Skip to comments.Canada: Blogger busts Adscam ban, officials thinking of charging Canadian blogger.
Posted on 04/04/2005 1:07:58 AM PDT by Pikamax
Blogger busts Adscam ban
Ad exec's explosive testimony posted on American website By STEPHANIE RUBEC, Parliamentary Bureau
AN AMERICAN website has breached the publication ban protecting the explosive and damning testimony of a Montreal ad exec at the Adscam inquiry. The U.S. blogger raised the ire of the Gomery commission this weekend by publishing extracts from testimony given in secret by Jean Brault on Thursday.
The American blog, being promoted by an all-news Canadian website, boasts that "Canada's Corruption Scandal Breaks Wide Open" and promises more to come. The owner of the Canadian website refused to comment yesterday.
Adscam inquiry spokesman Francois Perreault expressed shock at the publication ban breach, and said commission co-counsel Bernard Roy and Justice John Gomery will decide today whether to charge the Canadian website owner with contempt of court.
"We never thought someone would violate the publication ban," Perreault said yesterday. "Maybe we were more confident than we should have been."
Gomery slapped a ban on Brault's testimony last week to ensure the Montreal ad exec would be able to find an unbiased jury for his fraud trial, which is set for next month.
Gomery also ordered a publication ban on the upcoming testimony of former sponsorship head Chuck Guite and former ad exec Paul Coffin.
But reporters and cameras have been allowed inside the hearing room as long as they don't publish Brault's testimony until the ban is lifted.
And members of the public have swarmed to the inquiry since Gomery cut off the live transmission, filling a special auditorium.
Rumours have swirled all weekend about a possible breach of the ban by American newspapers, Internet sites and television stations that are outside Gomery's reach.
Perreault warned that even if Brault's testimony has been outed by a U.S. website, it doesn't mean it is now public information in Canada.
"Anyone who takes that information and diffuses it is liable to be charged with contempt of court," Perreault said. "Anybody who reproduces it is at risk."
Sun Media lawyer Alan Shanoff said publishing the name of the blog, the Canadian news site or providing the Internet address could lead to a contempt charge.
Shanoff said American news organizations began breaching Canadian publication bans in earnest with Karla Homolka's murder trial.
'HARD TO POLICE'
"It became very clear from that case that publication bans are very hard to police," Shanoff said.
Shanoff said the Adscam breach would become more significant if Montrealers flock to the blogger's site to read Brault's testimony.
"The information, I gather, is very, very damaging and very prejudicial," he said. "If it's accessed by large numbers of people in Montreal where the trial will take place, it could have a prejudicial effect."
Brault is expected to wrap up his testimony tomorrow, when Gomery will hear arguments from lawyers as to whether he should lift the ban.
Brault's lawyer has asked a Montreal judge to delay the criminal trial until September. That decision is expected on Wednesday.
If the judge agrees, that might allay Gomery's concerns that Brault's Adscam testimony could negatively affect his fraud trial.
What's wrong with Canada?
No Free Speech in Canada! Dictatorship! US should put Canada on the list for countries violating human rights and free speech.
One more for the blogosphere
(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)
This is what the Communists often do, hide the unwanted information from the public. Canadian Liberals = Communists!
For those who don't know, the American blog which busted the Canadian wankers is:
Just keep scrolling for multiple entries.
Actually, here's the post which reveals the testimony, the reporting of which is a crime in Canada:
According to 'authorities' linking to the post is a crime in Canada.
Thanks for the links!
On Thursday, Jean Brault began his testimony, subject to the publication ban, and revealed a massive pattern of corruption going to the highest levels of the Liberal party and government. Brault testified to hundreds of thousands of dollars of bogus transactions designed to benefit the Liberal Party of Canada over a period from 1994 to 2002.
Most of the illegal campaign contributions involved Brault either hiring employees -- who were in fact working full time on Liberal Party activities -- or paying invoices for Liberal Party campaign expenses (which were never declared as such) or making untraceable cash donations to Liberal officials. In exchange for helping the federal Liberals in Quebec, Brault received millions of dollars in federal advertising contracts.
Brault said he met with Jean Carle, a key aide to then Prime Minister Jean Chretien to propose a more direct way of ensuring that Groupaction got a large share of federal advertising dollars in Quebec. Carle referred Brault to federal bureaucrat Charles (Chuck) Guité and told him that there was room for everybody.
Guité later put together the sponsorship program, in which five Liberal connected firms -- including Groupaction -- were guaranteed a monopoly on government sponsorship advertising (e.g. federal advertising at sporting or cultural events) and related work. The sponsorship program eventually became a huge slush fund into which over $250 million was poured, over $100 million of which was paid in fees and commissions to these five advertising firms, with little or any evidence of work done or value for money.
In exchange for these large contracts for little or no work, Brault kicked back generously to the Liberal Party, putting Liberal organizers on his payroll while they continued to perform party work (including, at one point, Prime Minister Jean Chrétiens brother, Gaby Chrétien), paying invoices to other companies for work actually done for the Liberal Party, and giving large donations -- in cash -- to the Liberal Party through Renaud or Liberal Party organizer (and close associate of Public Works Minister Alfonso Gagliano) Joe Morselli.
Towards the later part of the sponsorship program, the friends and associates of Public Works Minister and former ambassador to Denmark Alfonso Gagliano, some of whom have been linked to organized crime, played a larger role in the schemes.
At one point, Gagliano associate Tony Mignacca told Brault that if he didnt rehire Renaud (who had left Groupaction to start a new company), he would lose his newly acquired contract with Via Rail -- Canadas state-run passenger rail service. Brault broke down in tears after he recounted this testimony. At a meeting in 2001 with Joe Morselli, Brault said that he arranged to have the meeting in an overheated room in a restaurant -- so that Brault could ask Morselli to take off his coat and ensure that he wasnt carrying a body pack.
This is just the beginning of Brault's testimony.
The real art here is how to get this information to the average Canadian. What percentage of the Canadian population has heard about the testimony and knows where to access it, I wonder.
What should this scandal be called? GomeryGate?
The bad part about this is that the focus of the story has become the breaking of the ban rather than the facts of the testimony.
What about linking to this post? This post doen't contain the information. Does linking to a site that links to a site that links to a site that contains the info illegal? If so, then I would imagine that everyone on the planet who logged onto the internet today has commited a crime in these yokels eyes.
Remember the game "Six Steps to Bacon"? That's the game where you attempt to link anyone on the planet to actor Kevin Bacon in only six steps. Usually, you can do it.
This should read,
Adscam inquiry spokesman Francois Perreault expressed shock at the publication and said Canadian Liberals will need at least 5 years more years to charge the Canadian website owner with contempt of court."
Canada's playing in the big league now.
Nothing but sympathy for decent Canadians, here.
Gomery Considering Charging Bloggers It has been suggested to me by what is admittedly second-hand information, that Justice John Gomery will consider charging any Canadian blogger who not only provides a link to a site containing banned material, but any Canadian blogger who names the site containing the banned material.
If Gomery won't resign, Chretien could take the case to his friends
Most judges on Federal Court owe jobs to Liberals
February 1, 2005
The Ottawa Citizen
If Jean Chretien cannot persuade Justice John Gomery to step down from the federal sponsorship scandal inquiry, the former prime minister's appeal would go to a court led by a close personal friend, where three-quarters of the judges indirectly owe their jobs to him. ...
An American needs to own a website all of Canada will go to for information.
back in December
made an ill-advised decision
to allow for an interview
by a reporter for the National Post.
During the interview
he made some foolish remarks:
(one of the defendants)
was a charming rogue,
and also joked about Chretien
having received some golf balls
from various foreign leaders.
Chretien has taken full advantage
During his appearance
at the Gomery Commission
he arrived with a briefcase
full of golf balls
from Clinton, Bush Sr. etc
in order to heap ridicule
on the judge
who had to sit there grimly
through his performance.
(The Canadian media loved all this
and lapped it up)
and his army of lawyers
have launched a lawsuit
to get Gomery deposed
because of his alleged bias.
A ludicrous story.
Thus all very Canadian.
All the Canadian bloggers I have checked
(see, for example, Bound by Gravity)
not only any link to Captain's Quarters
but even the name of the blog itself.
They are very afraid.
|Blogosphere 1, Liberals 0 -- It is the borderlessness of the Internet that has made possible the release of the truth about the Liberals to the Canadian public. Yet we are still in a phase of change where the Liberals are able to harass and intimidate some Canadian blogs, such as NealeNews, into silence. At this point, it was the Americans who came to Canadians aid, by posting the information denied to Canadians on a number of American websites.|
Reminds me of the French trying to lock up a journalist for blowing the whistle on some crooked leftist politicians.
Sorry Ted; FOR THE RECORD, this is my opinion on your information/posting: Your posting is replete with factual errors and reeks of typical naive, ignorance and is disturbingly, misleading. 1-the inquiry has not yet (as you put it) "costed obscenely more than the amount lost during the embezzlement." 2-Of course the ban will be over when less culpable witnesses or "accused" as you put it, appear, however, there is definitely no timeline on the ban being "temporary" and reports also disclose that the information ban regarding "these particular culpable witnesses" or "the accused" as you put it, could in fact be permanent, with sanitized and/or vetted press releases regarding the testimony of these particular culpable witnesses, eventually being released. 3-you imply the ban is, "to protect the human rights of the accused for a fair trial by the judiciary." I find this to be typically naive and typically liberal-minded. The inference is, "let's guarantee the so called "human rights" of the accused. So, you believe Canada is unable to prosecute an open/closed case, if some of the facts about the case have been openly disclosed to the public? You have been well conditioned...to the point you accept the premise and defend it. Furthermore, is it "Human Rights" as you say or legal, civil/criminal procedural rights? By, "delaying the publishing of the proceedings by a few weeks or months does not constitute a lack of free speech," as you write, is in fact, while taken in context, definitely a suppression of free speech, and suppression of free expression, suppression and manipulation of the news media; which will most definitely affect procedure; which gets me to the your correct assertion wherein, "..by the time they are done, we will be sick of it and no one will care;" which is perpetuated by attitudes and beliefs such as yours and as I assert, is , in part, the reason for suppression and/or information "bans". In addition, this is typical Liberal-Canada's method of operation, sanctioned by complacent, ineffective and equally corrupt Opposition Party's. The NEW Canadian Conservative Party; get real!! HOW ABOUT A REAL CONSERVATIVE PARTY FOR CANADA REPRESENTING REAL CONSERVATIVE INITIATIVES AND VALUES.
An Informed Canadian
"THE DIFFERENCE" A very sad example of how the "Liberal-Leftist" socialization of Canada has succeeded. Even "so-called" brave Canadian "bloggers" are afraid!!! Canadian "bloggers" are afraid of being sued in civil action or charged criminally for posting "Adscam" related material. International news media reports, Canadian "bloggers" have disconnected from "links" and ceased reporting "Adscam" and related stories, evidence, testimony,.....OR,....is the aforementioned an example of our represented, "Higher" morals and more diversive, polite, all inclusive, "respect-for-the-law," love-peace and understanding, value system? YES, we will continue to criticize and "blog" every behaviour by the U.S.A. but, at home, we are AFRAID....but, will continue to "blog" nice and goodie, goodie, non-provocative stories.
An Informed Canadian
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.