🚀 go-pugleaf

robinson@df06h.mdd.comm.mot.com (Jim Robinson) wrote:

>Why is it relevant whether the money went into private pockets or not?
>Ill-gotten loot is ill-gotten loot, no?

No, it is not.  One of the longest established principles of justice is
that he who benefits (or seeks to benefit) from a crime is guilty of the
same crime.  That's why we have finally enacted a Proceeds of Crime Act
which deprives the crooks of their ill-gotten loot.

The New Democratic Party of BC, sought to benefit and benefitted from the
offences of Stupich, Marlow, Boggis, Denofreo, Lovick, Kennedy, Hackwood
and others.  It is therefore itself as guilty as all of them.  The legal
maxim of "Qui facit per alium, facit per se" (He who does a thing by
another's agency does it himself) applies.

True enough some of the principal characters in this skit have greased
their own pockets as well, but that was sort of a fringe benefit to the
main show which was always intended and exectuted to the benefit of the New
Democratic Party of BC, with its knowledge and approval, to its benefit.

This is the first time in Canadian history that a political party itself
has set up a criminal scheme like this and got away with practicing it for
FORTY YEARS !!

Yes, we've had a load of crooks in Canadian politics since before Canada
even became a country.  But they were greedy individuals out to stuff their
own pockets or those of their buddies.  The Nanaimo Socialist scandal is
the first instance where we have a crooked PARTY that has done anythig like
that.

Damned right it makes a difference whose pockets got stuffed.


Karl Pollak
Bottom Line Productions           Canadian Infomaticon BBS,
Richmond, British Columbia        Fido 1:153/965  (604) 275-9579