Wednesday, 7 March 2012

Appealing. . .

I've had some recent experience with the legal system. I and some other long-term tenants fought our gentrifying landscum over our eviction. (Someday I'll tell the whole tale.) We lost at the kangaroo court known as the Landscum and Tenant Board.

We appealed. The advantage of this move is that one's case is heard by actual trained judges -- not by politically appointed stooges -- so we went for it. (Cost a bomb but sent landscum loco. That was satisfying.)

The disadvantage is that one is at the mercy of a) lying Big Swinging Dick Lawyers and b) incredible-til-one-experiences-it class bias in judges.

We lost.

Now, if we had dropped the appeal before it was heard, what would that have meant?

It would ^NOT have meant that we agreed to disagree with the landscum.

It would have meant that we accepted the decision of the kangaroo court.

It would have meant that we accepted that we had LOST.

Ah, but that's how it works for us little people.

Now looky here.
The Conservative Party of Canada has repaid taxpayers $230,198 for the "in-and-out" election financing dispute and dropped its appeal at the Supreme Court of Canada.

The party, currently fending off allegations of wrongdoing in the 2011 election over misleading telephone calls to voters, notified the Supreme Court last Friday that it wouldn't proceed with its case against Elections Canada.

Remember the old 'In and Out' scandal? And its current iteration?
[The Contempt Party] won the case in a lower court ruling, but in early 2011, the federal Court of Appeal unanimously overturned that ruling, saying Elections Canada had every right to deny the expenses.

The Conservatives brought the case to the Supreme Court, which granted the party leave to appeal in October.

They had a date set in May, but now they've quietly -- on a Friday, natch -- dropped the appeal.

So that means the Contempt Party accepts the decision of the lower court, yes? Accepts that they LOST?

Of course not.
"This has been a long-standing administrative dispute with Elections Canada over whether certain campaign expenses should be counted as local or national," Fred DeLorey, Conservative party spokesman, said in a statement to CBC News.

"We are agreeing to disagree and will be dropping our appeal to the Supreme Court. We are amending our return under protest to reflect this."

Right. Fiddle the books, get caught, fight, fight, fight, lose, appeal, then drop appeal, pay back some dough, then claim victory.

Anyone have any doubt that this is how the current investigation will play out? Like in 2018 or so?

But telling, innit, that they've dropped the appeal now. Hmm. Maybe because they've got stinkier bigger fish to bury fry?

1 comment:

Post a Comment