The Queen can do no wrong

[viper37]

God save the little Queen!

Ex-Lt.-Gov. invokes royal prerogative to annul fraud trial

QUEBEC CITY – Former Lt.-Gov. Lise Thibault, accused of using taxpayer dollars as her personal spending account, wants to invoke royal prerogative to have her fraud trial annulled.
Royal prerogative is the collection of rights held by the Queen or her designates — the Governor General and lieutenant governors — that can technically override Canadian law.
Thibault is accused of bilking taxpayers of $700,000 but she said "the Queen can do no wrong" and that as the monarch's representative, she cannot be charged with the alleged crime.
The motion, filed in Superior Court, says Judge Michel Auger erred in law earlier this year when he ruled there's enough evidence to proceed to trial.
Thibault's motion will be heard Friday in Quebec City.
She faces six charges, including two counts of fraud, one count of breach of trust, fabrication of false documents and using false documents related to her 10-year reign.
The federal and provincial auditors general blasted Thibault for allegedly using expense accounts for an array of personal items.
The federal report showed she double-billed the federal and provincial governments to the tune of $129,000.
More than $1.7 million was paid out to the former Quebec viceroy between April 1997 and March 2007.
About $1 million was spent on official duties, while the rest went to expenses already covered by the Quebec government or for activities not related to official duties, the audit found.
On some of Thibault's travel claims, the only agenda item listed was golfing or skiing.
Among the receipts that raised eyebrows are those for a $59,000 garden party, a $30,000 Christmas party and bills for three different meals that were had simultaneously at three different restaurants.

Ah, the wonders of living in a monarchy   Some people do get delusions of grandeur.

[CountDeMoney]

but she said "the Queen can do no wrong" and that as the monarch's representative, she cannot be charged with the alleged crime.

So what's the Queen think?

[Scipio]

Sovereign immunity don't mean what she thinks it means.  And shit.

[Drakken]

Representatives of the Queen are not Heads of State, and they certainly re not the Sovereign, and thus don't have immunity.

She knows it, she's throwing the dice in case she falls on the one judge that is too dumb to seat on a tribunal.

[CountDeMoney]

You know what would be ballsy as all hell?  Queen Elizabeth firing her.  In public.

It'd be like Reagan shitcanning the ATCs, but with a better wave.

[DontSayBanana]

You know what would be ballsy as all hell?  Queen Elizabeth firing her.  In public.

It'd be like Reagan shitcanning the ATCs, but with a better wave.

Projection, queen's response: "The queen can do no wrong, but the queen can err, and clearly did so in placing trust in this individual.  Your personal expenses are not made in my name, so no royal prerogative for you."

[Drakken]

You know what would be ballsy as all hell?  Queen Elizabeth firing her.  In public.

She's already fired, she's not lieutenant-governor anymore.

[CountDeMoney]

You know what would be ballsy as all hell?  Queen Elizabeth firing her.  In public.

She's already fired, she's not lieutenant-governor anymore.

Gotcha. 

I thought "former" was maybe some sort of French Quebecois thing.   Yeah.  That's it.

[viper37]

Representatives of the Queen are not Heads of State, and they certainly re not the Sovereign, and thus don't have immunity.

She knows it, she's throwing the dice in case she falls on the one judge that is too dumb to seat on a tribunal.

of course they don't have immunity and of course she knows it.  It's a dealying tactic, but one that will have to be carefully studied before the judge can answer that request.  Hence, more time, more costs to us.  All of this because we insist on keeping old useless traditions.

[Josquius]

I was just having an argument about this kind of thing with my friend yesterday.
He was being stupid and republican and one of his arguments was the royals aren't held by the law. I of course said if a royal does commit a crime and could get away with it technically then the government would quickly change some rules and do some legal jiggery pokery so they could be prosecuted.
Will be interesting to see how this works out.

[Richard Hakluyt]

Well now, Charles I was executed for the crime of high treason. I also recall Princess Anne getting done for speeding on several occasions when she was younger.

Then there is Parliamentary Privilege, a partial immunity to certain laws so that legislators can speak freely about matters of public concern.

But I wouldn't think that the Royal Prerogative extends to expenses fiddling, the costs of throwing out this case should be added to her punishment imo.

[Camerus]

This story illustrates well the Canadian French-English divide.

French:  "The wonders of living in a monarchy!"   
English:  "Oh, just another corruption story from Quebec!"   

[Martinus]

I think the thread title is debatable. After Freddy they didn't have that many hits anymore.

[Grey Fox]

Representatives of the Queen are not Heads of State, and they certainly re not the Sovereign, and thus don't have immunity.

She knows it, she's throwing the dice in case she falls on the one judge that is too dumb to seat on a tribunal.

of course they don't have immunity and of course she knows it.  It's a dealying tactic, but one that will have to be carefully studied before the judge can answer that request.  Hence, more time, more costs to us.  All of this because we insist on keeping old useless traditions.

This case is mostly because we keep hammering that nail. Let it rest already. All this crap for 700k?

[Viking]

but she said "the Queen can do no wrong" and that as the monarch's representative, she cannot be charged with the alleged crime.

So what's the Queen think?

Whatever Stephen Harper tells her to think.