Was Trudeau justified in breaking the law?


French Patriot
-1
#1
Was Trudeau justified in breaking the law?

Trudeau is basically giving a fuddle duddle to the law of the land.

Is he justified in following the law of other lands over the law of Canada?

Bribery and pay offs are a staple of many backward countries.

We have to maintain a trade balance if we are to help pull the lower world to our level.

Does that justify Trudeau putting their law over ours?

I like the boy. He gets what being a Canadian is, in rhetoric. Although he should be listening to his French side more. He is not mature enough yet to be more in the face of his detractors.

He will lose Quebec due to being against laïcité, but he has yet to lose my vote, criminal et all.

Smart Canadians will see the wisdom in his breaking the law.

Watch Canada soar when he lets his fuddle duddles out.

Vive the Quebec et la force de secularism, French style.

Religious peace at last, peace at last.

Regards
DL
 
MHz
#2
Quote: Originally Posted by French Patriot View Post

Was Trudeau justified in breaking the law?

Which actual law was that? The Cons let SNC running wild under their watch between 2006-2015 even though the World Bank blacklisted them in 2013?
 
Walter
+1
#3
Yes, yes he was.
 
MHz
#4
Quote: Originally Posted by French Patriot View Post

Bribery and pay offs are a staple of many backward countries.

So you have been to the Netherlands . . .
 
French Patriot
#5
Quote: Originally Posted by MHz View Post

Which actual law was that? The Cons let SNC running wild under their watch between 2006-2015 even though the World Bank blacklisted them in 2013?



Whichever law you like.


I do not care about the minor details you might bring up.


What are your thought on the larger moral issues in the O.P.?


Canadian policy, --- for decades, ---- regardless of who ruled, --- have done what Trudeau has done.


Is the policy and Trudeau justified?


Regards
DL
 
French Patriot
#6
Quote: Originally Posted by Walter View Post

Yes, yes he was.



A clear verdict on a known criminal.


What makes you justify Trudeau breaking Canadian law?


Regards
DL
 
French Patriot
#7
Quote: Originally Posted by MHz View Post

So you have been to the Netherlands . . .



Look at the bigger picture. Our world map looks like it has a severe case of the measles.


Canada is no better when we are forced to trade at the lower levels of morality instead of being a little tougher in our demand for our trading partners', --- social errors, shall we say, --- that keeps them in the lower worlds.

We cannot help pull them up from their level.


Regards
DL
 
Hoid
#8
Quote: Originally Posted by French Patriot View Post

Whichever law you like.
I do not care about the minor details you might bring up.
What are your thought on the larger moral issues in the O.P.?
Canadian policy, --- for decades, ---- regardless of who ruled, --- have done what Trudeau has done.
Is the policy and Trudeau justified?
Regards
DL

What law was broken?
 
French Patriot
#9
Quote: Originally Posted by Hoid View Post

What law was broken?



Check your favorite new source. This will start you up.


https://www.google.ca/search?source=...=1569702348621


Regards
DL
 
MHz
#10
Quote: Originally Posted by French Patriot View Post

Whichever law you like.

Let's go with the Criminal Code' rather than what offends your overly sensitive being, . . .David.
 
MHz
#11
Quote: Originally Posted by French Patriot View Post

Look at the bigger picture. Our world map looks like it has a severe case of the measles.


Canada is no better when we are forced to trade at the lower levels of morality instead of being a little tougher in our demand for our trading partners', --- social errors, shall we say, --- that keeps them in the lower worlds.

We cannot help pull them up from their level.


Regards
DL

Sounds more than a little racist as 'the Indians' fit that description best. Want the number of the dead in millions or multiples of 100K ??
 
Walter
#12
Quote: Originally Posted by French Patriot View Post

A clear verdict on a known criminal.
What makes you justify Trudeau breaking Canadian law?
Regards
DL

He has nice hair.
 
MHz
#13
Quote: Originally Posted by French Patriot View Post

A clear verdict on a known criminal.
What makes you justify Trudeau breaking Canadian law?
Regards
DL

It means he can end up in a Canadian Prison. Foreigners never get charged but they are given lots and lots of Canadian money.
 
Hoid
#14
Quote: Originally Posted by Walter View Post

He has nice hair.

Is that against the law?
 
Danbones
Free Thinker
#15
One should not secretly collect scalps while claiming to be riding the high road.
 
petros
+2
#16  Top Rated Post
Quote: Originally Posted by Hoid View Post

What law was broken?

Which. Which law was broken

Section 139 (1) Every one who wilfully attempts in any manner to obstruct, pervert or defeat the course of justice in a judicial proceeding,

(a) by indemnifying or agreeing to indemnify a surety, in any way and either in whole or in part, or

(b) where he is a surety, by accepting or agreeing to accept a fee or any form of indemnity whether in whole or in part from or in respect of a person who is released or is to be released from custody,

is guilty of

(c) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years, or

(d) an offence punishable on summary conviction.

Marginal note:Idem

(2) Every one who wilfully attempts in any manner other than a manner described in subsection (1) to obstruct, pervert or defeat the course of justice is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years.

Marginal note:Idem

(3) Without restricting the generality of subsection (2), every one shall be deemed wilfully to attempt to obstruct, pervert or defeat the course of justice who in a judicial proceeding, existing or proposed,

(a) dissuades or attempts to dissuade a person by threats, bribes or other corrupt means from giving evidence;

(b) influences or attempts to influence by threats, bribes or other corrupt means a person in his conduct as a juror; or

(c) accepts or obtains, agrees to accept or attempts to obtain a bribe or other corrupt consideration to abstain from giving evidence, or to do or to refrain from doing anything as a juror.

https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/...ction-139.html

Any questions Flosshole?
 
MHz
#17
Asking you for a reference is a reason to insult me is it? Pretty fukked up world you live in if the truth be told, and it will.



So JT was breaking the law when he was suggesting the AG charge SNC with bribery charges? something the World Bank had blacklisted them for in 2013.
You hear or see about any public trial or did they just plead guilty (helps when the old CEO is your star witness) and accepted the punishment without complaint.

JT's 'crime' was suggesting the brand new AG consult with former AG's about having a open trial while she strikes down a new law all on her own? There is no crime in any of those actions. His mistake was appointing somebody who was in way over their heads. 10 years at the post she would have been somewhat smarter, as it is I doubt she even knew about the WB blacklisting them.


The Cons knew about the bribery charges the WB filed in 2011, perhaps them letting those charges be passed by is where that crime was committed. Dereliction of duty as there was no trial in Canada and the Gov refused to even interviews the WB Investigators as they would have had to act on those findings rather than bury the story like they did.


You don't like having to supply references apparently, they really hard to come by for the shit you promote. Guilty pleas without a trial are a gift to the Courts, she had and ego problem (or bad advice from her girlfriend) that had her thinking she could take down organized crime in Montreal, Jewish controlled of course unless they are stupider than she was and most likely still is.
I wonder how she would feel knowing her girlfriend is with the WHO so all the health problems following the Indians comes from the WHO who she is very loyal to based on her work of a decade in Niger. Watch her vids, the WHO is her sponsor, they even display their logo on the screen, not much can be said about who she really works for. Bring up some real Doctors from Cuba and see just how fast things improve forever.
 
Hoid
#18
Quote: Originally Posted by petros View Post

Which. Which law was broken

Section 139 (1) Every one who wilfully attempts in any manner to obstruct, pervert or defeat the course of justice in a judicial proceeding,

(a) by indemnifying or agreeing to indemnify a surety, in any way and either in whole or in part, or

(b) where he is a surety, by accepting or agreeing to accept a fee or any form of indemnity whether in whole or in part from or in respect of a person who is released or is to be released from custody,

is guilty of

(c) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years, or

(d) an offence punishable on summary conviction.

Marginal note:Idem

(2) Every one who wilfully attempts in any manner other than a manner described in subsection (1) to obstruct, pervert or defeat the course of justice is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years.

Marginal note:Idem

(3) Without restricting the generality of subsection (2), every one shall be deemed wilfully to attempt to obstruct, pervert or defeat the course of justice who in a judicial proceeding, existing or proposed,

(a) dissuades or attempts to dissuade a person by threats, bribes or other corrupt means from giving evidence;

(b) influences or attempts to influence by threats, bribes or other corrupt means a person in his conduct as a juror; or

(c) accepts or obtains, agrees to accept or attempts to obtain a bribe or other corrupt consideration to abstain from giving evidence, or to do or to refrain from doing anything as a juror.

https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/...ction-139.html

Any questions Flosshole?

who was the surety?
 
Jinentonix
No Party Affiliation
+1
#19
Quote: Originally Posted by Hoid View Post

who was the surety?

Pick one, JWR or Admiral Norman. Either one qualifies for a different reason.
 
Hoid
#20
So there you have it

The same great minds that do not understand science also do not understand law

what a shocker
 
Jinentonix
No Party Affiliation
#21
Quote: Originally Posted by Hoid View Post

So there you have it

The same great minds that do not understand science also do not understand law

what a shocker

So there you have it. The moron that asked who the surety was is suddenly a law expert.
And as far as science goes, I'll pit my knowledge against yours any f*cking day of the week. Some of us don't get our "science" from the news media.
Last edited by Jinentonix; Sep 29th, 2019 at 01:24 AM..
 
Hoid
#22
I guess law is like science - it means anything a really stupid person wants it to mean.

Feelings

That's what nattys believe in
 
Hoid
+1
#23
 
Jinentonix
No Party Affiliation
+1
#24
Quote: Originally Posted by Hoid View Post

I guess law is like science - it means anything a really stupid person wants it to mean.

Exactly, like how 32% somehow equals 97%.
Quote: Originally Posted by Hoid View Post

Feelings

That's what nattys believe in

Says the mathematically challenged ALT-left loser that "feels" like 32% is greater than 97%. Says the ALT-left loser that "feels" like 32% is virtually every scientist in the world. Says the ALT-left loser that "feels" like the melting ice sheet that didn't exist 1000-1100 years ago is spelling our doom. Says the ALT-left loser who has a major f*cking problem with oil and pipelines but bitches about the high price of gas.

But no, you believe in magic and call it science. You believe science is inaccurate climate models that have never come close to predicting jack shit.
In fact, even the IPCC is no longer on your side you friggin' moron.
Quote:

At a press briefing, scientists said that the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) global warming projections predicted temperature increases 4 times higher than what was actually observed, and, thus, such models should in no way be used as a foundation for policy changes.
Furthermore, the IPCC had conceded this point in 2018, saying that climate change models are incapable of perfectly predicting long-term climate change and should not be used as a definitive basis for estimating long-term temperature changes.
“In sum, a strategy must recognize what is possible. In climate research and modeling, we should recognize that we are dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore that the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible,” the IPCC’s 2018 report states.
These experts warn the UN that current climate policies pointlessly and grievously undermine the economic system, putting lives at risk in countries denied access to affordable, reliable electrical energy.”


But nah, you'd rather get your "science" from Greta and the leftist media.
 
Hoid
#25
your anger is hilarious
 
Jinentonix
No Party Affiliation
#26
Quote: Originally Posted by Hoid View Post

your anger is hilarious

Your gross ignorance, sadly, is no longer amusing. I bet you didn't even read the quoted part. It must be awful having such low self-esteem that you can't even admit when you were wrong about something, or even read something that won't confirm your bias.
Willfully blind = willfully stupid.
Your ALT-left pseudo-science is no match for reality and actual science. Just as Canadian law doesn't bend to your moral relativism.
 
Hoid
#27
Climate change denier does not like stupid people
 
Danbones
Free Thinker
#28
Quote: Originally Posted by Hoid View Post

I guess law is like science - it means anything a really stupid person wants it to mean.
Feelings
That's what nattys believe in

Quote: Originally Posted by Hoid View Post

Climate change denier does not like stupid people


Oh, So now we are all the way back at De nile in science terms are we?

UPDATE – Dr. Tim Ball (PhD, climate science) wins @MichaelEMann lawsuit – Mann “hides the decline” AGAIN



https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/08/...nn-has-to-pay/

Gee poor hoid, talk about stupid racist nazis. LOL, your Legal and scientific ass Is OFFICIALLY KICKED 'dolphie.


So, keep talkin'...I need to work your heels in a little further to get past your dentures...
Last edited by Danbones; Sep 29th, 2019 at 04:55 AM..
 
Cannuck
No Party Affiliation
#29
Quote: Originally Posted by petros View Post

Which. Which law was broken
Section 139 (1) Every one who wilfully attempts in any manner to obstruct, pervert or defeat the course of justice in a judicial proceeding,
(a) by indemnifying or agreeing to indemnify a surety, in any way and either in whole or in part, or
(b) where he is a surety, by accepting or agreeing to accept a fee or any form of indemnity whether in whole or in part from or in respect of a person who is released or is to be released from custody,
is guilty of
(c) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years, or
(d) an offence punishable on summary conviction.
Marginal note:Idem
(2) Every one who wilfully attempts in any manner other than a manner described in subsection (1) to obstruct, pervert or defeat the course of justice is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years.
Marginal note:Idem
(3) Without restricting the generality of subsection (2), every one shall be deemed wilfully to attempt to obstruct, pervert or defeat the course of justice who in a judicial proceeding, existing or proposed,
(a) dissuades or attempts to dissuade a person by threats, bribes or other corrupt means from giving evidence;
(b) influences or attempts to influence by threats, bribes or other corrupt means a person in his conduct as a juror; or
(c) accepts or obtains, agrees to accept or attempts to obtain a bribe or other corrupt consideration to abstain from giving evidence, or to do or to refrain from doing anything as a juror.
https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/...ction-139.html
Any questions Flosshole?


Hehehehehe....
 
petros
#30
Quote: Originally Posted by Hoid View Post

who was the surety?

Why did you stop a 139 (1)? Too hard?
 

Similar Threads

19
Justified Self Defense
by Tecumsehsbones | Jul 28th, 2015
25
Over reacting or justified?
by Canucklehead | Apr 19th, 2005