Breaking News: Brenda Martin Convicted
Tue, 2008-04-22 16:01
#1
Krystalline Kraus
Breaking News: Brenda Martin Convicted
Tue, 2008-04-22 16:01
#2
Krystalline Kraus
[url=http://www.thestar.com/News/Canada/article/417077]Toronto Star [/url]
quote:
Canadian held in Mexico jail for two years is found guilty of involvement in Internet scamSetenced to a minimum of five years, it's likely she will be return to Canada under prisoner-exchange program
quote:
A Mexican judge found Canadian Brenda Martin guilty today of involvement in an Internet scam run by her former boss and sentenced her to a minimum of five years in jail and fined her 35,800 pesos (C$3,447.30).*
Martin has been in a prison near Guadalajara since February 2006. She is expected to be transferred to Canada to complete her sentence
*
Cruz said Martin could have to spend at least another five days in Mexican custody. Under Mexican law, a convicted prisoner must wait out the five-day appeal period before the transfer process can begin.
Martin had said she wouldn’t appeal the decision because she wanted to leave Mexico as quickly as possible. But because she will ask to be transferred, she must launch the appeal and wait for it to go through the system.
A Canadian Embassy official said the government will continue to provide assistance.
Her mother Marjorie Bletcher cried when she heard the verdict.
“She is in such a fragile state that I’m afraid that this might just take her over the edge,” Bletcher told CTV Newsnet.
[ 22 April 2008: Message edited by: statica ]
Tue, 2008-04-22 16:56
#3
Le T
If only Omar Khadr had it so good. The way the media has covered this story has shown the deeply racist and colonial underpinnings of Canadian society. All the sound bites, interviews, expert opinions and reports that I have heard in the last few hours have taken for granted that:
1) This woman is innocent.
2) The Mexican legal system, called simply "The Mexicans", is corrupt to a point that they would sentence someone to 5 years in prison for not giving the right bribe.
3) The Canadian Government should and will transfer her to Canada and release her for time served.
4) Despite all this we should continue to avert our eyes from the NAFTA, the SPP, the Canadian companies making millions in Mexico and millions in trade and believe that the Zapatistas are pretty much terrorists and the millions of Mexicans working as slaves in the US and Canada are "illegal".
Tue, 2008-04-22 17:28
#4
Yes, it helps not to be an Arab when the media choose whom to help escape due process and governments they choose to hypocritically depict like this, wringing their hands over the effects of their own treatment of Mexico:
quote:
...Each media report of her plight racheted up pressure on Ottawa to press her case with Mexican officials. It also put Mexico in the unenviable position of defending the autonomy of a justice system perceived by some as rife with human-rights abuses... (National Post? No, Toronto Star!)
Tue, 2008-04-22 17:34
#5
It seems that every time the quality of justice in Mexico is questioned, it's suggested that the only reason the question arises is racism. You might want to express those concerns to Amnesty International because I suspect it's due to [url=http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2007/02/07/mexico-amnesty.html]reports[/url] of their opinion that some have gotten the idea there might be a wee bit of a problem.
Edited to fix link. Assuming it works, of course.
[ 22 April 2008: Message edited by: pogge ]
Tue, 2008-04-22 18:01
#6
This story mostly talks about real criminals escaping justice - using their support network, as Martin did - and political activists being jailed, tortured and really denied justice.
I think that if the dreaded r-word has been uttered to comment on the Free Brenda Martin campaign, it is because her advocates - I suspect that a sizable amount of those 60 million US$ went to a very professional P.R. firm - seemed to have less of a documented case about her alleged mistreatment than a lot of stereotypical accusations to sling around, all of which were enthusiastically taken up in our r*** media with very few hard questions asked nor answered, such as "How can you say you are being denied a trial when it was your side who stopped the proceedings with a constitutional recourse?" or "Why should we give any credence to the word of her criminal boss as to Martin's alleged lack of knowledge of this long-running fraud?"
But hey if the media want to take on a failed, rogue, corrupt, racist justice system, I'll be the first to support them. No need to go all the way to Mexico either: Canada and the U.S. would provide plenty of material...
[ 22 April 2008: Message edited by: martin dufresne ]
Tue, 2008-04-22 18:45
#7
quote:
Originally posted by pogge:
[b]It seems that every time the quality of justice in Mexico is questioned, it's suggested that the only reason the question arises is racism. [/b]
That's the way I saw it from the first time this issue was raised on babble. Unless anyone has seen any clear indication of a miscarriage of justice [b]in this specific case[/b], then all the AI reports in the world mean nothing.
As I have said from the start, I saw no proof that the Mexican authorities delayed the trial (as opposed to her own lawyers, intelligently or otherwise, preferring to raise constitutional challenges). I saw no evidence that she or her lawyers were even demanding a faster trial - not once did I see that. I saw no formal allegation that Mexico had violated any treaties with regard to her treatment while in prison. And I have seen no evidence that there was any violation of Mexican law in the handling of her trial(s), nor any evidence of corruption in this case..
So what is this noise all about - if not arrogance and condescension directed to (as the media have called it) "Third World justice"?
In cases like Omar Khadr, the violations of international law are legion and in everyone's face.
If Brenda Martin had been tried on the same charge in Canada, convicted and sentenced to 5 years - it wouldn't rate a footnote. That's because we're good, noble, white (at least those of us who run this wonderful society of ours) and right. We don't have miscarriages of justice like Milgaard, Truscott, Sophonow, Marshall, Driskell, Baltovich, ...
Tue, 2008-04-22 20:24
#8
quote:
Originally posted by unionist:
[b]
If Brenda Martin had been tried on the same charge in Canada, convicted and sentenced to 5 years - it wouldn't rate a footnote.[/b]
What would Canadian or U.S. justice systems charge Brenda with?
If the Yanks can get Brenda's former boss, a Canadian extradited to the U.S. to face charges, then why is Brenda in Mexico and not the U.S. or Canada? Does Paul Martin not have any pull down there after our Liberals made as friendly with the Mexicanos on NAFTA in 1994?
I think it's cruel for our former colonial administrator to get Brenda's hopes up like that only to be given the brush off.
And I think Brenda's is very lucky she wasn't imprisoned in any of those other U.S.-friendly shitholes in Central America, those countries where children are imprisoned for the crime of vagrancy and end up sharing rat-infested jail cells with adult prisoners. Mexico is at least a little higher up on the list of U.S.-influenced shitholes.
[ 22 April 2008: Message edited by: Fidel ]
Wed, 2008-04-23 07:05
#9
I find it amazing how many people weigh in on this case when obviously we do not have the facts. I recognize that we have treaties that mean we cannot overturn the result. However, we should be able to question the process.
Secondly, it is in Canada where Ms Martin will likely spend the rest of her life, I assume. Therefore it is here where her name and reputation will matter. It is unfortunate that people will not know if there was any evidence to support the conviction. There is no mechanism, that I am aware of, where this case could be re-examined based on Canadian law and judicial practice- and such a mechanism would have its own risks in any event. We need to be careful in the meantime both assuming her or the Mexican system's guilt or either's innocence in the absence of the facts.
I am inclined to want to believe her but without a look at the case in more detail than has been shared in the media, that remains wishful thinking and suspicion. I am not sure what she can do otherwise. I guess she could hire a lawyer here to explain her case but that sounds simpler than it is because lawyers paid by clients are advocates and you can't hire a lawyer to be a judge since the act of hiring removes impartiality. To subject her case to a judicial review would subject her to another proceeding that would have risks- I would hardly advise someone to do that. I don't know what I would do in her shoes.
Wed, 2008-04-23 07:30
#10
Le T
The issue is the fundamental disrespect shown by Canadians and the government of the Mexican justice system. It is also nuts that this case has received so much attention while Omar Kadr, a Canadian child soldier, is help in a US torture camp. Kadr has been at the torture facility longer than Martin's entire sentence and he hasn't had a trial yet or had any help from the Canadian gov. The media has ignored his case and treats him as defacto guilty of something while treating Martin as innocent despite BEING FOUND GUILTY BY TRIAL WITH ACCESS TO EVIDENCE AGAINST HER AND LAWYERS
Wed, 2008-04-23 07:39
#11
quote:
...I am inclined to want to believe her but without a look at the case in more detail than has been shared in the media, that remains wishful thinking and suspicion...
Doesn't it make sense to entrust determinations of guilt to the judicial process, and not let the media or the accused's supporters browbeat us into alternative views, especially those based on xenophobic/racist stereotypes? I know it's not easy to resist an invitation to voyeurism and armchair speculation but...
On your other point, if Ms. Martin was arrested, tried and condemned in another country, logic suggests that it is because what she was accused of happened there. If she wasn't extradited to the U.S. or Canada, one may deduce that she wasn't charged in any of these two countries, as her boss was. Finally, if her reputation in Canada is compromised, isn't it because her support network chose to make her case a [i]cause cйlиbre[/i] here, based I imagine on its assessment of her chances of evading due process in Mexico in this manner?
[ 23 April 2008: Message edited by: martin dufresne ]
Wed, 2008-04-23 07:44
#12
quote:
Originally posted by Sean in Ottawa:
[b]There is no mechanism, that I am aware of, where this case could be re-examined based on Canadian law and judicial practice- [/b]
Why should there be? It didn't happen in Canada - it happened in Mexico. If a Mexican committed a crime in Canada and went through the Canadian judicial system, do you think that the case should be "re-examined based on Mexican law and judicial practice"?
Wed, 2008-04-23 08:01
#13
quote:
Originally posted by Sean in Ottawa:
[b]I find it amazing how many people weigh in on this case when obviously we do not have the facts.[/b]
She was found guilty. What other facts are you looking for?
quote:
[b]I recognize that we have treaties that mean we cannot overturn the result. However, we should be able to question the process. [/b]
What question do you have about the process? Was it corrupt? Was she denied an opportunity to speak in her own defence? Have her lawyers pointed to some defect? Or is it just Amnesty International and Mexico?
quote:
[b]Secondly, it is in Canada where Ms Martin will likely spend the rest of her life, I assume. [/b]
No kidding. She shared that with you?
quote:
[b]It is unfortunate that people will not know if there was any evidence to support the conviction.[/b]
As opposed to our Civilized White Judicial System, where the public is fully satisfied of the evidence in every conviction and that Justice has been done?
Let me ask you something, Sean. You've read no doubt of the [b]thousands[/b] of pages of court documents from the various Mexican judicial proceedings to date in the Brenda Martin affair. Have her lawyers [b]bothered to release these to the Canadian public[/b] so that we can make up our own minds (that is, for those whose curiosity or inclination leads them to such a pursuit)?
You want to know about the facts and evidence? I suggest you contact Mr. Cruz and/or Ms. Martin and ask for copies of all the documents. Let us know your conclusions.
Oh, also, let us know whether Martin really did finger Roth when first arrested, as alleged by Harrison. Curiouser and curiouser.
quote:
[b]I am inclined to want to believe her but without a look at the case in more detail than has been shared in the media, that remains wishful thinking and suspicion. [/b]
Why are you inclined to want to believe her?
By the way, I now understand why everyone was demanding a speedy trial on the actual charges - [b]except[/b] Martin and her lawyers!
Wed, 2008-04-23 08:43
#14
quote:
So what is this noise all about - if not arrogance and condescension directed to (as the media have called it) "Third World justice"?
Unfortunately, the Mexican justice system regularly convicts people who are innocent.
Their jails are full of working class and peasant people who did nothing illegal.
My brother was once arrested in Mexico. He asked: "What is the charge?" and was told by the police officer: "For you, the charge is $500.00."
My brother stayed in jail until someone paid the officer $500.00; he was released without ever having been formally charged with any offence.
----
I once represented a Mexican man, here in Canada, who had been convicted in Mexico of murder. He was kept in jail throughout the trial, and had no lawyer at all. After eight months, he received a visit from a court official, advising him that he had been convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment.
He felt that was unfair.
It is a mistake to maintain a "Third world good, capitalist world bad" sort of Manicheanism.
You will act with more justice if you look carefully at the procedures in place, and whether they are really fair. If the procedures are unfair, EVERY result is tainted.
Wed, 2008-04-23 09:01
#15
In Canada we have the legal concept of willful blindness. If you purposely avert your eyes from an illegal activity and make money from it then you can be convicted in this country. In Canada we give very little weight to convicted criminals who say their buddies are innocent. But of course Mexican courts shouldn't factor those things into account because this overpaid "cook" says she didn't know her boss was a con man. I suspect there might be plenty of judges in Canada that would have a hard time buying the "I didn't know anything" line.
Wed, 2008-04-23 09:10
#16
quote:
In Canada we give very little weight to convicted criminals who say their buddies are innocent. But of course Mexican courts shouldn't factor those things into account because this overpaid "cook" says she didn't know her boss was a con man.
I don't think the employer's comments have much weight. I agree with you to that extent.
But then the question is: what actual evidence exists that she DID know what was going on, AND PARTICIPATED IN THE ACTIVITY?
"Wilful blindness" does not allow a conviction of me for an offence you commit (and I turn a blind eye). It requires that I DO something to assist you IN THE ACTIVITY, turning a blind eye to its illegal character.
Commonly, one would not expect a cook, or a girlfriend to concern herself with the nature of an on-line business. Maybe there is evidence in this case that she did. But I haven't heard it yet.
Wed, 2008-04-23 09:16
#17
Your right all we have heard is how distressing being in jail is on this woman. This woman unlike others was living in the con mans inner circle. I don't know what facts the Mexican authorities looked at because that is not the story being put on the media. The story for the media is white Canadian woman finds jail time in Mexican prison depressing. That I don't dispute but it really says nothing about the case against her. So much for our vaunted free press. All we have is her supporters day after day asserting her innocence with no real investigation into the alleged facts against her. Great trial reporting.
Wed, 2008-04-23 09:16
#18
quote:
Originally posted by jeff house:
[b]You will act with more justice if you look carefully at the procedures in place, and whether they are really fair. If the procedures are unfair, EVERY result is tainted.[/b]
LOL.
So we'd better free all the innocent Canadians imprisoned in the U.S., right? Or aren't their procedures "tainted"?
Or how about the [url=http://www.rabble.ca/babble/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic&f=13&t=003754]50 Mexicans on death row in the U.S. who were denied consular access?[/url]
Your anecdotes have really confirmed how our Canadian and U.S. systems are untainted, while anything south of there - forget it, they're all corrupt torturers.
Just out of curiosity, jeff, what does our treaty say with Mexico? That the minute they hand over any convicted offender, we let them go - because Mexico's system sucks? That would be the "honest" way to go, wouldn't it?
As far as I'm considered, Brenda Martin was innocent until she was proven guilty. Now, she's guilty until I hear a credible explanation otherwise. And that doesn't include her initial story that "Rebecca did it!!".
Wed, 2008-04-23 09:18
#19
quote:
Originally posted by jeff house:
[b]But then the question is: what actual evidence exists that she DID know what was going on, AND PARTICIPATED IN THE ACTIVITY?[/b]
If she or her lawyers were to release the [b]thousands of pages of court documents[/b] that they have and we don't have, you could read them and then ask questions after.
Why not write to them and ask what they have to hide?
Wed, 2008-04-23 09:24
#20
Le T
quote:
I once represented a Mexican man, here in Canada, who had been convicted in Mexico of murder. He was kept in jail throughout the trial, and had no lawyer at all. After eight months, he received a visit from a court official, advising him that he had been convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment.He felt that was unfair.
It is a mistake to maintain a "Third world good, capitalist world bad" sort of Manicheanism.
That's nothing like what happened in this case and no one was implying "3rd world good, capitalist world bad" which really doesn't even make any sense unless you define those terms differently than everybody.
The woman had lawyers, more than one, a trial, access to evidence against her and was found guilty. The same thing happens in Canada all the time.
The point is that people just expect that white Canadians should be airlifted from which ever justice system they find themselves in around the world. At the same time non-white Canadians deserve nothing because they are probably guilty, even if they are only 15 years old.
Wed, 2008-04-23 09:26
#21
It is true that various police agencies have insisted on wide-open extradition of Canadian citizens to foreign jurisdictions. This is a FLAW in our protective system for Canadians.
quote:
So we'd better free all the innocent Canadians imprisoned in the U.S., right? Or aren't their procedures "tainted"?
Yes, they are, as I recently argued in the Supreme Court of Canada.
But the US system of justice is FAR less tainted than is the one in Mexico. And the Mexican system is less tainted than other systems, too.
So, we have a scale. It's not all black and white. On a scale of one to ten, the US and Canda get seven, and Mexico gets four, or maybe three.
Wed, 2008-04-23 09:39
#22
quote:
Originally posted by jeff house:
[b]But the US system of justice is FAR less tainted than is the one in Mexico. [/b]
The U.S. uses capital punishment. Mexico does not. What's your definition of "tainted"?
Wed, 2008-04-23 09:41
#23
quote:
Originally posted by Le Tйlйspectateur:
[b]The point is that people just expect that white Canadians should be airlifted from which ever justice system they find themselves in around the world. At the same time non-white Canadians deserve nothing because they are probably guilty, even if they are only 15 years old.[/b]
And that, in capsule form, is what this story is about - and that is [b]all[/b] this story is about - unfortunately.
Wed, 2008-04-23 09:53
#24
Le Tйlйspectateur: The Kadr case is worse but this is not a race to the bottom. This case has been subjected to delays and process problems including the lack of early assistance from our government. There have been a number of specific questions raised about the case against her. Remember in Canada the crown has to make its case beyond doubt whereas in Mexico the onus of innocence is on the defendant. You cannot pretend to support the Canadian process without also having concerns about the Mexican one unless you are wearing blinkers. This is not a race issue either, observers have similar concerns about many judicial systems in Europe which also require the defendant to prove their case rather than the state.
The disrespect to the Mexican legal system is perhaps in some people based on racism but it is also based on reports of real problems. I worked with a person who happened to be a lawyer from Mexico who is now working in Canada. He gave me enough insight into that system to have some doubts about both the process and the accuracy of verdicts from there. With the difference in burdens in Canada when we get it wrong we are more likely to let a guilty person go free than keep an innocent in jail but here, even with the high burden for the crown, we still get it wrong. When you tilt the playing field the other way, you should expect more trouble even assuming everything else is equal. It is not racist to point out that corruption in Mexico is a problem at the lower more petty levels than here. They admit it. Higher wages and a better standard of living traditionally go hand in hand with reduced corruption. It is not racist to point out that you must address wealth disparities among nations and citizens if you want to address corruption. It appears in Canada our corruption problems surface when it is more worth the risk. This is not a morality difference it is a risk benefit reality. There are many people who would not steal a chocolate bar for fear of being caught but would steal a million dollars if they had the chance.
I am not defending her innocence as I said we do not have the facts to judge from this distance.
Also, I have significant concerns about our judicial process here that I have seen directly and am aware of issues in the United States that I have also discussed with both prosecutors who work there and lawyers who work there (New York State). For all these reasons I would say that one would be misinformed to presume that everyone convicted in any country is necessarily guilty and there are differences from one country to another with respect to presumption in process.
Wed, 2008-04-23 09:57
#25
What I want to know is, why were the Yanks able to extricate Canadian Alyn Waage from Mexico to stand trial in the U.S., but Canadian Brenda Martin was left in Mexico for Mexican justice to deal with?
Why can't our own stoogeocrats in Ottawa pull some strings and have Brenda extradited to Canada to face ... some equivalent charge in Canada, whatever that charge might possibly be given that it is a real offense she's guilty of?
[ 23 April 2008: Message edited by: Fidel ]
Wed, 2008-04-23 10:02
#26
quote:
Originally posted by martin dufresne:
[b] Doesn't it make sense to entrust determinations of guilt to the judicial process, and not let the media or the accused's supporters browbeat us into alternative views, especially those based on xenophobic/racist stereotypes? I know it's not easy to resist an invitation to voyeurism and armchair speculation but...On your other point, if Ms. Martin was arrested, tried and condemned in another country, logic suggests that it is because what she was accused of happened there. If she wasn't extradited to the U.S. or Canada, one may deduce that she wasn't charged in any of these two countries, as her boss was. Finally, if her reputation in Canada is compromised, isn't it because her support network chose to make her case a [i]cause cйlиbre[/i] here, based I imagine on its assessment of her chances of evading due process in Mexico in this manner?
[ 23 April 2008: Message edited by: martin dufresne ][/b]
I believe that the media while biased is also an essential part of the checks and balances any society has. Many injustices are exposed (including Omar Khadr) from the media. It can be argued that it is racist to shelter a process and a situation behind "politically" correct notions that we cannot make criticisms lest they be called racist. I do my best not to filter my opinions through a racist lens and this is a struggle we all need to make but to say any criticism of the Mexican system is racist appears in itself to be racist.
Your logic that "what happened" did not happen in the other country as an explanation as to why she was not extradited is one possibility-- that it may not have happened at all is a more logical one since she has been charged with conspiracy to do the same thing her boss was so whatever jurisdiction covered him ought to have covered her. Maybe she was not charged in the US because there was no evidence to bring the charge.
Her support network likely did not ahve many choices about how to help her. If she is innocent then this was the only thing she could do.
I have said we do not have all the facts but I do not fault the media for having a look-- I just question those who draw absolute conclusions of guilt or innocence without enough facts. Certainly there are some red flags here however.
Wed, 2008-04-23 10:02
#27
I would have thought that unionist knows better, but apparently not.
Here's a little thought experiment:
Unionist and others have loudly claimed that the so-called Cuban Five did not get justice in the United States.
I know their lawyer personally, so I know that the main complaints had to do with the fact that the Five were not granted a change of venue out of Miami. The jury's independence was therefore in question.
In Mexico, no one may ask for a change in venue. Secondly, as contrasted to the Cuban Five, there are no juries in Mexico.
So, the Cuban Five require a jury, and even a non-Miami one, for justice to be done. But Brenda Martin doesn't.
She has to make do with a judge employed by the state, and with many fewer rights than the Five had.
It takes a lot of twisting to maintain black/white storytelling in a complex world.
Wed, 2008-04-23 10:06
#28
quote:
Originally posted by Michelle:
[b]Why should there be? It didn't happen in Canada - it happened in Mexico. If a Mexican committed a crime in Canada and went through the Canadian judicial system, do you think that the case should be "re-examined based on Mexican law and judicial practice"?[/b]
I merely observed that there was not-- I did not propose that we create one as I can't even see a mechanism. That said your reverse argument makes no sense given the difference of presumption of innocence and burden of proof between the two systems. The Canadian system prefers to err on the side of releasing a guilty person while the Mexican on the side of keeping an innocent in jail. This is a clear stated presumption. You can argue the merit of either side -- from public safety or individual rights but you can't argue that the systems are the same such that you could begin to make the argument in reverse.
Wed, 2008-04-23 10:13
#29
Le T
quote:
With the difference in burdens in Canada when we get it wrong we are more likely to let a guilty person go free than keep an innocent in jail but here, even with the high burden for the crown, we still get it wrong.
You just made this up. You want to believe this because if you don't your world will come crashing down around you... "wait, am [i]I[/i] in Mexico?"
Canada has executed innocent people, tortured innocent people (recently) and held innocent people in prisons for years and years.
Canada's "justice system" is also much, much, much less just for some people.
This isn't about the facts of the case or Mexican law. I really haven't heard any of those. It's about the fact that we haven't heard any of those. We have only heard a useless media play sound-bite after sound-bite of Brenda's friends and family tell us that she is having a ruff time in jail (no shit) and that they are shocked by how little the Canadian government has done to help Brenda. I even heard that Brenda's friend bought her a plane ticket before the verdict was read.
This is about white privilege and the common sense notion that Canada is the best fucking country in the world and none of the people who were born here by pure coincidence should ever have to face the same thing in other countries that people face in the Canadian system every day.
It's fucking racist. Canada is a racist country that is fundamentally white supremacist and the only people who deny that are white Canadians.
Wed, 2008-04-23 10:14
#30
laine lowe
From the US State Department, a description of the violation for which Brenda Martin was found guilty:
quote:
The Tax Code and Article 400 bis of the Federal Penal Code criminalize money laundering related to any serious crime. Money laundering is punishable by imprisonment of five to fifteen years and a fine. Penalties are increased when a government official in charge of the prevention, investigation, or prosecution of money laundering commits the offense. Mexico’s all-crimes approach to money laundering criminalizes the laundering of the proceeds of any intentional act or omission, regardless of whether or not that act or omission carries a prison term. Rather than applying to proceeds of criminal offenses, the statute applies to “the proceeds of an illicit activity”, which is defined as resources, rights, or goods of any nature for which there exists well-founded certainty that they are derived directly or indirectly from or represent the earnings derived from the commission of any crime, and for which no legitimate origin can be established. This construction of the predicate offense allows prosecutors, upon demonstrating criminality, to shift the burden of proof to the defendant to establish the legitimate origin of the property. An offense committed outside of Mexico may also constitute a predicate for money laundering offense. Because criminal proceeds generated abroad would have an effect in Mexico when laundered in or through its national territory, the laundering of those proceeds could be prosecuted under Mexican law.
[url=http://www.state.gov/p/inl/rls/nrcrpt/2008/vol2/html/100808.htm]http://w...
The onus was on Brenda Martin's lawyer(s) to proved that the hefty severance payment was of legitimate origin. The fact that she invested some of the money into the scheme certainly doesn't help build a case that she had no idea that Waage's money was from less than above board, legal activities.
I'm not sure what Canada's laws on money laundering are like but I imagine that given Mexico's history of being considered a somewhat safe haven for money derived from drug smuggling, it's not surprising that they would have introduced pretty stiff penalties.
Her turning in Rebecca Roth (who got 9 years) didn't help establish innocence either imho. Rebecca Roth had a very similar case (huge severance payment and subsequent reinvestment into Waage's scheme) and also maintained her innocence.
Based on how the law reads, it doesn't seem like some miscarriage of justice occurred. There's not even any whiff of an element of entrapment, nor did her appeal prove any human rights violations.
The contrast between outrage expressed for BM and the little concern for OK is appalling. Omar is the poster boy for the miscarriage of justice that is Guantanamo.
ETA: If you're working under the table (not paying taxes), proving that you weren't aware that something illegal was going on is a pretty hard task to accomplish.
[ 23 April 2008: Message edited by: laine lowe ]
Wed, 2008-04-23 10:15
#31
quote:
Originally posted by unionist:
[b]Why are you inclined to want to believe her?
[/b]
Because a system that has the burden on the state to make the case (The US) rather than the accused to prove innocence was not interested in her- just for one reason. In point of fact she has not been proven guilty as that is not the Mexican system. She has failed to prove herself innocent. As a Canadian who believes in the presumption of innocence, I am inclined to maintain it until someone is proven guilty.
However, I was clear that we did not have all the facts. It is possible that she would have been found guilty if she had been tried in a system that includes the presumption of innocence but we will never know.
Your sarcastic comment notwithstanding, I presume she will spend most of her life in Canada because with a criminal record foreign travel is more limited. I can't imagine she will retain much affection for spending time in Mexico either.
"As opposed to our white.... blah, blah, blah"
I can't respond politely to your suggestion that is completely unfounded that my reaction to this case is racist so -- imagine I am saying the rudest thing to you that you can think of and that will carry my meaning perfectly.
As I said-- I argued that we did not have enough facts to know she is innocent-- the rest of your assumptions appear made up so that you could write your indignant self righteous drivel of a response- don't let the real nature of what was said interfere in your crusade.
Wed, 2008-04-23 10:17
#32
quote:
Originally posted by jeff house:
[b]So, the Cuban Five require a jury, and even a non-Miami one, for justice to be done. But Brenda Martin doesn't.[/b]
Way different legal scenarios. The Cuban Five were involved in a joint FBI-Cuban plot to stop U.S.-backed terrorism against the sovereign island nation of Cuba. Shadow gov and FBI got their wires crossed between changes of cosmetic government in Warshington. TO-tally different scenario with unequal weight of seriousness and degree of criminal actions involved.
Brenda Martin was tried and convicted in a kangaroo court on trumped up charges of being an accessory to internet fraud or some such thing.
It appears that not all citizens of U.S. colonies are treated on an equal basis as far as colonial justice is concerned. But it does seem that master-imperialist nation decides which Canadian nationals will be tried by U.S. justice and which will be hung out to dry in the backyard.
Wed, 2008-04-23 10:22
#33
quote:
The onus was on Brenda Martin's lawyer(s) to proved that the hefty severance payment was of legitimate origin. The fact that she invested some of the money into the scheme certainly doesn't help build a case that she had no idea that Waage's money was from less than above board, legal activities.
As I understand it, her severance payment was $20,000.00.
Her employer made $60,000,000.00 from the scam, so whether he gives her $5 or $20,000.00 doesn't matter to him.
Anyway, since when do progressive people argue that a "hefty" severance package necessarily implicates a working person in the boss's activities?
And is it REALLY true that anyone who invests in a company like Enron, or like Brenda's boss's internet business, hurts her case that she didn't know about it's illegal nature?
If she had gotten a million dollars in severance, that would be a significant reason to believe she was a co-conspirator. But $20,000.00 in severance pay falls far short of that.
It's possible she's guilty. But based on what we know of the case, it is more likely she isn't.
Wed, 2008-04-23 10:24
#34
Mexico is such a corrupt country that I'm sure that she would have been freed long ago if she had had enough money to slip some manila envelopes stuffed with cash to the police, prosecutors and judges in the case. From what's I've heard, in Mexico either you bribe everyone in officialdom - or you spend your life in jail.
Apparently being a judge or a prosecutor in Mexico means having an income of millions of dollars because its just assumed that most of your income consists of bribes from defendants. You really get to cash in if drug dealers get charged since they typically have billions of dollars to spend on bribes in order to make sure they never spnd a day in jail.
Wed, 2008-04-23 10:34
#35
quote:
Originally posted by jeff house:
[b]As I understand it, her severance payment was $20,000.00.[/b]
I received $15 thou severance from a Silicon Valley based company that couldn't afford to pay their light bills at the end of the dotbomb-financial deregulation farce affecting both our ideologically-driven economies to varying degrees. So, I think Brenda probably deserved that money for the work she did for Vaag or whatever his name is. He's imprisoned in the USSA now, so apparently he's one MORE Canadian national who doesn't matter either to our phony colonial administratorship in Ottawa.
Wed, 2008-04-23 10:41
#36
quote:
Originally posted by Le Tйlйspectateur:
[b]You just made this up. You want to believe this because if you don't your world will come crashing down around you... "wait, am [i]I[/i] in Mexico?"
Canada has executed innocent people, tortured innocent people (recently) and held innocent people in prisons for years and years.
Canada's "justice system" is also much, much, much less just for some people.
This isn't about the facts of the case or Mexican law. I really haven't heard any of those. It's about the fact that we haven't heard any of those. We have only heard a useless media play sound-bite after sound-bite of Brenda's friends and family tell us that she is having a ruff time in jail (no shit) and that they are shocked by how little the Canadian government has done to help Brenda. I even heard that Brenda's friend bought her a plane ticket before the verdict was read.
This is about white privilege and the common sense notion that Canada is the best fucking country in the world and none of the people who were born here by pure coincidence should ever have to face the same thing in other countries that people face in the Canadian system every day.
It's fucking racist. Canada is a racist country that is fundamentally white supremacist and the only people who deny that are white Canadians.[/b]
No, not every position you disagree with is racist. You might want to examine why you see the world that way. And even when you huff and puff and insult your point does not improve.
The following is Amnesty International's report on the Mexican justice system including the principle you claimed I made up.
[url=http://asiapacific.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGAMR410042007?open&of=ENG...
Mexico: Criminal justice system in crisis
(Mexico City) In a new report published today, Amnesty International called on the newly elected Mexican Government and Congress to urgently modernize Mexico’s public security and justice system in line with international human rights standards.
Amnesty International’s report analyses the deep flaws in the Mexican criminal justice system – including the wide gap between legal principles and effective protection, the irregularities during pre-trial and preventive detention, the fabrication of criminal charges to persecute political activists and human rights defenders and the absence of the “presumption of innocence” clause from the Mexican constitution. The report also examines the impact of these flaws on the most vulnerable members of the community, such as indigenous peoples.
“The flaws in Mexico’s judicial system mean that arbitrary detention, torture, unfair trials and impunity are systematic at a state and federal level across the country. If the new administration doesn’t take effective action, they will be sending the message that human rights violations are tolerated in Mexico,” said Esteban Beltrбn, leader of Amnesty International delegation in Mexico.
Amnesty International research found that scores of individuals across Mexico are often detained on the basis of flawed or non existent evidence and denied basic rights, resulting in miscarriages of justice and destroying all confidence in the justice system and the rule of law. Even in the few cases where official investigations have been undertaken into abuses, accountability mechanisms are so weak that those responsible are rarely brought to justice, encouraging a culture of impunity.
Wed, 2008-04-23 10:44
#37
quote:
Originally posted by unionist:
[b]And that, in capsule form, is what this story is about - and that is [b]all[/b] this story is about - unfortunately.[/b]
Sounds nice except its full of shit.
I couldn't care less what ethnicity Martin or Khadr have - they have an equal right to justice. There is nothing I have said that would suggest otherwise.
Wed, 2008-04-23 10:49
#38
The difference with Kadhr was that he is a child which makes our behaviour toward him all the more disgusting but I should not have to say that all was cool for Brenda Martin because it is worse for Khadr. The principles of fundamental Justice are not that relative.
Wed, 2008-04-23 10:53
#39
quote:
Originally posted by Sean in Ottawa:
[b] As a Canadian who believes in the presumption of innocence, I am inclined to maintain it until someone is proven guilty.[/b]
Yeah, that's what I thought. You want your Canadian system to apply in other cultures and civilizations. I suppose you'd want it to apply to Indigenous models of justice as well in this country? And I guess you'd want the common law to apply in Quйbec? At what point does a society have the right to decide what laws will govern its own people? Or was Brenda Martin unaware that she was in Mexico for all those years before her arrest?
quote:
[b]"As opposed to our white.... blah, blah, blah" I can't respond politely to your suggestion that is completely unfounded that my reaction to this case is racist so -- imagine I am saying the rudest thing to you that you can think of and that will carry my meaning perfectly.[/b]
I don't think your reaction to this case is "racist" at all. I do, however, think it is prejudiced and stereotypical. Just look at your first paragraph (which I quoted above) and ask yourself what is so all-fired superior about the Canadian justice system and the supposed presumption of innocence? And why you think it should apply to other countries? I don't think that's "racism" - but it surely is something.
quote:
[b]As I said-- I argued that we did not have enough facts to know she is innocent-- the rest of your assumptions appear made up so that you could write your indignant self righteous drivel of a response- don't let the real nature of what was said interfere in your crusade.[/b]
As opposed to your emotional "wanting to believe" her, I have been citing facts and raising questions since the very start of this debate, such as:
1. Why has she been sitting there for 2 years and neither she nor her lawyers have ever once requested a speedy trial?
2. Who ever heard of a "cook" being fired for cause (insulting her boss's mother) and being paid one year's salary as severance?
3. Why did she invest almost half that severance in her ex-boss's scheme?
4. Why is she alleged by her co-employee to have fingered Rebecca Roth as the mastermind when she allegedly didn't even know there was a scam?
5. Can we please see all the documents? She has them all, every page of them - then you and others can be really confident when you say there is "no evidence" against her?
6. Why should we care about this individual and not all the other Canadians serving time in Mexican prison? What, exactly, is the big deal here?
Wed, 2008-04-23 10:53
#40
Le T
I claimed that the you made up the fact that Canada does a better job at rectifying its miscarriages of justice or whatever euphemism we want to use for state violence.
The AI report that you posted didn't do a comparison of the Mexican system and the Canadian system and how they deal with these situations. So again, you're full of shit.
As for your denial of racism, get a fucking clue.
quote:
Mexico is such a corrupt country that I'm sure that she would have been freed long ago if she had had enough money to slip some manila envelopes stuffed with cash to the police, prosecutors and judges in the case. From what's I've heard, in Mexico either you bribe everyone in officialdom - or you spend your life in jail.Apparently being a judge or a prosecutor in Mexico means having an income of millions of dollars because its just assumed that most of your income consists of bribes from defendants. You really get to cash in if drug dealers get charged since they typically have billions of dollars to spend on bribes in order to make sure they never spnd a day in jail.
Thanks for that insightful re-hash of the media coverage of this story. It really adds a lot to the discussion.
This issue is not really about whether Brenda Marin is guilty or innocent. It is about how the media in Canada has waged a campaign to set her free without trial simply because they believe that as someone born in Canada Martin has a fundamental right to never be responsible to any other laws than those of Canada.
This is a fundamental principle of colonialism; we are the only ones who can possibly come close to justice while they are barbaric, corrupt animals and we have no reason to respect their laws or autonomy.
Wed, 2008-04-23 10:57
#41
quote:
Originally posted by Sean in Ottawa:
[b]I couldn't care less what ethnicity Martin or Khadr have - they have an equal right to justice. There is nothing I have said that would suggest otherwise.[/b]
You're right, it's not about their ethnicity.
It's about U.S. and Mexico. In the U.S., there's a presumption of innocence, right? Just like here in Canada?
Do you have any idea how many Canadians are serving time in U.S. prisons?
Do you have any idea if one single one of them has had a fair trial?
Have you ever heard of Stanley Faulder?
Wed, 2008-04-23 11:01
#42
I don't think any Canadian should be immune to the laws of other countries - but I also think that we should do what we can to rescue our people from the barbaric or non-existent justice systems in other countries - where possible. I also hope we can put pressure on Saudi Arabia so that that poor kid doesn't get publicly beheaded.
Wed, 2008-04-23 11:05
#43
Sean,
It occurs to me I have been a tad impatient with you. I apologize for that. You may not have been following the debate here which started 6 weeks ago, so I may be succumbing to the frustration of covering old ground again.
Here's what I said [url=http://www.rabble.ca/babble/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic&f=1&t=007150#00... March 11[/url] when Fidel said we should support her right to a "timely trial and due process":
quote:
Now explain to me if she has been asking for a quick trial, or instructing her lawyer to have the charges turfed through a constitutional challenge, which just failed in recent days.And explain to me what "due process" she has not been afforded.
When the National Post ridicules "Third World justice", my instinct tells me to side with the "Third World" until such time as there is absolute 100% unmistakable proof that they have done something wrong.
I am proudly partisan on that point. I don't think those brown-skinned mestizo Mexicans are inferior to our robed and wigged justices.
That's my partisanship, Fidel, and I'm sticking to it.
I'm still sticking to it, Sean, until someone demonstrates why "we" are superior.
Here are the lengthy threads with the previous discussions, if you're interested:
[url=http://www.rabble.ca/babble/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic&f=1&t=007150]Th... #1[/url]
[url=http://www.rabble.ca/babble/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic&f=2&t=009756]Th... #2[/url]
Wed, 2008-04-23 11:09
#44
Unionist-- I also want the presumption of innocence to work here. Also as a Canadian.
I am admitting my cultural context-- not everything about this country is bad. Are you denying that you have a cultural context?
We learn the principles of presumption of innocence here-- that it does not always apply is a pity and where we are hypocritical we need as a society to be held accountable. There is nothing wrong with either acknowledging those values we are taught as Canadians AND criticizing when they are not kept in practice. I do this in my politics, my writing and my convictions.
Wed, 2008-04-23 11:10
#45
Le T
quote:
I don't think any Canadian should be immune to the laws of other countries - but I also think that we should do what we can to rescue our people from the barbaric or non-existent justice systems in other countries - where possible. I also hope we can put pressure on Saudi Arabia so that that poor kid doesn't get publicly beheaded.
Let it all hang out there Stock boy. Maybe we should set up justice missions in these strange and backwards lands so that they might find the true path.
Wed, 2008-04-23 11:10
#46
I think we need to ensure that Canadians are not arrested held for two years and then told there is no case against you. The Toronto 18 no is that 11 now is a case in point. Presumption of innocence in Canada does not mean you get out of jail even when there was never any good evidence against you.
I am amazed that people think that the only fair judicial system is the one originally designed by the Law Lords. Those French law makers who designed a codified law what do they know about rights and liberties compared to the Law Lords who got to make it up as they went along. Those who point to the presumption of innocence may not know it but they are really saying the only proper legal regimes are those descended from British imperialism.
Wed, 2008-04-23 11:12
#47
quote:
I don't think those brown-skinned mestizo Mexicans are inferior to our robed and wigged justices.
I think you will find very, very, very few "brown-skinned mestizo" in any position of power in the Mexican judicial system. The prosecutors and judges there are virtually all from the aristocratic Mexican elite that prides itself on being 100% of Spanish descent and would challenge you to pistols at six paces if you implied that they were "half-breeds" (sic.).
Last year when many people wanted to claim that Calderon could only have been elected President of Mexico through electoral fraud - you were more than willing to denounce Mexico as a totally corrupt banana republic. Now suddenly you are some apologist for the incorruptible Mexican criminal justice system. Give me a break.
Wed, 2008-04-23 11:14
#48
We're not superior to the Mexicans. We're not even considered an important trade partner on an equal footing with Mexico.
And I won't be recommending sunny Maico as a vacation spot to my friends anytime soon either. The whole country is one large scabby outfit anyway.
Wed, 2008-04-23 11:14
#49
Le T
quote:
We learn the principles of presumption of innocence here-- that it does not always apply is a pity and where we are hypocritical we need as a society to be held accountable. There is nothing wrong with either acknowledging those values we are taught as Canadians AND criticizing when they are not kept in practice. I do this in my politics, my writing and my convictions.
Sean I would like to apologize too. It has become clear to me that you have probably never encountered the Canadian justice system and are simply repeating what your high school law teacher has told you. I understand that we have very different "cultural perspectives" and you will never understand what I am saying so please, continue waving your flag and never mind the people you keep hitting in the head.
Wed, 2008-04-23 11:22
#50
If people come to Canada, it would be reasonable to expect that they should be subject to the Canadian legal system.
If Canadians go elsewhere, it would be reasonable to expect that they should be subject to the legal systems in those foreign countries.
When you leave Canada they often give you a pamphlet explaining that you are subject to the legal system in the foreign country where you wish to travel.
I say 'legal system' instead of 'justice system', as I am too cyncial to consider that 'justice' exists anywhere.
Now that Brenda Martin has her sentence, at least she can now look forward to a definite day in the future when she will be released.
Yes, it sucks, but that's life. If you don't want to be subject to a foreign legal system, don't go to a foreign country.
Wed, 2008-04-23 11:27
#51
quote:
Originally posted by Le Tйlйspectateur:
[b]I claimed that the you made up the fact that Canada does a better job at rectifying its miscarriages of justice or whatever euphemism we want to use for state violence.The AI report that you posted didn't do a comparison of the Mexican system and the Canadian system and how they deal with these situations. So again, you're full of shit.
As for your denial of racism, get a fucking clue.
Thanks for that insightful re-hash of the media coverage of this story. It really adds a lot to the discussion.
This issue is not really about whether Brenda Marin is guilty or innocent. It is about how the media in Canada has waged a campaign to set her free without trial simply because they believe that as someone born in Canada Martin has a fundamental right to never be responsible to any other laws than those of Canada.
This is a fundamental principle of colonialism; we are the only ones who can possibly come close to justice while they are barbaric, corrupt animals and we have no reason to respect their laws or autonomy.[/b]
Wow- If I didn't think you were intentionally trying to warp what was being said I'd suggest you get some literacy training.
I never said I thought Canada does a better job of rectifying its miscarriages of justice, I said that a legal system that is based on a presumption of innocence is less likely to keep the innocent in jail. I acknowledged that we can screw up and made absolutely no comparison of how we rectify things when we do.
The report I quoted questions the Mexican system- which was the concern I raised. I posted it in support of my point which was that I still considered that she may be innocent (although I was clear to say without certainty). You are the one with the desire to make this a comparison between Canada's system and Mexico's in order to support your argument that I am a racist for daring to criticize the Mexican system. Since you are full of shit I did not search for material to support your garbage.
As for you calling me a racist -- fuck off. There is no polite way to address this crap. I am certainly not going to try to find some unsubstantiated insult to level against you so I'll just be rude to you.
Your statement of the issue as you see it is just that. I came into this thread to say I suspect she may be innocent but we don't have the facts and you went off from there imagining all kinds of things that were not said so that this thread could take the form of your favorite indignation. With Unionist you had some company.
As for the colonial argument, I already made the point that a number of European countries also lack the presumption of innocence and I have had the same reservations about people going through their systems. This is not about race either that of a country or the accused. A couple of you seem to want to make it about that just because you think you can - because you see Mexico along racist lines. My argument all along comes from the fact that there are two justice systems coming out of Europe (white sourced) and one does not acknowledge the presumption of innocence and the other does. Because Mexico has adopted the one that goes back to Napoleonic times (in civil law it is the Napoleonic Code- the criminal code based on the same principles is used in Mexico and many other places of all races if you insist on seeing the world that way.) The presumption of innocence principle is fundamental to human rights in challenging government- if you don't believe in it -- then fine, that's your view. But if you want to say that because I do, and therefore have concerns about those systems who do not employ it, somehow comes from a racist source you are not only full of crap, you are also doing a disservice, trivializing racism in order to sound like you are some liberal hero. That makes you a racist in my books frankly.