THE CHEAP SEAT CATASTROPHE

OMG……just realised that Furey has spend considerable time in Haiti, did he get infected, or had it before going?
Winston

This comment has been removed by the author.

WA @ 14:22:

there are set protocols for lawyers representing clients on both sides of a dispute – MA started the tin-foil hat worrying (and infact nearly implying illegal activities) because Samms is employed at the same firm as a lawyer for EM (this happens in real estate, accounting, law, engineering, medicine etc). I gave several jurisprudence findings and precedents that what he was getting on with was nonsense – but like many things I post no one bothers to read (examples include what an inquiry is and isn't, the ToR not being limiting on LeBlanc, duty of care etc). Most interesitn exercise would be to check out the lawyers representing both Government and Employees in arbitrations/court cases – Again, I mentioned this with relation to Sepctrol last week, but I guess wasn’t worthy enough of looking up for most.

And back to you mis-quotes, you claim above that this is what I said:
[start quote for WA @ 13:29]
PENG2 has suggested in the past that pandemics may be more serious an issue to deal with than climate change. However science suggests that climate change may be making more risk for pandemics…..the chicken or the egg, what came first? Brazil at risk from the Amazon destruction? Surprised PENG2 has not remarked on this virus given his previous comments on climate change and pandemics, saying no rusk to tackle climate change, or along that line.
[end]

Is nowhere near what I said – and I addressed you on this 5-10 times – either get it right, or not quote me at all.

As for Johnny Big Head – he was a liberal in the government of Clyde Wells.

if you really want some time foil hat stuff – maybe Judy Morrow is engineering a win for Furey (even though her law firm has a Crosbie and an Ottenhiemer on staff). Very staunch PCs, but I guess she is conspiring to undermine the Liberals – even though her family has ran as Liberals before.

Jees by, get a few rational thoughts…

And maybe like I suggested several time – research both candidates. Especially important if you look at how many sitting members still in the HoA that are directed directly to the MF vote because it is obvious most NL voters don’t bother.

In fairness, this leadership campaign is unique – it is effectivly a referendum on who will become the premier-elect (and no the winner wont be premier), so progress is being made. Nothing wrong with either proceeding or delaying because of COVID-19.

PENG2

Or maybe I will make a challenge to Ma and his B$ nonsense regarding Samms.

Go check his resume. So you know he graduated law school in 2015 and went to work for the government of NL. He joined Stewart McKelvey in 2019 – that's right, months after the Inquiry concluded.

Yea off course, there was a big conspiracy by EM and his lawyer to 'restrict' the ToR by working with Samms who was employees by Government in the Premiers office.

PENG2

Seems I may have hit a nerve somewhere along the line.

What "illegal activities" did I "NEARLY imply" PENG2?

If I only "nearly" implied something —- then I implied nothing. No?

I wonder what has raised PENG2's ire.

Seems PENG2's 'piss is getting hot'.

WHY?

Is he 'implying' perhaps that there is a cross-breeding, incestuous relationship in NL politics?

Nawwwww. Can't be.

Ma @ 13:36:

Go review the nonsense you got on with here – maybe you did go to far in that it was more than 'implying', I am going to be very careful with my words to avoid causing UG issues.

You nonsense starts at 21-Feb-2020, 10:14 – check out the link to a previous UG article for yourself:
http://unclegnarley.blogspot.com/2020/02/dwight-ball-moves-on-godspeed-goddamn.html

PENG2

I did not go too far. I stand by my comments.

Why would you even think that there may be something illegal going on?

Do you know something we do not?

Speak your mind.

MA @ 14:44:

21-Feb-2020 @ 12:01 you posted this:
[start]
Well that makes the matter even worse — government would have had to have agreed to such a (what I would suggest, 'cosy' and unacceptable) relationship — especially for a 'public inquiry'.

Make no wonder the inquiry terms of reference was so limiting.
[end]

Again, you alleged 'too cozy' of a relationship and 'limiting' ToR terms. Pretty easy to read, this statement of yours is alleging misconduct – but ontop of that, as usual your statements are
unresearched (and I wont even attribute the comment from Anony @ 13:56 to you).

Having said that, I am still waiting for you to provide 1 single instance where the ToR LIMITED Leblanc, or alternatively where the ToR DIRECTED LeBlanc to call for a forensic audit.

PENG2

Oh my, PENG2, sorry if I misquote you word for word. I think I am a little autistic, sometimes I reverse the letters in a word, and have to correct them. For you and climate change, I have this mental picture of what you said, how I think you feel about it, not a urgent issue, others issues may be more urgent. Best you quote back your words on that,
You gave me a chuckle…..knowing that Johnny Big Head (actually John Crane from Upper Island Cove was Liberal. I was's sure. As he was assistant to Haig Young, who was Tory, and buddies with Crosbie and others. Was that incentuous too?
Politics is not my cup of tea, but worth a study. A funny business. And what you say of Samms adds to the it, maybe.
Is SM law firm part of the elites running the show in Nfld? I submit it is so.
Good to see Fortis doing ok. Have you traded? I'm hanging tight on all. Yesterday they used the D word…..Depression. That could be scary, for some, for many…….except Nalcor bunch getting bonuses,and now home with pay I suppose, a paid holiday. Not helping a strong finish, is it?
Winston

"cosy and unacceptable" are not legal terms, and you know that PENG2.

While from Wikipedia — "In law, misconduct is wrongful, improper, or unlawful conduct motivated by premeditated or intentional purpose or by obstinate indifference to the consequences of one's acts. Misconduct can be considered an unacceptable or improper behavior, especially for a professional person."

You repeatedly misquote and/or mis-characterize my comments PENG2.

Is there something that prompts you to raise the issue of "illegality" or "misconduct" and to mis-represent others statement?

And FYI —- I have never posted anything as "Anony".

Oh My……yesterday I was accused, I though, of intending to break the virus law. Mandatory isolation I was told, in writing, and I have not travelled anywhere, but walk outdoor and practise social distancing. I inquired about how or when a PET scan can be done, or if a medical records could be picked up, as they refuse to fax them. I was shocked to get suggestions that I intended to break the law for asking questions on urgent medical matters.
I see in South Korea they post online where a infected person lives within 300 feet. And of course we all know Trudeau's wife got infected, and the famous actor went public, "Life is like a box of chocolates"
Here it is a big secret. Ball tells how kind we to our neighbours, but if one is self isolating, it is like you are leper, in Jesus's day.
I would expect that if we had the 300 ft rule, neighbours would bring food, shovel your snow, inquire if you need assistance, whatever, not stone you. Maybe I'm wrong. So why the secrecy?
Winston Adams

MA @ 15:35:

It wasn't me that raised the issue of potential misconduct – that was you.

So that you do know, 'unacceptable' and 'acceptable' are both legal terms with exact definitions. The statement above you posted does allege improper activity – maybe reread it without your rose colored glasses.

FYI, you also posted this (this statement is also factually incorrect and alleges improper actions):
[start]
My point is whether or not a lawyer who "under direction from the Premier and Minister of Justice for work toward establishing the Commission of Inquiry Respecting the Muskrat Falls Project", while a the lawyer for a key witness at that inquiry worked with the same firm firm, would have been in a perceived or actual conflict.
[end]

As I said clearly, I never tried to attribute a statement from Anony to you – I just noted it was a statement in the same thread.

PENG2

Read the definition PENG2.

Misconduct can be considered unacceptable, but I did not say misconduct, I said unacceptable and unacceptable can be many things other than misconduct.

Get your facts and interpretations straight.

By Gearge, MA, I think you're right on the meaning of unacceptable.
When I have to chase nursesin hospital for 5 days, who chase doctors, so I can get a copy of my wife's blood report, I yesterday said it was unacceptable.Because the patient's own their medical reports, are intentional held from you. When a nurse says "Can you understand the meaning of what's on the report, assuming only they know, that too is unacceptable. When needed in a hurry , they make you drive 10 or 100 miles to get a copy , rather than fax it to you, I say that is unacceptable. When a nurse they tells you they might get fired, to give you a copy of reports you're entitled too, I say that is unacceptable. When a tumor triples in size and they say it is stable, I say that is unacceptable. When the Cancer Clinic who are to assist you, actually abandons you for standing your ground, as PENG2 says one should do, if your're right, I say that too is unacceptable.When they have unacceptable actions and tell you to complain to John Haggie, there is no accountablility and I say unacceptable. That is the culture of Nalcor in our health care system.
Will Furey or Abbott correct that unacceptable behaviour in our health care? Or it is set in stone,as with Nalcor, and wrong doers still employed?
And is the behaviour misconduct even? What does PENG2 think?
Winston Adams

MA @ 20:19:

You were the one that alleged conflicts of interests and/or potential collusion by posting factually incorrect statements – collusion or conflicts of interest are examples of behaviors that are both misconduct and unacceptable. What I posted at 18:56 and 15:12 are direct copy/pastes of parts of your statements – again, both are factually incorrect.

And so you know, misconduct is always unacceptable – and since you like Wiki definitions, here is misconduct:
[start]
In law, misconduct is wrongful, improper, or unlawful conduct motivated by premeditated or intentional purpose or by obstinate indifference to the consequences of one's acts. Misconduct can be considered an unacceptable or improper behavior, especially for a professional person.
[end]

Again, I still wait for you to show how the ToR was limiting or where LeBlanc was directed in the ToR to call for a forensic audit.

WA: no, MA's definition of unacceptable is way off.

PENG2

"misconduct is always unacceptable",, yes, but I did not say 'misconduct'.

Do you have a problem understanding that? — I said 'UNACCEPTABLE', NOT "misconduct" — and many things can be unacceptable without being misconduct (for example, a troll trying repeatedly to confuse and/or mislead UG readers).

That is something you should be able to relate to.

MA @ 14:45:

Pure and simple, 3 questions:
1) did you allege potential collusion between Samms and lawyer(s) for potential witnesses at the Inquiry?
2) did you allege potential conflicts of interest between Samms and lawyer(s) for potential witnesses at the Inquiry?
3) did you make factually incorrect statements regarding Samms and others drafting the ToR – particularly with respect to employment status at particular firms

Those questions are pretty simple, and maybe if you answer we can end this nonsense.

PENG2

PENG2 15:34:

And to clarify, in the questions 1 & 2 – 'at the Inquiry' specifically means during the drafting of the ToR.

PENG2

Questions 1, 2 contained no allegations.

Q3 — Not to my knowledge. My 21 Feb 11:44 comment begins with "So now we have…(present tense)… all working for the same firm", i.e, that they are all NOW working for the same firm. That was my understanding when I wrote it. If I was in error then I apologize and retract my comment.

The phrase "…, and government's man (Samms), who…" —- the "who" refers only to Samms.

So to legal definitions, Slick Willie said " it depends on what the meaning of is….. is"
So, generally not my cup of tea, but lets say one generally knows if something don't smell right.
1.The Telegram letters, one say's Leblanc should not be critized, another says not a problem to do so. Who is right?
2. Leblanc did the audit, a big deal? The inquiry rather useless without the audit, right?
3. Leblanc, as to the North Spur, a very big risk,so Leblanc just asked Stan, who gave his blessing, though Stan not a geotechnical or civil engineer, and spoke as a manager, as as a practising engineer? Takes Leblanc off the hook is a big failure?
4. On the size of the boongoggle, whether just a jump from 7,2 B , interest included to 12.7 B say 6 B difference, or likely for lowest cost, of 2 billion vs 12.7 B , over 10 B difference, is HUGE change in scope of the financial size of the boondoggle. If Leblanc did the audit, why not examine the lowest cost, even for high level review ? Stan in 30 seconds stated half that: 1 billion for gas turbines and Bay 'de Espoir additions solves it,(but this not giving 98 % green we know) This went as gospel and was a fair statement. A little effort by Leblanc could have ball parked the other 1 billion for what Stan excluded for a overall good solution: other island hydro, wind , CDM , transmission restraints.
That the size of boondoggle could be ball parked twice that presented by Leblanc, is not important to Leblanc, nor the public? Unbeleiveable to spend 16 million on an inquiry and ignore that. I call that unacceptable by Leblanc. If the ToF exclude it , then the term were unacceptable. Otherwise Leblanc's discresion was unacceptable,so I think. Just don't smell right. PENG2 disagrees?
5. Does PENG2 disagree with the 2 billion I suggest? I repeated say this and no one say's I'm wrong, yet.
Winston Adams

MA @ 19:08:

You statements at 21-Feb-2020 are quite clear – in that they are factually incorrect and you allege both collusion and conflict of interest DURING
the drafting of the ToR.

You can try and claim whatever you intended to say, but your words are clear – you were factually incorrect (ie Samms worked for Government during the drafting of the ToR, but later in 2019 did become employed by the 'same firm'). Your statements also allege potential conflict of interest and collusion between ‘governments man’ and SM to craft a restrictive ToR – as a minimum it would be worth your while to go re-read statements you made at 21-Feb-2020 11:34, 11:44 and 15:43 in particular.

You really should go back and review what you posted before trying to argue your way out of improper statements and making yourself appear less than honest.

For your knowledge, Samms graduate law school in 2015, worked at Government from 2015 until 2019. In mid-2019 he took a position at SM – maybe fact checking and verifying his resume would have been wise on your part.

PENG2

WA @ 23:58:

1) It is usually considered poor practice to criticize a judge because they cannot defend their decision or present their opinions publicly – because generally a judge speaks only through his decisions. Now, to be a commissioner at an Inquiry – there is no requirement to be a judge, anyone who has the confidence of the government calling the inquiry can be the commissioner (ie Winston could have been commissioner if DB so decided). Combined with LeBlanc isn’t a ‘judge’ during the Inquiry and there is no mechanism to question the findings it is an interesting question ( I mentioned sections 12, 13 and 26 of the Public Inquiries Act as worthy of review when DW/EM started commenting – either way, I think it is poor practice to criticize as DW/EM have done in the way they have and see their actions as self-serving.

2) The audit is a bigger deal than many realize – it is just 1 example of how LeBlanc led the Inquiry, and it very clearly demonstrates that the ToR isn't limiting as many try to claim. If you remember prior to the Inquiry starting, the lack of an Audit being explicitly listed as part of the ToR was one of the reasons many claimed the ToR was ‘restrictive’.

3 / 4) All addressed in the Inquiry final report. The ToR terms didn’t EXCLUDE any particular items from LeBlanc's analysis – LeBlanc determined what was most important to fit his schedule. As I have said many times, I do feel 3-4yrs was needed, and the Inquiry should have waited until substantial completion before starting.

5)If you are asking if $2b would have been enough in 2010 for an alternate power supply option instead of MF – maybe or maybe not. I am not sure the analysis was ever thoroughly done – but it wasn’t the politically desired option and thus we got MF.

PENG2

PENG2,

I think that "thou doth protest too much".

Why?

MA @ 08:54:

I am still waiting for you to provide 1 single instance where the Inquiry ToR either:
1) specifically limited LeBlanc
or
2) directed LeBlanc to call a forensic audit

Otherwise, I am only calling you on your statement which are mistaken at best or slanderous at worse.

PENG2

PENG2, are you the troll who previously called him or herself John Smith?

If not —- same difference.

Some of us coined a phrase; "He is the single menace to humanity". America must come to terms with "Good Governance", and "Democracy is coming", (Leonard Cohen). Now if only we could find some of the same elixir for our own Nation. Stay healthy, you wonderful people in our Health Care system!