Breaking News: Brenda Martin Convicted

I also have worked within the justice system here as well-- I should have added that. And yes I have seen judges fall asleep on the bench. Doesn't mean that in our flawed legal system that the presumption of innocence is not something valuable and where it does not exist that we should not think twice.

As for Brenda Martin, I don't know the evidence and suspect nobody else here does either. I do not even know if she has the capacity to be aware of a scam going on around her. If her problem was that she did not see what was going on because she is not the swiftest, that would make it very difficult to prove her innocence. On the other hand a requirement to prove her guilt would have to establish that she knew that a scam was going on.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sean in Ottawa:
[b]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?[/b]

---

No. I just work hard at seeing beyond it. Otherwise, as a Jew and a Canadian, I could just lie back and take some pretty disgusting smug reactionary comfortable positions about what's going on in Canada and the world. I like to think that I work every single day against that.

quote:

---

[b]We learn the principles of presumption of innocence here--[/b]

---

You really want to debate this?

Answer me this:

How come in Canada, the criminal burden of proof is "reasonable doubt", whereas the civil one is "balance of probability"?

What if some foreigner called our system a corrupt Third World tainted useless pseudo-justice system because the civil and criminal burden weren't the same?

What if someone else called us criminal-coddlers because all a murderer has to do is create a "reasonable doubt", and they go scot-free?

What if someone said, "In my country, the justice system is non-adversarial - a tribunal of neutral elected judges gathers all the evidence and makes their decision - no lawyers, no prosecutors, no presumptions, no burden". Is that primitive and barbarian?

Sean, you may have your opinion as to which system you like. By sheer goddam coincidence, the system you like is the one you were born into! Whaddya know! Well, that's your right. But to look down on the system chosen by others is arrogance, superciliousness, and cultural chauvinism. It does not impress me very much.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Uncle John:
[b]

Someone has been extolling the benefits of going to Mexico and doing business there, but I won't go because of the above.[/b]

---

I agree. And I think our Librano and Conservative administrativeship stoogeocrats in Ottawa should be a little more discerning about which countries they sign us up with on "free" trade deals and other agreements that mainly benefit a tiny layer of their uber-wealthy amigos embedded in and intertwined with the stoogeocracy in those kinds of countries.

[ 23 April 2008: Message edited by: Fidel ]

[Gene Hackman on]And when [i]our[/i] stoogeocrats lies don't jive with [i]their[/i] stoogeocrats lies, well, we ain't gonna condemn no Canadian woman[/Hack Geneman off]

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:
[b]

If we gave prisoners authority in the U.S., they might decide to stop executing poor blacks and other minorities. Then what we do? Alas.[/b]

---

Nobody is able to hit the stop button on those conveyer belts of death in Texas, and Florrorda and Alabama and Mississippi and Kaleefor-ni-eh etc.

And I was talking about the Mexican stoogeocracy not our imperial masters.

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:
[b]

You really want to debate this?

Answer me this:

How come in Canada, the criminal burden of proof is "reasonable doubt", whereas the civil one is "balance of probability"?

What if some foreigner called our system a corrupt Third World tainted useless pseudo-justice system because the civil and criminal burden weren't the same?

What if someone else called us criminal-coddlers because all a murderer has to do is create a "reasonable doubt", and they go scot-free?

What if someone said, "In my country, the justice system is non-adversarial - a tribunal of neutral elected judges gathers all the evidence and makes their decision - no lawyers, no prosecutors, no presumptions, no burden". Is that primitive and barbarian?

Sean, you may have your opinion as to which system you like. By sheer goddam coincidence, the system you like is the one you were born into! Whaddya know! Well, that's your right. But to look down on the system chosen by others is arrogance, superciliousness, and cultural chauvinism. It does not impress me very much.[/b]

---

Sure- I'll bite:
Clearly your knowledge of law is very limited-- telling considering how you have worked yourself into a name-calling tizzy over this. A little thought and you would see that civil law cannot be subject to a reasonable doubt test given that it is used to decide between theoretically equal citizens.
Civil law in Canada (Outside Quebec which uses Napoleonic law) is based on a "preponderance of evidence" or "balance of probabilities" as you call it. It sounds like whichever side is the best wins although it is not as simple as that - the side with the initiative has to prove it to 51% meaning succeed in convincing the judge/jury that it is more believable than the alternative.

Obviously, you could not have a dispute decided upon between neighbours for example by saying well we believe you 96% not 100% so we will find in favour of the other guy whom we only believe 4%. The implications of being found guilty of a criminal act is also quite different than being the loser in a civil case as well.

Civil law is actually more consistent with criminal law than it first appears - although the burden by necessity has to be midway between equal parties in civil law there remains the principle that the person (state, corporate or individual) bringing an argument, case or evidence generally has the burden of proving it. So if you sue someone, you have to meet your burden- if we can't decide, you lose. If when sued you assert a specific defence, you need to prove that assertion only- like if you have an explanation that you brought the burden will shift to you to make that argument or if you bring evidence- it is up to you to show that it is true and relevant.

This is entirely consistent with innocence until proven guilty in that the one with the initiative has to make that point. This comes from a simple logical truism: it is an easier burden to prove a positive than a negative. Think about it: how do you prove that something did not happen? What evidence exists to PROVE a non-event? If I paid you money, I should have a receipt and therefore be able to prove it. It is fair to ask me to produce it if we are in disagreement. But to ask you to prove that I did not pay you- well what evidence could be found to prove something that did not happen really did not happen? There is a general presumption in our law that we do not make people have to prove what did not happen -- we have to prove what did happen or our accusation fails. This principle exists in both criminal and civil law.

Criminal law is not decided between two equals and the implications on the person found guilty are devastating so we, as we do in civil law, require the one bringing the case (in criminal law this will always be the state -- in Canada the Crown) to prove it beyond a doubt. So in comparing to the Mexican system: there is both the onus on the defendant there rather than the State (crown) here and a higher standard in that the state has to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt. This avoids the difficulty of accusing someone and then leaving it up to them to prove a negative. Think about this difference carefully in your own life. You should be able to see how significant that difference is.

Some do call us criminal coddlers as we admit that if there is uncertainty we do not err on the side of the state -- we do on the side of the individual. As a group we might be slightly less safe but as individuals be fore the law we are more safe.

Now when you bring in non adversarial systems you are not talking about either Canada or Mexico - that would be something else. Non adversarial systems are called that because they attempt to resolve conflict in a non adversarial way (without advocates battling each other to be judged by a third impartial party). Sometimes these are systems based on mediation, reconciliation and restitution such as most First Nations Law. Where resolution can be found in this way, the results are superior to any other system. However, most of these systems, when a deadlock is reached turn into partly adversarial systems- the authority against you and you have nobody in your corner so you better be articulate and skilled at explaining yourself.

Generally I believe non adversarial systems can be vastly superior in resolving civil disputes but with criminal cases, the accused needs representation in order to be equal before the law (one reason non adversarial systems work well is you get fewer repeat offenders which is what they found using Native justice). Two amateur unrepresented parties may or may not be equal but having an unrepresented party in a criminal case up against an expert who is effectively judge and prosecutor (no matter what you call it) without help would have predictable results. The adversarial system grew in many places -- not just English law -- for this reason. When accused of something by the state you need help from an advocate to have a fair trial.

Interestingly, I grew up in Quebec where they use a combination of English criminal law and Napoleonic civil law (Code Civile) and I noticed some differences there based on some of these same issues and this was how I first started to become aware of these differences. So it is not accurate to say that I merely prefer what I grew up in. In fact, I have a strong preference, that was reinforced by years of practicing law as a paralegal, for mediation as a strong first option for resolving disputes.

As for insults in closing, I actually have spent a lot of time looking at these issues and trying to come to terms with the substance of justice. If you want me to rip into the Canadian legal system -- I can do this. I entered this thread to merely make the point that we do not actually know if she is innocent and somehow all those who are trying to say she is guilty beyond a doubt piled on. Kind of ironic since the previous tone in this thread suggested a presumption of innocence that I was qualifying with doubt. The trouble started when I said that while I do not have the facts and recommend people should not just assume she is innocent I remain inclined to believe her innocence (albeit with the skepticism that she may not be). Indeed, when we deconstruct this, I was taking the middle ground between those who were certain she was innocent and fighting for the government to do something for her and those who came out saying she must be guilty just because that court said so. Since then I've been called a racist both directly or indirectly by saying she *might* be innocent. Wonder what venom you have for those who say they think she *is* innocent.

[ 23 April 2008: Message edited by: Sean in Ottawa ]

"Balance of probability with clear and cogent proof"
now that is semantics. Reasonable doubt simply means what it says-- reasonable -- not any old doubt but reasonable. Sounds almost the same as your definition now that you qualified it- if you have clear and cogent proof then that would imply you no longer have a reasonable doubt.

The burden in our system does not remain the same throughout as I explained. The bottom line though is we only convict if we have proof beyond a reasonable doubt-- we only punish when we are reasonably sure we got the right person. It is amazing to hear you argue against this.

The right not to answer (self incriminate) is not an issue that relates directly to anything discussed here and I won't follow that sidetrack.

You are defining 1% as less than a reasonable doubt. Are you missing the word "reasonable" here? It does not say "any" doubt. The state (crown) has to resolve reasonable doubts. Doesn't sound unfair since the result can ruin a person's life.

The issue of onus and burden of proof is not a cultural one it is a practical one. There is no alternative reality where these concepts do not apply. Certainly no Mexican would say that. You could argue perhaps that it is a cultural distinction between the hierarchy of group and individual rights but there is no alternative reality where it becomes equal in difficulty to prove a positive or a negative. We are talking about the values of how much state power is right vs individual power and is it more important to not put someone in jail who may be innocent than let someone go free who might be guilty.

I was the one who acknowledged before you did that this is a group vs individual right issue. I did not say that the value of preferring the individual was necessarily better. I did say that if you do the chance of putting an innocent in jail is obviously less. But that is the whole point isn't it? I said she may be innocent-- you got offended by that and presumed that this was an insult to the Mexican system and now haul me on the carpet because you seem to agree that this would be a problem. Their system will, if in doubt, be inclined to jail the accused and our system, if in doubt would be to let them go. This is all I was saying and it is not controversial. Now you are trying to say that their system may keep more in jail when in doubt and protect society better-- okay but you ate that piece of cake already since you have been arguing against that contention all along. It is you not me that turned this into a value judgment of a system that prefers to lock up people who it thinks probably are guilty rather than those we know are guilty. I just acknowledged half of the equation- that the innocent are more likely to go to jail at the start and then the other half that the group may feel safer later.

I never said the authority is bad-- that was your contention. I merely said the power difference would not lead to a truthful and just answer unless that power is mitigated. Unionist-- I find it truly entertaining to see you argue so passionately against basic human rights. I wonder if anyone will remember this stuff to throw it in your face down the road.

When you talk about war-- you are thinking of the wrong meaning of adversarial- think advocate-- a disagreement creates adversaries- this in itself is not a problem. War is violence and that is another matter -- surely you understand the difference between a disagreement and a physical fight?

Unionist: since you asked, I'll tell you that the Mexican system you are fighting for is sourced in a European colonial imperialist system- it came from Spain and France. It is certainly quite removed from an Aboriginal system. Further it is the tool used to suppress the Aboriginal people of that country, to deny their rights and keep them down. It is the tool of the colonial masters of that country-- albeit those who have been there a while - to keep down their First Nations.

I feel since you call yourself Unionist like asking you an old Pete Seger question -- "Which side are you on -- Brother?"

Wow all that effort unionist because I said I want to believe someone is innocent that I acknowledge may not be-- We see the display of indignation and all the people responding to support her and sure I would like to think she is innocent - for many reasons. I think it would be a sad display of humanity if she were not innocent after all we have seen. But it seems you were so intent on tarring and feathering someone you did not notice that I said that it would be wishful thinking to believe her.

Your post becomes more clear when you say that you have nominated yourself as the person to fight against the Brenda Martin *is* innocent argument. Bizarre that you would then spend so much time arguing against someone that did not agree with the point you were arguing against.

You say I am confusing balance of probability with doubt what I say that reasonable doubt is not 100%- it means that the doubt has to be reasonable not any doubt. Probability means 49% doubt and you convict. Sorry it is clearly you who is confused about this point. Neither requires certainty- probability requires 51% and reasonable doubt- any doubt that is less than reasonable. Now what is so wrong with having to meet a standard of reasonable doubt when a persons' life will be irreparably damaged?

As far as the rest of your post much of your points don't make any sense at all and I don't feel that interested in trying to figure them out anymore.

On the issue of comparing the Canadian system with the Mexican one-- again you are fighting an argument with no opposite side-- I argued that the onus on the defendant to prove their case is unreasonable- the accuser should do that. I did not defend our system (given my life experiences, I'd be the last to do that).

Any mathematician would tell you proving what is real is generally easier than proving what is not- the rest of that comment doesn't make sense to me.

This question really betrays your style in this argument: "Well, that's interesting in itself. Do you believe that it is better that 1,000 guilty criminals go free than that one innocent person be wrongly convicted? Just curious - and do you think a universal categorical imperative can be squeezed out of this question?" 1000 to one-- where did I say that? I started the argument simply saying that the emphasis on not imprisoning innocents may let guilty people go free but it would definitely imprison fewer innocents. That should be obvious and that point is not a judgmental one- it is simply a question that the results will follow the priorities.

You keep going on arguing against points that were never made-- like you suggesting that I denied our justice system had colonial roots. I was making the point that when you were talking about our colonial system you were forgetting that the Mexican one came from the same roots. Somehow you manged to turn that around to argue both ends against the middle.

I have not argued that the Canadian system serves our First Nations particularly well. It is not my opinion that the presumption of innocence feature of our legal system that is the problem-- it is a lot of other factors.

Funny you say you don't take sides based on nationality and culture yet you refuse to recognize any other argument against your position. That's a selective point of view. My desire to see a human being pleading for her future to be innocent in spite of it being wishful thinking is a human one. It is almost as if you have somehow lost your humanity in all that rhetoric about being for the people and such. It is a natural and good motivation to wish that someone is innocent. It was also reasonable to ask that each person have due process and it is perfectly reasonable to admit that she may not be innocent-- seemed like you were looking more for a sparring partner than showing a willingness to recognize what the side you were so desperate to define as opposite to yours was really saying.
anyway, I am fed up with being attacked by you for things I did not say.

Brenda Martin's on her way home.

Omar Khadr, meanwhile, will rot in a US prison for the rest of his life if Harper gets his way.

I see no connection between the Khadr and the Martin cases. Nor, I would submit, does Stephen Harper.

Frankly, the kinds of sentiment I've heard in favour of Brenda Martin's case boil down to some variation of "Canadian citizens deserve better".

It's a sentiment I don't share, and it's quite hard to apply to Khadr. In his case, all human beings deserve better.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sean in Ottawa:
[b]Unionist- you don't see the connection because you did not support that she should have been assisted. [/b]

---

Of course I supported that she should have been assisted. She [b]was[/b] assisted - massively - through consular assistance, which was the only assistance to which she was entitled. Finally she was "assisted" through the most extravagant high-level government intervention I have ever seen in such a case.

What I found wrong throughout (and still do) was (1) the suggestion that she was someone being mistreated, without anyone being able to cite a single shred of evidence (it was obviously herself and her own lawyers delaying the proceedings, and there was no evidence of any violation of any international accord); (2) the smug quasi-racist suggestion that Mexican "third world" justice was inferior to our system and even that of the U.S.; (3) the demand to "free" her irrespective of her guilt or innocence; (4) the assumption that she was innocent even after she was found guilty.

Omar Khadr was captured by aggressive invading troops in a foreign country and held in violation of the Geneva Conventions, without even mentioning that he was a child at the time. Every government with nationals held in Guantanamo has sought and obtained the repatriation of their citizens. This filthy government of ours hasn't even asked.

What exactly was the connection again?

See what I mean?

She's still "innocent", and we are superior.

[ 03 May 2008: Message edited by: unionist ]

She sounds [url=http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080503.martin03/BNS... innocent to me[/url], just doing her job cooking meals and what not.

quote:

---

Mexican court documents detailing the web of transactions among Mr. Waage's inner circle, including Ms. Martin, shed light on the reasoning behind Judge Luis Nunez's ruling.

According to the 110-page verdict, the judge found Ms. Martin guilty of depositing and transferring illicit funds. Between March and August of 2001, she received nearly $60,000 in Canadian funds in her Mexican bank account, and about $3,000 of it was transferred from the Latvian bank account of one of Mr. Waage's shell companies. Most of the money – $38,700 – was transferred by Ms. Martin from another account in her name.

Ms. Martin also received a $15,000 transfer from Keith Nordick, a Saskatchewan man living in Puerto Vallarta who was Mr. Waage's right-hand man in the scheme.Mr. Nordick pleaded guilty in a California court to fraud and money laundering in 2005.

Ms. Martin also transferred $16,000 from her bank account to Mr. Waage's sister, Lynn Johnston. Ms. Johnston is wanted on fraud charges, but has never been apprehended.

---

In order to get out of prison, Brenda Martin [url=http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=482980]signed documents[/url] agreeing to have a fraud conviction registered against her in Canada and agreeing to a 5-year prison term:

quote:

---

"I am innocent, but I have to get out of here," Martin said in an interview with Canwest News Service, adding she signed the documents on the advice of her Canadian criminal defence lawyer, who told her she would be immediately eligible for parole.

---

[url=http://billarends.wordpress.com/]She has already been accused[/url] of being willing to say anything to get out of prison:

quote:

---

“Rebecca Roth is also serving time in the same jail as Brenda. Rebecca worked for Alyn as well. Brenda was arrested in February of ‘06, Rebecca in March. According to Rebecca’s sister, Brenda gave Rebecca up in exchange for leniency.”

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fidel:
[b]I don't care what they've done, they are Canadian citizens who don't belong in a Mexican prison. [/b]

---

[img]biggrin.gif" border="0[/img]

Hey, she found a [b][i]great[/i][/b] job in Mexico, by all accounts. Just couldn't keep it.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fidel:
[b]
According to unionist, Brenda Martin should rot in a Mexican jail ...[/b]

---

Wrong. She signed an agreement to serve 5 years in a Canadian prison. That's what she should do. Don't you agree?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fidel:
[b]
Canada, and especially the U.S., might not be superior to anybody wrt justice, but we're not Mexico or any of those other shitholes within a few day's drive of Texas.[/b]

---

I find it pretty distasteful that the term shithole is being used here on babble in this way to describe Mexico and other Latin American countries. You've been called on this before but i guess you don't care. Do you think you're winning any arguments using language like this?

Ever been to Mexico Fidel?

I have but only for a few days. I spent much more time (about 5 months) in Guatemala. Also a bit in Honduras.

Warm friendly people who invited me into their homes. They're proud of who they are and they love their homeland, despite many of the problems they faced and continue to face. I don't know why you are so flippant about calling their homeland a shithole.

quote:

---

Originally posted by wage zombie:
[b]I have but only for a few days. I spent much more time (about 5 months) in Guatemala. Also a bit in Honduras.[/b]

---

I've travelled through Mexico, Belize, Guatemala, (missed El Salvador), Honduras. And I know a couple in Canada who came from Guatemala. They'll tell you it's a shithole in so many words. They will tell you about the hundreds of thousands of indigenous people murdered by U.S.-backed death squads and the military during decades of dirty wars to keep desperately poor people downtrodden and poor as church mice. Shhhithole!

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sineed:
[b] And he says because the Mexican prison system is so hard-nosed, there's a lot less violence, and you are less likely to be attacked.[/b]

---

HRW has mentioned torture and abuse and basic rights violations in Mexican prisons as an ongoing problem in this decade. What do you make of that, Sineed? And I have a sinking feeling that the Mexicans practise what the [url=http://www.SOAW.org]university of torture and terror[/url] preaches.