Was Trudeau justified in breaking the law?

French Patriot

Council Member
Sep 17, 2012
1,842
12
38
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
 

French Patriot

Council Member
Sep 17, 2012
1,842
12
38
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

Council Member
Sep 17, 2012
1,842
12
38
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

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 15, 2017
20,408
2
36
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?
 

MHz

Time Out
Mar 16, 2007
41,030
42
48
Red Deer AB
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 ??
 

Danbones

Hall of Fame Member
Sep 23, 2015
24,511
2,200
113
One should not secretly collect scalps while claiming to be riding the high road.
 

petros

The Central Scrutinizer
Nov 21, 2008
98,772
4,865
113
Moccasin Flats
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/acts/C-46/section-139.html

Any questions Flosshole?
 

MHz

Time Out
Mar 16, 2007
41,030
42
48
Red Deer AB
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

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 15, 2017
20,408
2
36
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/acts/C-46/section-139.html

Any questions Flosshole?
who was the surety?
 

Hoid

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 15, 2017
20,408
2
36
So there you have it

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

what a shocker