🚀 go-pugleaf

V.I. Fabrikant

                                BOOK REVIEW:

Paul Palango,  Above the Law.  McClellan and Stewart Inc. Publishers, 1994

The book has a subtitle: The Crooks, the Politicians, the Mounties and Rod
Stamler, which creates impression that there are two counteracting forces:
crooks-politicians and Mounties, and the best of them - Rod Stamler.  The
book has also a very good epigraph from Montesquieu: "When I visit a
country,
I don't examine whether the laws are good, but whether they are executed,
because there are good laws everywhere".   This is   especially true
for Canada: it has not just good, but excellent laws, the problem though
is
that nobody gives a damn about them.

The book is based on information provided by Stamler, so clearly he would
try
to present himself as honest cop, enforcing the Law, no matter what.  Let
us
see if he succeeded.   The book starts with the end of his career.  He
decided
to take a walk to the Parliament Hill to greet the protester Glen Kealey. 
Wow, what an honest and brave cop!     Was it really just 
honesty and bravery or something else?   He was the Head of Economic Crime
Directorate of RCMP, he was the main person to decide whether RCMP should
investigate Kealey's allegations honestly or sweep them under the rag. 
Quote
from the book: "The Kealey story appeared to be a non-starter even to
Stamler.
 He had already reviewed Kealey's allegations and had come to the
conclusion
that it was impossible to prove the truth of what Kealey had to say.  It
was
Kealey's word against another's; there was no independent corroboration." 
Assume that this was true: Kealey's word against another, but this is
what the
police investigation is for: to find corroboration; if Kealey gave him it
all
why would one need police?

If we look at page 275, we find the following passage:
"On July 17, 1991, however, Ottawa Justice of Peace Lynn Coulter ruled
that
Kealey had 'reasonable grounds to believe a crime had been committed' and
allowed him to proceed with private charges against thirteen top Tories
and
three top Mounties - Inkster, Jensen, and civilian Deputy Commissioner
Michael
Shoemaker."  Now, how one can explain that honest and professional cop
Stamler
was unable to find sufficient evidence to indict politicians, but Kealey,
who
is not a cop and has no investigative powers which police has, managed to
find
sufficient evidence? Not only politicians were indicted, but also Head of
RCMP
and his Deputy Jensen were indicted as criminals!   Now we understand why
Stamler resigned in 1989: he was a smart rat who felt that ship was
sinking,
and in addition, probably, the private firm has given him much bigger
salary
than that he had at RCMP, and they gave it to him not for his talent of
investigator, but for his connections in RCMP.   It becomes also clear why
Stamler came to shake hands with Kealey in 1989: he did not want to get
indicted, and he succeeded in fooling Kealey, who took him for an honest
man. 
We read on page 276 that Stamler testified at the hearing conducted by
judge 
Coulter, "but won't comment  on what he said at the hearing".  Why would
not
an honest cop comment?

The secret of Stamler's promotions becomes clear from several scenes, if
we
interpret them correctly.  The first one is described on page 134, where
Stamler, who was at that time a nobody, is being whisked to a personal
meeting
with the then Prime Minister Trudeau.  We learn that the purpose of the
meting
was Trudeau lecturing a cop on how he, Trudeau, respects the law,
independence
of police etc.  Come on, get real: why on earth any Prime Minister would
need to
meet a cop for such a lecture?   It was a clear attempt to pressure
Stamler into
leaving  Trudeau's minister alone, and Stamler understands him perfectly
well:
he assures Trudeau that he had no evidence of criminal activity of Munro,
though it is clear from previous text that he had.

The meeting lasted 45 minutes, and Stamler pretends that he did not
understand
the real meaning of the meeting:   Stamler is quoted saying: "I felt
proud  to
have leader of the country who so strongly believed in the importance of
preserving the integrity of Canadian criminal justice system."  If this
was
the case, why then the whole meeting was made in secret?   This is how it
is
described:  Stamler was called to his superior;  as soon as he came, his
superior took him to the then Solicitor General  Allmand, who, in turn,
took
him through several empty corridors to a room where Trudeau was waiting
for
him.   This was not his cabinet, and Stamler did not pass through his
secretary.   The meeting was a secret one.  Why?

The second scene is described on pages  157-159.  Stamler was invited to
lunch
with a prominent lawyer, a Queen's Counsel.  The lawyer is not named. 
Why?   
This lawyer tells Stamler: "You did such a super job in the Hamilton
Harbour
case and the dredging case.  You know, there is a lot of politics
involved in
getting ahead in the RCMP.  You need support to get to the top level." 
The
message was clear: if you want promotion, leave the politicians alone.  
Stamler claims that he ignored this message.  He describes further how he 
fought with Quebec justice system to have Senator Giguere indicted.   It
is
though mentioned in the book that Tarasofsky  denied Stamler's account of
events.   Well, give us the Tarasofsky version of the story and let us
decide,
who is telling the truth.   Tarasofsky version is not given.   There is
though
an indication where the truth is: Stamler started rising very quickly in
RCMP
after these events.   If the prominent lawyer was right that in order to
get
promotion in RCMP one has to have political support, this means that
Stamler
did get political support, and this means that politicians were pleased
with
his way of "prosecuting" them.

Stamler has been promoted to the top job in drugs enforcement.  There is
one
phrase in the book which betrays what he was actually doing all his time.
 This
is a quote from page 210: "Stamler took to travel so well, he wore out his
passport and soon earned the nickname the  'Rocket', not always  said with
affection by those left behind".   Translation: Stamler did not give a
damn
about his job in Canada, but used taxpayers' money  for pleasure
travelling,
which was resented by his subordinates.

Stamler has decided that in order to fight drug trafficking he has to go
after
profits of traffickers.  We read on page 220 how successful he was in
this:
"In 1983, the first full year of anti-drug-profiteering program, convicted
dealers forfeited $10 million illegally gained assets to the government. 
 The
program was not only effective, it also was a political success".   Let
us do
some arithmetics: drug trade in Canada is estimated in tens of billions,
so
$10 million does not constitute even 0.1%, drug trade can really survive
such
losses!

Here is yet another quote from page 248 about the allegations that Prime
Minister Mulroney profited from  the Airbus affair: "Stamler's gut
feeling was
that both deals probably required thorough police investigation, the kind
that
might have been undertaken in the early 1970s, but was now impossible". 
Why? 
He was at that time the Head of Economic Crimes Directorate, it was his
job
under the law to either investigate or resign, if prevented, and do it as
loudly as Minister Blais-Grenier did in protest.  Did our honest cop do
it? 
No.
A very interesting revelation can be found on page 97.  Members of RCMP,
instead of doing their job, used privileged information to play on the
stock
exchange.  This is the quote: "The Mounties were so busy sending material
back
and forth to stock brokers in Edmonton that the police work was often put
on
hold."

Jensen was the one who authorized payment to Olson for bodies of children
Olson killed.  Jensen also was the one who laid charges against reporter
Small
who leaked budget.  Stamler claimed: "That was his duty as a police
officer.  There was no compromise."  Indeed, a huge courage is required
to pay
a murderer for evidence of crime which he, as a police officer, was unable
to discover, and also it took a lot of courage to charge a reporter,
after the
Prime Minister called this leak a crime.

There is even more interesting revelation on page 260.   Mounties started
investigation of Senator Cogger.  According to Stamler, when he was away
from
the office, a telex signed by Jensen arrived ordering to discontinue
Cogger
investigation immediately.  Jensen now insists that he never sent the
telex. 
Stamler says that he up to this day does not know who sent the telex.  Is
not
this a childish game?  Stamler was away from office when telex arrived. 
As
soon as he came back and saw the telex, why did not he call Jensen and ask
him then whether he sent the telex, especially as he claims that it was
unlike
Jensen to stop an investigation?  Jensen was as crooked as Stamler, and he
finally was made a scapegoat for his yet another "courageous" decision to
delay charges against Grise, so he had to resign.

The main purpose of the book becomes clear from two chapters: one titled
"Pierre Trudeau and the Rule of Law" and the last one "Fighting for the
Rule
of Law".   Both describe how Trudeau fought for police independence
(remember
his meeting with Stamler?), and the last one describes how Chretien
continues
this fight for the Rule of Law.  The remaining chapters are about corrupt
Mulroney.   Conclusion: Liberals are good, Tories are bad.   I wonder if
population will swallow this stupidity.   Politician is a crook by
definition: why would anyone want to be Prime Minister with salary less
than
half of what he would make as a lawyer, if it were not for billions of
dollars
which he spends as he pleases. Just look at the Mulroney spectacle.  I
call it a
spectacle, because nothing there seems to make any sense.   First, the
letter
to Swiss authorities was leaked to media by an RCMP officer.   Why would
he do
that?  Then we see several media reports, which make little sense. 
Example:
on CTV reporter claimed that the Swiss bank account was opened by wife of
Moore, and this account never had more than $500.   Simple question: why
would
anyone open an account in Switzerland for just $500?  Reporter does not
bother
to ask this obvious question.   The whole thing though starts making
sense, if
this was just a spectacle, where Minister of Justice was able to give a
lot of
money to his friends by hiring external lawyers and a consulting firm.  
He
paid consultant $160,000, which is about his annual salary.   Nobody asks
a
simple question: why not to appoint this consultant to be a Minister of
Justice.  It would have been much cheaper, because he, hopefully, would
not
need to hire yet another consultant.   Nobody asks yet another question:
why
did government need to hire private lawyers if they have about 20,000
employees at the Justice Department, and at least half of them are
lawyers?  
Brian Mulroney won too: he got $2 million, of which $600,000 for public
relations firm.   What kind of job did they do to deserve such a payment?
 
Compare this with the settlement for shooting death of Francois, who was
shot
"by mistake" by police.  They got about $20,000,  which is 1% of Mulroney
settlement, plus millions paid by government to its lawyers.  So, both
government and Mulroney are winners: they got the money, and who is the
looser?  The taxpayer, as usually.

In the last paragraph of the book we read yet another praise for Stamler's
courage: "In allowing his story to be told, he felt it was his duty to
take
one more tough stand".  Indeed, a great courage is required to praise the
party which is now in power and to malign the one which is not.

Is not it clear to everyone that there is no way any police would be able
to
prosecute a politician, when the head of police reports to the
government?  
Why not to try another arrangement: let the police report to the person
appointed by the opposition?  And the same goes for other so called
watchdogs:
Auditor General, Commissioner of Information, Privacy, Ethics, etc.