It's a damn good question. Why have no previous news reports covered this part of the story?

I hope she is okay, although it doesn't sound like it.

If this is true it would certainly make his claim that 'it was a very good experience' look awkward.

Harper should give him the boot immediately.

Just goes to show that the only the party capable of getting tough on criminals is the NDP.

Hogwash, Svend Robinson has twice convicted of crimes- the last one stealing a $50,000 ring. By Jack letting Svend run, he is hardly tough on criminals.

Now I hear this candidate has to answer some kind of smuggling charges laid by Canada Customs. Somthing about bringing back a pile of liquor from the States.

Accused of smuggling liquour and a car. And he works for the Federal government.
Thought he could keep this secret until after the election. Not too bright..

no, the guy's not too bright, not too bright at all. perfect tory cabinet material.

Nobody in this party is too happy about that ring-stealing guy running again. but he's just one. And at least he's only a danger to himself...

It's triggered a deep and meaningful discussion on the role of ethics and governing over on Free Dominion.Solutuons to this dilema range from unplugging his respirator to letting him run if he promises to resign if convicted. Tricky stuff! Being squeaky clean may be not be as easy as the Conservatives think.

Whats tricky is that the conservatives couldn't replace him even if they wanted to. Which they probably do

You know Dagmar, it's crazy talk like suggesting thieves are only a threat to themselves that ensure no one believes Jack Layton when he talks about getting tough on crime.

Although it may be difficult to believe, people with bipolar are known to do exceptional things that defy explanation. People familiar with bipolar are a lot more sympathetic to Svend than those who know little.

Yah right, even though Svend came out just before the election ans said for the first time that it was only "mild" bipolar disorder.

jreilly: those "crimes" you mention, done by Svend Robinson, was one of them about a logging protest? And the other one about a ring which was returned to the owner?

If so, we might yearn for many more criminals like Svend in this weary old world of fraud, influence peddling, money-laundering, and gerrymandering.

My god that is BS Pie-in-the-sky. Svend got a lighter sentence than he otherwise would have because the judge took into account, in part, the loss of his political career. Now that Svend has received his lesser sentence he jumps back into politics and also says that the mental disorder that caused him to steal the ring is now only "mild". "Shameless" and "transparent" are words that come to mind.

Disdain for the law us commoners have to follow is nothing new for Svend, anyone else remember his role in the assisted suicide of Sue Rodriguez?

Hmmm... so now that it looks like Zeisman might be headed off to prison for reckless driving causing bodily injury and smuggling, and that the Party has pretended to step away from him (we all know that in the extremely unlikely event that the reckless endanger wins, he'll be coming back when things die down), what are his political plans?

My best guess is that once Rob Anders "resigns" from his parliamentary secretary position (and his seat) for some outrageous statement (something on the order of "the chinese breed don't believe in god, so they will never go to heaven"), we'll see Zeisman up there as a candidate for the Calgary West nomination. Never let a good man down, even if he's blown a seat and done time, that's what we say here in the Party!

David M. ? As in the candidate for Victoria? hahahaha

If a regular citizen stole a $50,000 ring and was caught what do you think would happen to that person? If a regular citizen knowingly breaks the law in the case of a logging protest what would happen to them?

They would be given stiff sentences.
Also, Svend reminds me of Mary Kay Letourneau a person that knows what is wrong from right but cannot help themselves and in the end will continue to break the law.

If any of you had a clue of the type of person my brother is, you might be thinking twice about what it is you are saying. The main reason for Derek becoming a Conservative - is to clean up this country and to make it a better place.
The whole article written about how badly injured the young lady is - is false. The investigation by the police has not been completed and for anyone knows - the lady hit him. How about how Derek spent the Christmas holidays on a respirator, unable to move, eat or crack a smile. How about how his life is this election and the accident wouldnt have happened if he wasnt going to his cabinet ministers home to discuss matters.
Dont be jumping to conclusions because you all want to seem to think that you know what it is you are talking about. Wait until it is written in stone before you open your mouths or brake out your keyboards.
I fully stand behind my brother for what he has done, is doing and will do. As for the rest of you... see you January 23,2006.

Look McVie. Real New Democrats don't like Svend anymore than you do. But to suggest that Svend is as dangerous for his ring-stealin' ways as Zeisman is behind the wheels of a car is just plain fuckin dumb. Sure the NDP has freaks. But my point is the Conservatives have more freaks. You big freak.

And you know what, I'm voting NDP, the party of the workin' man, not Conservative, the party of the champagne-swilling, country club-dwelling, pink sweater-wearing bobos of the Conservative set.

Michael,

Though it is nice to see you standing up for family, his complete disregard for the other person is despicable, and the car and booze smuggling charges are horrendous.

If I was his brother, I would support him, too. The first thing I would suggest to him...step down from political life. Tell him that he is currently damaging the faith of the general public in politicians and his party. Something already damaged enough.

I am sorry to hear he has been suffering in hospital, but I am also sorry to hear about the young lady, and VERY sorry that he is running for political office.

Dagmar, you crack me up with your accurate description of the typical Liberal bigwig and your misportrayal of this as a conservative trait...

And I'm not one to argue what crimes are worse, neither Robinson nor Zeisman should be running in this election, the difference is that your corruption-loving leader signed Robinson's nomination papers with full knowledge of his past and continues to let him run as a candidate today, in direct contrast to Harper's integrity: as soon as he knew the full story, there was a firm declaration that he was not welcome in caucus until innocence was assured.

Face it: your union fat-cat run party loves Liberal corruption, that's why you backed them in May and why you're hoping the polling turns around so you can prop them up again in February. Well I got news for you, the Bloc will be the official opposition in the next parliament, then the Liberals, then first the party of irrelevance shall be the last party in the house once again.

Hah, actually, I'm an Orchardite Tory long since thrown into the arms of the socialist hordes by the Derek Zeismans of this world. Also, I'm actually now a McGill socialist extraordinaire.

"Hah, actually, I'm an Orchardite Tory long since thrown into the arms of the socialist hordes by the Derek Zeismans of this world. Also, I'm actually now a McGill socialist extraordinaire."

If the Red Tories and Blue Liberals were to get together we would have one heck of a party.

Solberg is the next on the hot seat... endorsing Kate MacMillan and the return of residential schools and locking up aborignal activists... now in the spotlight for wanting to rip up yet another contract between Canada and aboriginal people. There is more than one "car wreck" in the CPC this week.

Sure glad the election is coming up fairly soon. When family members have to get on line to defend their brother, lying in hospital with his political asperations shattered, it's about time to move along.

The guy, if he drove wthout due care and attention will be charged, if he broke customs laws he will be charged. He is in a hospital with a number of broken things so lets sort of forget about him. Hope he gets better soon.

If the folks in that neck of the woods vote for him , even his party has cut him adrift, so he can't enter the chamber anyway.

I feel sorry for the other party and hope if he is found guilty she sues his socks off, or ICBC does for her.

Sven Robinson was never charged with assisted suice not was the doctor involved. The hosue was forced to discuss tht type of life's ending. Who knows what any of us would do in those circumstances.

Let's show some sympathy for her family as well.

The judges handled Sven, he did some time for a logging protest as did many others,the provincial government changed logging practices because of those protests.
It's called civil disobedience.

The ring event was covered ad nauseum. The judge in his wisdom made a ruling, no higher court overturned the judge.

Robinson will have to live with that decision and if it turns out he gets elected, like he did after the logging protest, good for him.

If the Conservative candidate turns out smelling like a rose good for him as well.The real victim is the woman he ran into, but then again was he drunk, too fast or whatever. the court will decide.

I think there is a line in the bible that goes something like this" Let he who without sin cast teh frist stone.( and I don't read or quote the bible usually)

"I think there is a line in the bible that goes something like this" Let he who without sin cast teh frist stone.( and I don't read or quote the bible usually)"

The press has given Derek Zeisman a pass and the CPC as well. However, the public had every right to know... better judgement will eventually prevail so the media need not supply that part just yet but the facts should be out in plain view.

Aside: You should read the Bible if you wish to quote it... one would not wish to quote out of context. The passage you quote involves committing a crime (namely the throwing of stones) to enforce a moral judgment (about adultery) perceived to be a crime by those with the stones. I.e. those being warned were recommending committing a crime in order to fight something that was not actually a crime that the stone throwers had jurisdication over at that time. Jesus brought the nonsense to a halt by noting that the stone throwers would be “in sin” by throwing stones as well as be groundless in their claims to moral superiority. It was one of history’s great acts of peacemaking… and a plainly brilliant statement. However, there is nothing in the statement that argues against speaking the truth… quite to the contrary.

This latest Ziesman matter has me really burned up. To clarify some things..... if the smuggling matter was only "administrative" it would have been handled by the border people at the time of entry in 2004 with a monetary fine being imposed. The Customs Act allows for an administrative option for the less serious offences i.e. as above noted.
If the same allegation is found to be of a serious nature it is proceeded with criminally under the Customs Act. It is my understanding Mr. Zeisman is scheduled for trial in criminal court on Feb. 6th ,therefore, is it not prudent to draw the conclusion this matter is serious!! Now it has been some 18 months after the alleged offences Mr. Zeisman has had ample opportunity to consult his lawyer on these matters and surely must realize this is no longer an administrative matter.
Everyone makes mistakes and it is time to come forward with some admissions and not continue to skate around the issue. Hopefully he will stepdown, admit his mistakes and obtain the forgiveness of those he has hurt but that will only happen when he accepts responsibility for his mistakes.

Yes, it is despisable that family members must get involved in these matters. Yes you have all come to your conclusions of what was the cause of Dereks accident because you think that you know it all. Yes, I am sure there should have been a timeframe to which the border officials should have dealt with this matter, but yes- these are government officials we are dealing with. Yes, Derek is doing better and yes - i am sure he is concerned about the well-being of the other party in the accident... but No - he should not step down, No he should not stop standing up for what he belives in and No - all of you wont apologize once he is exhonerated from all charges. Start reading facts and stop making conclusions yourselves. Really? How old are we? Do I need to babysit all of you?

Wow, Mike, you certainly get my vote for "Bigger jackass than your brother"

It was a huge mistake for Derek Z not to disclose to the party his charges with respect to customs.

But Harper handled it well and did the right thing. This action clearly suggests that a PM Harper will bring back ministerial accountability to Ottawa and force Ministers under a cloud to step aside unlike PM Martin.

Whether or not Derek Z clears his name is not important for the tories, since I can't imagine him wining his seat. Which is really too bad for the tories since with the poll numbers in BC, it was almost a sure thing that the Tories would have held on to that seat. But now it likely goes to the NDP (at least its not going to the Fiberals).

Cheers

Mike, get the blinders off and go to the hospital and have a talk with your brother. He is embarassing himself, his Conservative supporters not to mention his family members by engaging in his denial of what really happened. Do you honestly believe his spiritual conscience will allow him to reconcile his indiscretions. If so he must be operating under illusions of grandeur which has allowed him to appear as a legend in his own mind.

Yeah, that and you are looking like an idiot too. Time to elect the NDP instead. I like the NDP candidate in that riding -- he's got a lot of respect for the Lord, the law, and the working man. That's something that Derek may want to think about.

All I ask is that all of you keep an open mind. If he is found guilty by a court of law then so beit. But like I have previously stated before... I stand behind him 100% and seeing as all of you have only known Derk for a short time and he has been in my life for 33 years, i think I know that he wouldnt ever do anything to hurt anyone intentionally nor would he do anything to discredit himself,that of his family members or his political party.
As for "Adam's" remark... someone is taking this a little too much too heart. Im quite sure Derek wouldnt have depended on his vote anyways.

Keep an open mind, eh? You Conservatives spread shit about your opponents all the time. You claim the Liberals are corrupt. Got any proof? Kinda looks like a case of what goes around comes around.

Not that I support the Liberals. I vote for the party of real men, the NDP.

I was looking forward to voting Conservative. I agree with so much of Mr Harper's policies that it was an easy vote for your brother to win; all he had to do was keep his nose clean, tell the truth, don't act like he deserves the job but has to earn it. He couldn't do any of those three things and so I have to throw my vote to another party, likely the Greens. This was his seat to lose and he did it SO very well. How could he have done better?

1) Contact Ms B about the accident, apologize profusely, get in some air time as a caring and compassionate conservative.
2) Come clean about the charges at the beginning of the campaign instead of waiting for it to blow up in everyone's faces.
3) Not be in a rush to be all things to all people

Well, Michael Zeisman if what you say is correct, the Conservatives really sold your brother down the creek. Hell, they publically called him a liar. Maybe he should stick to them and show the Conservatives did know.

ah d a g marrr, do we have any proof,,,how about 300 million slipped into personal pockets,, re,,,ad scam,,,
you must be on the same dog chow laytons on

as for layton, his response to using private health care [uh i didn,t no, uh]
the ndp is so outdated, thats sad.

oh yes, i,m a working man too,,, in 2006

nic

"ah d a g marrr, do we have any proof,,,how about 300 million slipped into personal pockets,, re,,,ad scam,,,"

The above is false.

Gomery said no such thing.

As said above, the conservative do spread a lot of crap too

See below:

http://btsexposed.blogspot.com/

See above

I am a Customs Officer and would like to set the record straight. I don't know anymore about this case than what was reported but I do know that if you are "charged" for smuggling under the Customs Act, they are in fact criminal charges. Has anybody ever heard of going to "administrative court"?

To put this into perspective, not everyone who gets caught smuggling is charged. Let's say, for example, you "forget" to declare the 2 cartons of cigarettes you hid in the spare tire compartment. Instead of being charged when small amounts of undeclared goods are found, the Customs Act allows for the seizure of the unreported goods and the vehicle that was used. In a case like this, the cigarettes would be confiscated and you would have to "buy" back your vehicle ($80.00 in this case).

Criminal charges under the Customs Act are laid when large amounts of alcohol, tobacco or other high valued or prohibited, controlled or regulated goods are smuggled, which is the case with Zeisman as he allegedly smuggled 112 bottles of alcohol as well as the vehicle he was driving. Therefore, in addition to the car and booze being seized (A civil action), criminal charges were laid. If convicted, Zeisman faces fines, imprisonment or both, as well as a criminal record. Although the Customs Act is not part of the Criminal Code, the majority of federal statutes include criminal sanctions. For example, if you evade a large amount of taxes, you can be charged under the Income Tax Act. It too, is not part of the Criminal Code but you can still be "charged" criminally under it.

Anyway, make no doubt about it, smuggling is a crime and you can be charged criminally. Zeisman will appear in criminal court, not an "administraive" court which I am afraid does not exist. Just thought I'd clear that up for everybody.

Hey nic.

Working men don't sign their posts 'nic'. They use capital letters. Only Fifis use all lower case.

John Doe you are right! Thanks for being more to the point on the nature of the charges.

In my first entry on this matter I was attempting to diplomaticly let Mr. Zeisman's supporters know there are people out here who are not about to buy the manner inwhich he is downplaying the seriousness of the criminal matters. I understand the position his brother is taking, in supporting a sibling. However, to say "yes but these are government officials we are dealing with" appears to attach some type of blame on the customs officers and that is irresponsible. The length of time it may have taken for the customs officers to prepare the documentation for criminal court is more extensive and requires a few more avenues of review then an "administrative penalty" that is issued on the spot by customs at the port of entry. Criminal charges under the Customs Act are not everyday occurrences and are carefully reviewed before they are sent to court.

A question I have and have not been able to find an answer to so far pertains to the "112 bottles of booze". Were they 112 bottles of beer? Or what exactly was the nature of these 112 bottles of booze? If it was not beer what type of liquor was it and what was the size of the containers? An answer to this question may shed some further light on the nature of the seizure and offer some insight into some reasoning why customs may have chosen to proceed criminally on this matter. I am sure you would know or be able to find this information out Mike. It would be appreciated if you could share that with the rest of us and perhaps that would enlighten us on these "unjustified charges."

I look forward to hearing from you Mike.

fuck you
nic

As mentioned, I am a Customs Officer and even if I knew the specifics of the case the law does not permit me to talk about. Speaking generally, however, you would not be charged criminally for smuggling 112 bottles of beer, unless you were perhaps a multiple repeat offender. Keep in mind the that the vehicle itself was allegedly being smuggled as well and not simply a Canadian vehicle being used to transport the alcohol. Depending on the value of the vehicle, and it has been reported that it was a Mercedes, this would substantially increase the amount of duties and taxes being evaded so when you add everything up, this is probably why they decided to lay the charges.

It also doesn't help that Zeisman was reported as being employed by the feds as a "cross-border" trade specialist and was or at least should have been more "in the know" about importing and exporting.

Dear Michael Zeisman,

Being someone who has a family member in the public eye, nothing you say on here is going to change the mind of this readership. This forum will open you up to condemnation because you care about your brother. It's sad that it has to be this way, but it is the way it is.

Crap also happens in people's lives. People make mistakes. Say sorry, forgive and forget. Everyone has a past.

So anyway, Michael, stay off the boards, The rest of you, quit believing everything you read on some website. The truth will be told in due time.

Dear 'nic'

If it's short for nicole, maybe.

"You claim the Liberals are corrupt. Got any proof?"

AdScam
Shawinigan Gold Course
Phoney Membership Scandals in BC.
HRDC Bonndoggle
Anything Gagliano
Sgro's Stripper
Options Canada

Although legally Dagmar may be right. the Liberals as a whole aren't corrupt, some are just incompetent.