NDP MP Pat Martin wants your help in paying his legal bills


View Poll Results: Should Canadians help Pat Martin with his legal bills?
Not in this lifetime 9 90.00%
I'll think about it,... Hmmmmm NO 1 10.00%
Maybe only this once, anyone can make a mistake 0 0%
Why now he gets my money now being elected to ottawa 0 0%
Voters: 10. You may not vote on this poll

canuck50
#1
Hi all,
I'm sorry maybe this isn't the place or the arena for such, but being relatively new I hope you will forgive me.

I was online today and what pops up on my yahoo email whats new page is this headline...
NDP MP Pat Martin wants your help in paying his legal bills
Here's the link if you are interested...
NDP MP Pat Martin wants your help in paying his legal bills | Canada Politics - Yahoo! News Canada

Now I'm no political science major, not a lawyer, HELL I DRIVE A TOW TRUCK but now if I was to make his comments how many people would be running to my side to help me pay legal bills. Lets face it ENGAGE BRAIN BEFORE OPENING MOUTH.

I mean seriously? Who does he think he is? Why should people use their hard earned money to support an idiot like this?

Just a thought on my part....
 
lone wolf
#2
Racknine asked for an apology, got it Pat Martin apologizes to Racknine | Stephen Taylor then sued anyhow. If you smacked someone's fender with your towtruck, paid cash for the damage then got a claim filed against you, I can well imagine towtruck driver verbiage over that.....
 
canuck50
+1
#3
How much damage did Pat Martin do to RackNine's business even opening his mouth? That is the point here, sure he apologized only because the canadian communist federation made him do it.
 
lone wolf
#4
You tell me.... You brought it up.

Have a link for that order from CCF(?)
 
petros
+2
#5
Before all this who ever heard of RackNine or dialing services? I bet business is booming.
 
IdRatherBeSkiing
+3
#6  Top Rated Post
It's his legal mess. Taxpayers should not foot the bill.
 
canuck50
#7
The point I'm trying to make is very simple, Why is he asking canadians to pay HIS legal bills? If you would have said it and you got sued would people pay your legal bills Lonewolf? I'm guessing not
 
lone wolf
#8
Quote: Originally Posted by IdRatherBeSkiingView Post

It's his legal mess. Taxpayers should not foot the bill.

Agreed.... Now how about nailing some more loose-lipped Parliamentarians and vexatious litigants at THEIR OWN expense?
 
canuck50
+1
#9
Lonewolf, That I agree with 150%. Its that he is thinking you and I should help with HIS legal bills when he makes 3 times what I make in a year.
 
Machjo
#10
In principle, legal councel ought to be free for all, otherwise justice if only for the rich.

That being said, depending on the person's financial situation, should he be found guilty, it might be responsible to then expect him to pay it back.
 
Locutus
#11
Pat 'the mouth' Martin let his false pride control his inaction on Racknine's demand and the rest is history man. From an April thread earlier this year:



NDP MP Pat Martin offers thorough, absolute apology to robocall company RackNine over fraud allegations

OTTAWA — Outspoken New Democrat MP Pat Martin gave on Monday an unequivocal apology to RackNine Inc. and its CEO Matt Meier, thereby avoiding a $5-million defamation lawsuit.

“I wrongfully accused them of being part of conspiracy to commit electoral fraud,” Martin told reporters. “I now know that the statements I made insinuating Mr. Meier and RackNine’s participation in an electoral fraud conspiracy were wholly and unequivocally false.”

Martin made the statements on Feb 23, amidst a political firestorm raging over fraudulent automated robocalls made during the 2011 general election.

A political operative using the pseudonym “Pierre Poutine” placed robocalls through RackNine’s automated calling service, drawing national attention to the firm, which was never itself under investigated.

Martin said Monday that RackNine is not to blame for the robocall scandal.

“RackNine provides a legitimate automated call service, similar to services used by many political parties,” he said. “RackNine was merely an innocent intermediary, not a participant in, electoral fraud.”

“I apologize for any damage my statements may have caused to Mr. Meier personally or to RackNine Inc.,” he added.

Martin said that neither RackNine nor any of its employees have ever been investigated for involvement in electoral fraud in the 2011 general election or otherwise.

In early March, RackNine served Martin with legal papers, giving notice they would proceed with a $5 million defamation lawsuit unless a fulsome apology was offered in the national media.

The statement of claim said Martin, during a Feb. 23 news conference, mentioned RackNine or Meier on seven different occasions and singled out their conduct in a negative light, referring to them on several occasions as “RackNine rascals.”

After receiving notice from RackNine, Martin told Postmedia News he might have to mortgage his home to finance a court battle, since those costs would not be borne by Parliament.

Below, Martin’s apology in full:Apology on Behalf of Patrick Martin and the NDP to Mr. Matt Meier and RackNine Inc.

“On February 23, 2012, I appeared before the national media to speak in response to the important issue of “Robocalls” in the 2011 general election. At that time I expressed my personal outrage along with the outrage of the caucus of the official opposition upon learning about the serious allegations of electoral fraud.

In making my statement on February 23, 2012, I singled out a private individual, Mr. Matt Meier along with his business RackNine Inc. and I wrongfully accused them of being part of a conspiracy to commit electoral fraud. In the days following, I repeated this accusation a number of times to the media and on national television. My party, the NDP, also raised concerns about the possibility of RackNine having committed electoral fraud through postings on its website. The NDP indicated on the party website that if news reports that seemed to draw a link between the calls and RackNine were true, these activities were prohibited by the Canada Elections Act and merited investigation.

I now know that the statements I made insinuating Mr. Meier’s and RackNine’s participation in an electoral fraud conspiracy were wholly and unequivocally false. In my rush to express my personal outrage and the outrage of the NDP caucus, I jumped to conclusions I now know are unsupported by fact. I would like to take this opportunity to correct several of my errors in order to clear Mr. Meier’s personal reputation along with the business reputation of RackNine.

To my knowledge, neither Mr. Meier, nor RackNine, including any employees of RackNine, has ever been investigated for involvement in electoral fraud in the 2011 general election or otherwise.

RackNine provides a legitimate automated call service similar to services used by many political parties.

RackNine was merely an innocent intermediary not a participant in electoral fraud.

I apologize for any damage my statements may have caused to Mr. Meier personally or to RackNine, and I have been specifically authorized by the NDP to apologize on behalf of the NDP for any similar damage the publications on the NDP website may have caused.”
— NDP MP Pat Martin


NDP MP Pat Martin apologizes to robocall company RackNine over fraud allegations to defuse $5M defamation lawsuit | News | National Post


From this thread: NDP MP Pat Martin offers thorough, absolute apology to RackNine



And then,

Robocalls: NDP MP Pat Martin to spend summer fundraising for defamation defence - thestar.com


And Captain Morgan:
Too funny.
Pat ole coulda saved himself a lot of time and money but simply keeping his pie-hole shut;




Bear's perfect response:
Or apologizing when asked to.
What a boob!
Looks good on him.



NDP's Pat Martin to spend summer fundraising for defamation defence
 
Walter
#12
I'm suffering from a case of Schadenfreude.
 
Goober
#13
Quote: Originally Posted by WalterView Post

I'm suffering from a case of Schadenfreude.

The Book of Proverbs mentions an emotion similar to that now described by the word schadenfreude: "Rejoice not when thine enemy falleth, and let not thine heart be glad when he stumbleth: Lest the LORD see it, and it displease him, and he turn away his wrath from him." (Proverbs 24:17–18, King James Version).
 
lone wolf
#14
Karma's a bitch?
 
Goober
+1
#15
Quote: Originally Posted by lone wolfView Post

Karma's a bitch?

I would chip in for one of those Hannibal Lectur masks.

 
CDNBear
#16
Quote: Originally Posted by lone wolfView Post

Racknine asked for an apology, got it Pat Martin apologizes to Racknine | Stephen Taylor then sued anyhow. If you smacked someone's fender with your towtruck, paid cash for the damage then got a claim filed against you, I can well imagine towtruck driver verbiage over that.....

If I'm not mistaken.

Racknine asked for an apology, Martin said no. They filed a suit in March, and he apologized in April?

Non?
 
Locutus
#17
Yep.
 
Goober
#18
Quote: Originally Posted by CDNBearView Post

If I'm not mistaken.

Racknine asked for an apology, Martin said no. They filed a suit in March, and he apologized in April?

Non?

A little to late can be costly now cannot it not.
 
lone wolf
#19
Quote: Originally Posted by CDNBearView Post

If I'm not mistaken.

Racknine asked for an apology, Martin said no. They filed a suit in March, and he apologized in April?

Non?

Who cares? No need to be greedy. The threat got what they said they wanted. Now they just look like they do....
 
CDNBear
+1
#20
Quote: Originally Posted by lone wolfView Post

Who cares? No need to be greedy. The threat got what they said they wanted. Now they just look like they do....

The threat?

They had to file the suit before he apologized.
 
IdRatherBeSkiing
+2
#21
Quote: Originally Posted by lone wolfView Post

Who cares? No need to be greedy. The threat got what they said they wanted. Now they just look like they do....

Who cares indeed. It will go to court. If it truly without base, the judge will throw it out. Otherwise he won't. But why should the Canadian taxpayer or anybody other than Pat Martin need to pay anything for his own defense?
 
lone wolf
#22
Quote: Originally Posted by IdRatherBeSkiingView Post

Who cares indeed. It will go to court. If it truly without base, the judge will throw it out. Otherwise he won't. But why should the Canadian taxpayer or anybody other than Pat Martin need to pay anything for his own defense?

Did I say he shouldn't?

If Racknine are such great Tories, all the while Harpie's poking fresh holes in his feet, why would they keep robocalls fresh in people's minds? That deal's not closed yet....
 
IdRatherBeSkiing
+2
#23
Quote: Originally Posted by lone wolfView Post

Did I say he shouldn't?

If Racknine are such great Tories, all the while Harpie's poking fresh holes in his feet, why would they keep robocalls fresh in people's minds? That deal's not closed yet....

Who said Racknine were Tories? They are a business and as a business are seeing an opportunity for some east money coming their way from Mr. Martin.

And I read the link (couldn't at work) and he is not asking for taxpayer money but contributions. I stand corrected on that. I guess he can ask all he wants. If somebody is stupid enough to donate ... you know what they say 'a fool and his money are soon parted'.
 
CDNBear
#24
The NDP are named in the suit as well.

Who pays for the party if they lose?
 
taxslave
+1
#25
Quote: Originally Posted by CDNBearView Post

The NDP are named in the suit as well.

Who pays for the party if they lose?

Party Faithful. And most likely a portion of our union dues.
 
relic
#26
HA,Just read on MSN that Seven tory mp's are going to court to get taxpayer money,250K or 37K each to pay their legal fees in the robocall scandal.
 
Machjo
+1
#27
Quote: Originally Posted by IdRatherBeSkiingView Post

Who cares indeed. It will go to court. If it truly without base, the judge will throw it out. Otherwise he won't. But why should the Canadian taxpayer or anybody other than Pat Martin need to pay anything for his own defense?

There is the basic principle that justice should be equal for all, regardless of ability to pay. For this reason, it really ought to be paid for all. If he loses the case, then make him pay it back, but until then, all Canadians ought to be allowed free legal counsel.

Quote: Originally Posted by taxslaveView Post

Party Faithful. And most likely a portion of our union dues.

Correction: your union dues.
 
Nuggler
#28
I just sent him a toonie. Pony up you cheap phuckers. Remember all that Pat has done for us

Hey, if just 2 of us sent him a toonie, he'd have...................$4.00

Sorry Pat. Yer probably screwed.
 
Locutus
+2
#29
I posted his request on 4chan. I'm sure he'll be just fine.
 
PoliticalNick
#30
Quote: Originally Posted by MachjoView Post

There is the basic principle that justice should be equal for all, regardless of ability to pay. For this reason, it really ought to be paid for all. If he loses the case, then make him pay it back, but until then, all Canadians ought to be allowed free legal counsel.

Sorry TS but the charter does not include ability to pay in it's guarantees of equality under the law. Justice is only for the rich who happen to be who wrote the charter....go figure

Quote:

Equality before and under law and equal protection and benefit of law

15. (1) Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.

I have argued before a judge that I should not have to pay filing fees when suing someone because justice is a right. He laughed and asked for $275 before we could continue.
 

Similar Threads

no new posts