Canadian Politics Today

You moved the goalposts here-- nobody claimed a "binding precedent".  But your notion that the interpretation of the law by UK authorities is of no significance here is wrong.  Our courts aren't required to make rulings based on what UK courts have decided, but there's good reason to think they would. Similar legal systems interpreting a similar law would tend to lead to similar results.

no, nothing moved at all! A precedent that must be applied or followed is... a binding precedent. It was you that first stated, "... and the UK precedents ...show how the law is supposed to work". And you seemed so sure of yourself... but now you're using such words as, 'think, tend'! And you're making shyte up as to your statement on "my notion"... quit making shyte up!

Rue, nobody will read those long posts.  Immigration officers probably don't read that stuff either.  If you learned how to write concisely you would have the time to process 3x the immigration cases at the firm you work at and thus be 3x richer.

 Here is what your ridiculous personal insults try  deflect from which you have no legal argument against:

https://nationalpost.com/news/politics/federal-court-strikes-down-snc-lavalins-bid-for-remediation-agreement

"OTTAWA — The Federal Court has decided not to overturn the director of public prosecution’s refusal to offer SNC-Lavalin a remediation agreement that would have allowed the Quebec engineering firm to avoid a criminal trial.

On Friday, the court ruled that the prosecutor’s decision “clearly falls within the ambit of prosecutorial discretion” and that SNC-Lavalin’s bid to have it overturned had “no reasonable prospect of success.”


A dpa can only  be done at the discretion of the AG based on considering  the conditions listed in the dpa law. She ruled the conditions were not met.

The dpa preconditions clearly state it can only be used on a first time offence. This is the third time round for Lavalin which precludes it from using a dpa and you Waldo of course have no response to that.

The dpa precondiitons make it clear it can not be used for a repeat offence. You Waldo of course have no comeback for that or the fact this is the third time round for Lavalin. You ignore it as if it does not exist as a precondition to use the dpa and think if you insult me no one will notice you have no comeback? Lol.


Then you try limit the definition of national economic interest. That was the best of your idiot arguments.  You come up with a definition that means your Prime Minister is knowingly violating a convention we signed in international law not to limit the definition as you think the PM should. But it gets better.

Even through the dpa law clearly wrote national economic interest and  relations with other countries as two different categories listed  you would have us believe they are one and the same. In statutory rules of interpretation and drafting if a definition is to be limited as you have tried to make it, it must clearly say so and you sure as hell wouldn't draft two different categories if they were both one and the same but you Waldo, well you are a legal scholar you invent law and legal drafting as you go along. The 5 former  AG's, JWR, not just me don't know what national economic interest means.

Then you try bluff and say  Britain or the US use dpa's the way you want them to be used. Lol.  In fact no dpa ever came about  in Britain or the US as a result of an accused in an ongoing criminal proceeding asking an elected representative to intervene in that criminal proceeding to pass a  dpa to retroactively apply back to the criminal proceeding  to then be used to get  lenient sentence in that proceeding. No dpa has been used in those contries for a repeat offence let alone for charges under the Corruption Bribery Laws.  Absolutely no precedent exists for the use of a dpa in the way Trudeau tried but you come on this forum bluffing and puffing trying to lecture that there is precedent? Lol.

 Its time for you to shut up Waldo. No precedent exists but there sure as hell is a legal ruling upholding what the AG did which you, Trudeau and your Liberal patooty friends can not erase.

Your comments are laughable Waldo absolutely laughable. Insult me all you want they do not deflect from the actual laws or your inability to defend the legal interpretations you pose. I also appreciate the contributions of Omni, Graham and Eye to your legal discourse. They all offered deep legal analysis.

Lol. Bring it on you Liberal patoots.

Drago Kos sounds like a James Bond villain, but he's apparently the OECD chair of the working group on bribery. He's not buying the Kady O'Malley tweet you've been reposting.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/powerandpolitics/wilson-raybould-snc-lavalin-trudeau-oecd-kos-1.5055261

 -k

Lol he is a very boring man actually. No Sean Connery. By the way its not just Mr. Kos its any lawyer who understands international law and the convention we signed. Trudeau has placed himself in direct conflict with the treatment we said we would follow in the convention and so  I mentioned this because in fact the  limited definition of national economic interest Waldo would have you believe is the only way to interpret that phrase because the Privy Council head said so is incorrect and to avoid that contradiction in the new dpa law, relations with other countries was separated and made distinct from the national economic interest category to precisely avoid contradicting that convention. Zip over Waldo's head.

Then again Waldo quotes the Privy Council head who has no legal authority or power to render a legal opinion because he can't find any lawyer that would state what he tries to argue.

Make no mistake, the Privy Council head is forbidden from discussing any on-going criminal case but he admitted to doing just that with the person accused of the crime. AS a result he should be fired. The fact he is still there ad bragged not once but twice he spoke to Lavalin during an on-going criminal proceeding is unheard of. No civil servant is allowed to do that let alone the head of the civil service. We shall see at the end of this how long he lasts in his office.  There is no precedent for a Privy Council head intervening in an ongoing criminal proceeding the way he did.

Het I enjoy being whined at. The Liberal patoot circle seems insecure about my length.  What can I say other than I am in good company with  JWR, and the 5 former AG's.

Now I appreciate you don't hold my length against me. Thank you.  Can I say to you that during the Tim Horton's contest I already have a distinct disadvantage with these liberal patoots in that being Jewish I can not roll up my rim to win. Now they want to still whine about my length? I mean is there no end to this.

Damn I think I am funny.

https://www.hilltimes.com/2018/01/22/tight-timeline-lobbying-act-review-rules-table-new-lobbying-czar/131443

If you read the above it is precisely because of what Lavalin did in the name of lobbying with Trudeau the laws will change.

But hey according to Waldo its great an accused can lobby his PM to interfere in the accused's on going trial to pressure a lenient sentence and that should be called lobbying. Lol.

Why SNC's communications strategy really sucks:

https://ipolitics.ca/2019/03/17/snc-lavalin-would-be-wise-to-emulate-maple-leaf-foods/

This article raises Maple Leaf Foods' handling of the listeria incident in 2008 as a counterpoint to SNC-Lavalin.

SNC comes across like the highschool football player rapist crying on TV about how sorry he was because now no colleges would recruit him. SNC doesn't regret anything, they regret that they're now facing potential legal consequences.  Mr Bruce, and his indignation at being denied a DPA, and company's refusal to take ownership of any of the long list of stuff that "rogue employees" have done under SNC's banner, and going to court to demand a do-over of the DPA decision, and general air of entitlement have rubbed people the wrong way.  "Prosecutors should consider that we employ 9000 Canadians" is little better than "the prosecutor should consider that I score touchdowns."  And now to further the narrative that they're a victim rather than a guilty party, they're suing Mr Duhaime to get their bribe-money back (though, not offering to return the profits from their ill-won bid, one notices.)

Their total lack of any sense of contrition undoubtedly has made it hard on politicians trying to create public sympathy for SNC's plight. 

 -k

Further to your comments, I would add the fact this is Lavalin's third time up on bribery plus its lengthy history of questionable behaviour this indicates a repeat pattern of corruption and therefore lack of remorse.

Here is info on the length of its bad behaviour:
https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2019/03/10/snc-lavalins-long-and-dramatic-history-of-corruption-allegations_a_23688982/

Here is what your ridiculous personal insults try  deflect from which you have no legal argument against

It's not a personal insult, it's constructive criticism.  I'm literally trying to help you make more money.  I have some very successful lawyer friends and they're successful in part because they process files at a speedy clip, which makes them a lot of money and bumps up their salary since they can process a lot of cases per year compared to their colleagues.  They are very concise in their writing, it saves them a lot of time, and they teach this to their assistants/paralegals.

Then you try limit the definition of national economic interest. That was the best of your idiot arguments.  You come up with a definition that means your Prime Minister is knowingly violating a convention we signed in international law not to limit the definition as you think the PM should. But it gets better.

Even through the dpa law clearly wrote national economic interest and  relations with other countries as two different categories listed  you would have us believe they are one and the same. In statutory rules of interpretation and drafting if a definition is to be limited as you have tried to make it, it must clearly say so and you sure as hell wouldn't draft two different categories if they were both one and the same but you Waldo, well you are a legal scholar you invent law and legal drafting as you go along.

you're not adding anything new here; you've not been able to counter the following... please try harder!

again, domestic public interest considers economic impacts or potentials therein. As relates to the Corruption of Foreign Public Officials Act, country-vs-country economic impacts can't be considered to the advantage of one country over another.

as I said to you in the prior related post: "I'll take the liberty to extend Wernick's challenge on his understanding... for you, "to seek advice from experts", and present that as a counter-argument. Note: your cut&paste version of a lawyer is not quite expert enough!"

again, the testimony transcript you continue to have extreme difficulty in interpreting, in accepting:

so, again, "national economic interest":
=> domestic applicability in consideration of public interest: again, one of the conditions: "the prosecutor is of the opinion that negotiating the agreement is in the public interest and appropriate in the circumstances"

=> not applicable in consideration of country-vs-country economic impacts offering advantage to one country over another

https://www.hilltimes.com/2018/01/22/tight-timeline-lobbying-act-review-rules-table-new-lobbying-czar/131443

If you read the above it is precisely because of what Lavalin did in the name of lobbying with Trudeau the laws will change.

But hey according to Waldo its great an accused can lobby his PM to interfere in the accused's on going trial to pressure a lenient sentence and that should be called lobbying. Lol.

as I suggested, did you contact the Commissionaire of Lobbying to express your concerns? How did that go? Oh wait, is this why you're linking to a subscriber only article and presumptuously using it to support your claims? Clearly, your kind of citation!