Brenda Martin

[Dion]

Originally Posted by burn_this_city

In the same breath are we supposed to believe everything she has said?

I realize their justice system isnt the best, but people going down there for work know that. If your going to be involved with the wrong people you need to realize they may take you down with them.

If the system isn't the best, why are you so sure she's guilty?

Doesn't she deserve a fair trial?

Btw, where is this evidence you said you had?

[burn_this_city]

Didnt realize you were foreign to reading..
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As Martin tells it, she and Waage "drank an awful lot." "They would never tell me anything because they were afraid that if I knew, I would be off in some bar in Vallarta telling the tale about what was going on. That's why I was never told. Because they were afraid I would blab."
But it is the paper trail that is convincing Mexican authorities Martin was involved in the fraud.
When Waage fired her, he gave her a year's severance pay. She said she invested $10,000 of that into what she thought was his thriving legal business.
Then he was arrested. When Waage found out she put thousands of dollars into his internet investment scam, he was already in a Mexican jail. From his cellphone inside the prison, Waage told a sobbing Martin that he would give her back her money.
He said he didn't want a paper trail leading to a Mexican bank, in any event. But it was too late by that point.
Taking the money out of her account and putting it into Waage's company, then having it transferred back to her account made it appear to investigators that Martin was laundering the money.
The judge in her case says he is not allowed to discuss the details, nor the evidence Mexican prosecutors have compiled, because Martin has asked that the information not be made public.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Seems pretty cut and dry to me. She said they would never tell her anything because she'd blab. If that was me I'd be suspicious somethings fishy. But still she invested $10,000 back into his company. Pretty cozy stuff giving money to someone who just fired her for a personal insult. Also why not realease the details of the case if your innocent?

[burn_this_city]

http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/me....html#timeline

The timeline also shows she's been lying to the media by saying no one from the government had gone to meet with her before it became a national story.

[Dion]

Originally Posted by burn_this_city

Didnt realize you were foreign to reading..
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I'll be sure to file your insult where it belongs.

As Martin tells it, she and Waage "drank an awful lot." "They would never tell me anything because they were afraid that if I knew, I would be off in some bar in Vallarta telling the tale about what was going on. That's why I was never told. Because they were afraid I would blab."
But it is the paper trail that is convincing Mexican authorities Martin was involved in the fraud.
When Waage fired her, he gave her a year's severance pay. She said she invested $10,000 of that into what she thought was his thriving legal business.
Then he was arrested. When Waage found out she put thousands of dollars into his internet investment scam, he was already in a Mexican jail. From his cellphone inside the prison, Waage told a sobbing Martin that he would give her back her money.
He said he didn't want a paper trail leading to a Mexican bank, in any event. But it was too late by that point.
Taking the money out of her account and putting it into Waage's company, then having it transferred back to her account made it appear to investigators that Martin was laundering the money.
The judge in her case says he is not allowed to discuss the details, nor the evidence Mexican prosecutors have compiled, because Martin has asked that the information not be made public.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Seems pretty cut and dry to me. She said they would never tell her anything because she'd blab. If that was me I'd be suspicious somethings fishy. But still she invested $10,000 back into his company. Pretty cozy stuff giving money to someone who just fired her for a personal insult. Also why not realease the details of the case if your innocent?

Since the judge was not allowed to discuss the details of this case we are left to speculate as to what the truth is. Given the corrupt nature of the Mexican justice system i have my doubts about the verdict and the fairness of the trial. That's my focus on this issue.

I don't know if she's guilty or not and would love to see a fair trial over this matter.

[old-fart]

Originally Posted by Dion

I'll be sure to file your insult where it belongs.



Since the judge was not allowed to discuss the details of this case we are left to speculate as to what the truth is. Given the corrupt nature of the Mexican justice system i have my doubts about the verdict and the fairness of the trial. That's my focus on this issue.

I don't know if she's guilty or not and would love to see a fair trial over this matter.

But the judge isn't allowed to discuss the details because Martin herself requested that it be kept confidential. If the evidence against her is so questionable, why is she requesting that it be kept confidential?

Also, so what if the Mexican justice system is corrupt as we see it? We are Canadians... they are Mexicans. They might think our justice system is pathetic in that we let known criminals go because of technicalities. Bottom line is it is their system, in their country and if you want to go live there, you do so under their rules and their systems. It's not like this was some satelite province of Canada that Brenda Martin went to, only to find out part way through her visit that it had become a wacky dictatorship that split off from Canada. If you are planning on moving to a country to work (and presumably live), you might want to do some research into that country, its customs and systems, etc before you take the plunge. If you don't, you do so at your own risk.

She took the risk, and she lost the gamble. Sucks for her, but don't try blaming the Canadian govenment for getting you into the mess - or not trying to get out of your own self-created mess fast enough. She made the bed, she had to lie in it.

[Dion]

Originally Posted by old-fart

But the judge isn't allowed to discuss the details because Martin herself requested that it be kept confidential. If the evidence against her is so questionable, why is she requesting that it be kept confidential?

I would like to know that also.

Also, so what if the Mexican justice system is corrupt as we see it? We are Canadians... they are Mexicans. They might think our justice system is pathetic in that we let known criminals go because of technicalities. Bottom line is it is their system, in their country and if you want to go live there, you do so under their rules and their systems. It's not like this was some satelite province of Canada that Brenda Martin went to, only to find out part way through her visit that it had become a wacky dictatorship that split off from Canada. If you are planning on moving to a country to work (and presumably live), you might want to do some research into that country, its customs and systems, etc before you take the plunge. If you don't, you do so at your own risk.

I agree that she's is guilty of not doing enough research.

She took the risk, and she lost the gamble. Sucks for her, but don't try blaming the Canadian govenment for getting you into the mess - or not trying to get out of your own self-created mess fast enough. She made the bed, she had to lie in it.

All she wanted was a fair trial. Is that too much to ask?

Or should we just ignore what goes on in other countries and tell Amnesty International to go fly a kite when they report human rights violations?

[old-fart]

Originally Posted by Dion

All she wanted was a fair trial. Is that too much to ask?

Or should we just ignore what goes on in other countries and tell Amnesty International to go fly a kite when they report human rights violations?

You don't know that she didn't get a fair trial. Mexico has a "guilty until proven innocent" system. It has for a very long time. She failed to prove herself innocent, therefore by their justice system she is guilty. By their rules, she received a fair trial. Just because we in Canada don't have the same justice system, does not mean she didn't recieve a fair trial by Mexcian definition, and that is what counts in this case since she was in Mexico.

Considering the lies that Ms. Martin has been caught in, it is not unreasonable to speculate that she did in fact receive a fair trail and the ruling was just.

Another interesting tidbit... she worked as a cook for 9 months but was fired for insulting her bosses mother and given a year's pay in severance of which she invested nearly half back into the illegal scheme her boss was running. Does that not strike anyone as more than a bit questionable? At the very large company I work for we generally give out one month severance for every year worked (to a max of 18 months) - but if fired with cause you get nothing.

As for Amnesty International, this isn't like Ms. Martin was a political prisoner being kept because she spoke out against the government. She wasn't being beaten daily. She was in a beauty pagent in the prison for cripes sake. AI has much bigger fish to fry than Ms. Martin. And yes, unless we are prepared to invade another sovereign country and impose our will on their people, we should be keeping our noses out of their justice department as best as we are able. From what I've seen, the Canadian Government has done everything we should reasonably expect from them in a situation like this.

[burn_this_city]

Originally Posted by Dion

I'll be sure to file your insult where it belongs.

Wasn't meant to be an insult so much as a semi-sarcastic jab..

Originally Posted by Dion

All she wanted was a fair trial. Is that too much to ask?

The only trial she wanted was one where she walked free. I agree with old-fart's sentiments...

[Dion]

Originally Posted by old-fart

You don't know that she didn't get a fair trial. Mexico has a "guilty until proven innocent" system. It has for a very long time. She failed to prove herself innocent, therefore by their justice system she is guilty. By their rules, she received a fair trial. Just because we in Canada don't have the same justice system, does not mean she didn't recieve a fair trial by Mexcian definition, and that is what counts in this case since she was in Mexico.

No, that's is not what counts. Their justice system is as crooked as a dogs hind leg - raising resonable doubt as to wether she got a fair trial. Even the Mexican govt has stated that their system needs to be overhauled.

Considering the lies that Ms. Martin has been caught in, it is not unreasonable to speculate that she did in fact receive a fair trail and the ruling was just.

I think it's stretch IMO to specualte she did get a fair trial.

Another interesting tidbit... she worked as a cook for 9 months but was fired for insulting her bosses mother and given a year's pay in severance of which she invested nearly half back into the illegal scheme her boss was running. Does that not strike anyone as more than a bit questionable? At the very large company I work for we generally give out one month severance for every year worked (to a max of 18 months) - but if fired with cause you get nothing.

Why would someone reinvest money into an illegal scheme if they knew what was going on? Esepecially since there would be a paper trail?

That too me raises doubts as to wether she knew what was going on.

As for Amnesty International, this isn't like Ms. Martin was a political prisoner being kept because she spoke out against the government. She wasn't being beaten daily. She was in a beauty pagent in the prison for cripes sake. AI has much bigger fish to fry than Ms. Martin. And yes, unless we are prepared to invade another sovereign country and impose our will on their people, we should be keeping our noses out of their justice department as best as we are able. From what I've seen, the Canadian Government has done everything we should reasonably expect from them in a situation like this.

I realise she's not a politcal prisoner. Still the report points out the corruption in the justice system.

[Dion]

Originally Posted by burn_this_city

Wasn't meant to be an insult so much as a semi-sarcastic jab..

You said....."Its not speculation, that was the evidence provided by the Mexican authorities following her conviction. "

All i asked for was this evidence the authorities had - not some newspaper clipping.

The only trial she wanted was one where she walked free. I agree with old-fart's sentiments...

I guess we'll agree to disagree on this issue

[troutman]

http://www.mexonline.com/lawreview.htm

Contrary to the beliefs widely held in the U.S. regarding the nature and function of Mexico's legal system, Mexico does, in fact, enjoy a highly evolved and organized legal system which with few exceptions is functional. The origins of Mexico's legal system are both ancient and classical, based on the Greek, Roman and French legal systems, and the Mexican system shares more in common with other legal systems throughout the world (especially those in Latin America and most of continental Europe) than does the U.S. legal system.

Mexican criminal law has several interesting and distinctive features. In Mexico, one is deemed guilty until proven innocent. No death penalty exists in Mexico, a feature Mexico shares with most Latin American countries for historic reasons. In Mexico, the commission of fraud is a criminal offense, unlike most fraud in the U.S., which is usually considered a civil "tort". In virtually all Mexican prisons, prisoners are allowed regular conjugal visits, and greater freedoms within the confines of the prisons, than in most U.S. penitentiaries. Mexican law never allows parole or bail on personal recognizance. An individual charged with a criminal offense must post a financial bond to be released on bail, which may not be available if the potential sentence in years surpasses a certain limit under a formula set forth in Mexico's Constitution.

http://www.mexlaw.com/best_websites/6_background.html

[old-fart]

Originally Posted by Dion

No, that's is not what counts. Their justice system is as crooked as a dogs hind leg - raising resonable doubt as to wether she got a fair trial. Even the Mexican govt has stated that their system needs to be overhauled.

It is what counts to me, because I think we should respect their system. We might not like their system, and we might be happy we don't have to live within that system, but it is their system. By living and working in their system, Ms. Martin submits herself to said system. Unless you can show me how the Mexican system treated Ms. Martin differently than any other person currently being processed by it, I fail to see the unfairness. Yes, compared to the Canadian system of "innocent until proven guilty" it is an unfair system. However, that is not the standard in play here. In Mexico, under their system, was Ms. Martin treated the same as any other accused person? I believe so, based on all available reports.

Originally Posted by Dion

I think it's stretch IMO to specualte she did get a fair trial.

Again, fair compared to others in Mexico accused of similar crimes. Considering the lies Ms. Martin has told and been caught in, she is not starting from the high moral ground in any "he said/she said" arguement.

Originally Posted by Dion

Why would someone reinvest money into an illegal scheme if they knew what was going on? Esepecially since there would be a paper trail?

That too me raises doubts as to wether she knew what was going on.

Well, it has been reported her boss bilked folks out of $60M along the way. I can see a situation where someone would want a piece of that action, especially if they were that close to the "kingpin". It's not like she randomly stumbled upon the website and decided to invest - she was friends with the kingpin and had just been given more money to go away than she had earned while in his employ. I've been at this company 10 and a half years now, and if they came to me and said "here's 14 years of your salary to go away", I'd be gone - but I'd wonder what was up as would everyone I told.

Originally Posted by Dion

I realise she's not a politcal prisoner. Still the report points out the corruption in the justice system.

Is there any evidence of this corruption in the case of Ms. Martin? I certainly haven't heard of any. Just because there has been corruption in the system doesn't mean the entire system is corrupt and it is impossible to get a fair (by their standards) trial.

[Dion]

Originally Posted by old-fart

It is what counts to me, because I think we should respect their system. We might not like their system, and we might be happy we don't have to live within that system, but it is their system. By living and working in their system, Ms. Martin submits herself to said system. Unless you can show me how the Mexican system treated Ms. Martin differently than any other person currently being processed by it, I fail to see the unfairness. Yes, compared to the Canadian system of "innocent until proven guilty" it is an unfair system. However, that is not the standard in play here. In Mexico, under their system, was Ms. Martin treated the same as any other accused person? I believe so, based on all available reports.

I disagree on respecting thier system because i don't support human rights violations.

Well, it has been reported her boss bilked folks out of $60M along the way. I can see a situation where someone would want a piece of that action, especially if they were that close to the "kingpin". It's not like she randomly stumbled upon the website and decided to invest - she was friends with the kingpin and had just been given more money to go away than she had earned while in his employ. I've been at this company 10 and a half years now, and if they came to me and said "here's 14 years of your salary to go away", I'd be gone - but I'd wonder what was up as would everyone I told.

I'd be wondering too.

Still i'd like to see all the facts in the case before i pass judgement om her.

Is there any evidence of this corruption in the case of Ms. Martin? I certainly haven't heard of any. Just because there has been corruption in the system doesn't mean the entire system is corrupt and it is impossible to get a fair (by their standards) trial.

Who's to say with all the political pressure the Mexican judicial system/govt was under that they decided to find her guilty to save face and have her shipped out of their country and off their hands.

Seriously, how can one prove one way or another if there was or wasn't any corruption if we don't have all the facts. There's enough history in the judical system to suggest it can happen.

[CaptainCrunch]

I'm just pissed off that we (as in the taxpayers) footed the bill for her fine (Supposedly a loan but there's no way she's paying it back), if her family was so darn eager to move the chains of justice they could have come up with the cash. then we send down a private jet to pick her up, again at taxpayers expense.

Now she's going to get to come home, probably be put in a cushy cabin prison while the paper work processes and be free.

I think that she's pretty much gotten away with her role in a scam.

[Dion]

18 months without any contact:

Toronto lawyer, Guillermo Cruz Rico, said that a review of the legal file showed that consulate officials were notified of Martin’s incarceration on Feb. 18, 2006, but it was not until Dec. 14, 2007, that a representative made official inquiries to the Mexican court about her legal status.

http://www.collingwoodconnection.com/article/64460

Who do you believe.

In January, Ms. Guergis travelled to Mexico and met with that country's attorney-general, foreign minister and other officials and asked for Ms. Martin's legal proceedings to be expedited. Despite being 20 minutes from Ms. Martin's prison cell, she did not visit her. "That's not my job. There are 13 Canadians in Mexican jails and if I visit one, I have to visit them all," she said in an interview last night. "It's not my job to meet them -- it's my job to advocate for them."

"This is a so-called Secretary of State who is given to condescending remarks and running away from cameras when she is asked to explain herself," Mr. McTeague said. "She didn't go to the prison when she was only 18 minutes away to see a woman who's been mistreated by a judicial system as random as the weather."

http://www.nationalpost.com/most_pop...html?id=366097

[Dion]

Cruz reviewed Martin's file and found there was no evidence to support the charge against her. He also found she had never been provided with an interpreter either by police or the courts, a breach of both Mexican and international law

The judge however, accepted the prosecution's contention that although it had no direct evidence that Martin had knowingly accepted the money - about $26,000 in total -- there was enough circumstantial evidence to "infer" she must have known. In Mexico, accused persons must prove their innocence; the prosecution is not obliged to prove guilt.

http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/n...18e4cc&k=69527

[burn_this_city]

Gosh I've never heard of a defence attorney lying on someone's behalf before.

Why did a leaked government document show they had visited her and contacted her numerous times before then?

[Dion]

Originally Posted by burn_this_city

Gosh I've never heard of a defence attorney lying on someone's behalf before.

Why did a leaked government document show they had visited her and contacted her numerous times before then?

And we should trust a govt who broke privacy laws by leaking information?

[burn_this_city]

Originally Posted by Dion

And we should trust a govt who broke privacy laws by leaking information?

Its a little easier to believe that than someone who was arrested and convicted of a crime. Its obvious she was doing whatever she could to get out of mexican jail. Even if that meant making the Canadian government look like they abandoned her. She tried all sorts of different approaches, attempting suicide, launching constitutional appeals ect.
Someone who works in a country illegally for 8 years without paying a dime of tax isnt exactly a model citizen.

[Dion]

Originally Posted by burn_this_city

Its a little easier to believe that than someone who was arrested and convicted of a crime. Its obvious she was doing whatever she could to get out of mexican jail. Even if that meant making the Canadian government look like they abandoned her. She tried all sorts of different approaches, attempting suicide, launching constitutional appeals ect.
Someone who works in a country illegally for 8 years without paying a dime of tax isnt exactly a model citizen.

I find it hard to believe that a defence lawyer would lie. At the same time i'm scratching my head as to why documents were leaked.

You have the govts view and her lawyers view. Some where in between is the truth. It's that truth that i would like to see.

Martin herself was convicted on infered evidence as there was no direct link to her and the crime. Add to the fact the onus is on the defence to prove innocence, it's no wonder the judge sided with the prosecution. Guilty beyond reasonable doubt doesn't seem to apply to mexican law.

As for her working illegally, get her for back taxes owed.