For politicians heaven and hell are interchangeable concepts depending on the circumstances!

Same thing

Good Day Readers:

A special thank you to the reader who sent this along. How apropos!

Sincerely,
Clare L. Pieuk

This little joke covers 2 risky topics; religion and politics, without becoming too controversial! It's non-partisan so can be enjoyed by all parties and it does not matter of which country you are resident. It's universally true.

While walking down the street one day a Member of Parliament is tragically hit by a truck and dies.

His soul arrives in heaven and is met by St. Peter at the entrance.

'Welcome to heaven,' says St. Peter.

'Before you settle in, it seems there is a problem. We seldom see a high official around these parts, you see, so we're not sure what to do with you.'

'No problem, just let me in,' says the man.

'Well, I'd like to, but I have orders from higher up. What we'll do is have you spend one day in hell and one in heaven. Then you can choose where to spend eternity.'

'Really, I've made up my mind. I want to be in heaven,' says the MP.

'I'm sorry, but we have our rules.'

And with that, St. Peter escorts him to the elevator and he goes down, down, down to hell. The doors open and he finds himself in the middle of a green golf course. In the distance is a clubhouse and standing in front of it are all his friends and other politicians who had worked with him.

Everyone is very happy and in evening dress. They run to greet him, shake his hand, and reminisce about the good times they had while getting rich at the expense of the people.

They play a friendly game of golf and then dine on lobster, caviar and champagne.

Also present is the devil, who really is a very friendly and nice guy who has a good time dancing and telling jokes. They are having such a good time that before he realizes it, it is time to go.

Everyone gives him a hearty farewell and waves while the elevator rises....

The elevator goes up, up, up and the door reopens on heaven where St. Peter is waiting for him.

'Now it's time to visit heaven.'

So, 24 hours pass with the MP joining a group of contented souls moving from cloud to cloud, playing the harp and singing. They have a good time and, before he realizes it, the 24 hours have gone by and St. Peter returns.

'Well, then, you've spent a day in hell and another in heaven. Now choose your eternity.'

The MP reflects for a minute, then he answers: 'Well, I would never have said it before, I mean heaven has been delightful, but I think I would be better off in hell.'

So St. Peter escorts him to the elevator and he goes down, down, down to hell.

Now the doors of the elevator open and he's in the middle of a barren land covered with waste and garbage.

He sees all his friends, dressed in rags, picking up the trash and putting it in black bags as more trash falls from above.

The devil comes over to him and puts his arm around his shoulder. ' I don't understand,' stammers the MP.

'Yesterday I was here and there was a golf course and clubhouse, and we ate lobster and caviar, drank champagne, and danced and had a great time. Now there's just a wasteland full of garbage and my friends look miserable. What happened? '

The devil looks at him, smiles and says, ' Yesterday we were campaigning.....

Today you voted!

On the art of coarse imprecation .....

Justice "No Gem" makes his debut!

Cubic zirconia gems are not diamonds!

Good Day Readers:

Vic Toews has been dubbed Justice "No Gem" because of a recent comment by former Supreme Court of Canada Justice John Major who offered Mr. Toews was "no gem" when he served as federal Justice Minister. Indeed, after his appointment to Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench was announced in early March of this year it caused a firestorm of reaction on the comment boards of the nation's major newspapers the overwhelming majority of which was highly critical in no uncertain terms.

Compare this with the legal establishment's reaction which was by and large tight lipped with raised eyebrows. One can only speculate some might harbour future aspirations of a judgeship and/or were apprehensive being publicly critical could translate down the road into clients not getting any of those close 50-50 calls.

Then came the much ballyhooed show and tell/pony and donkey show (May 2, 2014) that was Vic Toews' public swearing in ceremony followed by nothing so naturally CyberSmokeBlog wondered what "No Gem" was doing to earn his $288,000 taxpayer salary plus benefits package you'll never see in two life times of trying and commented as such.

When will he make his debut? Yesterday, an eagle-eyed reader sent the following article for which we thank them.

Toews focuses on custody credit in 1st sentencing as judge

By Dean Prichard
Friday, April 25, 2014

Canadian Public Safety Minister Vic Toews (QMI Agency file photo)

As Public Safety Minister, Vic Toews was front and centre five years ago introducing the federal government's Truth in Sentencing Act.

Now a newly appointed Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench Justice, Toews is addressing it again.

The Truth in Sentencing Act, among other things, banned granting offenders two-for-one credit for pre-sentence custody, while approving a maximum 1.5-to-1 credit when "circumstances justify it."

The Supreme Court of Canada pulled some teeth out of the act earlier this month, ruling the act does not preclude granting offenders 1.5-to-1 credit for pre-sentence custody.

On Friday, Toews — specifically alluding to the Supreme Court decision — adjourned sentencing on his first case to hear further submissions on what credit Ajhaji Conteh should receive for pre-sentence custody.

Earlier in the day, Toews found Conteh guilty of one count of possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking.

Conteh was arrested November 25, 2012 after police responded to a report of a domestic dispute at his Bannatyne Avenue home.

A police officer testified he saw Conteh "fidgeting" and pacing before kicking a number of items under a futon. Conteh struggled with several officers before he was restrained and taken to a police cruiser. Under the futon police found a baggie containing 99 grams of cocaine, a weigh scale and a wallet stuffed with money.

Conteh denied any knowledge of the drugs and claimed somebody stashed the items under the futon while he was outside with police.

"There is no evidence I can rely on to find there was somebody else in the home who could have tampered with the items," Toews said.

Crown attorney Rob Gosman recommended Conteh be sentenced to four years in prison, noting he was serving a conditional sentence for the same crime at the time of his arrest.

"He got re-involved within weeks," Gosman said. "The conditional sentence order had no impact whatsoever."

dean.pritchard@sunmedia.ca
Twitter: @deanatwpgsun

A little advice for the Manitoba Law Courts Administration. When a Judge or Justice has been privately sworn in and can begin hearing cases, a press release should be issued shortly thereafter. At the Toews' public swearing in Chief Justice Joyal prior to administering such noted it had been done earlier, however, that's of no assistance to the media.

It will be interesting to read the Toews' sentencing report. As a former Harper government Mr. Tough Guy on its law and order agenda will he be one of those activist judges the Conservatives loath and cut the guilty party some slack or throw the book at him. If past behaviour is any indication of future behaviour combined with a leopard's inability to change it's spots, the guilty person better be prepared to duck.

Below is an interesting article documenting the Harper government's ongoing pitched battle with the judiciary that has reached a crescendo as evidenced by the ill-advised, ill-conceived public debate between the Prime Minister and Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada - that's going to cost him votes majorly!

Bottom Line: The Harper government through imposition of mandatory sentences (victim surcharge, gun possession, marijuana possession, etc., etc., etc.) and other legislation is removing discretion from Judges and they don't like it.

Sincerely,
Clare L. Pieuk

Supreme Court of Canada defends judicial discretion in sentencing

Written by David Dias
Friday, April 11, 2014

The Supreme Court blocked the Conservative's tough sentencing rules. (Photo: Reuters)

In a damaging blow to the Conservative government’s tough-on-crime agenda, the Supreme Court of Canada today dismissed two federal appeals, upholding rulings that essentially reverse the intent of the Truth in Sentencing Act  — turning the law’s standard credit for time served into the exception, and the exception into the standard.

Indeed, the Bill C-35, Truth in Sentencing Act — whose very name implies criminal sentences are not what they appear — sought to reduce the amount of credit convicts were granted for time served in pre-trial custody.

Prior to the act, which came into effect in 2010, judges were given discretion in the matter and routinely provided two days credit for every one spent in custody prior to trial. Ottawa viewed this as over-generous and sought to limit judicial discretion. The new law set the standard for credit at 1:1, but offered a vaguely worded exception of 1.5:1 in “justified circumstances.”

Judges in several provinces — annoyed at the attempt to limit their discretion — have defied the new law by exploiting the loophole, suggesting nearly all circumstances justify the enhanced credit.

Ontario Court Justice Colin Westman, for example, has spoken out publicly against the new law, and Ontario Justice Melvyn Green has written that new tough-on-crime laws have cast “a dark shadow on the sentencing principles of proportionality and restraint.”

In R. v. Summers (and a companion case, R. v. Carvery), the SCC sides with the Ontario Court of Appeal’s defiant stance, agreeing that entrenched principles of justice warrant enhanced credit not only in exceptional cases — but in virtually all circumstances.

These principles take into account the math around parole eligibility, which is typically granted after two-thirds of a sentence. Under a 1:1 regime, a convict with a sentence of one year and no pre-trial custody would be out after eight months. But a convict who spends six months in pre-trial custody would be out after four months served in prison — for a total of 10 months.

This calculus means convicts who spend more time in pre-trial custody — often because they can’t afford bail or have no connections in the community — would have suffered a longer sentence under the new law.

The decision written by Justice Andromache Karakatsanis for a unanimous bench says: “A rule that results in longer sentences for offenders who do not obtain bail, compared to otherwise identical offenders is incompatible with the sentencing principles of parity and proportionality. This is particularly so, given that vulnerable and impoverished offenders are less able to access bail.”

The court defends judicial discretion while seemingly taking Ottawa to task for vague wording in that apparently uses inference rather than explicit language to institute policies that may be discriminatory (and thus subject to Charter challenge):

“It is inconceivable that Parliament intended to overturn a principled and long-standing sentencing practice, without using explicit language, by instead relying on inferences that could possibly be drawn from the order of certain provisions in the Criminal Code. . . . Neither the language of the provision nor the external evidence demonstrates a clear intention to abolish one of the principled rationales for enhanced credit.”

Josh Koziebrocki, a partner at Lerners LLP who represented the Canadian Civil Liberties Association before the court, stresses there was no Charter challenge here, but that his clients argued “the legislation should be interpreted in a manner that is in line with the principles set out in the Charter.”

“Individuals that have less financial means or fewer connections in the community are more likely not to be granted bail, more likely to remain in custody during a pre-sentence period,” says Koziebrocki. “I think that the court has recognized that, without explicit language from Parliament, offenders should not be punished more severely simply because they were not released on bail.”

While the court’s decision acknowledges that Ottawa’s amendments attempt to set an “exception” of 1.5:1, the ruling — in an amazing semantic leap — suggests exceptions need not be exceptional, particularly when more important principles are at stake:

“While s. 719(3.1) is structured as an exception to s. 719(3), there is no general rule of statutory interpretation that the circumstances falling under an exception must be numerically fewer than those falling under the general rule. Therefore, it is not a concern that most remand offenders will qualify for enhanced credit on the basis of lost eligibility for early release or parole.”

In a blog post about the decision, Ottawa criminal lawyer Michael Spratt notes: “The truth is that there is little empirical support for the government's justifications on limiting judicial discretion when it comes to to the consideration of an offenders time spent in pre-sentence custody - C-25 is yet another example [of] blind ideological legislation.”

Toronto criminal lawyer Frank Addario says the underlying issue here — aside from what constitutes reasonable credit for time served — is judicial discretion: “Judges are trained that the common law is about discretion. They are not going to give it up unless the statute is abundantly clear.”

Koziebrocki agrees, but says the new law continues to limit judicial discretion to a maximum of 1.5 days for each day in pre-trial custody. And while the 1.5:1 ratio may address the quantitative issue (that convicts not granted bail should be given the same sentence as those granted bail), it does not address the qualitative issue cited in the SCC decision —that detention facilities are typically harsher than prisons.

“The court is very clear in suggesting that 1.5:1 is not necessarily sufficient to address all of the circumstances for every offender,” he says. “There may be an offender who has a harsher pre-sentence custody, but that isn’t in the legislative framework they’re working with.”

Spratt also wrote the act is “the work of a government pursuing a reckless approach to criminal justice. Worse, the government seems to be quite aware of this.

“C-25 is yet another example of costly and necessary litigation born from ideology and ignorance."

He concludes: “Fortunately courts are a crucible designed to reveal truth — perhaps this is why Conservative criminal justice policy has repeatedly failed to passed the test.” 

All politicians are bozos given to bozo eruptions!

Another Adams Family horror story?

Morticia Addams

"Count Floyd here boys and girls ... Awwwooo! ... Arrrooo! ... Welcome to another scary, scary Monster Chiller Horror Theatre. OMG, WTF there's blood all over the place no, no wait those are body parts!"

Look into Adams mailings, Committee urged

By Jennifer Ditchburn
Thursday, May 29, 2014

Conservative MP Eve Adams speaks in the House of Commons on June 11, 2013. (The Canadian Press/Sean Kilpatrick)

OTTAWA - The closed-door committee of MPs that deals with House of Commons spending rules is being asked to review Conservative MP Eve Adams's use of parliamentary resources.

A complaint to the Board of Internal Economy from a resident of Burlington, Ontario focuses on mail from Adams that was sent into a new riding she hopes to represent in the next election.

Adams is in a heated nomination battle in the new riding of Oakville North-Burlington, a fight currently on hold amid allegations about fraudulent memberships.

Ron Bowers, a former Ministerial Aide in the Mulroney government, sent a letter of complaint to Commons Speaker Andrew Scheer a month ago and copied members of the committee.

Bowers has been receiving House of Commons materials from Adams, even though his MP is Transport Minister Lisa Raitt. Adams represents the non-adjacent riding of Mississauga-South Brampton.

Bowers has asked for a review of the case, but it's not clear whether it will be discussed when the committee — with a Conservative majority — meets Monday. Opposition MPs say they have not yet considered the matter.

Commons staff are preparing background research on the issue for the committee.

Bowers says he has not held a Conservative membership in six years, but began supporting Adams rival Natalia Lishchyna out of anger over the mail he was receiving.

"What we have here is a situation where she's using House of Commons resources to target a riding that is not hers and I just thought it was wrong," said Bowers, who has also written to Elections Canada.

Other Conservatives in the area complained to the party about the mailouts. On some of the material, the only indication that Adams is the MP for a different riding is a line on the back of the envelope.

One flyer begins: "My family and I live in Oakville and we know first-hand that every dollar matters."

MPs are entitled to send mail postage-free, but House of Commons rules prohibit the use of parliamentary resources for electoral campaigning.

If such mail is for campaigning, it must be declared as an expense with Elections Canada.

Adams said in an email that after the nomination race was called, her mailings "were only paid by my nomination campaign."

According to Elections Canada, nomination expenses must be declared as soon as a candidate spends the first penny on the campaign, regardless of when a date is set.

Adams pointed to the other mail sent into the riding as parliamentary work, and "not a nomination expense."

"This is old news," Adams said. "The other campaign made this accusation to the media weeks ago."

The party responded to complaints by saying it does not have jurisdiction over the House of Commons rules, but noted it will keep an eye on whether the mailings constituted a campaign expense.

"To the extent these mailings impact upon the nomination contestant's spending for which she must account, the CPC will remain vigilant to ensure all costs of the contestant are correctly declared," party president John Walsh wrote to the Oakville North-Burlington riding president last month.

The Conservatives have criticized the NDP for their use of parliamentary resources in setting up a satellite office in Montreal and for Commons mail sent in recent byelections.

Justice "No Gem" .....

Diamond

Zirconia

Good Day Readers:

For those who attended Vic Toews recent swearing as a Manitoba Queen's Bench Justice, if the speakers were to be believed here was someone with almost superhuman abilities so why hasn't he hit the road running and and presided over a case yet? Had you been hired for a new job early in march wouldn't your employer (taxpayers) expect some productivity by now?

Sincerely,
Clare L. Pieuk

Former Supreme Court Judge critical of both Harper and Courts ruling in Marc Nadon

Staff via Torstar News Services
Tuesday, May 27, 2014

Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper responds to a question during question period in the House of Commons on Parliament Hill on Wednesday, April 9, 2014. (The Canadian Press)

OTTAWA—A former Supreme Court of Canada judge says Prime Minister Stephen Harper got poor advice from his Justice Minister and should have taken a call from Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin to flag a potential legal problem with his judicial candidates list.

Retired Justice John Major slammed the Prime Minister’s criticism of McLachlin in recent weeks since the Supreme Court ruled against Harper’s appointment of Marc Nadon saying it was “completely unjustified in my view.”

In an interview from his Calgary office where he now practices law, Major said he did not agree with the high court’s March 21 reasoning that federal court judges are ineligible for Quebec seats on the Supreme Court. Major said an argument could be made that the Federal Court is an “equivalent court” with the Quebec Court of Appeal.

But Major questioned how the government has handled the political and legal issue from the get-go, saying it’s a “puzzle” it ever came to this.

“I wonder if Harper hasn’t suffered from his poor choices of Ministers of Justice,” said Major, who was appointed by the Harper government in 2006 to head the Air India commission of inquiry.

A former Justice Minister, Vic Toews, he said, “was no gem” (emphasis CyberSmokeBlog's) and “the present Minister” had little legal experience, he suggested. (Peter MacKay spent two years in private law practice and four years as a Nova Scotia Crown Attorney prior to entering politics in 1997.)

Major, who sat on the high court for 13 years from 1992-2005 and was appointed by the Harper government in 2006 to lead the Air India inquiry, said it is “strange” that Harper’s office has taken control of the high court appointments, adding in the past Prime Ministers relied more on their Justice Ministers.

In the Nadon affair, Major said in the first place, “If he (Harper) had a forceful Minister of Justice, he might get an argument” about the appointment or at least on how to proceed to lay “the groundwork, by going to see the Premier of Quebec.”

Major said it wasn’t even clear until well after Toronto lawyer Rocco Galati challenged the eligibility of a federal court judge for the job that the Quebec government would fight it too. Quebec suggested it would file some kind of challenge. That prompted the federal government’s reference to the top court and a retroactive legislative change in the budget bill to amend the Supreme Court of Canada Act to allow the appointment.
In the second place, once McLachlin called, Major said MacKay should have advised the Prime Minister to take her call.

“She did Harper a favour,” said Major. “When she saw the list two months before the appointment was made, she saw four federal court judges and two from the Quebec Court of Appeal and told the Minister of Justice that the federal court appointments may be problematic.

“That’s the last she said on it. And it turned out to be problematic. But you would think that Harper might be grateful to have that pointed out to him so he could decide whether to go ahead.”

“You’d think Harper, just out of ordinary curiosity, would like to know why it was problematic. He might change his mind . . . if there was information available to him that would have been of help to the government and presumably to the court.”

“How he could criticize that is beyond me.”

Major said the advice of a Chief Justice may be offered, but isn’t always followed. He recalled one instance during his tenure when a Quebec seat on the high court was open, and the Justice Minister of the day contacted then-Chief Justice Brian Dickson. He said Dickson was “very vocal” in support of one candidate and “very critical about the other. “Dickson made the case for Candidate A on Tuesday, and on Thursday, Candidate B was appointed,” he chuckled.

MacKay and Harper have publicly criticized McLachlin’s call as inadvisable and inappropriate, suggesting it was akin to calling about a case before the court. Harper now says he foresaw a potential legal challenge, and decided it was unnecessary to take McLachlin’s call.

But Major says it’s clear there was “no case in this particular matter.”

He said the Prime Minister clearly “took some notice” however because he sought outside legal opinions from eminent Ontario jurists to support the bid to name Marc Nadon.

It’s not clear whether Harper sought any legal opinions from within Quebec to support the Nadon nomination. The government claimed solicitor-client privilege in declining to answer questions about that from Liberal critic Irwin Cotler.

However the government appeared again to shrug off confidentiality that is supposed to protect the work of the judicial selection advisory committee, with Harper telling the Commons both the NDP and the Liberal party supported the appointment of federal court judges to a Quebec seat and specifically, the Nadon appointment — a claim the NDP later disputed. The Liberals declined to comment.

Both Opposition parties suggested the Conservatives have politicized the entire process.

The Supreme Court eventually invalidated the Nadon appointment. It ruled the law bars Ottawa-based Federal Court judges for the three Quebec seats on the Supreme Court, which are reserved for senior members of Quebec’s bar, trial or appellate courts. Any change to that would require a constitutional amendment, and unanimous provincial agreement, it said.

Major said the court should be subject to “legitimate criticism” about its rulings, but insisted it was wrong of the government “to accuse the Chief Justice of improperly trying to contact the Prime Minister.”

Major said the court is now “limping along” with one vacancy for the past nine months on the bench, and another one looming in November, just as the fall session gets underway.


On Tuesday, Harper told the Commons the government “will be acting in the very near future” to name a replacement for Nadon. But a document tabled Monday by the government suggests that no consultations have begun for the next Quebec seat that must be filled when Louis LeBel retires in November.

Hon. John C. (Jack) Major C.C., Q.C.

The Honourable John C. (Jack) Major, retired Supreme Court of Canada judge, rejoined the firm as a consultant in 2006 upon his return to private legal practice.

In that role, he provides strategic and tactical reviews of significant matters for the firm's clients and is a senior mentor to the lawyers and staff of the firm. His present area of practice includes mediation, arbitration, corporate governance and consultation.

The Honourable Jack Major has helped shape the legal landscape in Canada through his years as a lawyer, judge and now as counsel. In 1967, he became a litigation partner at Bennett Jones and practised at the firm for 34 years. He was involved in several cases that brought about significant changes in local, provincial and federal policies and legislation. He also served as counsel to the Canadian Medical Protective Association (Alberta); counsel for the City of Calgary Police Service; counsel at the CCB and Northland Bank (Estey Commission) and was counsel for the Province of Alberta at the Code Inquiry into the collapse of Principal Group of Companies, 1987.

On July 11, 1991, the Honourable Jack Major was appointed to the Alberta Court of Appeal. The following year, on November 13, 1992, he was appointed to the Supreme Court of Canada. During his time with the Supreme Court of Canada, he presided over approximately 1000 cases on matters ranging from assisted suicide to the death penalty to Quebec separation.

In March 2006, he was appointed to the Alberta Securities Commission as an independent member and, in May 2006, he was appointed as commissioner to conduct an inquiry into the investigation of the bombing of Air India Flight 182.


The Honourable Jack Major is a member of the Canadian Institute for the Administration of Justice and the Canadian Judges Conference. He was appointed Queen’s Counsel in 1972, and was appointed a Companion of the Order of Canada in July 2008.

When drug court has a drug problem .....

Good Day Readers:

First there was this:



Followed by:



And then this one who just about totalled the courthouse parking lot.

Brownard judge arrested on DUI charge in courthouse parking lot

Rafael Olmeda and Tonya Alanaz
Tuesday, May 27, 2014

Circuit Judge Lynn Rosenthal was arrested for DUI Tuesday morning in the driveway of the judge's parking lot at the Brownard County courthouse, according to the Brownard Sheriff's Office.

Fort Lauderdale - Circuit Judge Lynn Rosenthal was arrested Tuesday, accused of driving to work at the Broward County courthouse while under the influence of drugs, striking a patrol car and repeatedly hitting the gate of the judges' parking lot with her BMW, according to the Broward Sheriff's Office.

The judge was also accused of driving into a concrete median on Interstate 595 shortly before her arrest. Deputies said Rosenthal admitted to taking an Ambien pill Monday night and did not appear to have been drinking alcohol.

The arrest happened around 8:45 a.m., when Rosenthal's BMW SUV struck a parked Sheriff's Office vehicle in the parking lot, Keyla Concepcion, a spokeswoman for the agency said.

A request for Rosenthal's booking mug shot was denied by the Broward Sheriff's Office. Concepcion said Rosenthal, 56, made a request in writing to keep the photograph private because she is a sitting judge. She was booked into the main jail on one count of driving under the influence and one count of driving under the influence and causing property damage, according to jail records. She was released on a $1,500 bond late Tuesday.

Rosenthal was driving a BMW X3 SUV that was still stopped at the entrance to the judges' parking lot between the courthouse and the Broward Main Jail late Tuesday morning. The driver's side rearview mirror was dangling on the side of the door, but there was no debris, indicating the damage to the mirror occurred before she reached the parking lot.

According to an arrest report, Rosenthal struck the parked patrol car with the passenger side of her SUV, then continued toward the security gate of the judges' parking lot. She struck the gate, put her vehicle in reverse, then struck the gate several more times before a deputy at the scene stopped her, according to the report.

Although she was described as unsteady on her feet and was speaking with a slurred voice, deputies said they did not smell alcohol.

Rosenthal volunteered that she had been involved in another crash before she reached the parking lot, according to the report. She told deputies a truck attempted to run her off the road on Interstate 595 and that she had captured the incident on a cellphone video.

The deputy reviewed the video and determined that there was no truck trying to run her off the road. "The video did display that [Rosenthal] was unable to maintain a single lane, drove in the breakdown lane and failed to avoid a collision with a concrete wall," wrote the deputy, Michael Wiley.

Rosenthal submitted to a breath test but declined to give a blood or urine sample to test for the presence of drugs in her system. She failed a field sobriety test.

Michael Dye, a Fort Lauderdale defense attorney who specializes in DUI cases, said Rosenthal may not be in much legal trouble if Ambien is all she took. "Under Florida law, Ambien is not listed as a controlled substance," he said. "It doesn't apply to Florida's impaired driving statute."

Rosenthal is the third Broward judge arrested for DUI in the past six months.

Broward Circuit Judge Cynthia Imperato, 57, has a pending DUI case resulting from a November 2013 incident in Boca Raton.

And on Friday, Broward County Judge Gisele Pollack was suspended from the bench pending an inquiry over allegations that she took the bench while intoxicated.

Pollack, 56, was arrested May 1 after a car crash in Plantation. Another driver was injured and Pollack was charged with four counts of DUI and failure to use due care. In that case, the State Attorney's Office said it would ask the governor's office to appoint a prosecutor from another county.

State Attorney's Office spokesman Ron Ishoy said the same request will be made in Rosenthal's case.

Broward Circuit Judge Martin Bidwill will be taking over Rosenthal's caseload until further notice, said Meredith Bush, spokeswoman for the Office of Court Administration, which handles judicial assignments.

Rosenthal was appointed to the bench in July 2012 by Governor Rick Scott and is up for re-election this year.

Her opponent, Jahra McLawrence, called her arrest "disappointing" and cautioned that she remains innocent in the eyes of the law until proven guilty.

"If true, it would be disturbing to know she was about to take the bench and decide on people's fates while under the influence," he said.

Rosenthal had been an Assistant United States Attorney since 1985, prosecuting international drug trafficking, money laundering, human smuggling, firearms trafficking, arson, tax fraud, bank fraud, bank robbery and other federal crimes.

raolmeda@tribune.com, 954-356-4457 or Twitter @SSCourts

"O" you're outed!

Good Day Readers:

This is reminiscent of a John Le Carre spy novel with the ruthless little psychopathic boys in short pants and girls in short skirts of the Prime Minister's Office and Privy Council Office running around with code names for everyone. So

we now know who you are and where you live so don't try anything creepy-sneaky.

Sincerely,
Clare L. Pieuk

Rigby senior PCO adviser sent Paulson letter about missing Senate scandal documents last December

Tim Naumetz
Monday, May 26, 2014

RCMP Commissioner Bob Paulson, pictured on Parliament Hill. (The Hill Times photograph by Jake Wright)

PARLIAMENT HILL—A senior Cabinet Aide in the Privy Council Office received assistance from Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s National Scurity Adviser in order to send RCMP Commissioner Robert Paulson a copy of a letter informing one of Mr. Paulson’s Division Commanders about the discovery of missing documents in the Senate scandal investigation last December.

Isabelle Mondou, Assistant Secretary to Cabinet for Legal Operations and Cabinet Confidences, sent a copy of the letter announcing the discovery of key information in an investigation of former Chief of Staff Nigel Wright to Mr. Paulson, even though the letter was addressed to the Assistant Commissioner in charge of the RCMP National Division who was in charge of the investigation, copies of the email exchange show.

In the unusual email exchange on December 1, 2013, which took place shortly before the Privy Council Office also disclosed publicly that emails written by Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s former PMO legal counsel had not been deleted as previously thought, Ms. Mondou referred to Mr. Paulson as “0”—an apparent internal designation for the RCMP Commissioner without naming him—as she sought help from Mr. Harper’s National Security adviser, Stephen Rigby.

The emails, among more than 200 pages of documents The Hill Times obtained through a request under the Access to Information Act, also suggest that the PCO information technology branch eventually found the records in caches of designated PMO email records.

The documents at the centre of the exchange were stored email records of former legal adviser Benjamin Perrin, who had been at the centre of planning and discussions that were taking place inside Mr. Harper’s (Calgary Southwest, Alberta.) office in February 2013 as Mr. Wright negotiated with then Conservative Senator Mike Duffy over the now infamous $90,000 Mr. Wright eventually transferred through a law firm to Senator Duffy—so the Senator could repay several years worth of inappropriate housing allowance and expenses that were under internal Senate investigation.

Senator Duffy, suspended without pay from the Senate because of information dug up by the RCMP and an outside forensic review of the expenses by the accounting firm Deloitte, is still under investigation.

But the RCMP announced last month that it had decided not to lay charges against Mr. Wright, and neither the RCMP nor Mr. Paulson, in a subsequent media interview about the decision, disclosed exactly why the decision had been taken, although the April 15 RCMP statement the RCMP’s National Division said “we have concluded that the evidence gathered does not support criminal charges against Mr. Wright.”

The lead investigator in the case, RCMP Corporal Greg Horton, filed two court affidavits to obtain orders for the production of Senate documents, banking records, and other information, that alleged both Senator Duffy and Mr. Wright had committed breach of trust and fraud and had contravened Parliament of Canada Act provisions by their transferring and receiving the money without permission from the head of their government branch.

Throughout the controversy in Parliament last year, Mr. Harper insisted that he knew nothing about Mr. Wright’s deal with Senator Duffy, and when the story became public, initially suggested Mr. Wright had acted unethically, at the least, since the aim of the payment was to allow Senator Duffy to pay off his impugned expenses and avoid further scrutiny by Deloitte and a critical finding by a Senate rules committee.

Mr. Paulson told The Globe and Mail in an interview earlier this month that the RCMP explored “all of the corners and all of the shadows” of government before its decision not to lay charges against Mr. Wright, a millionaire and Conservative Party fundraiser who took leave from an Onex Corp. subsidiary to join Mr. Harper as his chief of staff.

The head of the Mounties, who was appointed by Cabinet and answers directly to Public Safety Minister Steven Blaney (Lévis-Bellechasse, Quebec), told Globe and Mail reporter Daniel Leblanc the federal police force will at some point release the conclusions of the investigation.

“We suspected some illicit activity to have taken place,” Mr. Paulson said.

“We have investigated that. We have considered the Parliament of Canada Act, considered the Criminal Code, considered every element of this thing. Our reasoning, our analysis, and, ultimately, our conclusions will be available for people to beat around the bush,” Mr. Paulson said.

Without explaining why, the December 1 emails in the PCO reveal that Ms. Mondou, who had written a letter to Assistant Commissioner Gilles Michaud, also wanted to send Mr. Paulson a copy of the letter as a separate email attachment, even though Mr. Paulson’s name does not appear as a copied recipient. The letter was copied only to lawyer Robert Staley at the Toronto firm Bennett Jones, apparently one of Mr. Wright’s lawyers at the time.

“I have tried 0 without success. Here is the attachment. Do you want to give it a try?” Ms. Mondou says at 6:39 p.m. that day in an email to Stephen Rigby, Mr. Harper’s national security adviser in the PCO.

“Try Bob.Pauson@rcmp-grc.gc.ca,” Mr. Rigby replies.

“Will do! Should work. Thanks.” Ms. Mondou writes.

Four minutes later, Ms. Mondou emails Mr. Paulson asking if he couldconfirm that he received the attached letter to Assistant Commissioner Michaud.

“Yes, thank you, I have received the letter,” Mr. Paulson replies.

tnaumetz@hilltimes.com

The result of a bozo eruption named John McKay!

"To serve and protect" ..... call the police for help to get a free criminal record without breaking the law!

National data base holds 420,000 never convicted

Saturday, May 24, 2014

Ann Cavoukian, Ontario's Privacy Commissioner, supports new laws or amendments to legislation that clearly instructs police forces on what they can release to employers, volunteer organizations and governments. (Matthew Sherwood for the Toronto Star)

Hundreds of thousands of people are listed in Canada’s national criminal records despite never having been convicted of a crime, a Torstar News Service analysis has found.

More than 420,000 people were listed in the RCMP’s Canadian Police Information Centre (CPIC) database as having no conviction in 2005, the most recent year for which Torstar has data.
Many of them are listed in the database for mental health issues.

For example, nearly 2,500 with no conviction registered had a notation for “attempt suicide.” Another 2,200 had a notation for “mental instability” with no conviction.

Experts say the CPIC figures remain generally consistent over time.

These — along with mental health incidents and police investigation notes contained in local police force computers — are routinely released on background checks, a continuing Torstar investigation has found.
“This issue is big and it’s getting bigger,” says Toronto criminal lawyer David Rose, who argued a key Ontario case on disclosure of non-conviction records in 2012. “There are no rules, no legislation and police are free to do what they want.”

Innocent victims of police disclosures, along with lawyers, academics, social justice advocates and privacy experts, are calling for legislation that would bring clarity to what information can and can’t be released by police in background checks.

“This ruins lives,” says Ann Cavoukian, Ontario’s Privacy Commissioner, who supports new laws or amendments to current legislation that clearly instructs police forces on what they can release to employers, volunteer organizations and governments.

“We need some concrete guidance on this that directs police on the essential need for discretion. Left to their own devices, they may or may not exercise discretion and based on what guidelines, we don’t know.”

Diane, whose full name is being withheld to protect her from retribution, is one of more than 200 Canadians who came forward this week to say their personal or professional lives have been ruined by police check disclosures even though they have never broken the law.

When she ended her relationship with a common-law spouse five years ago, he vowed revenge.

“Unknown to me at the time, he scratched his legs, arms and neck and then called the police to report that I assaulted him,” says the now 40-year-old.

She was arrested and charged based on the physical marks on her ex.

While the charges were withdrawn 11 months later, the risk it poses to her career as a counsellor continues.
After completing a two-year program at George Brown College, Diane was working as a counsellor in Toronto in October 2012 when she was asked to provide a so-called vulnerable sector police check — required for those working with vulnerable people — as a condition of her employment.

Her withdrawn assault charge involving her ex-spouse was there.

“Just when you think you put this behind you, it comes up again and people assume you’re guilty and have done something terribly wrong,” she says. “It was disbelief, shock and a lot of anger.”

York Region and Toronto police removed the charge four months later following her appeals.

“It took … many hours of anguish to finally convince the police department that I was not actually a threat to society and that my employment hinged on the fact that I had a clear record.”

It meant she was able to keep her job.

But Diane is now completing a Masters degree in counselling psychology and will be required to submit further police checks to work with the public.

“Is (the charge) going to remain suppressed? I don’t know. I’ve worked very hard for this degree and this could prevent me from going forward.”

There is no rational argument for retaining such non-conviction records, says Darryl Davies, a criminology professor and researcher at Carleton University.

“There should be no information about non-convicted people in CPIC. CPIC is supposed to be and should be and ought to be a Canadian police information database for the purposes of identifying your criminal history. You can’t have a criminal history unless you’ve been convicted under the Criminal Code of Canada, end of story … It is, to me, a stain on our justice system that we allow it to continue.”

In response to queries from Torstar, the three provincial parties committed little in the way of specific policy positions.

The provincial Tories declined repeated requests for comment.

The Liberals declined an interview, saying in a written statement that they will examine recommendations from the Canadian Civil Liberties Association and the John Howard Society of Ontario “to find the right approach for Ontario.”

Both agencies released reports last week calling on police to stop releasing non-conviction records and asking politicians to enact legislation around police check disclosures that protects privacy.

The NDP provided the strongest statement, although short on details.

“The presumption of innocence represents a fundamental pillar of our legal system and New Democrats are committed to protecting this important right,” said Jagmeet Singh, NDP critic to the attorney general. “An NDP government will work with Ontarians to bring forward the legislative changes that are needed to properly address these concerns.”

Ontarians seeking to volunteer their time, talents and wisdom have had their intentions snagged on allegations that were never proven.

When Rick Perreault tried to volunteer for the Children’s Aid Society in Sudbury four years ago, he had no concerns about providing the mandatory police records check.

He considered himself an upstanding and law-abiding citizen who had worked for the City of Sudbury before becoming a federal employee.

To his amazement, an incident 15 years earlier when he had disciplined his young son appeared.

The son, then 10, was acting up in the back seat of the car and teasing his two younger brothers while Perreault was driving.

“I reached behind me and lightly tapped him on the knee as I was driving down a very busy highway,” Perrault recalls. “About a week after that, two police officers showed up at my place of work and asked my manager if I would step outside.”

It seems someone driving in the car behind him had reported him to police.

He explained what happened to the officers, both fathers, who then apologized for the trouble. No charges. No convictions.

“I thought that was the end of it.”

Not so.

Perrault was refused a volunteer position with the CAS based on the incident.

“I was stunned when my application was refused,” says Perrault. “I was a business man with no criminal record. I felt when I volunteered I would be an asset to this organization based on my experience raising three boys, my entrepreneurial skills, my experience with municipal and federal governments … I will never volunteer for anything again.”

The most outrageous aspect of non-conviction disclosures is the re-victimization of the innocent, says Anne, 58, who asked that her last name not be published to protect her employment.

Only a few months after being married in 2003, she called police and fled to a woman’s shelter because of domestic abuse.

Today she herself has a police record despite never being found guilty of a crime.

Her then husband was arrested and charged with assault and threatening death. Shortly after, he called the arresting officer and filed a complaint against Anne for allegedly threatening him.

He was convicted of assault.

Police found his claims against Anne to be unfounded.

“The officer believed my husband wanted to get back at me (and) filed the complaints out of spite,” she says.

“I was told not to worry about it.”

But while her ex-husband holds the right of all Canadians to apply for a pardon and have his conviction records expunged, the unproven allegations against Anne remain on her record today despite her appeals for them to be removed.

When she applied years later to be a volunteer at a women’s shelter, she was shocked to discover she had a police record indicating she was “suspected” of uttering threats.

“Anybody can pick up the phone, dial 911, file a complaint against you and if it goes into the database, you’re stuck with it,” she says. “When I discovered that I had this label for who knows how long, I just couldn’t get my head around it. It boggles my mind. Who came up with this?”

Turned down by the shelter, she appealed to the officer who investigated the allegations against her and asked him to remove the information from her record.

“He stated he could not,” she says. “I would just have to explain to future employers the circumstances and hope they would believe me.”

Her appeal to the Crown Attorney’s Office also had no effect.

“I was told, ‘There’s nothing we can do, this is how government expects (police) to record every incident they are called upon,’” she says. “The convicted are protected. But these non-conviction record releases definitely violate my constitutional rights to be heard, to defend myself against these false records.”

Police forces from across the country feed the RCMP-administered database with charge and outcome data. This information can be accessed by police from in-car cruiser computers and is shared with police services and agencies.

It is also available to the FBI and other U.S. agencies, including border officials. A reciprocal agreement allows Canadian police and agencies to access American criminal records.

Torstar’s analysis of the data showed that of the 421,244 people listed in CPIC with non-conviction records, 266,036 are Canadian-born. Of those, 83,394 had notations for violence; 1,805 have a notation for suicide attempt; and 1,617 had a notation for mental instability.

Torstar asked the RCMP this week for updated figures. None were provided in time for this story.

The national Canadian criminal database data includes “information on charges, warrants, persons of interest, stolen property, vehicles, criminal records as well as critical public and officer safety information,” an RCMP spokesperson said in response to Torstar questions.

Also included in the submitted data are “character” indicators police fill out whenever they feel an individual has a propensity for violence, is an escape risk, has experienced “mental instability” or has attempted suicide.
Cavoukian last month released the findings of her investigation into how and why a Toronto woman on her way to the Caribbean was turned away at the U.S. border over a “mental illness” episode from 2012.

The red flag was contained in CPIC data, Cavoukian determined. The Commissioner chastised police for routinely submitting such notations to the national database but her report gave no indication of the scope of those who may be affected by the data.

Police say such notations are necessary to ensure officer and public safety when responding to a call for service.

“If warranted and at the discretion of the investigating/attending police agency, public safety information related to individuals who are known to have mental health issues, including those who have attempted or threatened to commit suicide, is placed on CPIC to protect the individuals themselves, the general public and/or police officers who may come in contact with them, from possible harm,” Sergeant Greg Cox, an RCMP spokesperson, said in an email.

“The information allows police services to be aware of individuals that may be a danger to themselves or others and assists police in determining appropriate responses or actions to take relative to that individual.”
While that may be so, disclosing it to prospective employers, governments or volunteer organizations undermines the lives of law-abiding Canadians, says Anne, who now fears crossing the U.S. border.

“It’s unjust. And it’s a shaming of innocent people.”

Elementary Dear Watson, Stevie was blinded by her little bobbies and needed a big drink (of water naturally) ..... fast!

Good Day Readers:

You have to wonder whether this will be yet another big, fat, juicy salacious scandal that will follow the Harper government into the next election.

Read the fascinating behind the scenes background story of how two APTN reporters stumbled upon it..

Sincerely,
Clare L. Pieuk

Hey Stevie, start with 'I'm sorry'and go from there

By Michael Harris
Sunday, May 25, 2014

Stephen Harper owes Canadians an explanation and now would be a good time to offer it.

How did a lawyer twice convicted of fraud, who went to jail for 18 months for stealing from his own clients, who was charged with influence peddling in 2012, and is now facing three new counts of illegal lobbying and another of influence peddling – how did such a talented guy get to sit at the right hand of power in the Prime Minister’s Office?

Logic suggests that there are only a few possible explanations:

• Did officials in the PCO who did the vetting simply blow it when it came to Carson’s multiple convictions – 1982 and 1990, plus his bankruptcy?
• Did the RCMP just drop the ball on his security check?
• Did Carson lie about his past crimes?
• Or did Carson’s manager in the PMO override the security check, as is possible? And who was that manager, the Chief of staff of the day, or the Stephen Harper himself?

Some of these possibilities have been addressed. Carson says the government knew about his criminal record – all of it. The PM asserts that he knew about the initial fraud conviction from 1982, but not the second one – as if that explains anything. So one stretch in jail is okay, but a second fraud conviction and bankruptcy is not?

There is another matter Stephen Harper has to explain about Bruce Carson. Why would he entrust the development of a national energy strategy for the entire country to a disbarred lawyer? Why did he get him the top job at the new Canada School of Energy and Environment at the University of Calgary – and $15 million in taxpayers dollars to get the place going?

Carson has zero scientific experience and suddenly he’s got 7,000 students and 260 researchers looking to him for leadership. What leadership? This is a guy who thinks a clean planet is an unrealistic idea. This is a guy who thinks the tar sands’ effluent is fit to drink.

And on what basis did the Harper government give another company chaired by Carson — Carbon Management Canada — another $25 million in federal funding?

As a matter of fact, Carson’s email requesting a grant under the Centres of Excellence program arrived at the Department of Natural Resources while Carson was busy helping prepare the 2009 budget in a special, short-term return to the PMO. Harper’s then Chief of staff Guy Giorno reportedly blew a gasket and called in the Ethics Commissioner.

On an already underwhelming report card, the biggest F on Stephen Harper’s record so far has been his utter failure to “clean up” Ottawa, after riding into town like the Lone Ranger in the wake of the Ad Sponsorship Scandal.

Instead of cleaning things up, he will leave the system dirtier than he found it. Consider the personnel choices:

• Nigel Wright — fired by the PM for doing a deal the PM says he would never have approved, the $90,000 cheque to Senator Mike Duffy

• Arthur Porter — his choice to be watch dog for CSIS, in jail in Panama fighting extradition to Canada where he faces multiple fraud charges

• Dean del Mastro — his former Parliamentary Secretary, up on charges of election cheating, and pleading not guilty

• Saulie Zajdel — Harper’s “shadow MP” in Irwin Cotler’s Montreal seat, facing five counts of breach of trust, fraud and corruption

• Suspended Senator Mike Duffy — under investigation by the RCMP

• Suspended Senator Patrick Brazeau — facing multiple charges and currently in rehab

• Suspended Senator Pamela Wallin — under RCMP investigation

Beyond poor draft choices, Harper has damaged the public service by deeply politicizing everything – including the Privy Council Office.

Countless interviews with senior public servants, officers of parliament, and tribunal heads who believe they were unjustly treated by the Prime Minister or their own minister come with the same punch line. They did what they were supposed to do under such circumstances; they appealed to their proper protector, the Clerk of the Privy Council. None of them got help from the country’s top civil servant, and all saw a big change in the PCO.

One very senior Head of a quasi-judicial body asked for a meeting over a very serious matter but the Clerk of the day did not oblige. Instead, he sent underlings, his Chief Legal Counsel, and a representative from the Machinery of Government side. They listened silently, nodding occasionally, and offered the embattled public servant no help.

So how can it be that Stephen Harper’s key political operatives, even when they no longer work for him, do not have problems reaching the most powerful public office holders in the land? Consider the circumstances of Bruce Carson’s latest charges.

On November 16, 2009, former Harper advisor Carson sent an email to the Clerk of the Privy Council asking for a meeting the following week. “Will be in Ottawa from Monday to Wednesday inclusive next week – you got a half hour for a visit. bc.” Wayne Wouters, whom Harper had appointed Clerk of the Privy Council just four and a half months earlier replied: “Sure. Set it up with my office.”

A second email from Carson to the Deputy Minister of Natural Resources, Cassie Doyle, informed the senior public servant that he had had one of his regular meetings with the Clerk, and spent most of his time talking about energy. “I brought him up to speed on various initiatives I am involved in – in this area – especially the so-called “think tank” one that I wrote to you about a month or so ago after a meeting in Winnipeg.”

At the time, Carson headed up the Canada School of Energy and Environment and worked with a group called the Energy Policy Institute of Canada. Since he himself was not yet five years out from the date that his own government employment ended, it was illegal for him to be dealing with public office holders over the development or amendment of any government policy; the awarding of any grant; or the arranging of a meeting between a public office holder and any other person.

Why was he able to do that? Carson’s passport to the highest offices in the land bears Stephen Harper’s face.

So do tell us Mr. Prime Minister, besides a criminal record, a taste for young escorts, and an alleged yen for unregistered lobbying, how did Bruce Carson come to sit by your side – and why did you give him so much power and so much of the people’s money?

An explanation and an apology would be appropriate right about now.

How they got the story: Kenneth Jackson on APTN's Bruce Carson affair scoop

The Canadian Journalism Project
Posted by Belinda Alzner
December 5, 2012

'Escort, pimp Senior Advisor to Harper, native affairs and government contracts.' Those were the words of a source that piqued Kenneth Jackson's interest and began an investigation that would lead Jackson and APTN's Jorge Barrera to uncover the Bruce Carson affair. Jackson explains how they got the story.

Introduction by Media Magazine Editor David McKie

The story of a Conservative backroom operator who allegedly used his influence to win contracts for his then-fiancee was one of the juciest stories to reach Parliament Hill in recent memory, and a story that shot a little-known television network into the big game. The Aboriginal Peoples Television Network worked the story until from - from all places - the sex trade industry.

Ken Jackson's account of how he and Jorge Barrera got the story, and then how they confronted Bruce Carson with the damning evidence, is a fascinating read, and one that deserved a little extra space in order for his narrative to breathe.

Of course, the Carson story is far from over, and there were many aspects of the case that the network didn't cover, as Ken explains in the piece. Still, the network blazed a trail and caused other media outlets, including my own (the CBC), to play catch-up.

By Kenneth Jackson

I tell the guy on the phone to meet me at the gas station across the road from Collins Bay Institution. This will be the drop.

It’s a crisp, dark February evening in Kingston, Ontario, just after five o’clock. As I pull in, I see the man parked where he said he’d be. I go to on the other side. My fiancée is in the car, as we had just left the gym.
I’ve never met him before. I don’t want to take any chances.

I walk towards him. He’s talking on his mobile phone through a bluetooth earpiece. I wave and say hello. He motions for me to come closer. “It’s in the back,” he says, opening the vehicle’s sliding door. There it is. I see it immediately, sitting on a child booster seat,  a small box taped completely in duct tape. He reaches in and hands it to me. I say thanks and don’t stick around.

When I get back to my car, I rip the box open. I reach in and quickly read a bit. “Holy shit,” I say to my soon-to-be wife. Inside, are dozens of emails, bank records - pieces of the Bruce Carson story.

Calling in the RCMP to Investigate a Former Harper Advisor

Fast-forward from that February 2011 meeting in the parking lot. In July, 2012, the RCMP charged the 66-year-old Carson with influence peddling after an investigation that lasted nearly 15 months. Carson was a Senior Advisor in Prime Minister’s Office from 2006 to 2008, and is presumed innocent until proven guilty. The matter is now before the courts.

The Mounties began their investigation when the Prime Minister’s Office called the police to investigate a political staffer, one of their own. Carson may had been out of office for a couple years, but he’s a Conservative as a summer day is long.

He’d be given a cushy job as Director of the Canadian School of Energy and Environment in 2008, but he didn’t really sink his teeth into the Calgary, and Conservative think-tank, until the following year. That’s because in 2009, Prime Minister Stephen Harper called him back to help briefly in the PMO.

Getting the Scoop from a Sextrade Source

When I got an email from an old source on February 15, 2011, saying they had a potential story, I quickly called the person. I was a freelancer living in Kingston, separated only weeks from my former job as the crime reporter at the Ottawa Sun.

“How do the words ‘escort, pimp, senior policy advisor to Harper, native affairs and government contracts” sound for a Kenneth Jackson headline?’” the person writing the email asked.

The person had deep connections in Ottawa’s sex trade, something I had exclusively covered during my time in Ottawa. During the telephone conservation, I said I needed proof, which is why I set up the meeting with the stranger at a gas station across from murderers and thieves.

My first challenge was selling the story. Who could I trust? I wanted to, not only sell the story, but, even more importantly, I wanted to work it. I wasn’t just going to hand it off. I had known Jorge Barrera for several years and we always wanted to work a story together. He was working at the Aboriginal Peoples Television Network; I was a free agent with a story in a box.

The Carson story was of a well-connected man trying to use to his contacts in the federal government to land lucrative water contracts on First Nations reserves with long-standing and severe water-quality problems. Carson was trying to land contracts for an Ottawa company that sells water filtration-systems. But, really, he was doing it for love.

Following the Email Trail

He was engaged to 22-year-old Michele McPherson, also known as LeannaVIP,  her working name as a popular Ottawa escort. She was friends with the owner of the water company. They all worked out a deal where she’d receive a cut of the profits from potential contracts. The aboriginal angle was obvious, plus Barrera covered federal politics. He was an ordinary, decent reporter, and a friend.

“I have a story but I can’t tell you about it,” I said to him sitting on his couch. He laughed. I was only sort of joking. I knew I had something. I quickly caved and told him a bit about it. Then I pulled out the emails.

“Holy shit,” he said when he came across one of the emails where Carson said he spoke to Prime Minister Stephen Harper about a cabinet shuffle in August 2010, a day before it was made public.

It wasn’t long before I had a deal with APTN to work the story with my friend. We had emails that provided a paper trail from about the beginning of July 2010 to the middle of October. It was now March 2011. We needed to fill in the gap.

Initially, we over-thought the entire story. By that I mean, we thought we needed to almost go undercover to get what we needed. We couldn’t have been more wrong. Ultimately, we wanted to catch Carson with McPherson. Connect them. Carson spent his week in Calgary. On weekends he flew back to Ottawa for business - and to  be with McPherson.  He always stayed at the Chateau Laurier, a high-end hotel.

We called the hotel on a Saturday and asked for Carson. “I’m sorry but he’s not in yet,” replied the lady on the phone. She said he was expected to check inlater that day. We then checked arrivals from Calgary to Ottawa. There was a direct flight. So we went to the airport. Sure enough, a man looking like Carson appeared. He walked a bit slouched over and was wearing jeans. He had a small, carry-on bag.

After spending about 15 minutes on his phone, he walked over to rent a car even though he had leased or purchased two vehicles for McPherson, a black Mercedes SUV and a Hyundai Sonata. The car he rented was a white Chevy Cobalt. It was raining, and with one car, a handful of other excuses, the slow-moving
Carson evaded us.

Deflated, we headed back to APTN’s office in the World Exchange Plaza in downtown Ottawa. Then Barrera did what he does best. He began poking around the Internet. We had already pulled a bunch of stuff that added to the story, but somehow missed a Facebook page made by the company, H20 Global Group, also known as H20 Water Professionals (H2O Pros). It appeared that it was just made. In its description, the company said it was interested in providing clean drinking water in first nations’ communities. Barrera then had the idea of just emailing the company and saying we want to meet and talk about the work they wanted to do.

The Encounter With Carson

It was a risk. I was hesitant. I didn’t want to lose them before we even started. We really needed to think of all the angles. But, in the end, we didn’t have much choice. About 10 minutes after sending that fateful email, we got a response from Christine McPherson; yes, Michele’s mother, saying they’d love to meet. Owner Patrick Hill would be there, too, as well as Mr. Bruce Carson. We were floored. “Carson is going to come too?” I asked Barrera.

“Yep.”

“Wow.”

In that interview, Carson would confirm most of what we already knew, and then some, and without us asking him. He introduced McPherson into the interview saying he was only doing it for his girlfriend, and then he named her. He said he spoke to Harper on a regular basis, along with his cabinet. It was bureaucracy that was holding up the company getting contracts. Federal public servants were making it difficult.

He then agreed to do another interview at the office of the company. It was then that he spoke about how he didn’t want to get in trouble for being a lobbyist, which he said he wasn’t. We had a lot, but we didn’t have Carson and McPherson together. She was supposed to be the face of the company, according to a contract Carson witnessed and was signed by the owners of the water company, along with McPherson.

We tried one last time to get McPherson on camera. It was a Sunday. First, she was going to show, then wasn’t, then was. Finally, only Carson showed.Up until this point, I was never really part of the interviews for fear they’d make me. I had met McPherson years earlier, and had connections to them through my sources in the sex-trade business. This time I sat down with Barrera. Carson seemed impatient and tired.
He was fine, though, until we brought up McPherson. He got agitated the first time.

Then I asked my first question about McPherson. He got up and called off the interview. That was when we told him everything we had. The camera rolled the entire time, with APTN Investigates cameraman Josh Grummett capturing what unfolded next. We expected Carson to dart for the door, but he didn’t. He stuck around.
As we told him what he knew he began to say things like “I’m in so much shit.”

Then he walked into an office and was a silhouette of a man by the window as he peered below to the street six floors down.We kept rolling and continued to confront him. It was our due diligence as reporters to give the man a fair shake. He admitted to witnessing the contract and writing the email about Harper, but said he lied when he wrote he spoke to Harper. Carson said he spoke to someone else about the shuffle.

The interview continued for several minutes before he eventually walked out and into the parking garage to his rented Cobalt.

Confronting the Prime Minister’s Office

Three days later we set up a meeting with Harper’s former Chief Spokesman Dimitri Soudas. We also had an obligation to give them a head’s-up for comment. In today’s world, it’s the proper thing to do, and legally responsible.

Still, it was tough laying our cards on the table to a trained public relations man like Soudas. His job was deflect, not accept us as friends.

Hours later, the Prime Minister’s Office sent a letter to the RCMP asking them to investigate Carson. Similar letters were sent to the Lobbying Commissioner and Office of Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner.
We had three federal investigations, all before we wrote a single word.

We had intended to do an hour-long show as part of APTN Investigates, but now we had to roll with what we had, and quickly. That evening, we only broke the story of the PMO calling in the authorities on Carson. We didn’t get into detail. Then all hell broke loose. Reporters were trying to get in our story. We haven’t even had time to breathe.It happened, what felt like, a blink of an eye.

The next day we broke more of the story.

APTN’s website crashed. Our BlackBerrys were going nuts. It was only a five-minute story of what was going to be an hour. There was much more to tell. Then it reached Question Period and flooded the halls of the House of Commons. The government fell, and then Harper won a majority.

In Hindsight

The story went quiet, at least publicly.

My contract with APTN was up and Barrera was on to other stories. Looking back, I should have written about it throughout, every day if I could. Some weeks I could have, but I didn’t have an employer.
There’s plenty that was never published. Our published work really is just a small portion of what we uncovered and what I continued to.

But, Carson barely made the news until Barrera and I hooked up again this past April. We had information the RCMP was cranking up their investigation. We learned authorities had thousands of Carson’s emails while at Canada School of Energy and the Environment, and were looking into a mystery $5,000 cheque and whether the water company paid Carson.

In addition, the Mounties were heavily interested in McPherson’s role. They also wanted to know if people believed Carson had contacts in the government he said he had, and if they believed he could help the company with those contacts. In other words, they were looking at influence peddling. We also reported Hill, the water company owner, was under investigation for fraud by the Ontario Provincial Police.

In an interview, Hill said Carson and McPherson destroyed his life.

Then, while I was writing a story on real estate, because I’m still a freelancer, I got an email from Barrera July 27 saying only “Carson’s been charged!!” in the subject line. What separates this story from others is we didn’t report on someone else’s investigation. We did our own. It was a reporter’s investigation.

We flew by the seat of our pants, at times, and counted on our ability to find the truth. Nothing was published that wasn’t confirmed. If someone told us something, it had to be backed up with documents or several other witnesses.

This story is far from over.

The lobbying reported is said to be “unprecedented” and also expected to look at Carson’s involvement in oil, as he played a big part in the Conservative government’s attempt to clean up the oil sands.
That report will likely come out after the influence peddling court case.



Kenneth Jackson is a freelance reporter. You can reach him at kennethbrianjackson@gmail.com or @afixedaddress.

This article was originally published in the Winter 2012 issue of CAJ's Media magazine and has been reprinted here with permission of editor David McKie. 

APTN’s Carson affair investigation, uncut