an employee of the Commons flooded his office email systems with harassing emails.

The government told The Hill Times last week it will move a motion to send Bill C-30 to the Public Safety and National Security Committee, at the earliest next week, which would give opposition MPs the opportunity to propose amendments before the bill reaches a vote-in-principle in the Commons.

But Liberal MP Francis Scarpaleggia (Lac Saint Louis, Quebec) said he believes the government is sending the bill into committee so soon in an attempt to defuse the growing controversy.

“The government will try to suppress meaningful amendments, I’m positive of that,” Mr. Scarpaleggia said.

“It swept the bill under the rug pretty quickly by sending it to committee after the firestorm Vic Toews created, but I’m sure they are hoping that once it’s in committee the grinding nature of committee business will somehow keep people from being interested in this issue, and they can use their majority on committee to essentially keep the bill the way it is,” said Mr. Scarpaleggia.
tnaumetz@hilltimes.com

An open letter to Vic Toews!

Dear Mr. Toews:

You can call us stupid but here's what we, and hopefully many of our readers, are struggling to comprehend after reading your article in The Calgary Herald:

Some have accused me of not reading a bill I've been involved in shaping for over half a decade. Ironically, when I read most media coverage of C-30, I am struck by just how poorly the bill is understood by many writers.


If YOU don't know what's in a Bill you've been championing for years is it reasonable Canadians should? Further, assuming C-30 is so poorly understood by many media writers, why did they go ballistic when you made your beyond asinine comment if we don't support it (in spite of massive flaws) we're on the side of child pornographers.

Even the title of your article raises serious questions. "Shedding light" on a Bill you'd have rammed through Parliament had there not been such a public outcry. Maybe, just maybe Vic Toews you and the government you represent did a lousy job apprising Canadians of the far reaching ramifications of C-30. Nice try though attempting to pull a fast one were we? Too bad you got caught.

You, Sir, really need to give your head a good shake better yet resign!

Sincerely,
Clare L. Pieuk

Postscript
Hopefully, one of your staffers crafted such a pathetic letter!

Shedding light on Bill C-30 to protect children

By Vic Toews

Saturday, February 25, 2010 

I've spent the better part of my career advocating for the safety and security of Canadians. As a prosecutor, child protection lawyer, federal and provincial attorney general, and in my current job as Canada's minister of public safety, I've always made it my goal to put victims first.

Over the years, it became clear to me that Canada's laws were falling far be-hind the technology used by criminals. The frustration of police was plainly evident.

After I entered politics, I heard the same story from law enforcement so many times that I began to wonder if the problem would ever be fixed. Soon after my appointment as federal justice minister in 2006, I was introduced to the concept of "lawful access," which dealt with the challenge of fighting online crime. I was struck by the reality that our approach to the Internet had been shaped in the era of the rotary phone.

This was by no means a new concept. My Liberal predecessor, Anne McLellan, made the first attempt at a new law in 2005. Marlene Jennings tried again twice in the form of private members bills in 2007 and 2009. The government introduced similar bills twice more: once under Peter Van Loan in 2009 and once by me in 2010.

Despite the tireless efforts of people like Paul Gillespie, formerly of the Toronto Police Service and now the head of the Kids Internet Safety Alliance (KINSA), and Roz Prober of Beyond Borders, none of these at-tempts became law.

Gillespie speaks with passion about the emotional toll child exploitation investigations take on front line officers. Each day, they are confronted by the bleak reality that tens of thousands of children are sexually abused in graphic, unimaginable ways. The reality is that police simply don't have the tools to effectively fight these crimes. This is true not only of child pornography but identity theft, online organized crime, and many Internet scams and frauds.

More than a decade ago, police signalled they lacked the tools to keep up with changing technology. The process of gathering information for investigations was extremely slow and cumbersome. Today, police are in the same predicament.

In just one wrenching example from the Kingston Police, as reported in the Kingston Whig Standard, Detective Constable Stephanie Morgan received information via the Internet that an individual might attempt suicide.

When she approached an ISP for help in locating the individual, she ran into a brick wall. "In that case, the Internet service provider refused to give us that information because of the person's privacy," Morgan said. "To this day, I don't know who that person was who sent the message.

I don't know if they really were in distress or if they later committed suicide. I think that would not have happened if this legislation was in place." Scott Naylor, an inspector with the Ontario Provincial Police Child Sexual Exploitation Unit recently said, "Obtaining war-rants on all IP addresses involved in child pornography simply wasn't practical. It's still like putting a cup under Niagara Falls, that's all we're catching."

On February 14, our government re-introduced legislation that closely resembles the efforts of McLellan and Jennings, but with improvements to better protect the privacy of Canadians. C-30 allows police to request basic customer information to assist with investigations, but makes police more ac-countable through audits and obligations to report to federal and provincial privacy commissioners. We also reduced the number of basic subscriber information points that police could request of service providers - the modern equivalent of phone book information - from 11 down to six.

Let me be clear: Bill C-30 creates no new powers to access the content of e-mails, web-browsing history or phone calls beyond that which already exists in Canadian law.

Some have accused me of not reading a bill I've been involved in shaping for over half a decade. Ironically, when I read most media coverage of C-30, I am struck by just how poorly the bill is understood by many writers.

The government intends to send this legislation directly to committee for a full examination of potential amendments to update our laws while ensuring the privacy of Canadians is respected.

I hope that all Canadians, and especially members of Parliament and the media, will read, discuss, and reflect on this bill.

Vic Toews is a lawyer, the federal minister of public safety and the member of Parliament for the Manitoba riding of Provencher.

Sergeant Preston of The North-West Mounted Police and his trusty dog 'Yukon King' stories ..... coming soon?

Sunday, February 26, 2012

Dear Mr. Enright:

The other day we attended a high-profile, lengthy murder trial we're covering in Winnipeg that's still underway. One of the many witnesses was an RCMP Officer from Churchill, Manitoba. Because of procedural delays, the Corporal had to be held over for a couple extra days. As word spread, he was increasingly asked by citizens during recesses about the polar bears.

We were particularly fascinated by a couple stories he told describing wolves which ran completely counter to the popular conception. You can read about it in our Friday, February 24 posting, Believe it!

Fast forward to this morning and your interview with new RCMP Commissioner Robert Paulson on occasion of his first 100-days in office. At one point the Commissioner mentioned there are countless success stories by Members that never get told given the media's tendency to focus more on the negative.

Well, we invite any Mountie with a feel good story to contact us. They can self-identify, use "Anonymous" or a pseudonym of their choosing.

Sincerely/Clare L. Pieuk

Media Citizen Journalist/Blog Master

www.CyberSmokeblog.blogspot.com

pieuk@shaw.ca

The Two Stooges minus Curly (far right with hair) ..... "Nuck! Nuck! Nuck! Nuck!"

Enjoyed the "free" Canadian hospitality did we? What's it like?

Harper personally approved $22,000 hospitality for visiting European Bureaucrats

Dean Beeby
Ottawa - The Canadian Press
Sunday, February 26, 2012

Canada's Prime Minister Stephen Harper waiting for the start of an interview with Reuters in his office on Parliament Hill February 3, 2012. (Chris Wattie/Reuters)

Prime Minister Stephen Harper personally approved a $21,865 hospitality tab for visiting European bureaucrats last fall even as the government was preaching fiscal restraint.

Newly disclosed documents show the three-day meeting featured a welcome reception at the National Gallery of Canada, two lunches, and a formal dinner at Rideau Hall – all of them featuring free wine.

More related to this story

• Despite goal of restraint, Harper’s top bureaucrats rack up hefty travel costs
• Lack of transparency on budget cuts ‘strains credibility,’ Liberals say
• Ottawa sends a tough fiscal message to the provinces

The final tab for the October 18-20 event was almost $112,000, including travel, hotels, musical entertainment and $2,250 in gifts for delegates.

Visitors included a six-person delegation from the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development secretariat in Paris, who joined Mr. Harper and Canadian public servants to discuss how to manage major government cuts in spending.

The so-called OECD Centres of Government meeting has rotated among various member countries since 1993, and for the first time it was Canada’s turn. Wayne Wouters, clerk of the Privy Council and Canada’s highest-ranking public servant, was host.

Of the 45 people in attendance, 10 were from the Canadian government, the remainder from the 33 other OECD countries or the secretariat. Mr. Harper himself participated in a roundtable discussion.

Partly because budgeted hospitality costs exceeded the $5,000 threshold imposed by government rules, Mr. Harper had to personally pre-approve the expected bill as head of the Privy Council Office. The prime minister’s signature was also necessary to OK the free alcohol.

“Every effort is being made to contain costs associated with this event,” Mr. Wouters wrote to Mr. Harper on September 11, asking for his approval.

“As host, Canada is expected to provide a certain level of hospitality, including a reception to welcome delegates on the evening of their arrival and an official dinner.”

He added: “For reasons of courtesy and protocol, alcoholic beverages will be offered at the welcome reception, the official dinner, and the two lunches.”

Mr. Wouters also noted that the budget for the reception “exceeds the maximum cost per person” as set by Treasury Board policy, yet another reason Mr. Harper had to sign off on the event.

The posh reception at the National Gallery of Canada cost $160 per person, more than three times the approved Treasury Board maximum of $46.

Documents related to the event were obtained by The Canadian Press under the Access to Information Act.
In the end, the final hospitality tab was trimmed to $16,000, said Raymond Rivet, spokesman for the Privy Council Office. He said the bill for the entire event was far lower than the initial budget of $300,000.

The OECD hospitality tab is among the highest for any minister since the Tories first came to power in 2006.
Peter MacKay approved a $16,800 tab for Passport Canada staff in 2007, when he was foreign minister.

And Mr. Harper approved one for Privy Council Office staff in 2010 for $7,400. Neither included alcohol.

Such tabs are not proactively posted as normally required on government websites because they are departmental, rather than personal, which makes comparisons difficult. The big Harper and MacKay tabs were only revealed through Access to Information Act requests.

The OECD event was held after the Harper government ordered dozens of federal departments and agencies to submit detailed plans by October 3 to cut as much as 10 per cent of their budgets, for savings of up to $8-billion annually.

The meeting of OECD delegates included discussions about how member governments should implement deficit-fighting cuts.

“Participants agreed that restructuring, a difficult and challenging process, should be rapid, comprehensive and evidence-based, rather than piecemeal,” say minutes of the meeting.

“The watchword for restructuring should be ‘transparency.’ ... Visible signs of government openness and integrity are important to garner support for difficult choices.”

The Tories’ current program review, led by Tony Clement, the Treasury Board president, has been widely criticized for being conducted behind closed doors in an information vacuum.

The planned cuts are expected to be revealed in the coming federal budget, though a recent Treasury Board memo called on bureaucrats to leave details out of key departmental reports this spring.

The Harper government is paying consultant Deloitte Inc. almost $90,000 a day for advice on how to manage the cuts.

More related to this story

• Clement vows transparency on cuts despite Treasury Board gag order
• Old Age Security for baby boomers heads toward $100-billion a year

Eat my McShorts?

Good Day Readers:

Natural law Number One: What goes around comes around.

Found this interesting document on Stephen Taylor's blog (www.stephentaylor.ca). Seems the NDP's Pat Martin is being threatened with a defamation lawsuit. This is the same Pat Martin with a penchant for using the "F-word" in his tweets or telling people who disagree to "eat my shorts." If Mr. Martin did indeed make the comments as alleged, should he not have had the presence of mind to do it the House of Commons where he's defamation proof? So how say you, are you going to govern yourself accordingly?

Which reminds us. Must go back to check on the status of a defamation lawsuit against another of our favourite politicians Shelly Glover. Recall she is one of a handful also being sued for alleged defamation by former Conservative Member of Parliament Helena Guergis. The deadline for filing Statements of Defence has passed.

Sincerely,
Clare L. Pieuk

Postscript

Nice name for a law firm - "McLaws." McLaws suing McMartins?
  Sharp-copier@Parlee.com 20120224 111704