Author Topic: Trudeau accused in SNC-Lavalin scandal  (Read 11083 times)

0 Members and 0 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Rue

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 835
  • The beast feeds on fear - I feast on the beast.
  • Location: inside a matrix
Re: Trudeau accused in SNC-Lavalin scandal
« Reply #645 on: March 06, 2019, 08:56:37 pm »
I now address these comments Mr. Butt stated today that I enumerate.

A-Mr. Butt said the deferred prosecution has been badly mischaracterized as a get-out-of-jail-free card, instead of a way for companies to make amends while protecting innocent workers, shareholders and pensioners from being harmed.

This is a misleading statement by Butt. This is not about “companies”, it is about SNC Lavalin specifically and it is crucial everyone understand the issue is not about deferred prosecution agreements or whether they can be used, it is about what criteria should be considered if using one in this specific case, and whether the specific elements of the crime and the history of the company requesting it make it a reasonable proposition to consider.

The deferred prosecution agreement as a possible  alternative to plea bargaining or traditional criminal sentencing after a trial was passed into law on September 19, 2018. This law refers to it by the name “remediation agreement”. It can be considered with companies who engaged in “economic” crimes. If allowed it would suspend ongoing or outstanding criminal proceedings. It then would require the company to complete specified undertakings to avoid facing criminal charges and an actual criminal trial. Those undertakings are described as fines, remediation measures, enhanced reporting requirements and allowing independent 3rd party audits and reviews of the company’s compliance procedures.

The theory behind it is to encourage voluntary disclosure of misconduct by corporations for having committed criminal activities that probably would have otherwise not been detected by regulators. Its also supposed to hold an organization accountable for bad behaviour and to deter it from doing this kind of behaviour again.

The previous remediation agreement discussions in 2017 were general and never specific to Lavalin and its situation.

When this recent Liberal DPA law was passed it was not done with open discussion but at the last second inserted in an Omnibus bill to prevent discussion of it.

One must therefore ask, if it was business as usual, why did the Minister of Justice in a government Trudeau claimed would be open and transparent and never hide things in omnibus bills do just that and not introduce it and discuss it in Parliament and why was it not discussed on the floor if it was genuine and the Liberals had nothing to hide? Why did they even keep it secret from their own MP’s on the Legal Committee  before they passed it?  

Most importantly the DPA has many criteria that must be considered but Mr. Butt today only focused on the one consideration that coincidentally was one that coincides with the personal interests of Trudeau and his constituents.

Butt would have you believe he never read the dpa law and has no idea what other criteria had to be considered. BULL ****.

That law which he would know, says  to be eligible (not entitled, its not automatic entitlement, you must show cause why you are entitled) for a remediation agreement, the accused can not be a public body, trade union or municipality. It is also  limited to consideration for economic offences, i.e., bribery or fraud, not for crimes of death or bodily injury or would violate the Canadian Competition Act.

He would also know this dpa law would require BEFORE the AG or any prosecutor could enter into negotiations as to the specific conditions of the agreement as it pertains to the specific elements of the Lavalin case, these other conditions had to be met:

1-there is a reasonable prospect of conviction with respect to the offence (appears to apply in this specific Lavalin situation);

2-the conduct in question caused no “serious bodily harm or death or injury to national defence or national security”, and was NOT committed for “the benefit of, at the direction of, or in association with a criminal organization or terrorist group; Lavalin is not considered a criminal organization or a terrorist group, but it did bribe as part of its conduct, Mummar Ghadafi and Libyan government officials who funded and ordered  terrorists to kill people and caused  serious bodily harm or death or injury to national defence or national security, by killing in his own country and in other countries allied with Canada thousands of persons who opposed his view, including the bombing of a passenger jet over Scotland and Libyan government soldiers and sponsored terrorists groups killed thousands in Chad, Niger, Dahomey, Malawi, Mali, Central African Republic, to name but a few countries);

3-negotiating the agreement must be “in the public interest and appropriate in the circumstances” -the question remains does the fact that people might but not necessarily lose their jobs if Lavalin was convicted (there is zero proof of that its speculated) over-ride the the public interest to be protected from the criminal activities of Lavalin as well one has to question whether the circumstances were appropriate for these reasons:
i-The accused lobbied the government 80 times for the DPA-why was someone with a direct vested interest in a specific dpa and part of an on-going criminal proceeding allowed to do this?
ii-The Prime Minister openly stated his concern for intervening and pushing for the DPA was on behalf of the constituents of his riding who might lose jobs-in so admitting this which was again repeated and confirmed by Mr. Butt today, they both acknowledged they knew they had a conflict of interest and it was inappropriate the PM and PMO have anything to do with any discussions as to the DPA because of that conflict; the conflict, was the interest attached to whether the persons in Trudeau’s riding could lose their job versus the need to protect all Canadians from crime and not undermine the neutrality of the court system and have it appear to take into consideration partisan or political concerns as criteria for its implementation.

4. The AG must consent to the negotiation agreement. Ms. Raybould said she made it clear she was against it. Mr. Butt today in effect called her a liar and said he never knew she was against it and yet testimony now shows Trudeau, who Butt spoke to constantly, the Privy Council head and Deputy Justice Minister all  knew she was against it and only  Butt did not know? He was this stupid and oblivious? How could he possibly not know Trudeau knew she was against it? Further if Butt did not know she was against it why would he and Trudeau ask for a second opinion? They clearly knew because if they did not know they would have had no need to ask for a second opinion.  According to Ms. Raybould the second opinion was explained to her to be a political device she could use to cover her own butt if there was controversy over using it. In fact the Privy Council head  said the same thing as did another PMO official who all said if she was worried about it, get a second opinion. How would they know but Butt not know she was not against it if they and he thought she was so worried she needed a second opinion?

5. Prosecutors under this new dpa law must also consider the circumstances in which the offence was brought to their attention and the attention of their investigative authorities. In this case, Lavalin did NOT come to the government voluntarily, they ONLY started asking for one, once they were told they would be charged. This kind of agreement contemplates a remorseful criminal taking initiative before they are told they will be prosecuted not after they are charged and not by trying to pressure the prosecutor through the government of the day but by approaching them directly so their intent is not clouded with the appearance of manipulation.

6. Next and this is where most lawyers not  just the former AG would not have been comfortable considering a dpa in this case and that is because she also had to consider:
a-the nature and gravity of this offence (and this includes whether this was a one time offence or part of a pattern of behaviour that keeps repeating) as well as the impact on victims-lets be clear, employees of Lavalin would not constitute the victims-victims are people who directly not indirectly were the target of the crime which in this case was and remains Lavalin shareholders, not its employees as well as the public at large or people harmed by the governments and government officials Lavalin bribed.  In the case of Lavalin shareholders, the directors and officers knowing the company would be charged, sold their shares of the company before the government announced it would proceed with criminal proceedings using their insider knowledge to sell their stocks before the values dropped.

On the day in late 2015 when it was announced Lavalin was charged its directors and officers had made sure to sell all their shares but the average shareholder not having that insider knowledge saw their stocks drop in value 15-30 percent as a result of the announcement.

They now have sued these officers and directors and the case (shareholder rights action) is still pending and would be directly prejudiced if Lavalin were able to avoid a criminal sentence and so for that reason alone the timing of the request for a dpa is WRONG because it will prejudice the outcome of their case and any other outstanding cases attached to Lavalin directly or indirectly;

b-the degree of involvement of senior officers of the organization must be considered which means, if it was just one individual, then the DPA makes sense, but the more wide spread the degree of involvement of senior officers, the less appropriate it becomes-certainly the insider trading done by the senior officers shows wide-spread corruption and a lack of ethics which then means a DPA would not be appropriate to try address-dpas are tailored for isolated cases of behaviour not such advanced and wide spread corruption where something more severe needs to be done particularily where the behaviour is well entrenched and repetitive which I will prove is further on;

c- whether Lavalin took disciplinary action including termination of any persons involved-the answer here is a loud NO they have not; NO disciplinary actions were taken although representatives did resign but they were NOT fired or disciplined, they left on their own consent after arranging sweet heart severance packages for themselves;

d-whether Lavalin has made reparations or taken measures to remedy the behaviour that led to the charges-again the answer is a loud NO they have not; they wrote up one code of conduct that was never enforced or had an apparatus created to enforce it;
e-whether Lavalin has identified or expressed a willingness to identify any person involved in the wrongdoings-again the answer is a loud NO they have not;
f-whether the organization — or any of its representatives was either:
i-convicted of an offence or sanctioned by a regulatory body;
ii- entered into a previous remediation agreement or other settlement, in Canada or elsewhere, for similar conduct;
ii-had any of its or any of its representatives alleged to have committed any other offences.

Here is where it gets funny. Isn’t it interesting Mr. Butt, Trudeau, the Privy Council head did not know any of the above had to be considered by the AG.  They would have you believe they had no idea of any of the above let alone i, ii, iii. This would mean Trudeau, Butt, the Privy Council head would have you believe they were not aware of the following public record with Lavalin which  led up to the Libyan charges that would make a dpa inappropriate because of repeat questionable  behaviour:

i-the McGiLL University Health Centre Scandal; in 2010, SNC-Lavalin was part of the consortium that won the $1.3 billion contract to design and build the Montreal University Health Centre's Glen Site, and maintain it until 2044- the  contract eventually became the subject of a criminal investigation, and CEO Pierre Huhaime, Executive VP Riadh Ben Aissa and VP Steven Roy were all charged with bribery; Duhaime was forced out in 2012 after an audit found disturbing deficiencies and he was then arrested for making secret payments to sell company as a bribe to get the conrract. He pled guilty  Feb.1, 2012 to assisting a public civil servant commit breach of trust. He was let off of 14 other charges. Aissa was charged in 2014 with 16 counts including fraud for 22.5 milion worth of contracts in that same deal and plead guilty to one charge of using a forged document. Roy also was arrested in 2014 but acquitted;

ii-Bangladesh Scandal; pursuant to an RCMP raid in September of 2012 in regards to a Padma bridge project in Bangladesh at the request of the World Bank’s anti-graft (anti bribery) unit, this led to the World Bank banning SNC-Lavalin in April of 2013 from being able to bid on any of its projects for 10 years for bribing officials in Bangladesh and Cambodia. As a result of this investigation employees disclosed a secret accounting code used to bribe people across Africa and Asia to get projects. Kevin Wallace, who was the Senior Vice President of SNC-Lavalin International Inc., Ramesh Shah and Mohammad Ismail, SNC-Lavalin employees, Bangladeshi lobbyist Abul Hasan Chowdhury and Zulfiquar Ali Bhuiyan, a Canadian citizen with business ties in Bangladesh were all charged with bribery. Wallace, Shah and Bhuiyan were acquitted in Feb. 2017 after an Ontario Superior Court justice threw out wiretap evidence against them. Ismail and Ismail and Chowdhury were acquitted as well;

iii-Libya Scandal;  Lavalin had been doing business in Libya for years, then in November 2011, shortly after the fall of Moammar Gadhafi, a consultant hired by SNC-Lavalin was arrested in Mexico, accused of trying to smuggle smuggle Gadhafi's son and other family members out of Libya and into Mexico. That individual Cyndy Vanier spent 18 months in a Mexican jail before being released. She always said her contract with SNC-Lavalin was to help facilitate the travel of SNC employees in and out of Libya. She was never charged in Canada. However in February of 2015, the RCMP charged SNC-Lavalin and two of its subsidiaries with corruption and fraud in connection with many years of dealings by the company in Libya. To be specific bribing of Libyan officials for construction contracts between 2001 and 2011.

In fact bribery scandals and allegations with Lavalin in and outside Canada date back to 1995 and have been continuous inside and outside Canada.  So how with such a lengthy history of questionable behaviour would anyone consider a dpa, let alone discuss one? How would the the repeat  pattern of behaviour alone NOT cause any prosecutor  or politician for that matter to even consider a dpa or for that matter even plea bargain  given the repetitive nature of these bribery allegations?

7. All the above said, to qualify for eligibility for a DPA under this new law, as well,  Lavalin would also need to accept responsibility for its wrong doings, stop them, accept full responsibility for a history of bribery dating back to 1995 and here is where it gets absurd because they can’t and won’t do it, to qualify for the  DPA  they would also have to pay back all money they earned from any projects they were awarded where bribery was involved, not to mention to put into immediate practice a  compliance program requiring every bid they make to be reviewed by an independent third party.  avalin can not and will not do that so any discussion of the DPA as only being based on potential loss of jobs is absolute and utter bull ****. It has nothing to do with all the above criteria that must also be addressed and considered as well and Mr, Butt, Trudeau, the Privy Council head were well aware of-they passed that bloody law and those considerations that would be required for the dpa.
So when Butt tried to pose the dpa as being done in other places that was bull ****.  In fact it was only used in the US last year 40 times and that should tell you how narrow an application it has when its used and keep in mind in the US it can also be used by individuals on any kind of criminal case.

In fact Very few cases  in the US or UK have qualified for a dpa.

2-Mr. Butt said the Canadian government moved ahead with the option to fall in line with the law in other countries like the United States and Britain, he said.

What Butt did not say was a dpa has never been used in the US or Britain for such a type of case or as a result of a criminal lobbying the government of the day to directly pressure the prosecutor to use the dpa. It's never happened in the UK or Britain so his statement is misleading.

3- Butt repeated several times invoking the fact he was from Cape Breton that his sole concern was potential loss of jobs and this loss of jobs was a legitimate public policy concern to discuss. So why did he know that loss of jobs was a "legitimate public policy concern" but no other considerations his DPA law obliged his AG to consider? More to the point how did  he not know and still does not know that under his dpa law his government passed, potential loss of jobs is NOT a criteria layed out as a legitimate consideration to add to s.718 of the Criminal Code when considering a criminal sentence.? He claimed he got a legal opinion before testifying today and he did not know this?

Let us be clear. Mr. Butt would have you believe the job loss issue was the only consideration he was concerned with when discussing the DPA being used and had no idea of the content of the DPA law passed and what it said needed to be considered as well. BULL ****

Mr. Butt’s job, his very function is to get Trudeau re-elected. He would have you believe he never discussed his major concern was not the loss of jobs, but the back lash a loss of jobs could cost in terms of political support in Quebec.

He would have you believe the job loss concern is not attached to the concern it would lose votes for Trudeau.

He would have you believe  he had no idea his Prime Minister and himself had a direct conflict of interest which should have prevented them from having any conversation about the issue with the AG.

He would have you believe  he is so stupid he did not consider this conflict of interest. He would also have you believe you he is so stupid and oblivious to what’s going on around him, he had no idea JWR rejected the dpa  while the Privy Council and Trudeau knew this and the Deputy Justice Minister knew this even though they all spoke to Butt about this issue constantly. BULL ****.

D-Mr. Butt said Ms. Raybould never told him she felt pressured… he claims he only met with her twice.  Mr. Butt in saying the above would have you believe he is an idiot and you are to believe him.  So he would have you believe after 80 meetings with Lavalin and himself and the PM, Ms. Raybould didn't know about all these meetings and when the Privy Head told her Trudeau was about to blow up and everyone was worried about the fall out, she would not feel pressured.  Then he would have you believe when he asked for a SECOND opinion well hey it wasn't a second opinion since she had none yet and its normal to tell someone to get another opinion its not to second guess any other opinion-she was so stupid and retarded she needed to have another lawyer explain to her what a dpa was, what her role was as the AG, what she could and could not consider because its a new thing. Yes indeed. A former Crown Prosecutor would have no idea what it is when considering whether a criminal trial should proceed and need a former Supreme Court Judge to tell her.

This is for those of you who are not lawyers, is like telling a lawyer they would need to speak to another lawyer to tell them whether murder means killing someone or a doctor would need to consult another doctor to find out what a hemmeroid was. That is how stupid a comment it was and he's alienated any lawyer in the Liberal caucus who had any doubts in his favour.

Also interestingly, when asked for his notes of his conversations  with JWR this man who keeps meticulous notes said he has none and couldn't remember his conversations.

Also today the Liberals announced they will not allow access to his records or allow Raybould  to reappear to address the conversations they had which Butt brought up for the first time today.

That again coming from a PM who claims to be transparent and open but has deliberately prevented this alleged inquiry from asking vital questions and considering vital evidence. Quite the transparency.

In summary the problem with Butt’s narrative narrative in addition to the above was:

a-he thinks its acceptable a subject of an on-going criminal investigation can lobby the government to pressure the prosecutor when a dpa is not designed to be the result of lobbying but a direct voluntary request initiated by the accused;

b-why the dpa was slipped in at the last second in an Omnibus bill and the Liberals now refuse to let Raybould address allegations Butt made for the first time about her, and will not allow her or  him to disclose the memos of their conversations or others had with Raybould  when this is a government Trudeau loudly boasted would be ethical and transparent politician allowing no one special favours when he ran for office;

c-Mr. Butt would have us believe he is so stupid he had no idea offering JWR the Ministry of Indian Affairs would be an insult to her or the Veteran Affairs posting would not be considered a demotion by her and she could not stay at the Justice Ministry and have someone else take over Vet Affairs and/or Indian Affairs-all of that escaped his thoughts or considerations which means he is one incredibly stupid strategist or a liar;

d-Mr. Butt believes Canadians are so stupid that they would believe JWR was removed not because of her stand on Lavalin, but ONLY because as he said when they moved Philpott to Treasury they magically had to move her to Indian Affairs and then went oh gee that won’t work so we won't leave her and move someone else, we will move her to Veteran Affairs…no other reason. No one else could handle Veteran Affairs but her. They didn't have one other candidate to fill that Ministry and wait, being shuffled from Justice to Veterans Affairs would not be considered a demotion-again that is like saying you remove someone from being a surgeon to a gp  but she wouldn't consider it a demotion let alone he's so stupid he could not anticipate that kind of reaction not just with the Indian Ministry but the Veteran Affairs position and now you are so stupid that you believe he is that stupid;

e- Butt and Trudeau believe you are so stupid to  believe they had no idea they had a conflict of interest and placed their partisan political interest of worrying about losing Quebec votes from job loss, ahead of all the considerations the AG had to consider when determining if a DPA let alone a plea bargain was appropriate/ They now push this script of idiocy and pose their partisan considerations being placed before the country's best needs as acceptable and righteous and what we want from our PM.
Where do we go  with this government has established we should not sentence any criminal if that sentence could impact negatively on the government of the day being re-elected?

What the testimony did today was not only excuse its behaviour but wen caught acting unethically try character assassinate their fellow party cabinet member for telling them to stop it.

They would also have you believe Trudeau and Butt are still niot capable of understanding what a conflict of interest is or pressure or undue influence is or that the concerns as to getting Mr. Trudeau re-elected in his riding can not supercede the best interests of the nation.

This strategy of arrogance and denial necessarily will divide the Liberal party further. I find it hard to believe any lawyer elected as an MP for the Liberals at this time is not panicking.

What it also shows is Trudeau had no problem putting the alleged considerations of his riding before any other Canadians and  will do it again.

Is that a Prime Minister anyone wants? Is that leadership or abandonment of leadership?

How do you lead when you tell the majority of the country they are expendable because you are more concerned with your own riding than the rest of them? How is that leadership?

How is it the PM let alone his toady Mr. Butt could not identify the conflicts of interest let alone believe there was more than one public interest to consider other than the one they became obsessed over?

Did anyone hear any remorse in Butt? Did you hear even an iota of regret in what he said?

He played himself as just a guy putting political considerations of his leader above the rest of the nation as if it that was acceptable and admirable. He called Raybould a liar after saying he would not question her integrity by saying she only raised all her concerns and got upset AFTER she was removed from her office and that was why she raised her concerns no other reason.

So he would have you believe she is a liar and made the whole thing up in a temper tantrum.

That is what he rested his entire testimony on.

That was as sleeze bag as it gets and it shows you what level of insults and character and personal attacks he and Trudeau and Liberals will engage in against each other to avoid taking responsibility for unethical behaviour.

Its pathetic, its spineless and its par for the course for privileged narcissist rich boys who were never told no and can not imagine under any circumstance that what they do might be wrong.

What Butt should have done is not testify. What Trudeau should have done is say he made an honest well intentioned mistake and became confused at where to draw the line between partisan and non partisan public interests and has learned from his mistake and will take steps now to create a procedure where he and his MP's will be recused (removed from discussions) where they have a conflict of interest to avoid further mistakes.

He could have done that. However he did not and will not. Trudeau will continue to play the role of unquestioned righteous Prince above the law and questioning-a man who can not be doubted or questioned or ever to be said to have made a mistake.

He sees no disconnect between the open sunny ethical government he promised and the cheap, sleezy, closed, bitter, petty, nasty tone of politics he has set.

He sees no disconnect between telling China he can not get involved in criminal proceedings while doing exactly that with Lavalin.

Is he that stupid or that arrogant?

He's both.
You have me mistaken with an eagle. I only come to eat your carcass.
Dumb Dumb x 1 View List