Councillor ousted over faked email
By Nancy Macdonald - Thursday, June 11, 2009 - 3 Comments
The fictitious Bakers made a good point, Coleridge said
Can B.C. politicians lie their way into office? Not anymore, says a new court ruling, which has turfed out 22-year veteran White Rock city councillor James Coleridge—the longest-serving member on council—for engaging in “deceit and lies” during last fall’s election campaign in the Metro Vancouver suburb.
Last October his wife wrote a widely circulated email using the false names “Allison and Tom Baker.” The email alleged that several candidates were running a secret, pro-development slate that would foist high-rises on bucolic White Rock. Rather than keep his mouth shut, Coleridge, who learned immediately of the fraud perpetrated by his wife, told reporters that the “Bakers” had raised a good point. When confronted with evidence the email was sent from his home, Coleridge first denied any knowledge, and claimed to have been the victim of identity theft. Then, in court, he said he was trying to protect his pregnant wife, Anna. He later testified that he’d partially authored the email.
-
Just where are those billions for infrastructure going exactly?
By Philippe Gohier - Wednesday, April 8, 2009 at 7:06 PM - 2 Comments
I’ll admit it: DMA has been pretty hard on the ADQ. I’d apologize if…
I’ll admit it: DMA has been pretty hard on the ADQ. I’d apologize if I felt it was unwarranted but, alas, I don’t. That said, when props are due, they are awarded.The ADQ had its first good idea in a long while yesterday when they called for an inquiry into the dodgier elements in Quebec’s construction industry. Interim leader Sylvie Roy, who was last seen championing an out-of-nowhere campaign against pedophiles, says the Charest government should look into the corruption allegations before it begins pouring $43 billion into the sector by way of infrastructure spending. And it’s a request that appears to be getting more reasonable by the day.
Let’s recap: Continue…
-
How busting Madoff cost the U.S. government billions
By Philippe Gohier - Monday, December 29, 2008 at 2:42 PM - 6 Comments
Over at the American Interest editorial blog, economist Peter Heller looks at where the…
Over at the American Interest editorial blog, economist Peter Heller looks at where the money from Bernard Madoff’s $50-billion ponzi scheme might have gone:
First, one must assume that some of the capital simply went to support Mr. Madoff and his life style of an apartment in Manhattan, fancy houses in Montauk and Palm Beach, and if I recollect from the news, a house or apartment in Europe. I also seem to recall yachts with the name of “Bull,” as well as country club memberships in Palm Beach and the Hamptons. All of this does not come cheap, and one may assume that Mr. Madoff pocketed and spent, after tax, at least $25 million a year—or $35 million pretax– (my ignorance of this standard of living may mean that I have underestimated what such a life style costs by a factor of two or three even). But there is also significant overhead to the production of Ponzi income of this magnitude. Add three floors of rent in the so-called Lipstick building of Manhattan, as well as the overhead costs of the employees and other running costs of his legitimate securities transactions business (presumably including at least two well-paid sons and other relatives), and we can potentially account for another $40 million in expenses (again, my numbers are completely arbitrary). So this would imply that Madoff would have had to have annual inflows of capital to his operation of at least $75 million to cover these costs.
