Talk:John Gerich

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled[edit]

It wasn't just PC MLA's convicted for fraud. I believe there was also a Liberal member convicted for fraud, and don't forget the late Murray Koskie, a NDP MLA, convicted of fraud, also related to expense accounts.

Also a non-MLA was convicted as well (John Scraba), in the same series of prosecutions.

64.110.251.69 17:04, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A source? What about oral history? Aren't oral histories, from people actually alive during the era acceptable on Wikipedia?

I guess I could look up the GDP growth and population growth figures. It is a well-known fact that Saskatchewan's population did hit an all-time high, and the liquidation of inefficiently run state-owned enterprises has proven to be a boon to the Saskatchewan economy.

64.110.251.69 18:31, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

R. v. Koskie, SKCA 95125, Judgement October 1, 1995. Murray Koskie served as a member of the NDP caucus.

Go here:

http://www.lawsociety.sk.ca/newlook/Library/fulltextnew.htm

And enter the words "Murray Koskie" into "Fulltext (keywords)".


R. v. Baker, R. v. Berntson, R. v. Hopfner, R. v. Katzman, R. v. McLaren might also interest you, in the mid 1990s, while you are looking things up.

Should give you lots of reading material.

64.110.251.69 05:09, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article, in its current form, is little more than an attack piece against the NDP. Perhaps we should limit our focus to the subject, and not tie in unrelated innuendo. CJCurrie 00:20, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edit the article than. (unsigned, by MKnight)

  • I may just do that at some point. Until then, let's not hide the fact that there's a dispute. CJCurrie 01:14, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Where's the 'attack' on the NDP here?64.110.251.69 01:53, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The prosecutions, during the mid-1990s, described by some outside observers as being little more than a politically-motivated vendetta by the Saskatchewan New Democratic Party (NDP), engulfed many former members of the Progressive Conservative caucus. A member of the NDP caucus was also convicted of fraud. [1]

One might almost forget this is a biography of John Gerich. CJCurrie 02:01, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know...if the Tory fraud scandal is so important (and it seems to always come up as the main theme of NDP campaigns here), perhaps a wikipedia page of its own is in order. A centralized page would be so much easier, for instance, then repeating the details of the 1980s false invoice scheme on each page involving the Progressive Conservative Party of Saskatchewan.

I don't have an account (too lazy to sign up for one), but "Saskatchewan Progressive Conservative Fraud Scandal" wouldn't be a hard page to create on wiki, and plenty of material is available online just in the form of judgements from the Law Society. There's also a book called "SaskScandal" that also gives a decent rundown of the scandal -- I have a copy kicking around here somewhere -- maybe I could find it and help out.

64.110.251.69 17:16, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

References Required[edit]

This article is heavy on the violations of WP:BLP. If citations cannot be provided for the assertions made in the article, the bulk of the content will have to be removed.

If the facts are as described in the article, then references will surely be available. A quick glance at Google indicates that there are references that could be used. Please use them. —GrantNeufeld 22:07, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop with the back and forth editing here and instead do a little research to come up with some citations. If the absence of any citations persists, I will move to delete the bulk of the content here — no matter how factual. (If it is factual, surely you can find some references.) —GrantNeufeld 04:09, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GrantNeufeld, the NDP Political Prosecutors that handled the prosecution of former PC MLA's and other staff left no stone unturned in their pursuit of political retribution. If receiving liquor from the Liquor Board was against the law, and wasn't a common practice within the legislature, there can be no doubt that the perpretrators would have been charged with breach of trust or whatever offence woulud have been relevant to the circumstaces.

The fact that a charge was never laid relating to liquor is prima facie proof, in these political trials, that the NDP prosecutors knew that the people who ordered the liquor had many legitimate defenses available to them including, but not limited to, the fact that receiving a small amount of supplies from the liquor board was common practice under governments of all stripes; NDP, Liberal, and PC.

207.195.45.62 00:03, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your saying it does not make it so. Please provide a citation (or more) to back up your claims. I am not saying anything on the the article, or anything that you’re saying, is true or false (I personally don’t care either way). I am saying that nothing on the article has a reference or citation to verify it. Please refer to Wikipedia:Citing sources for details on providing citations for articles on Wikipedia. Please also refer to Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons which is a Wikipedia policy that must be adhered to for articles on this website. —GrantNeufeld 00:36, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Neufeld, I've seen you on TV pushing socialist causes, and your ideological background is well known not only on wikipedia, but also in the Canadian media. Please stop pushing your positions here here blatently. I am fully familiar with wikipedia policies, and the onus is just as much on me to provide proof, as it is upon you to provide proof that obtaining liquor from the liquor board was unlawful.

The fact that the political prosecutions of former PC MLA's and caucus workers did not result in anyone being charged in relationship to this well documented and publicized incident, as I claimed above, is prima facie proof that no laws were broken, ostensibly because obtaining liquor was a long-time practice of governments previous.

207.195.45.62 02:02, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I am not saying that what you are saying is untrue (I have no idea regarding the accuracy of anything said in the article as I have never looked into the subject of this article). I am saying that no contributor to this article has provided any citations for the content of this article. If what you have contributed to the article is “well documented” as you say it is, then surely you should be able to find citations to include in the article. Please do so.
Further, I would ask you to refrain from personal attacks. I am not attacking you or your viewpoints. I am only asking that the policies of Wikipedia be adhered to. —GrantNeufeld 03:39, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please refrain from personal attacks please 207.195.45.62. Grant is right, you do need to cite your sources. GreenJoe 04:42, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Now the next issue; many of the people convicted of fraud did not receive a personal benefit from the scheme devised by Scraba, but rather, used the money to purchase things such as computers for their constituency offices, PA systems to communicate with constituents, and a saddle embroidered with "Gerry Muirhead, MLA".

The expenses themselves were not 'false', in that, they actually were incurred and backed by the actual purchase of goods and services, but the claims themselves were made in an dishonest fashion (ie: claiming the saddle under a similar category as sending out mailings to constituents). (although, yes it is true that many of the convicted MLA's pocketed cash from Scraba).

How should this be dealt with? Is that an example of a 'false' claim, a 'fraudulent' claim, an 'innaccurate' claim, or an 'unauthorized' claim?

207.195.45.62 03:11, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If it seems that a single word or phrase would not provide sufficient elaboration, I would suggest that as many words be used as are needed to accurately describe what took place. If the phrase “false claim” does not apply in a particular case, one might instead explain the details of what actually took place. —GrantNeufeld 05:26, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I personally think 'false' nicely covers the details that 207.195.45.6 has described here (as would fraudulent, fake, bogus) but 'unauthorized' doesn't. Yes, a description of what actually took place could be added, as Grant suggests, but as a caveat, no information should be added unless you can find a Reliable source for it and cite it. The details you mention are not in the news reports I found, for example. There is lots of info out there, but they mostly come from websites that WP would judge unreliable for this article about a living person. Slp1 13:34, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well I used unauthorized because the expenses had, in many instances, actually been incurred, but to purchase items that were not authorized per the rules of the Legislative Assembly. The use of falsified expense claims for unauthorized items thus were fraudulent.

Before specific wording is added to Gerich's article, obviously, the specific circumstances of his case would have to be examined, to determine an appropriate wording, but some of the MLA's, Gerry Muirhead in particular, did not personally benefit from the frauds they were convicted of.

There's a book, "SaskScandal" that fairly elaborately lays out the prosecutions.

http://www.amazon.com/SaskScandal-death-political-idealism-Saskatchewan/dp/1894004582

207.195.45.62 14:02, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

16 MLAs and causus vs 16 Conservatives[edit]

An IP address 207.195.45.62 keeps changing 16 Conservatives to 16 MLAs claiming that one of the MLAs convicted in this particular scandal.
Here is a Canadian Press article, one of many I have retrieved, with the listing of all 16 of those convicted. Please note that they are not all MLAs but they are all Conservatives. Murray Koskie may have been convicted of fraud too, but it is not considered part of this scandal by any source I have checked, which includes CBC, Winnipeg Free Press, multiple Globe and Mail articles, Saturday Night etc. Please stop entering false information into the article, which is disputed by many many reliable sources.
With BC-CRIME-Tory-Fraud 01 November 2000

Ralph Katzman, former member of the legislature for Rostern, was found guilty of fraud, breach of trust and theft on Tuesday. A list other Conservatives convicted of fraud or breach of trust in Saskatchewan's corruption scandal:
Bob Andrew: Former justice minister fined $5,500 plus restitution of $4,500.
Harry Baker: Former MLA given one-year conditional sentence; ordered to pay back $22,545 and perform 200 hours of community service.
Eric Berntson: Former deputy premier, now senator, sentenced to one year in jail for fraud, plus restitution of $41,735. Saskatchewan Court of Appeal upheld conviction, sentence. Has appealed to Supreme Court.
Joan Duncan: Former minister of economic development and tourism fined $5,000, plus $12,405 restitution
.
John Gerich: Former associate minister of economic development and tourism sentenced to two years; ordered to pay $12,264 restitution.
Grant Hodgins: Former government house leader granted conditional discharge; ordered to pay restitution of $3,645.
Michael Hopfner: Former MLA sentenced to 18 months; ordered to pay $56,000 restitution.
Harold Martens: Former associate minister of agriculture given a conditional discharge; ordered to make restitution of $5,850.
Beattie Martin: Former minister of the family granted a conditional discharge; placed on probation for one year; ordered to perform 200 hours community service.
Michael McCafferty: Former caucus worker sentenced to one-year term to be served in the community and 60 hours community service.
Lorne McLaren: Former MLA sentenced to 3{ years; no restitution.
Ray Meiklejohn: Former minister of education granted conditional discharge; ordered to pay $4,500 restitution.
Gerald Muirhead: Former cabinet minister fined $5,000.
Sherwin Petersen: Former highways minister granted a conditional discharge; placed on three years' probation and ordered to pay back $9,285.
John Scraba: Former caucus communications director sentenced to two years and ordered to pay $12,000 restitution.

--Slp1 22:52, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.parl.gc.ca/Infoparl/english/issue.htm?param=153&art=1044

"Murray Koskie, who had resigned from cabinet in June 1993 because of a police investigation into the misuse of his MLA communications allowance, was convicted on two counts of fraud and subsequently sentenced on March 10, 1995. "

As in the first paragraph of this talk page, you can find the case on the Law Society's website under R. v. Koskie.

The scandal itself was that so many members of the Legislative Assembly could commit wrongdoing. Its really not fair to single out Progressive Conservative members since the fraud was not obviously not confined to PC MLA's. Maybe that makes better headlines in the wiki, but its really not the case.

207.195.45.62 03:48, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for discussing this on the talkpage rather than just reverting. Three things:
First, your edit is numerically incorrect. If we accept that Koskie is part of this particular scandal (which I don't, see below, but anyway) then the number should be 17.
Second, all the reliable sources that I have to date, talk about this as a Conservative scandal. That includes many, many articles downloaded from ProQuest as well as the CBC article.[1] I have cited a few in the article, but there are many more I could add. Not one mentions Koskie as part of this affair. Unless you can provide a citation from a reliable source saying something different, what you are doing is Original research which is not allowed here. Possibly you are unaware of the Wikipedia policy of verifiability in which we get the sentence,"The threshold for inclusion is verifiablity, not truth".
Thirdly, I am curious why you have also frequently remove Gerich from the the category of "SK Progressive Conservative MLAs", and change it to "SK MLAs". [2][3][4] etc, though I note you didn't do it last night. What is your reasoning for this?
I personally am not going to revert again for now, to give you time to find a reliable source for your claim. But if you can't do so within a day or so, I will change it back to what is currently the verifiable version --Slp1 11:57, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Six days have passed for reliable sources to be produced, and nothing has appeared. I have reverted to sourced version. Please do not change again without providing a source. Note from WP:V "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation." Slp1 14:30, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rewrite?[edit]

Rather than reverting back and forth, can we attempt a re-write? Not being from Saskatchewan, I had to go through the references and do some research to understand the issue a bit. It seems clear to me that it was a big Conservative scandal because they had been in power at the time of the frauds (though defeated by the time of arrests) and nearly all were Tories. It is quite true, however, that Koskie was convicted of the same kind of offence as a result of the investigation. R v Koskie

The CBC story suggests that Project Fiddle was aimed at John Scraba and the MLAs who used his dummy companies for bogus expense claims.

In her book, Minding the Public Purse, Janice MacKinnon wrote that "Although only a few were directly involved in Project Fiddle, the RCMP uncovered other wrongdoing; for instance, the New Democrat MLA Murray Koskie was convicted of a separate fraud, and former cabinet minister Joan Duncan... The investigation also caught in its net those who might otherwise have been considered to have acted carelessly or used bad judgment; for instance Bob Andrew ... and Grant Hodgins..." see page 53 of Minding the Public Purse.

I'm going to attempt a rewrite on the article that just focuses this article on Gerich himself. If someone wants to write on the rest of the scandal, that could be a separate article for more details. DoubleBlue (Talk) 21:34, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this, and for finding a source that links Koskie to Operation Fiddle in any way, and which has been sorely missing thus far. I must, however, say that the MacKinnon book states that Koskie was involved in a separate scandal (ie not Project Fiddle per se) which seems to concur with the sources which mention only Tories in connection to this particular scandal (as noted above). I am not from SK either, and I had never heard of this scandal, but I do maintain that the IP addresses were wrong to change sourced information to something that those sources did not contain. Several requests were made for some sourced linkage between the cases the Koskie and Gerich cases to be found. You have finally found a link, more or less, for which I thank you. I think the proposal to focus on Gerich is a good one, and there is lots of information in the articles from Factiva which can be used to expand the article and the information about him.Slp1 22:17, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd desperately like to see a seperate wiki article that chronicles the fraud investigations and prosecutions of the 1990s, including the convictions of the Tory and NDP MLA's in question. Centralizing the information concerning the prosecutions, and then providing a link, IMHO, would be a much better idea than putting little bits and pieces. Having the information on wikipedia would be very noteworthy as well, as political corruption is a very serious issue that must never be forgotten. Its certainly no secret that Tories were disproportionately involved in frauds at the legislature, but fraud by non-tory members shouldn't be overlooked.

71.17.53.254 22:48, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on John Gerich. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:25, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on John Gerich. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:48, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:John_Gerich&oldid=1198571519"