https://t.co/e5jtYnNvaf
Is Mark Carney Guilty of Racketeering?
My name is Derrick Sweet. I am a 61 year old Canadian and earn my living as a stock market analyst. I follow money for a living. I began my career in investing in 1993 at Midland Walwyn in Toronto as a Financial Advisor. After establishing myself as a successful advisor I was recruited by BMO Nesbitt Burns in 1997 and offered the position of Vice President and Senior Investment Advisor and presented with a $250,000.00 signing bonus, which was a lot of money back then. For several years I was one of the top advisors in Canada and a regular invited speaker at investment conferences across Canada. By 2002 I had sold my business to a bank and some time after that I started offering stock research reports to DIY investors who manage their own money. I provide this background on who I am so you have a better understanding how I discovered possible acts of racketeering.
I have been closely following Mark Carney’s potential violations of the trust he was voted to uphold for too long. I am not a lawyer and am not making any former charges against Mark Carney in this post. I am simply pointing out activities by the PM of Canada that are possibly a direct conflict of interest that could possibly lead to several charges of racketeering.
Yesterday I asked Chat GPT, in the role of a lawyer, to review recent Brookfield deals with the federal government and to explore the possibility of racketeering crimes. The following is what was produced. Again, I am not making any accusations or drawing any conclusions. I am hoping lawyers look into this because 42 deals between Brookfield Corporation and the federal government under Carney’s leadership is a red flag and needs to be investigated for racketeering.
Chat GPT Results:
The Prosecution of the Case Against Mark Carney, Prime Minister of Canada (the PM)
I. The Core Allegation: "Pay-to-Play" Infrastructure
The prosecution will argue that the Prime Minister (PM) has operated a criminal enterprise where public policy and taxpayer-funded contracts were used as a vehicle to inflate the value of a private entity (Brookfield) in which he holds a direct pecuniary interest (stock options).
The Nexus: The Acts: 42 distinct government deals awarded to or partnered with Brookfield.
The Benefit: $5 billion in reported profits for the entity.
The Conflict: Multi-million dollar stock options held by the decision-maker (the PM).
II. Count 1: Breach of Trust (Criminal Code s. 122)
Under Section 122, we do not need to prove a "bribe" was paid. We only need to prove that the PM, in connection with his duties, committed a Breach of Trust that would be an offence even if committed against a private person.
The Evidence:
Duty of Office: The PM is mandated by the Conflict of Interest Act to "arrange private affairs to prevent conflicts of interest" (s. 5).
The Breach: By failing to divest or recuse himself from a policy environment that directly benefits a company where he holds options, he has fundamentally violated the trust of the Canadian public.
Legal Standard: Per R. v. Boulanger, the prosecution must show the act was a "marked departure from the standards expected of an individual in the accused's position." Managing 42 deals while holding the stock is a "marked departure" by any reasonable standard.
III. Count 2: Frauds on the Government (Criminal Code s. 121)
This is the Canadian version of "racketeering." Specifically, Section 121(1)(c) prohibits an official from demanding or accepting a benefit for themselves in exchange for "assistance" or "exercise of influence" regarding government dealings.
The Strategy:
We will argue that the Stock Options constitute an "advantage or benefit." The value of these options is tied directly to the success of the 42 government-backed deals. Every time the PM announces a deal, he effectively "cuts himself a check" by driving up the equity value of the firm.
https://t.co/e5jtYnNvaf
Is Mark Carney Guilty of Racketeering?
My name is Derrick Sweet. I am a 61 year old Canadian and earn my living as a stock market analyst. I follow money for a living. I began my career in investing in 1993 at Midland Walwyn in Toronto as a Financial Advisor. After establishing myself as a successful advisor I was recruited by BMO Nesbitt Burns in 1997 and offered the position of Vice President and Senior Investment Advisor and presented with a $250,000.00 signing bonus, which was a lot of money back then. For several years I was one of the top advisors in Canada and a regular invited speaker at investment conferences across Canada. By 2002 I had sold my business to a bank and some time after that I started offering stock research reports to DIY investors who manage their own money. I provide this background on who I am so you have a better understanding how I discovered possible acts of racketeering.
I have been closely following Mark Carney’s potential violations of the trust he was voted to uphold for too long. I am not a lawyer and am not making any former charges against Mark Carney in this post. I am simply pointing out activities by the PM of Canada that are possibly a direct conflict of interest that could possibly lead to several charges of racketeering.
Yesterday I asked Chat GPT, in the role of a lawyer, to review recent Brookfield deals with the federal government and to explore the possibility of racketeering crimes. The following is what was produced. Again, I am not making any accusations or drawing any conclusions. I am hoping lawyers look into this because 42 deals between Brookfield Corporation and the federal government under Carney’s leadership is a red flag and needs to be investigated for racketeering.
Chat GPT Results:
The Prosecution of the Case Against Mark Carney, Prime Minister of Canada (the PM)
I. The Core Allegation: "Pay-to-Play" Infrastructure
The prosecution will argue that the Prime Minister (PM) has operated a criminal enterprise where public policy and taxpayer-funded contracts were used as a vehicle to inflate the value of a private entity (Brookfield) in which he holds a direct pecuniary interest (stock options).
The Nexus: The Acts: 42 distinct government deals awarded to or partnered with Brookfield.
The Benefit: $5 billion in reported profits for the entity.
The Conflict: Multi-million dollar stock options held by the decision-maker (the PM).
II. Count 1: Breach of Trust (Criminal Code s. 122)
Under Section 122, we do not need to prove a "bribe" was paid. We only need to prove that the PM, in connection with his duties, committed a Breach of Trust that would be an offence even if committed against a private person.
The Evidence:
Duty of Office: The PM is mandated by the Conflict of Interest Act to "arrange private affairs to prevent conflicts of interest" (s. 5).
The Breach: By failing to divest or recuse himself from a policy environment that directly benefits a company where he holds options, he has fundamentally violated the trust of the Canadian public.
Legal Standard: Per R. v. Boulanger, the prosecution must show the act was a "marked departure from the standards expected of an individual in the accused's position." Managing 42 deals while holding the stock is a "marked departure" by any reasonable standard.
III. Count 2: Frauds on the Government (Criminal Code s. 121)
This is the Canadian version of "racketeering." Specifically, Section 121(1)(c) prohibits an official from demanding or accepting a benefit for themselves in exchange for "assistance" or "exercise of influence" regarding government dealings.
The Strategy:
We will argue that the Stock Options constitute an "advantage or benefit." The value of these options is tied directly to the success of the 42 government-backed deals. Every time the PM announces a deal, he effectively "cuts himself a check" by driving up the equity value of the firm.
@One_BCHQ I think it's kinda funny if that Chief truly thinks they are the Tough Guys in the Kootenays!
It takes more than Reserve Smokes and Weed to rule the Kootenays.
His tribe appears to hold some real special characters that prefer very Liberal type practices.