,
13 tweets,
3 min read
Read on Twitter
@stephenlautens @DavidHamer_1951
Thank you for sharing this timely and very detailed legal analysis.
There are issues, as yet overlooked that I’m wondering if either of you could be so kind and gracious to address.
Thank you for sharing this timely and very detailed legal analysis.
There are issues, as yet overlooked that I’m wondering if either of you could be so kind and gracious to address.
My research has revealed that severe budget cuts to DOJ PPSC corporate crime prosecution and the RCMP corporate crime branch were made during the previous government. This severely hampered the ability to adequately investigate and prosecute corporate crime by Canadian entities.
Jordan’s decision was made by SCC to ensure prosecutions were investigated, prepared & prosecuted in a timely manner.
Investigating and prosecuting federal corporate crimes in Canada has been compromised by the deep cuts to both PPSC and RCMP.
Investigating and prosecuting federal corporate crimes in Canada has been compromised by the deep cuts to both PPSC and RCMP.
The situation is so bad, that in 2017, a public outcry to remedy the situation was made by legal & law enforcement communities & by many concerned, affected citizens.
Unfortunately, the issue of prosecutorial/investigative government funding was not addressed until 2019 budget.
Unfortunately, the issue of prosecutorial/investigative government funding was not addressed until 2019 budget.
Several high profile criminal charges have been withdrawn due to Jordan’s decision.
Among them, several SNC-LAVALIN charges have been withdrawn or plea bargained down to minimal crimes. In fact, not once has an SNC accused been successfully prosecuted.
Among them, several SNC-LAVALIN charges have been withdrawn or plea bargained down to minimal crimes. In fact, not once has an SNC accused been successfully prosecuted.
ALL cases have either been dropped or plea bargained. Every one. Thus, the public is unaware of the details of the nature of the crimes and the specific accusations.
I was aware of this information before the Ethics Commissioner‘s report.
I was aware of this information before the Ethics Commissioner‘s report.
So the documentation of the MOJAG ‘s reluctance to table DPA legislation and refusal to speak on its behalf in committee jumped off the page as I read it too.
MOJAG would have been informed of the high profile cases that were at risk of being impacted by Jordan’s decision.
MOJAG would have been informed of the high profile cases that were at risk of being impacted by Jordan’s decision.
In September 2018, all settled SNC cases had been plea bargained.
Between February 1 and 19, 2019, one SNC case was plea bargained to minimal charges and two were withdrawn due to Jordan’s decision. The Fife G&M story broke February 7, 2019.
Between February 1 and 19, 2019, one SNC case was plea bargained to minimal charges and two were withdrawn due to Jordan’s decision. The Fife G&M story broke February 7, 2019.
My question to you both:
Should the knowledge of impending withdrawal of charges, due to incapacity of prosecutors to adequately prepare the case for prosecution, also be considered in the decision to prosecute?
There is no public evidence it was given consideration.
Should the knowledge of impending withdrawal of charges, due to incapacity of prosecutors to adequately prepare the case for prosecution, also be considered in the decision to prosecute?
There is no public evidence it was given consideration.
What’s more troubling is the PPSC Prosecutor did recommend a DPA be offered to SNC. A DPA would have ensured an admission of fault/guilt, responsibility was taken and remedial action was closely monitored of the accused.
However, the DPP overrode that recommendation.
However, the DPP overrode that recommendation.
MOJAG supported the DPP’s decision.
We do not know why the DPP refused the DPA when the Prosecutor had recommended it.
But we can assume both the DPP & MOJAG were aware of the budgetary restraints and incapacity of the Prosecutor to adequately prepare a successful prosecution.
We do not know why the DPP refused the DPA when the Prosecutor had recommended it.
But we can assume both the DPP & MOJAG were aware of the budgetary restraints and incapacity of the Prosecutor to adequately prepare a successful prosecution.
Wouldn’t this be relevant information for an ethics investigation? Especially when it’s noted in the report that MOJAG seemed reluctant to table legislation and refused to defend it in committee? If only to demonstrate possible motivation of government to consult repeatedly.
Thank you in advance. I hope either or both of you have time to read and respond to my questions.
