Hoss Cents Free Money Magazine is not surprised that Justice Jeffrey Oliphant found that former Canadian Prime Minister Brian Mulroney “failed to live up to the standard of conduct that he himself adopted in the 1985 ethics code.” and that he acted in an inappropriate way when he accepted a cash payment reported to be either $225,000 or $300,000 depending on whose version you choose to believe.
Oliphant made it very clear that Mulroney's conducted himself in a manner that was consistent with a person who was trying to hide the fact that an transaction occurred between him and lobbyist Karlheinz Schreiber. There was no contract, or any documentation to confirm an agreement between the two parties. All evidence suggests Mr. Mulroney was trying to conceal that he received money from Mr. Schreiber.
On tree separate occasions Mr. Mulroney received envelopes stuffed with cash and he did not record these monies, deposit them or when given the opportunity disclose that these events took place. Oliphant specifically referred to the testimony Mulroney gave under oath in 1996 in connection with his lawsuit against the federal government as an example of Mulroney's failure to disclose these transactions.
It is estimated that the Canadian taxpayer is on the hook for $16 million, (the estimated cost of the inquiry). This figure includes $1.8 million for Mulroney’s lawyers.
Now that it has been shown Mr. Mulroney was less than honest, the question is, what happens to the $2.1 million Mulroney received as a settlement of his libel suit against the federal government? Opposition members of the Canadian Parliament have called for the Government to take steps to recover the $2.1 million.
The Hoss agrees with Mr. Oliphant conclusions that at the very least Mr. Mulroney acted in an inappropriate manner.
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/blogger_img_proxy/AEn0k_sBcMc-gCumM3jiWgR2c6sFrG0rar7Sx9aeZcErAP87TZJAoXrCf-DZFrCfrQJMs9I1npZjvnz0zOjRMA_vTTE5fwSO-0cMKngvVbE7vJsrDIvdiAviVLee-InNqivCkUhC6I6TUp8VZwwNPQgq6Kid=s0-d)
In that case we could consider that value of money is all in the trust of men and that the fault is in the offense for this trust, not in the quantity nor in the amount of goods to which money can be compared.
ReplyDelete