|
|
Post by CentreHice on Apr 23, 2008 0:09:02 GMT -5
Mexican judge finds her guilty of money laundering in an internet scam run by her boss, who's in jail in the U.S. for the scam.
Another 5 years in prison....no chance of parole.
Ottawa will try and get her to serve her time in Canada.
Her good friend, who's been fighting for her release, said, "There's not a witness...there's not a document. Justice in Mexico! She wouldn't have been held overnight in Canada!"
Harper better do something. This seems like such a travesty of justice. Although Mexico doesn't take kindly to critcism of its justice system. Isn't Mexico as corrupt as it gets?
Mind-boggling.
|
|
|
|
Post by CrocRob on Apr 23, 2008 0:16:19 GMT -5
Yeah I just saw that. It's rough. Reminds me of an Australia caught in a drug case in Indonesia a few years ago. Baggage handlers were using surfboard bags to smuggle drugs, and they found them in hers in Bali. Sentenced to like 20 years in jail and eventually commuted to Australia. I don't know if she was released or not.
I expect that with upcoming NAFTA negotiations we might see her commuted to Canada at least.
We can use textile factories anywhere.. they can't do the same for oil.
Man up Harper.
|
|
|
|
Post by MC Habber on Apr 23, 2008 2:03:50 GMT -5
I really don't get the public reaction to this. The evidence against her is purely circumstantial - the prosecution admitted that - and yet she was expected to somehow prove her innocence (how does one prove that they didn't know something?). But on every article I see about her, there are dozens of comments which presume her guilty and lambaste her for making such a spectacle of herself. Don't go to anther country, commit a crime, and expect Canada to bail you out seems to be a common sentiment.
|
|
|
|
Post by CrocRob on Apr 23, 2008 8:29:19 GMT -5
I really don't get the public reaction to this. The evidence against her is purely circumstantial - the prosecution admitted that - and yet she was expected to somehow prove her innocence (how does one prove that they didn't know something?). But on every article I see about her, there are dozens of comments which presume her guilty and lambaste her for making such a spectacle of herself. Don't go to anther country, commit a crime, and expect Canada to bail you out seems to be a common sentiment. The strangest part is that there was less outcry at the bunch of Canadians getting murdered in Mexico than there is for this. I mean, it's devastating, but 5 years in what's likely to be a commuted sentence in a minimum security prison in Canada (and probably not for 5 years, either) isn't the end of the world. Peoples' priorities are a bit messed up, because death is the end of the world. |
|
|
|
Post by franko on Apr 23, 2008 10:09:40 GMT -5
She wouldn't have been held overnight in Canada! This seems like such a travesty of justice Isn't Mexico as corrupt as it gets? Mexico is indeed just about as corrupt as it gets . . . they spell justice with a break between to the words for tourists in bars. She wouldn't have been held overnight in Mexico if she'd followed the typical scenario but she refused. She was told how much she would have to pay to get the charges dropped immediately; she refused, and spent more on lawyers that she kept firing than what it would have originally cost. Not that I'm in favour of spending money on bribes, but I also wonder how much trouble she brought on herself by firing lawyer after lawyer. I expect extradition in 30-60 days; almost immediate parole due to time served. And a bash against Conservative foreign policy in the next election. |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Apr 23, 2008 10:32:57 GMT -5
Amazing...... Why is it that every Canadian in a foreign country who is accused of sentenced for committing a crime is innocent?  |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Apr 23, 2008 10:36:38 GMT -5
The strangest part is that there was less outcry at the bunch of Canadians getting murdered in Mexico than there is for this. I mean, it's devastating, but 5 years in what's likely to be a commuted sentence in a minimum security prison in Canada (and probably not for 5 years, either) isn't the end of the world. Peoples' priorities are a bit messed up, because death is the end of the world. Lawyers spin some bullsh!t and get a gullible reporter to print a favorable story and all of a sudden, outcry for our "innocent". Meanwhile the deaths of those people go unpunished...but now forgotten by the masses two minute attention span. |
|
|
|
Post by franko on Apr 23, 2008 11:14:26 GMT -5
Why is it that every Canadian in a foreign country who is accused of sentenced for committing a crime is innocent? Because all Canadians are nice and would never dream of doing anything wrong. |
|
|
|
Post by franko on Apr 23, 2008 11:16:24 GMT -5
Meanwhile the deaths of those people go unpunished...but now forgotten by the masses two minute attention span. The cause of the living far outshines the cause of the dead . . . whether or not the cause has merit. We shed tears for the dead but their voice is silent . . . the living howl for help with assistance from friends. |
|
|
|
Post by The New Guy on Apr 23, 2008 11:51:24 GMT -5
Amazing...... Why is it that every Canadian in a foreign country who is accused of sentenced for committing a crime is innocent? Because obviously their courts are corrupt, and evil and - most importantly - they all hate Canadians. Probably because of Stephen Harper or somesuch. The facts in this case are not as clear cut as some would believe. Brenda was an investor (to the tune of $10,000) in a criminal enterprise run by Alyn Waage. Generally, in Canada, being an investor in something like this would be enough to get you a hefty fine or even a prison sentence. Now Alyn says that he kept Brenda in the dark (getting her off the hook if he is telling the truth), but there is not much evidence to that fact, and - in fact - there is evidence that something fishy was going on that Brenda had to know about - for example, since when does a chef pick up a $25,000 golden parachute for ten months work after being fired for insulting her bosses mother? When does said chef turn around an invest more than a third of said severance in her former employers business? I'm not saying that Brenda is guilty. There's some stuff that happened to her that smells almost as bad as what she did. There's reason to believe that she signed a confession that she did not understand (apparently she thinks its okay to sign documents without understanding them). There's reason to believe that she might be on the railroad tracks. But her actions at every step - from accepting an inordinately large severance and reinvesting it in her former bosses business, to firing a metric ton of defense lawyers, to harping on the government for not intervening (even to the point of threatening suicide), to harping on the government after intervening (calling her visit from two MP's a "dog and pony show") - they all smell the same way my step-father's clothes would smell after a shift at the fish plant. She should thank her lucky stars the government is even going to try and move her back to Canada - she had long ago left Canada and was working (illegally) in Mexico. |
|
|
|
Post by MC Habber on Apr 23, 2008 19:32:52 GMT -5
The facts in this case are not as clear cut as some would believe. Brenda was an investor (to the tune of $10,000) in a criminal enterprise run by Alyn Waage. Generally, in Canada, being an investor in something like this would be enough to get you a hefty fine or even a prison sentence. Now Alyn says that he kept Brenda in the dark (getting her off the hook if he is telling the truth), but there is not much evidence to that fact, and - in fact - there is evidence that something fishy was going on that Brenda had to know about - for example, since when does a chef pick up a $25,000 golden parachute for ten months work after being fired for insulting her bosses mother? When does said chef turn around an invest more than a third of said severance in her former employers business? I'm not saying that Brenda is guilty. You might as well be. Nothing that you said in any way proves that she was guilty. Her severance package of 1 year's salary may seem strange, but it doesn't mean she knew Waage came by the money illegally. Quite simply, there is not enough evidence to convict her in a Canadian court, not nearly. Does that mean she's innocent? No. But there's no reason to assume she is guilty either. |
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Apr 23, 2008 20:51:17 GMT -5
But there's no reason to assume she is guilty either. Well there is now ... she was found guilty.  I'm not sure where I sit on this story ... it all reeks. Her story, the Mexicans story, the Conservative government doing nothing until the 13th hour ... it all reeks... |
|
|
|
Post by MC Habber on Apr 23, 2008 23:26:53 GMT -5
Imagine this. Martin works as a chef for this guy, but doesn't get along with his mother and eventually, the guy has to fire her to placate his mother, even though he knows his mother can be difficult. He feels badly about it, so he gives Martin a generous severance package. She figures his company must be doing well for him to be so generous so she invests some of the money in it, not realizing that the guy is scamming people. Why is that so hard to believe?
|
|
|
|
Post by The New Guy on Apr 24, 2008 9:18:52 GMT -5
Imagine this. Martin works as a chef for this guy, but doesn't get along with his mother and eventually, the guy has to fire her to placate his mother, even though he knows his mother can be difficult. He feels badly about it, so he gives Martin a generous severance package. She figures his company must be doing well for him to be so generous so she invests some of the money in it, not realizing that the guy is scamming people. Why is that so hard to believe? Because: (a) Most people, when they are fired, do not leave happily. Firing implies something more than just being let go. If the boss really felt bad about it he could have changed his mind and not fired her. If she really felt generous - well, that's doubtful. I can't imagine feeling anything but hostility in that situation. (b) She should have known what she was investing in. Most people with two clues to rub together don't just give large sums of money as an investment to companies they know nothing about. Your scenario requires both Martin and the scam artist to have a very generous heart (one to give a massive severance to an employee after firing her for insulting his mother, the other to forgive said firing) and for Martin to been so naive (and possibly outright stupid) as to invest a large sum of money (when she has no job) in a company in which she knows nothing about. Occam's razor, ladies and gentlemen. It's much, much more plausible that she's guilty. |
|
|
|
Post by The New Guy on Apr 24, 2008 9:28:30 GMT -5
The facts in this case are not as clear cut as some would believe. Brenda was an investor (to the tune of $10,000) in a criminal enterprise run by Alyn Waage. Generally, in Canada, being an investor in something like this would be enough to get you a hefty fine or even a prison sentence. Now Alyn says that he kept Brenda in the dark (getting her off the hook if he is telling the truth), but there is not much evidence to that fact, and - in fact - there is evidence that something fishy was going on that Brenda had to know about - for example, since when does a chef pick up a $25,000 golden parachute for ten months work after being fired for insulting her bosses mother? When does said chef turn around an invest more than a third of said severance in her former employers business? I'm not saying that Brenda is guilty. You might as well be. Nothing that you said in any way proves that she was guilty. Her severance package of 1 year's salary may seem strange, but it doesn't mean she knew Waage came by the money illegally. Quite simply, there is not enough evidence to convict her in a Canadian court, not nearly. Does that mean she's innocent? No. But there's no reason to assume she is guilty either. You'd be surprised what you can get convicted of in Canada. Lots of people, I am sure, have been convicted on less evidence. The reason I remain skeptical (like I said, I'm not saying she's guilty) is the behavior of the Mexican authorities. It makes me leery when officers don't play by the rules, and I understand the rules are often 'broken' in Mexico, but it just bothers me. |
|
|
|
Post by MC Habber on Apr 24, 2008 13:45:49 GMT -5
Imagine this. Martin works as a chef for this guy, but doesn't get along with his mother and eventually, the guy has to fire her to placate his mother, even though he knows his mother can be difficult. He feels badly about it, so he gives Martin a generous severance package. She figures his company must be doing well for him to be so generous so she invests some of the money in it, not realizing that the guy is scamming people. Why is that so hard to believe? Because: (a) Most people, when they are fired, do not leave happily. Firing implies something more than just being let go. If the boss really felt bad about it he could have changed his mind and not fired her. If she really felt generous - well, that's doubtful. I can't imagine feeling anything but hostility in that situation. No, you're not getting my scenario. She and the boss have an amicable relationship, and she understands that it's not working out with his mother. If it had been reported that he "let her go" instead, you would feel differently about it? Presumably she thought she did. Waage must have had a story about his business to cover up the illegality, and he probably had told it to her. Again, that's not good enough for a conviction in Canada. The entire argument is, the 2 financial transactions seem odd, and the boss was a criminal, therefore she must have been too. By those standards, I suspect that many of us would be convicted of crimes we haven't committed. |
|
|
|
Post by habmeister on Apr 24, 2008 14:19:24 GMT -5
Why is it that every Canadian in a foreign country who is accused of sentenced for committing a crime is innocent? Because all Canadians are nice and would never dream of doing anything wrong. i think the only ones that makes stories are the innocent ones, the ones that are guilty as all get out don't make a good story for the media. |
|
|
|
Post by habmeister on Apr 24, 2008 14:22:23 GMT -5
apparently pre-trial they were going to just pay off the judge, easy to do in mexico, and they decided to do things ethically instead.
i'd be fine with her conviction if it was in a country that wasn't completely corrupt. everyone is on the take in mexico, she should have just bucked up.
|
|
|
|
Post by duster on Apr 25, 2008 12:28:51 GMT -5
It's easy to say H & C, but I suspect it was more than just the judge who wanted money and if so, they probably wanted a lot.
This whole story should not come as a surprise to anyone who is familiar with Latin America and our own External Affairs. Brenda Martin was going to be convicted from the get go. She was very fortunate that the PM got involved.
Most, if not all, Latin American countries use the Napoleonic Code and in criminal cases you are guilty until proven innocent unlike our system here. Who is guilty is up to the prosecutor and it has often very little to do with actual guilt. Factors that may come in play include local politics i.e. protecting a local person or businessman and, more importantly, the possibility of everyone involved making money from the case including the lawyers, prosecutor, clerks and the trial judge. It's easy to see why tourists and foreigners in general are almost always presumed guilty and charged for anything plausible: they have money (or so it's perceived) and can be incarcerated without trial until they pay up. This sort of thing happens all the time.
Canadians are favourite targets. External Affairs does very little to help when a Canadian gets in trouble and if they do, they take weeks or even months to do anything concrete. This pre-dates Harper. My experience has been that it's better to ask for the British especially (as a British subject) or the Americans in a pinch for help. They will do something immediately.
|
|
|
|
Post by franko on Apr 25, 2008 14:43:38 GMT -5
$8,000, gentlemen, 2 years ago when she was arrested, and she'da been out the next day. Instead, she fired that lawyer. And another one. And another one. And cried the blues.
And it seems that this isn't the first time that she's been in trouble and used the "poor me" defense.
|
|
|
|
Post by MC Habber on Apr 25, 2008 15:48:20 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by jkr on Apr 25, 2008 16:23:45 GMT -5
Canadians are favourite targets. External Affairs does very little to help when a Canadian gets in trouble and if they do, they take weeks or even months to do anything concrete. This pre-dates Harper. My experience has been that it's better to ask for the British especially (as a British subject) or the Americans in a pinch for help. They will do something immediately. Your last line reminds me of the Bill Sampson story. IIRC he was released from a Saudi prison with the help of the British, not the Canadians. |
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Apr 25, 2008 18:50:16 GMT -5
OK I must admit I am not that familiar with the case ... but as I said before, something reeks.
What is this report of "her payment" (franko said $8,000) for her freedom?
Also, I am not a lawyer (although I am pretty good at contract law) but it would seem to me she is guilty of at least 2 things:
1) illegally in a country
2) lying to authorities/obstruction of justice.
I come to the conclusion of the second charge just based on the "reasonable person" test. If I am let go, do I invest in that person's company? Do I question such a high severance? Even if you say those questions dont prove anything (and I agree) then comes another question. If you give someone $10,000 to invest, and they give you the money back, would you ask why? Of course you would. And would you then have some suspicions ... I mean you want to make money too, why wont he let you .... she, IMO, had to know something ... which is not to say she was guilty of the charges, but something does reek...
... I mean even her lawyer knows nothing of the $500,000 bribe, this coming from the man who said she knew nothing. So he is lying on one of those accounts, and that brings into question his whole evidence.
On another account. Mc Habber gave his possible scenario:
Now what man really cowtows to his mother. We all love our mothers, but c'mon ... Waage could just as easily have been intimate with Martin, gave her $25,000 to keep her quiet and she got greedy and wanted to invest to scam more money.....and he made the story up about his mother, giving the $10,000 back, etc ... I mean he is seemingly lying about the $500,000 ransom.
|
|
|
|
Post by MC Habber on Apr 25, 2008 19:47:03 GMT -5
2) lying to authorities/obstruction of justice. I come to the conclusion of the second charge just based on the "reasonable person" test. If I am let go, do I invest in that person's company? Do I question such a high severance? Even if you say those questions dont prove anything (and I agree) then comes another question. If you give someone $10,000 to invest, and they give you the money back, would you ask why? Of course you would. And would you then have some suspicions ... I mean you want to make money too, why wont he let you .... she, IMO, had to know something ... which is not to say she was guilty of the charges, but something does reek... Waage ran a pyramid scheme, she invested in it. Unless she knew about it, that would make her a victim, right? She got her money back, but the point is, a lot of people were fooled by this guy, that's why he is in jail. |
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Apr 25, 2008 23:51:49 GMT -5
2) lying to authorities/obstruction of justice. I come to the conclusion of the second charge just based on the "reasonable person" test. If I am let go, do I invest in that person's company? Do I question such a high severance? Even if you say those questions dont prove anything (and I agree) then comes another question. If you give someone $10,000 to invest, and they give you the money back, would you ask why? Of course you would. And would you then have some suspicions ... I mean you want to make money too, why wont he let you .... she, IMO, had to know something ... which is not to say she was guilty of the charges, but something does reek... Waage ran a pyramid scheme, she invested in it. Unless she knew about it, that would make her a victim, right? She got her money back, but the point is, a lot of people were fooled by this guy, that's why he is in jail. And thats why she is in jail .... this guy is a scam artist, typically they have no morals ... yet she didn't get scammed, she got her money back. It would make anyone wonder, even Canadian authorities. |
|
|
|
Post by MC Habber on Apr 26, 2008 0:41:59 GMT -5
And thats why she is in jail .... this guy is a scam artist, typically they have no morals ... That's quite a claim! In Canada, she might be questioned, but she probably wouldn't even be charged. |
|
|
|
Post by franko on Apr 26, 2008 3:48:38 GMT -5
She'da been in Canada legally.
It's a whole iffy situation. Guilty? Not guilty? Let's just get her "home".
|
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Apr 27, 2008 13:31:11 GMT -5
She'da been in Canada legally. It's a whole iffy situation. Guilty? Not guilty? Let's just get her "home". Actually no ... I think she should stay in Mexico until we get all the facts. All the news I have read have been written totally biased in her defense. We made that mistake before and were wrong, very wrong. Let's at least get our media to give us Mexico's side of the story and the evidence they have, before we bring her home. |
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Apr 27, 2008 13:36:57 GMT -5
And thats why she is in jail .... this guy is a scam artist, typically they have no morals ... That's quite a claim! So someone robbing people of their life savings is high in morals? Hmmm someone in a country illegally, committing a crime .... wouldn't be charged? In Canada? I should hope not. But the operative word in your sentence is "probably" ... because she "probably" would as well. |
|
|
|
Post by MC Habber on Apr 27, 2008 13:39:26 GMT -5
So someone robbing people of their life savings is high in morals? Just because you do something wrong, no matter how wrong, doesn't mean you "have no morals." |
|
