Any RCMP members out there?

Yhat confirms my point of view, wanting something is one thing doing it right is another. Will check whit leagle team for advise and comments. For now I think the holidays should be on my mind. We should continue this in january.

Hello Georges, as per your question, from my experience, there can never be any restriction in any settlement that restricts any aggrieved person from seeking a criminal investigation in exchange for a monetary settlement such as what might evolve from the current situation. Keep in mind that even if it were possible, any member of the public not personally accountable could make a criminal complaint. Any complaint received by a police authority is left to the Crown's descretion. However its not uncommon for one side of a civil settlement to agree to desist or not seek a furtherance on the subject matter in exchange for a settlement. Again, Georges I really believe that it would be best to leave this to our legal counsel for a decision, who are best suited to provide legal advice on any and all of these questions. When you make a complaint to police you must know exactly what the offence might be and from my experience, file workloads etc., we're not likely to entertain a fishing expedition to develop the complainant's theory of a personal injustice after the fact. You should be well prepared for your interview (including evidentiary documentation) and know exactly how you were deceived, when it occurred and by what means.
Personally, I'm comfortable with the civil process even though we've been turned inside out it still the best course of action but each victim of these circumstances will have to make this decision either on their own or with legal counsel. Having said this I certaintly don't want you to rely on my opinion alone. Thanks Georges, I do understand how this mess can be very over whelming, its the nature of the beast!

10-04 horseman, the problem I'm facing is that the GOG never takes responsability for there actions. Never the less, in the agreement terms we will recieve, there will be or could be a claws that ptevent us from taking further actions on this claim. Could that include criminal charges against this gouverment? Secondly, for this criminal case to go forwered it would have to be prouved that the acted whit intent to do harm. No very easy to do!!!!! Would the RCMP look into the mater? I think so!!! would it go to court? Not If we do not go public. Have already spoken to jurnalist about the mater they would be ready to go public.

Well said Sir.

One Veteran. One Standard.

Just so everyone is clear, a Victim Impact Statement (VIS) is a review often required by the Court prior to it passing judgement in a particular case. The purpose of the VIS is to inform the court of the damage,if any was caused by the party or parties.
Teentiton has requested that those involved in the SISIP LTD wait until each class member has received the settlement offer prior to submitting their VIS. To me this makes good sense notwithstanding our burgeoning need to vent our anger in the direction of those responsible. Legal Counsel must spend all of its present schedule solely on settlements negotiations and likely lacks the economy of time on their schedule to deal with individual VIS until this integral step in the process is completed. However after each class member receives his/her settlement proposal and has had time to digest it contents then we'll have an opportunity to develop our own VIS prior to this matter being finally settled by the Court..
If I may suggest, your complaints or VIS should detail all of your specific personal concerns with with respect to injuries,family economics and the impact all of this has had on each person in your family. For example if you have the misfortune of suffering the dreaded PTSD, this little exercise is certainly not of any benefit to your condition and more then likely aggravating any benefit your physcian might achieved on your behalf. The arbitrary clawback of the SISIP Insurance Policy has now been ruled clearly as illegal but no references were made in the judgement that it might be both civil and criminal in nature. This is a subject upon which McInnes-Cooper might provide insight once it has time to spend on this question.

I'm assuming that each Impact Statement would be forwarded to the court via our Legal Counsel. As for any Criminal Charges, from my experiences,I don't personally believe this action has the legs to meet the very strict criteria that it would require as a criminal investigation but as I previously noted we should leave that question for McInnes-Cooper . But having said that I most firmly and sincerely believe that the government knew well in advance that their dispicable behaviour toward veterans was egregious and shameful on so many levels. For example at one point in Manuge Vs GoC government lawyers had the audacity to bully "one" veteran, metaphorically speaking, who was attempting to have the Federal Court recognize the known fact that he was not alone in his plight, there were many more veterans individual and severally victimized by these abusive clawback practices and so it makes good sense that the entire matter be represented as a Class Action. The Government lawyers, never to be out one of course, argued that each complaint should be handled individually and be left to stand on its own merit. The court eventually ruled in favour of the plaintiff and as such the Class Action was put in play. But the point I'm trying to make here is this, ask yourself why the GoC would ever advocate that thousands of potential victims should be forced to file into court each stating the same thing? It has already taken almost six years to get to this point, can you imagine how long it would have taken to hear 2-3 thousand cases? I don't know, but I remain suspicious of their intended purpose?

As most of you know by now,my concern in this entire charade is that the GoC failed miserably to exhibit any shred of common decency and respect whatsoever for its veterans from the very first day Mr Munage and Mr. Buote (RCMP) (rip) filed suit. They had to have known that their interpretation of policy was feeble at best and there deliberate actions were at best a smoke screen to buy time, all in the name of some creative spin they dreamed up to push this matter into the next century.
I'm a relatively new member on this forum this year and I can see from the many many comments that the sting of this awful deceipt really hurts and continues for many as a central focus of their daily routine and that is just not right! Did this Government expect anything less? Why did they continued to pour salt on our collective wounds is beyond words. This goes to the core and soul of each Veteran who stood proudly in front of our flag while swearing their allegiance and oath of office. The many who consciously believed this was their Country that in spite of its political indifferences would never force a Veteran to his/her knees to beg for their basic benefits!

Horseman - I like where your head is at and totally agree with what you said. Governments change regularly but yet the bureacrat's stay the same. These, the bureacrat's, are the ones that should be charged for the way they handled the issue. It was not public money, but belonged to those that paid into it over all those years. they basically stole from us!

Look at my profile, if your close, give me a call and we can at least meet!

Cheers,

jeffery i posted somthing in the your comments form you might be interested in have a look.

propat

Excellent. Now I think we're getting somewhere. And all these ministers and departments are accessories to the crime.

What I find most interesting...now that I have had some time to think and several years to adjust to my disabilities..is that the GOC treatment of veterans has given my life a new direction.

They might want to try to flight straight, before they have me and others further disrupting their illegal activities.

Brave man, Georges

good for you georges.

allways question athority
propat

what is a Victim Impact Statement? I've taken my decision I will make a complaint to the RCMP.

Putting, a Bad Policy label on the GoC and its current custodians is to suggest that someone could get off for just being stupid. That is too kind of a phrase which seems to vindicate poor judgement as just a human thing and nothing more then a mortal shortcoming. How can we excuse the Department of Justice with all of its learned deciples of the deny,delay principles who know from experience that adding another case to the Court Docket system can "delay" any matter well into the next election. No, gentlemen this is not Bad Policy this clawback action was nothing more than a purposeful, hurtful, selfishly intended minipulation of our basic rights and should be charactized as a Bureacratic Abuse.Their cuplability and deceipt was delivered in a loud "Unreservedly" intoned message from the halls of justice, the only place in Canada where political misadventure cannot be hidden by clever doublespeak!
Well now thanks to the more pro-active pioneers for justice among us and McInnes-Cooper's incredible counsel, the deny and delay tactic ended on May 2nd of this year and then after a little theatrics and more time delay at our expense, I might add, a pretentious bureaucrat tossed in the white towel while spewing their spin that the their pathetic intentions in all of this was to obtain a legal decision before spending public funds to compensate veterans. I waited anxiously to hear someone say, but Sir they weren't public funds in the first place.
In my opinion its imperative that a Victim Impact Statement be submitted to the courts to bring this entire matter to the public's attention. This is certainly a case where the Federal Government must consider the damages it inflicted on veterans and their families and take responsibility for all costs related to the proposed settlement. To do anything less is to perpetuate the abuse.

Roger that brother!

jeffey i do understand that and agree buds i was just trying to point out this is far easier to accomplish if the actions were in fact elligal as opposed to bad policy and i belive the actions were illegal.

propat

I know many don't want to see the wrong people brenefit from this. I certainly don't want this government to go unscathed. They continued the practice knowingly. I did not vote Conservative during this past Federal Election. They are not what I want representing me as a 'Canadian'.

One Veteran. One Standard.