ConCalls: Waiting for Day 666 #RoboCon

The judge in the Council of Canadians’ challenge to 6 Conservative MPs election victories on May 2, 2011, will rule in the coming year he’s indicated. It may be April or later until we have a bilingual ruling on the most important court case in the land. I expect appeals no matter which way, meaning it will then go to the Supreme Court of Canada, where the resulting by-elections will be further delayed. This means the earliest we can hope for a small token of justice if criminal charges don’t materialize before then (they won’t, sadly), may be 2014! Gag me with a wooden spoon, or stick a fork in this country, it’s done. I hope Judge Mosely realizes the importance of having by-elections to give a fair election back to the people in the 6 challenged ridings, and finds a way to rule so justice is served.

The Conservatives, rather than submitting evidence of their own, put their whole case on discrediting the research done to demonstrate how voters were attacked by misleading and harassing phone calls. It’s telling they didn’t choose to even dispute that there were misleading calls accross the country, instead they went with some lies:

Rather than caring that voters felt manipulated by illegal robocalls, the Conservatives and their trolls are claiming the SCOC wouldn’t want byelections unless 1 voter from each affected riding comes forward to testify that they were duped.

Really easy to find those kind of witnesses to the crime, eh? Why not just look at the call logs, and who made the illegal calls to prove the crime, and the need for by-elections?

Justice is being denied, by the delay. Months have passed; it’s too long! Years are set to pass. Our poor country, can it bear it? I almost can’t.

What’s a people to do when the authorities figure it’s okay to let an illegitimate government rule while investigators and judges are busy crossing t’s and dotting i’s in their overlycareful legal proceedings?


28 responses to “ConCalls: Waiting for Day 666 #RoboCon

  1. In case anyone tries to claim that CIMS wasn’t used for calling the non-Conservative electors:

  2. Yeah. I’m glad the CoC is doing this, but the time for half-measures past a long time ago.

    We either use extra-legal, extra-parliamentary actions or we acquiesce to being a sham democracy.

    • Brilliant. In your deluded mind, your bastardization of the ‘defense of democracy’ has in some way justified the revokation of rule of law and rule of the will of the Nation.

      Just checked, I don’t have a brown shirt.

      • Ha-ha-ha! Listen to the gutless hypocrite! You can’t argue your way out of a paper bag in your disgusting attempt to defend stealing elections!

  3. The only person who CoC had who would testify, was found to be from the wrong riding, so was tossed as evidence….

    Did Graves submit a list of names of respondents from his poll, evidence to back up his claim of vote suppression?

    Why would a Judge toss out the votes of 260,000 residents when not even one person from the 6 ridings would come forward to testify that they did not vote because of a robocall?

    Why, when Graves did identify by automated poll, numerous (he says) voters who did not vote due to robocall, did Graves not call them back to verify their information and ask them to come forward in the case?
    (offering to put respondents into a $500 draw was really tacky, if not discrediting)

    • Conservative election fraud defenders have no place using the words tacky or discrediting, unless they are willing to be laughed at.

      Why would a judge toss out results of an election tainted by election fraud that calls into question the accuracy of the result? Why, that question answered itself.

      The case of the electors impacted by fraud robocalls is not weakened by the fact that they voted. It’s insane to suggest that they should have refrained from voting after getting the call, to bolster their case in court later when challenging the tainted results.

      • You are wrong. The case of the electors impacted by fraud robocalls is dependant on the fact that they voted. A fundamental principle of justice is to show agrievement, and to redress such. You simply cannot redress what has not been shown to have been lost.

        You are 100% correct to say “It’s insane to suggest that they should have refrained from voting after getting the call”, however, now, after the fact, it would be entirely proper and expected for you to say that I was someone who was impacted and can be used to show that the election had “tainted results”.

        After all, more than 31,000 odd were sooper dooper gung-ho to sign an internet petition. Hmmmmmmm… court of law, not so much.

        PS… don’t worry, your supporters have advocated that you “use extra-legal, extra-parliamentary actions” to get your way so all is not lost.

      • What was lost? A fair election. You can’t impersonate a party, and harass thousands of people, then claim it doesn’t have an effect on electors’ perception and vote choice. It is illegal to impersonate someone in that way, especially to convince people to vote in a particular way. If illegal actions don’t have consequences for the parties who benefit from them, where is the disincentive to use the scams in the future? You may not care if this kind of scummy crime ruins Canadian elections, but most Canadians do care about having fair elections.

      • redjeff,

        It seems your mother bounced your head on the floor too many times. Probably in a fit of rage and disgust.

        Calling people and falsely telling them that their polling station moved, in order to dissuade them from voting, is not only repulsive behaviour, it’s illegal. Calling voters and pretending to be from another party and acting in an insulting and harassing manner to dissuade them from voting is likewise illegal.

        Can’t you get that through your thick skull? It’s called fraud and it’s illegal. Besides which, there are statistical studies that show ridings subjected to these illegal calls from the CPC reported lower levels of voter turnout. If your sleazeball of a lawyer had anything intelligent to say on the matter, he’d have done so, rather than make stupid accusations of partisan fraud.

      • Saskie, i would agree with you if you treated EVERY political crime as equal. You don’t. You excuse the convenient. As such, your moral outrage is rendered mute.

      • Mute? Grammatical error aside, I wish you were.

        I don’t excuse ‘convenient’ political crime, that’s the big difference between you and me, aside from me knowing the word ‘moot’.

      • Again and again the coward dances around the fact that his team committed crimes. When the coward has his nose rubbed in that fact, he stands there, with the brown stuff dripping off of his nose, affecting nonchalance and saying “Wh-a-a-t?”

        I know why the harpercon brain-trust had to resort to election fraud to win. Because this stupid scum-sucking troll is about par with their overall intellectual capabilities.

  4. I’m still trying to understand why Arthur Hamilton was laughably allowed to appear in court to chirp & pimp for The Harper Tea Party Ethical Oil Investment in Ethical China Club Against Election Honesty

    (and by the way n with your leave Sask .. let’s be clear and lump our current foul ideological federal/feral albertawa govinment together with the toxic Conservative petro party it is the ruling and kneeling over oil lubricated ass-rump of.)

    Yes.. one single runaway sanctimonious twisted political theocratic entity/corporation… The Harper Party .. exemplified by those experts in situational ethics, Baird, Van Loan, Oliver, Del Mastro, Clement, Toews, DeLorey, Novak, Manning.. and the Grand Western Klansman his-self Stephen Harper, that great protector of all things anti-environmental ..

    A self proclaimed majority Harper government.. not ever to be conflated with/as The Government of Canada .. the government in and of our dreams that would represent Canada and Canadians.. with privilege and honor

    Hamilton is/was a clear direct participant witness along with his law firm to whatever was going on at the national party level and at the federal government level (lost forevermore via client/solicitor privilege) re RMG and RackNine and all the American based electoral service bureaus they (Harper Party) had accounts with.

    Hamilton and his firm were the ‘go to’ communication pipeline for Elections Canada alarms and questions regarding live and robo calls up to and including election day and re released vague Harper Party disclaimers. The question arises.. why did Elections Canada have Cassals-Brock Bumboy and Gopher at the top of their phone list in case of obvious election scams/fraud list ?? Did they call Jenni Byrne and unfortunately have Pierre Poilievre answer by invoking the 5th Amendment en francais ?

    Did Arthur get on the hotline to Ray Novak ? Did Ray mumble something to Stevie who wuz busy on another line to China. Did Ray or Stephen call Jennie.. who then called Arthur .. who then responded almost two days later to Elections Canada to say ‘we is just gettin the vote out !’

    I’m trying to see any evidence of even a shred of separation between the Party that Stephen Harper formed and the Government that Stephen Harper formed. I just keep seeing the same obvious overfed bovine mad cow faces. The same perfect political jackals and jackasses and a few imbecile sacrificial lambs.

    Watching the process of most mainstream media sucking up to and reflecting the Harper/Hamilton message that Frank Ekos was untrustworthy was unsurprising. Mainstream media has a lot to never apologize for or understand at adult levels.

    Ships don’t sink and the water in tailings ponds is nutritious seems biblical common sense to many so called journalists who may have gained their breathless insight by watching Question Period in Ottawa, studying Disney cartoons or Fox television

    Never before has so much fact, research, science been almost instantly accessible via the web.. yet most mainstream media prefers the pablum running down their chin of ‘aggregated newz’, cut & paste proclamation, partisan pithiness and outright bullshit.

    Prediction – When we comprehend the lazy gutless wonder of most mainstream Canadian media, we will suddenly see the nakid n pitiful horror of Stephen Harper and his petroleum bumboyz rampant over a mouldy maple leaf with a black fungus accompanied by the smell of something dead and fetid.

    Not the Canada I have inherited and lived in with privilege .. or will live in ..
    .. Not the Canada I will hand to future Canadians

  5. When even Laura Payton can’t polish a turd, you know the jig’s up!!! Via the CBC!!…!!…

    “Shrybman’s clients, backed by the Council of Canadians, allege a widespread campaign of harassing and misleading live phone messages and robocalls deterred people from casting ballots in the last federal election, and that the Conservative MPs benefited from it.” Even though it was shown to the court that “Turnout was higher than in the previous election in those ridings”.

    But they just can’t find anyone other than a guy in Quebec that may or may not have been too busy to vote or got lost because he was “3 years new to the area” or maybe a robo-call. Maybe.

    Because of Jean-Guy in Quebec, 220,000 people who voted in the ridings they lived in, and the Clowncil feels are winnable in a do-over, should have their decisions voided?

    Not content with imaginary ‘victimization’ good ol’ Maude explains how some folk are victims and DON’T EVEN KNOW IT!!! “Maude Barlow, chair of the Clowncil of Canadians, said some people don’t read newspapers or watch TV news, and just don’t know they may have gotten a misleading call”.

    As Maude sez herself “The numbers show us very clearly that there were people in every riding that made a choice not to vote because of this (robocall)”… we just can’t find any.

    As a total aside… would the same level of proof be enough to justify Bigfoot? No physical evidence other than a sincere belief!!!!! Har har!!!!!

    • There were people found who didn’t vote, as well as people found last year who did not. You know this, but persist to lie about it. You cited one, for my convenience to demonstrate how you lie. How kind.

      Turnout would have been higher in robocalled ridings if Conservative-backers with phone numbers from the Conservative Information Management System hadn’t told people wrongly where to go vote in fake locations. That’s what the survey showed, and one reason why the judge must act to protect fair elections in our country. We know you don’t care for fair elections, but they are essential for a peaceful country.

      • Yes, yes, yes I lie. There were zillions found that didn’t vote. Other than Jean-Guy Tabernac in Quebec… am I allowed to say that? Quebec? I know how, ahem, sensitive you are about the Place-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named. JG who didn’t live in ANY of the contested ridings, Lori Bruce well……. who DID vote and NO ONE presented before the court by the Clowncil.

        Lies, lies, lies, but not single name. Not one.

        Lies, lies, lies but, like the Clowncil, not reeaaallllyyyyyyy being able to show a single one.

        Seriously, even T-wap knows how the court is going to rule.

  6. unlike some of the partisans my understanding of the law is anybody found guilty of voter supression faces a fine or jail time regardless of whether it alters the outcome or not, but the act states a result can only be nullified if it would have resulted in a different outcome. Based on what I have read from the factum, Graves’ polling shows there is a greater than 95% chance the Conservatives wouldn’t have won Nipissing-Timiskaming thus reason to set aside this result and call a by-election while in Vancouver Island North, even with voter suppression, John Duncan would have still won albeit by a smaller margin thus let this result stand. The other four fell within the margin of error which was 0.8%-2.2%. As for the Council of Canadians motive, I agree it is highly partisan as they are no doubt doing it because they want the Conservatives out of power, but that doesn’t let the Conservatives off the hook if they did anything wrong. Likewise the Conservative stonewalling seems to indicate they are more concerned about minimizing any political damage even if the person involved was some rogue operative. If an MP would have won anyways, they can only be kicked out if they were either involved in the voter suppression or knew and covered it up. As for the length of time, most lawsuits, many criminal trials, and constitutional ones take similar amount of time. One of the fundamentals of justice is to make the correct decision based on law, not on heresay and allow both sides a chance at a fair hearing. This rule applies too all cases regardless of who is involved or the reason. Otherwise the Conservatives shouldn’t get off because one likes their policies, nor should them be punished just because one wants them out power. It should be based on the law only, not one’s political views and I have confidence in our legal system to make the right decision.

    • I understand what you’re saying, but you speak as if there are no larger repercussions if we allow democracy to descend to the level of buffoonery and fraud that the harpercons have established.

      You also speak as if our election watchdog hasn’t been turned into a neutered lapdog of the government.

      You also speak as if the majority on the Supreme Court of Canada hasn’t disgraced itself by saying that incompetence and conjecture are inevitable ingredients of a Canadian election.

      Finally, and I’ve been saying this since harper got elected. He does not respect the basis of his own power (the will of the majority in the House of Commons). Why should we?

      He doesn’t respect the law? Why should we?

      He doesn’t respect the electoral process. Why should we?

      The loathsome redjeff might want us to forget this, but when harper was ranting and raving to the Governor General for his first controversial prorogation, he threatened to incite his mob-supporters into believing that the proposed coalition was a coup. The G-G says she looked out the window at an angry mob of right-wing scum and felt that deciding against harper would lead to civil unrest.

      Well, I for one and tired of pandering to this filth and enduring their abuses.

    • Hi Monkey! Yes, the law has certain penalties for the act. The question is ‘has the burden of proof shown enough to void the result’. The Supreme Court has already ruled that the numbers are most important. In order to set aside a democratic election the proof must be unequivical, 95% is not a thresh-hold. The Council and their plaintiffs did not even bother to show that the ‘suppression’ occured in the ridings they are contesting. Furthermore the Conservative Party was not even named in the court case!!!

      The plaintiffs are actually randomly picking elected Conservative MP’s that have ABSOLUTELY NO ties to ANYTHING in ANYWAY illegal. If the ‘suppression’ campaign was, as has conspiratorially been accused, orchestrated by Prime Minister Harper or his office these MP’s subject to the court case would have had nothing to do with the situation. These scapegoat MP’s were chosen for the simple reason as that they were the ‘lowest apple on the tree’ for losing in a do-over.

      The Court must either void EVERY riding based on concrete proof of an altered result or they must void none. To force a court to punish one for the offence of another is against our fundamental principles of law.

      You are correct… “One of the fundamentals of justice is to make the correct decision based on law, not on heresay…” which, unfortunately, is exactly what a survey is,”… and allow both sides a chance at a fair hearing.” <- That would need a name for a cross examination.

      You know, face your accusers and all.

      PS great comment!

  7. The sad reality … a divided and disheartened country may see multiple pipelines smashed n fracked through any First Nations treaties, through the boreal, the coastal mountains, the rain forest to the coast. Any ecosystem in the way should just give it all up right now as a backroom election promise that voters never heard about is being prepared for delivery.. to China

    Incessant VLCC dilbit and liquid natural tanker fleets currently being built in China will arrive daily in Port Moody and Kitimaat and Prince Rupert to remove the extracted resources from Alberta and BC. The giant carbon footprint of Canada will be the dead center bullseye of target Canada as seen by the rest of the world. Hell even the arabs are laughing at us ..

    This will be the legacy of Harper, Van Loan, Baird, Oliver, Mackay, Kent, Ashfield, Clement, Flaherty, Arthur Hamilton et al .. those visionary Canadian petro pigs. oink eh … ! That dick was right.. we really can’t recognize Canada now that he’s in charge of it.

    We’ve long passed the era of elections.. this is the robo era of national sellouts and swindles and back room war room Harper bumboyz. I hope all those Board of Directorships seem worth it Mr Honorable Harper.. to you and your cadre of overfed public serpents and lawyers and poli sci grads from your higher leaning feedlots and think tanks ..

    Thank you Mr Preston Manning … for your pleasant well intended gullible stupid idealism that helped launch a dirty bomb called Stephen Harper at Canada. Tell us Mr Manning.. Is this what you envisioned for Canada? Is this the glowing heart government you dreamed stood on guard for all of us.. or are you just in damage control mode now that Pandora’s Box has been opened.. and you see what slithered out.. Please enlighten us all .. or ask Stevie to speak for you.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s