Helena Guergis suing PM Stephen Harper

[TyrianQuill]

 
Former MP Helena Guergis is suing Prime Minister Stephen Harper, Conservative MPs Shelly Glover and Lisa Raitt, the Conservative Party of Canada and a number of other individuals for defamation and other claims.

The former member of Harper's cabinet, who had to leave the Conservative caucus in April 2010 following allegations against her and her husband, former MP Rahim Jaffer, launched the court action in Ontario's Superior Court of Justice. The statement of claim was obtained by CBC.

The unproven allegations related to drug use, fraud, extortion and association with prostitutes.

Guergis is not only suing her former boss and colleagues, but also Ray Novak, Harper's principal secretary, Arthur Hamilton and the law firm he works for, Cassels Brock & Blackwell, Guy Giorno, Harper's former chief of staff, Axelle Pellerin, a former aide to Guergis, and Derrick Snowdy. Snowdy is the private investigator from Toronto whose allegations helped spark the controversy around Guergis and her husband.

Snowdy spoke to Hamilton about Guergis and Hamilton then spoke to Novak, Harper and others, according to the statement of claim. Hamilton gave the impression that Guergis had used cocaine and engaged in other unlawful activities and that there was video evidence of it, the document suggests.

Guergis is suing Harper and most of the others named in the lawsuit for defamation, conspiracy, intentional infliction of mental suffering and negligence.

Guergis is suing for general damages of $800,000 plus punitive damages of $250,000 and aggravated damages of $250,000.

In the statement of claim, Guergis alleges that in 2010, the defendants entered into a conspiracy with each other or with some of the other co-defendants, to "engage in unlawful acts in order to remove" or justify her removal from the Conservative caucus. She says they came up with the conspiracy to serve their political, personal or financial goals and not for a legitimate purpose.

She alleges the defendants "recklessly and callously" disregarded her interests and that they engaged in "unlawful" acts. She says while each defendant may not have engaged in an unlawful act, they had knowledge of the acts and supported them.

Guergis, who ran as an independent candidate in the May election and lost, says the conduct of Harper and the other defendants resulted in damage to her reputation and her career in politics, and damaged her ability to earn income. She said it also affected her health and well-being.

Guergis argues in her statement of claim that Harper's explanation to her that he had become aware of criminal allegations against her was either false or that he "accepted the veracity of those allegations without conducting an investigation or waiting for the result of a third-party investigation" and used them to justify her removal from caucus.

As a result, the court document claims, Guergis "was pressured to resign from her position as the Minister of State for the Status of Women," and did so "under duress."

The RCMP cleared Guergis and no charges were ever laid against her.

The statement of claim says Harper's public statement made in the foyer of the House of Commons on April 9, 2010, was "made in bad faith in an attempt to discredit" her and legitimize her resignation.

None of the allegations in her statement of claim have been proven in court. The parties named in the lawsuit have 60 days to respond.

A spokesman for the Prime Minister's Office, Carl Vallee, said "the allegations are groundless and they will be refuted vigorously."

Raitt echoed the comments from the prime minister's office.

A spokesperson for Glover, MP for Saint Boniface, said the issue was a legal matter and Glover had no comment.

Giorno said in an email that the claim is "an incoherent mix of fantasy, fabrication and fiction."

"I am embarrassed for her lawyer and sorry that Helena remains detached from reality."


source: http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2 ... wsuit.html

[EdCase]

 
Former MP Helena Guergis is suing Prime Minister Stephen Harper, Conservative MPs Shelly Glover and Lisa Raitt, the Conservative Party of Canada and a number of other individuals for defamation and other claims.

When rogues fall out...

[The Green Barbarian]

They'll quietly make her the ambassador to Bulgaria and she'll go away.

[sooperphreek]

lol good one greenie

[Merry]

This womans name and reputation were ruined by unproven allegations, while her boss and colleagues did absolutely nothing to either help, or defend her. I've seen other MP's (who just "happen" to be members of the "old boys club") commit far worse, PROVEN, indiscretions yet still remain in caucus, and eventually be reinstated to their former glory (once all the fuss has died down). So, without knowing all the facts about what REALLY happened to cause this lady's spectacular downfall, I do suspect it had absolutley nothing to do with all the BS we heard about in the media.

Someone wanted her out, concocted a load of damaging info and fed it to the media, and the rest is history. So who can blame her for wanting to clear her name, and get a bit of revenge at the same time? I certainly don't. As a matter of fact I'm kind of looking forward to seeing some of the perpetrators squirm a bit. It serves them right, because NOBODY deserves to be publically smeared the way this woman was, if they're innocent. And nothing has ever been produced to prove she wasn't.

[Urbane]

Just a side note . . . I remember the opposition hammering away at Harper every day while Guergis was still in cabinet. They kept demanding that he fire her. After he eventually did so they turned around and sided with her. Funny how that works.

[The Green Barbarian]

Just a side note . . . I remember the opposition hammering away at Harper every day while Guergis was still in cabinet. They kept demanding that he fire her. After he eventually did so they turned around and sided with her. Funny how that works.

Urbane - that's called "integrity" - something all NDP voters say their party is full of. They are full of something all right.

[Ranger66]

“Just a side note . . . I remember the opposition hammering away at Harper every day while Guergis was still in cabinet. They kept demanding that he fire her. After he eventually did so they turned around and sided with her. Funny how that works.”

If they fired her for job performance then good for them, if they tried to dig up dirty laundry to cover poor decisions then you get a law suit. I predict that this will be settled out of court as the time frame for a civil suit will put them in court very close to election time. She may have been stupid but smart enough to hire a good lawyer.

[Urbane]

“Just a side note . . . I remember the opposition hammering away at Harper every day while Guergis was still in cabinet. They kept demanding that he fire her. After he eventually did so they turned around and sided with her. Funny how that works.”

If they fired her for job performance then good for them, if they tried to dig up dirty laundry to cover poor decisions then you get a law suit. I predict that this will be settled out of court as the time frame for a civil suit will put them in court very close to election time. She may have been stupid but smart enough to hire a good lawyer.

The Harper haters would be mad if Harper had never fired Guergis and they're mad that he did. But just a reminder:

By Amy Minsky, Postmedia News July 14, 2011

OTTAWA — Former cabinet minister Helena Guergis violated the code of ethics to which members of Parliament are bound when she made a recommendation that was in the best interests of her husband, the federal ethics watchdog wrote in a report released Thursday.

Guergis, who was kicked out of the Conservative caucus in April 2010, lost her seat in the May federal election while running as an independent.

The violations stem from September 2009, when Guergis sent a letter, written on parliamentary letterhead, to municipal officials in Simcoe County, the Ontario riding she represented at the time.

The letter encouraged the warden and council members to allow a constituent, Jim Wright, to make a public presentation to council on the benefits of his company's green-waste management technology.

Guergis's husband, Rahim Jaffer — another former Conservative MP — was connected to Wright's company, Wright Tech Systems Inc.

Read more: http://www.canada.com/news/Former+Guerg ... z1hyI5pHGW

[Bestside]

“Just a side note . . . I remember the opposition hammering away at Harper every day while Guergis was still in cabinet. They kept demanding that he fire her. After he eventually did so they turned around and sided with her. Funny how that works.”

If they fired her for job performance then good for them, if they tried to dig up dirty laundry to cover poor decisions then you get a law suit. I predict that this will be settled out of court as the time frame for a civil suit will put them in court very close to election time. She may have been stupid but smart enough to hire a good lawyer.

The Harper haters would be mad if Harper had never fired Guergis and they're mad that he did. But just a reminder:

By Amy Minsky, Postmedia News July 14, 2011

OTTAWA — Former cabinet minister Helena Guergis violated the code of ethics to which members of Parliament are bound when she made a recommendation that was in the best interests of her husband, the federal ethics watchdog wrote in a report released Thursday.

Guergis, who was kicked out of the Conservative caucus in April 2010, lost her seat in the May federal election while running as an independent.

The violations stem from September 2009, when Guergis sent a letter, written on parliamentary letterhead, to municipal officials in Simcoe County, the Ontario riding she represented at the time.

The letter encouraged the warden and council members to allow a constituent, Jim Wright, to make a public presentation to council on the benefits of his company's green-waste management technology.

Guergis's husband, Rahim Jaffer — another former Conservative MP — was connected to Wright's company, Wright Tech Systems Inc.

Read more: http://www.canada.com/news/Former+Guerg ... z1hyI5pHGW

Selective quoting for the "Harper can do no wrong crowd" !!! The balance of the article (as follows) clarifies the insignificance of this Guergis letter in that MP's are doing these things all the time in respect to "technical" breaches and there is always a personal benefit that can be construed.

The timing of the ruling is certainly suspect coming 20 months after the NDP complaint and immediately following Guergis's lawsuit against Harper.

However, the ruling and Minsky's reporting of it clears the air for Guergis in respect to the RCMP clearing Guergis of any wrongdoing in respect the Harper's allegations against her. The Conservatives have not publicly stated the specific charges against Guergis they asked the RCMP to investigate to lay criminal charges. In this respect Guergis has released a letter from Harper's office that indicated the government had no first-hand knowledge of accusations that included fraud, extortion and obtaining benefits by false pretences. In the watchdog's report it was noted there were "substantial inconsistencies and gaps in the testimony of important witnesses." This should help rather than hinder the Guergis lawsuit regarding the acts of defamation against her, including allegations related to drug use, fraud, extortion and association with prostitutes.

The watchdog could still come out with a reply to Harper's allegations, that the RCMP has investigated and cleared Guergis of any wrongdoing.

That said, there were many loose lipped Reform/Conservative MP's (especially from the West) that embarrassed my party in the early days of their leading the government, and Harper supported them all. Guergis was certainly one of those foot-in-the-mouth MP's where her performance could have had her fired from her portfolio, but it looks like the agenda was to get rid of the wife, who to radical conservatives would be automatically under the direct influence of her soiled and not so desirable Political Correct husband.

Continued from above post (OTTAWA — By Amy Minsky, Postmedia News July 14, 2011)

The conflict of interest and ethics commissioner, Mary Dawson, launched the investigation in April 2010 at the request of then-NDP House leader Libby Davies.

All opposition members should take heed of the commissioner's findings, said New Democrat MP Pat Martin.

"In a way, this sounds the alarm for opposition parties that better scrutiny and oversight is needed," Martin said.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper's office would not comment Thursday.

In her report, Dawson made a point of noting that the investigation was not related to a letter Harper's office sent the commissioner the same month as Davies sent hers.

Guergis and Jaffer were thorns in the side of Harper's Conservatives when the prime minister kicked her out of caucus and asked the ethics commissioner and RCMP to investigate her. The two were at the centre of a parliamentary firestorm over allegations of illegal lobbying.

Police cleared both of any wrongdoing.

Still, Harper refused to invite Guergis back to caucus, and wouldn't say what specifically led to his decision to remove her in the first place.

Earlier that year, Jaffer had pleaded guilty to a careless driving charge and was fined $500. He initially was charged with cocaine possession and drunk driving after Ontario Provincial Police pulled him over in September 2009. The Crown later withdrew those charges.

To this day, the Conservatives have not publicly stated the specific charges against Guergis they asked the RCMP to probe — an investigation that led to no criminal charges.

But during the recent election campaign, Guergis released a letter from the Prime Minister's Office that indicated the government had no first-hand knowledge of accusations that included fraud, extortion and obtaining benefits by false pretences.

In her report released more than a year after it was launched, Dawson noted there were "substantial inconsistencies and gaps in the testimony of important witnesses."

Nonetheless, she concluded that Jaffer had a private interest in relation to the 2009 letter, since the work he did with Wright, Wright Tech and its related marketing firm, Green Rite solutions Inc., was done with the expectation that some day he would benefit financially.

Guergis was found to have breached sections 8 and 9 of the Conflict of Interest Code for Members of Parliament.

Section 8 prohibits MPs from acting with their personal interests or those of their family in mind.

Section 9 bans MPs from using their position to influence a decision that could further those same interests.

"Guergis indicated she had concerns before sending the letter," Dawson wrote. "She said she asked her husband on a number of occasions whether he was or would be doing business with Wright. This indicates that she was aware that there was an issue: that her letter could further her husband's private interest."

But Guergis testified that she wrote the letter because she felt Wright's business was a viable environmental solution to a plan to make a landfill in the riding.

"I believe that this was indeed a significant part of her motivation," Dawson wrote. "However, with the knowledge that she did have, she should not have written the letter."

Guergis's lawyer is pleased the commissioner acknowledged the former MP's assertion that potential personal gain played no part in her decision to send the letter.

"While we accept that the commissioner found a technical conflict of interest, we are pleased that she accepted and found support for Ms. Guergis' position that this was not her purpose in sending the letter," her lawyer, Howard Rubel, wrote in an email.

Davies, the New Democrat MP, also had asked Dawson's office to investigate whether Guergis violated section 11 of the code, which restricts members from taking part in any prohibited activities. Because she found contraventions of two other sections, a ruling was not needed on that section, Dawson wrote.

The watchdog also noted that the investigation did not turn up any other matters that seemed to warrant investigation under the code.

[Urbane]

LOL . . . I don't think that the presence or absence of criminal wrongdoing should be the basis for membership in cabinet or even in caucus. The presence or absence of ethical wrongdoing sounds like a much better basis to me. Funny how people say that they want politicians held to a higher standard in general but . . . oh well. And the fact remains that the opposition were hammering away at Harper on a daily basis to fire Guergis from cabinet and that he did. But after he did just that they were mad because he did what they asked him to do. As far as caucus membership that's certainly not up to the opposition. And I saw enough of Guergis to know she was a pain in the butt so I can see why Harper gave her the boot.

[Bestside]

LOL . . . I don't think that the presence or absence of criminal wrongdoing should be the basis for membership in cabinet or even in caucus. The presence or absence of ethical wrongdoing sounds like a much better basis to me. Funny how people say that they want politicians held to a higher standard in general but . . . oh well. And the fact remains that the opposition were hammering away at Harper on a daily basis to fire Guergis from cabinet and that he did. But after he did just that they were mad because he did what they asked him to do. As far as caucus membership that's certainly not up to the opposition. And I saw enough of Guergis to know she was a pain in the butt so I can see why Harper gave her the boot.

Urbane, we know that some people's favorite governments use of character assassinations and defamation tactics such as charges of fraud, extortion and obtaining benefits by false pretences, drug use and association with prostitutes really go to the religious extreme right sense of superiority that the Harper lovers embrace and hold dear.

We know that those same people don't care if the charges are false and cannot be substantiated in any way... it still is fair ball to the jack-booted rabble. Other governments have used those tactics in the past in other countries. Funny how it gives some people a sense of power knowing that they voted for people like that who have no scruples.

And of course some people will choose to ignore that I wrote Guergis should have been fired for performance:

That said, there were many loose lipped Reform/Conservative MP's (especially from the West) that embarrassed my party in the early days of their leading the government, and Harper supported them all. Guergis was certainly one of those foot-in-the-mouth MP's where her performance could have had her fired from her portfolio, but it looks like the agenda was to get rid of the wife, who to radical conservatives would be automatically under the direct influence of her soiled and not so desirable Political Correct husband.

[Merry]

LOL . . . I don't think that the presence or absence of criminal wrongdoing should be the basis for membership in cabinet or even in caucus. The presence or absence of ethical wrongdoing sounds like a much better basis to me.

I agree that ethical wrongdoing should be grounds for dismissal from cabinet and/or caucus, but only if and when it is proven. Firing people, and/or besmirching their reputations based on unproven allegations is equally unethical and extremely distasteful. This young woman may have been a lousy cabinet minister, and a poor politician, but nobody deserves to have their reputation smeared the way hers was, based merely on rumour and hearsay.

If the PM wanted to fire her for performance then he should have said so. But doing it the way he did was wrong, and he owes her an apology.

[logicalview]

This young woman may have been a lousy cabinet minister, and a poor politician, but nobody deserves to have their reputation smeared the way hers was, based merely on rumour and hearsay.

Quite right. She was a lousy cabinet minister and a poor politician.



Cocaine use, extortion and associating with hookers. Sounds like a big conspiracy to chase her from politics.

It has the makings of a great CBC taxpayer funded movie of the week.

[Urbane]

LOL . . . I don't think that the presence or absence of criminal wrongdoing should be the basis for membership in cabinet or even in caucus. The presence or absence of ethical wrongdoing sounds like a much better basis to me.


I agree that ethical wrongdoing should be grounds for dismissal from cabinet and/or caucus, but only if and when it is proven. Firing people, and/or besmirching their reputations based on unproven allegations is equally unethical and extremely distasteful. This young woman may have been a lousy cabinet minister, and a poor politician, but nobody deserves to have their reputation smeared the way hers was, based merely on rumour and hearsay.

If the PM wanted to fire her for performance then he should have said so. But doing it the way he did was wrong, and he owes her an apology.

If you look at the history of the British parliamentary system, stepping aside before or during investigations was (is?) the custom. At least in the past there was never the necessity to be found guilty of anything. Cabinet ministers over the years have stepped aside, been exonerated, and reclaimed their positions. As for Guergis, it seems to me that she embarrassed the government once too often and embarrassed her caucus as well and I remember wondering why Harper allowed her to stay. Was he nice about the way he dismissed her? Perhaps not, but she wasn't meeting the standard that she should have been meeting and that should be the issue IMO.