The speaker knew exactly what happened. He has been dirty from the start. Canadians know this. He is making a mockery of parliament and should not hold such a position.
The Hon. member gave a clear, concise summary of her ''question of privilege.'' She produced the evidence that showed that the Speaker was indeed wrong, and perhaps, malicious in his action to remove her from the floor. Thank you, MP Thomas, for bringing this to the attention of the House. You were respectful, and courteous. Now, it behooves the Speaker to act, and for the House to consider his resignation.
Corruption in the House of Commons and Greg Fergus should be made to resign and an investigation into who and why her two words were removed and charges laid Fergus should apologize to Rachel in the House of Commons and Publicly
The Speaker has lost the trust and confidence of Canadians and as he lacks the integrity and moral compass to resign, he must be expelled as Speaker and Member of Parliament!
Thank you and well done Rachael. Fergus MUST step down. I heard you say, “I withdraw.”, clearly. A public apology to you, notwithstanding Fergus stepping down, is in order without delay.
What the speaker did is not excusable and he needs to step down , or fire him from being in the chair position. As a Canadian I feel sick and betrayed by this public servant who has manipulated his position for personal gain!
I love the expression of 'respect' for you MP Thomas on the faces of those gentlemen seated behind you during your Question of Privilege statement. You were... clear...concise... and correct. Congratulations for your attention to detail ... as you always demonstrate. Hold the 'Speaker' and the government to account for the deletion of those two words... 'I Withdraw'. Thank you.
Why isn’t this covered in the news? This seems newsworthy to me. The party that accuses their opponent of being a “threat to democracy” pulling stunts like this in the House of Commons.
MSM is paid by the liberals don't expect to see this on any news cast. Independent media is probably the only place you'll find real political news in Canada.
I am so proud of you, Rachael, and of Pierre. I hope your evidence gets that partisan hack of a speaker out of the House for good. Utterly disgraceful and not his first time being biased. The deletion of your two words, in my opinion, was deliberate.
Excellent articulation of your treatment in the House, thank you for your representation and hard work, Rachael. Canadians need truth in government dealings.
She is one of the very few credible politicians the Canadian theater has seen in decades. Somewhat taken for granted representing Lethbridge, which is quite leftist. Very intelligent unlike most politicians.
The Speaker must self-correct and make amends. To set this right, the Speaker must resign and the House must conduct an open inquiry into how the deletion was made. To save face, there can be expected a good deal of obfuscation, as always. The House sets its own rules and governs itself so there will be no furthr route of appeal, I think. This comes down to the need for people of honour to be sent to Parliament and for the representatives to act honoruably. The Lib-NDP offer no true model for servant-leadership and their example continues to degrade everythign they touch today.
You are clearly an excellent public servant and deserve to have the official public record corrected to reflect reality. Grats on the upcoming baby and keep up the good work. God bless.
I was shocked to see the conduct of the Speaker when he ejected you from the House @Rachael Thomas! But this revelation is ground-shaking! I look for updates fervently because it would have been unconscionable for the Speaker to not address this in today's sitting! please keep up posted!
We sre with you Rachel. This is a disgrace from a disgusting, disgraceful, biased speaker. He is a coward. He must resign! Those other disgusting cowards who distorted and deleted her words from the records must be fired!
Fantastic Question over Privilege! I am as completely in awe by how thorough you were. Great job!! You just proved how terrible Ferguson is and he better investigate this.
I’m glad you called out the speaker! Glad you have the receipts as well. Makes Greg look like a total fool, for not at very least, to ask you to repeat your statement.(If he was confused or couldn’t hear you). Bravo 👏
Very proud of you as well, for standing up and retaining a copy of the blues. As you pointed out someone changed it and it should be investigated, even as a crime. I was also wondering as it is a Historical document, and therefore would it not also fall under Copyright laws as well? I don't know what will come from this yet, but That Speaker should step down as he is not acting as a Speaker that is unbiased. Good job and God Bless.
We can all see clearly how crooked his bias is. He needs to be removed. He is not serving the House, Canadians or our Parliament in a satisfactory manner and does not remain impartial at ANY time. What does he have to say about this? His time is done. He needs to go.
Great work on brining this up and getting the appropriate justice for what happened by this chair who had demonstrated his lack of integrity, lack of honesty and lack of respect and of course his attempt to either allow the coverup or worst his involvement in it. The only course of action is for him A. Vacate his position of chair effective immediately and B. Face the appropriate consequences to full extent. Need less to say the significance and the seriousness of this incident where we CANNOT allow such practice, behaviour and blatant disregard of house rules to be change, altered and abused in anyway whatsoever.
Once the motion is properly moved, seconded, and proposed to the House, it is subject to all the procedures and practices relating to debate on a substantive motion. Only the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition are permitted unlimited speaking time (followed by a 10-minute questions and comments period). When the motion being considered touches on the conduct of a Member (in this case the Speaker), he or she may make a statement in explanation and then should withdraw from the Chamber. “Conduct” refers to actions which, if proven, could result in the expulsion of a Member from the House on the grounds that he or she is unfit for membership. In some circumstances, a Member may be allowed to return to the Chamber in order to clarify or explain particular matters.
Insanity! I can't believe this. My question is - how did you know? I think everyone in there needs to follow through with this as you did! The Speaker has a hand in this - he'll blame no one and everyone at the same time. I want to know WHO EDITED THE DOCUMENTS??
Should debate on a privilege motion not be completed by the ordinary hour of daily adjournment, this item will take priority over all other Orders of the Day at the next sitting. The majority in the House may amend the privilege motion, even if the amendment results in the text of the motion differing from the one originally accepted by the Speaker and proposed to the House. Closure may be moved by a Minister on the privilege motion. If during the proceedings the motion is adopted, then the terms of the motion are implemented. If the motion is defeated, the proceedings are ended. Only the House can decide if an offence has been committed.
The function of the Speaker is limited to deciding whether the matter is of such a character as to entitle the Member who has raised the question to move a motion which will have priority over Orders of the Day; that is, in the Speaker’s opinion, there is a prima facie question of privilege. If there is, the House must take the matter into immediate consideration. Ultimately, it is the House which decides whether a breach of privilege or a contempt has been committed.
The Speaker’s ruling does not extend to deciding whether a breach of privilege has in fact been committed. This is a matter which can be decided only by the House itself.
@@shirleyfaye1179 The speakership is a distinct office of Parliament. It is subject to the House of Commons which it serves. The individual who serves as speaker is not the speakership itself but, in the rules of the House, is treated as if he or she is the office they hold. The system tries to treat the Speaker as a neutral for the sake of civility but that depends on the integrity of the individual in the chair. The House decides, ultimately, on motions. The Speaker (the office or position) is neutral (at least nominally) given its purpose in serving the House as a whole (rather than the Cabinet or any particular partisan grouping). Tradition has produced conventions, much of this is codified in rules that the House has voted to adopt. All that said, the Speaker can rule that a motion is, on first look or on its face, is legit and then can take steps like negotiating an administrative proposal to refer the motion to a House committee (such as one that deals with the rules and such) for inquirying what's what. This is where most such motions get dealt with or are resolved. Motions like the one Thomas put on the record are much more challenging -- because it challenges the speakership itself and that is because Fergus, the holder of the chair, is implicated not only in his rash decision on his feet to expel Thomas, mistakenly or otherwise, but also because of the strange treatment of the business in the Hanzard process. Plus the way the Blues went offline somehow. So at this point the political gamesmanship inevitably takes over. The rules are for fairly normal events and are based on precedent. This looks like new territory. And in my opinion, it is also very much about the rights of Parliament, of parties, of individual MPs, and of Thomas in particular. It is a serious matter for our representative form of government. Can this be dealt with in a arational and intelligent way with an eye to the future and conserving the role of democarcy in this parliamentary system that has been much corroded already? This specific motion is about several things but significantly it is about the speakership which administrates the process for both the Blues and Hansard. So there are multiple issues that are raised in the MP's motion. Probably Fergus, the Speaker at issue, should let someone else step in to rule, because Fergus is directly at issue as the individual responsible for deciding to evict the MP. If the motion is ruled as legit, prima facia, then the House can vote on the motion -- and can amend it also -- which decides how far these multiple issues are investigate and resolved. Fergus might play politics (as he is wont to do and as Trudy is wont to encourage). He might stand in the House and apologise to Thomas and the Libs make some sort of a deal, backgroom of course, to take it to the committee they prefer and which they can get a majority in the House to approve. This is a can of worms. Barring the support of a majority of MPs, Fergus might resign (decisive and no return path) or step down temporarily (bizarre and dysfunctional). I'm betting the Libs and other parties are doing massive weekend polling on various aspects. Almost certain that most people do not care about this at all. Those who do are probably anti-Liberal (among those 40-plus percent indicating they'd vote PC). The real survey is the vote in the House should the motion be accepted as legit. If the motion is decline (unlikely) the politics could get intense but that is all gonna be a sort of insider ballgame that may alienate many Canadians who already have a very poor opinion of how the House conducts its business.
If the terms of the privilege motion stipulate that the matter be referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, then the adoption of the motion by the House constitutes an order of reference to the Committee. The Committee does not have the power to punish. This power rests with the House. The Committee may only study the matter and report to the House. Frequently, the Committee's report itself may be sufficient to put an end to the matter and no further action is required by the House.A report may recommend that the Speaker take some action or that some administrative action be taken.
If the Speaker rules that there is not a prima facie question of privilege, the matter ends there. However, if in the future additional information comes to light, the Member who raised the question of privilege or any other Member may raise the matter again.
Criminal Code of Canada - Section 366(2): Section 366(2) of the Criminal Code of Canada outlines the offence of making a false document. (a) Alter a genuine document in any material part. (b) Make a material addition to a genuine document (e.g., adding false information, a false date, a false attestation, or a false seal). (C) Make a material alteration in a genuine document (e.g., erasing, obliterating, or removing material information). The purpose is to prohibit people from creating or altering documents with the intent to deceive or defraud others. Penalties for making a false document can be severe, including significant fines and prison time1.
This speaker needs to step down. This level of corruption has no place in Canadian politics!
I stand with Rachael. I think she spoke fairly and calmly.
This is the most unfair thing I’ve ever seen happen in our House of Commons. Greg Fergus should be ashamed of himself and step down immediately
He’s a Liberal. They have no shame and are determined to stay.
Lying and bullying are their politics.
Liberals are incapable of feeling shame.
are you kidding? ^_^ greg fergus literally is a token. invite a nazi, blame the previous speaker to remove him, replace with token, gg.
I'm very proud of you Rachael. Fergus needs to resign, bias is one thing but corruption is added to it.
Pride is a sin. Perhaps it you could simply be grateful for her actions
All the liberals know is corruption.
Thank you Rachel. Speaker Fergus is dirty
The speaker knew exactly what happened. He has been dirty from the start. Canadians know this. He is making a mockery of parliament and should not hold such a position.
A monkerey😊
Speaker is disgraceful
The alteration of official documents is a criminal offense. The RCMP should investigate this and the culprit(s) should go to jail.
I've never been more ashamed of my gov't. Reckless, corrupt, treasonous, negligent, dishonest.
The Hon. member gave a clear, concise summary of her ''question of privilege.'' She produced the evidence that showed that the Speaker was indeed wrong, and perhaps, malicious in his action to remove her from the floor. Thank you, MP Thomas, for bringing this to the attention of the House. You were respectful, and courteous. Now, it behooves the Speaker to act, and for the House to consider his resignation.
How many times does this inept, corrupt speaker need f-up before he is removed?
The speaker needs to resign
Unfit to sit as speaker
PUSH THIS RACHEL! The *_TRUTH_* of what happened MUST be found as well as accountability with this government. FINALLY.
Corruption in the House of Commons and Greg Fergus should be made to resign and an investigation into who and why her two words were removed and charges laid
Fergus should apologize to Rachel in the House of Commons and Publicly
Push this Rachel and the Conservative Party
The speaker needs to resign.
I gotta love this feisty lady. I am so proud of her.
The Speaker has lost the trust and confidence of Canadians and as he lacks the integrity and moral compass to resign, he must be expelled as Speaker and Member of Parliament!
Best MP Lethbridge has ever had. You pure fire girl!!!
👍💯👍
Fergus should resign. Editing the transcript.
💯👍💪CANADA LOVES YOU RACHEL💪👍💯
Resign furgus...
This is the last straw. Fergus needs to go.
Speaker should be put on contempt and investigated AND removed!
Thank you and well done Rachael. Fergus MUST step down. I heard you say, “I withdraw.”, clearly. A public apology to you, notwithstanding Fergus stepping down, is in order without delay.
I really hope this will result in House Speaker Fergus losing his position for good this time.
What the speaker did is not excusable and he needs to step down , or fire him from being in the chair position. As a Canadian I feel sick and betrayed by this public servant who has manipulated his position for personal gain!
When should we expect Fergus to resign???
Never. He’s a Liberal
Solid work. Stay on this "rico" speaker and his BS
I love the expression of 'respect' for you MP Thomas on the faces of those gentlemen seated behind you during your Question of Privilege statement.
You were... clear...concise... and correct. Congratulations for your attention to detail ... as you always demonstrate.
Hold the 'Speaker' and the government to account for the deletion of those two words... 'I Withdraw'.
Thank you.
Why isn’t this covered in the news? This seems newsworthy to me. The party that accuses their opponent of being a “threat to democracy” pulling stunts like this in the House of Commons.
MSM is paid by the liberals don't expect to see this on any news cast. Independent media is probably the only place you'll find real political news in Canada.
Seriously? Trudeau bought the mainstream media years ago. Where have you been?
,,,no coverage? WHAT A FACKIN SURPRIZE!! ...could it possibly be b/c MAINSTREAM media is 'funded'...as in 'bought & paid for' by the Libs
Awesome Job young lady!!! Leadership with boundaries.
Stand Strong. Victory is near. When you take government, have no quarter for them. Bless You.
I am so proud of you, Rachael, and of Pierre. I hope your evidence gets that partisan hack of a speaker out of the House for good. Utterly disgraceful and not his first time being biased. The deletion of your two words, in my opinion, was deliberate.
Altering HOC documents = corruption.
TREASON
Well done Rachel!
Excellent articulation of your treatment in the House, thank you for your representation and hard work, Rachael. Canadians need truth in government dealings.
I'm absolutely gobsmacked. Please don't stop ,thank you.
She is one of the very few credible politicians the Canadian theater has seen in decades. Somewhat taken for granted representing Lethbridge, which is quite leftist.
Very intelligent unlike most politicians.
Very well put!!!
One of the least credible politicians. The Lauren Boebert of Canada.
Excellent job Rachael. Fergus doesn't have a leg to stand on.
Well done Rachael!!!!!!!!!!
So proud! Take no prisoners! The Liberals sure set themselves up for this one.
The Speaker must self-correct and make amends. To set this right, the Speaker must resign and the House must conduct an open inquiry into how the deletion was made. To save face, there can be expected a good deal of obfuscation, as always. The House sets its own rules and governs itself so there will be no furthr route of appeal, I think. This comes down to the need for people of honour to be sent to Parliament and for the representatives to act honoruably. The Lib-NDP offer no true model for servant-leadership and their example continues to degrade everythign they touch today.
Why are people willing to destroy their careers and reputation for Trudeau?
Money.
And fear of JT. Look at what he did to Jody Wilson Raybold's career
@@garywagner2466 I agree
@@Rosie_Wunder jt had a 'hella-of-a-lot more 'power then...now he's just a 'wanna-be'...
Rachel you are a Canadian hero thank you for your courage and great research team
Fergus needs to step down
You are clearly an excellent public servant and deserve to have the official public record corrected to reflect reality. Grats on the upcoming baby and keep up the good work. God bless.
Thanks Rachael, keep up the good fight with facts!
Keep up the amazing work you do!!!
Rachael, you are a star!!!!!!!
I was shocked to see the conduct of the Speaker when he ejected you from the House @Rachael Thomas! But this revelation is ground-shaking! I look for updates fervently because it would have been unconscionable for the Speaker to not address this in today's sitting! please keep up posted!
Rachael is amazing and the folk in her riding must be VERY PROUD of her. ❤ 👍 👌
Go Racheal go conservative are unfairly treated in the house
That was impressive!
Spectacular.
This is awesome!!!
You are awesome!!!
Well done.
We sre with you Rachel. This is a disgrace from a disgusting, disgraceful, biased speaker. He is a coward. He must resign! Those other disgusting cowards who distorted and deleted her words from the records must be fired!
Fantastic Question over Privilege!
I am as completely in awe by how thorough you were.
Great job!!
You just proved how terrible Ferguson is and he better investigate this.
Greg Fergus is a clear example of DEI privilege.
Just unbelievable
When is the Speaker going rule on this investigation??? Does it have a time limit on the investigation?
Press charges
Did greg break the law?
Somebody did.
Yes
Followed and supported you for some time now - much respect for how you handled this and yourself in general as an MP
I’m glad you called out the speaker! Glad you have the receipts as well. Makes Greg look like a total fool, for not at very least, to ask you to repeat your statement.(If he was confused or couldn’t hear you). Bravo 👏
oh NO! Not ANOTHER COMMITTEE?!!!!!!!!
Bravo!! 👏
Fucking bodied. This isn't just embarrassing. This is humiliating.
Very proud of you as well, for standing up and retaining a copy of the blues. As you pointed out someone changed it and it should be investigated, even as a crime. I was also wondering as it is a Historical document, and therefore would it not also fall under Copyright laws as well? I don't know what will come from this yet, but That Speaker should step down as he is not acting as a Speaker that is unbiased. Good job and God Bless.
Corruption is at the heart of politics
Speaker should step down. This is not acceptable.
We can all see clearly how crooked his bias is. He needs to be removed. He is not serving the House, Canadians or our Parliament in a satisfactory manner and does not remain impartial at ANY time. What does he have to say about this? His time is done. He needs to go.
Such is the state of politics in Canada that Fergus will pay no attention, and neither will the press or Liberal voters.
Great work on brining this up and getting the appropriate justice for what happened by this chair who had demonstrated his lack of integrity, lack of honesty and lack of respect and of course his attempt to either allow the coverup or worst his involvement in it. The only course of action is for him A. Vacate his position of chair effective immediately and B. Face the appropriate consequences to full extent. Need less to say the significance and the seriousness of this incident where we CANNOT allow such practice, behaviour and blatant disregard of house rules to be change, altered and abused in anyway whatsoever.
Let me guess he ignored it right?
How is this not FRONT PAGE NEWS in Canada? What the hell is going on up there?!
The government owned media outlets in Canada will never report this.
The poison runs deep.
I stand with Ms Thomas.
That’s so messed up, I literally saw/ heard her withdraw it on UA-cam.
Once the motion is properly moved, seconded, and proposed to the House, it is subject to all the procedures and practices relating to debate on a substantive motion. Only the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition are permitted unlimited speaking time (followed by a 10-minute questions and comments period).
When the motion being considered touches on the conduct of a Member (in this case the Speaker), he or she may make a statement in explanation and then should withdraw from the Chamber. “Conduct” refers to actions which, if proven, could result in the expulsion of a Member from the House on the grounds that he or she is unfit for membership. In some circumstances, a Member may be allowed to return to the Chamber in order to clarify or explain particular matters.
Insanity! I can't believe this. My question is - how did you know? I think everyone in there needs to follow through with this as you did! The Speaker has a hand in this - he'll blame no one and everyone at the same time. I want to know WHO EDITED THE DOCUMENTS??
Should debate on a privilege motion not be completed by the ordinary hour of daily adjournment, this item will take priority over all other Orders of the Day at the next sitting. The majority in the House may amend the privilege motion, even if the amendment results in the text of the motion differing from the one originally accepted by the Speaker and proposed to the House. Closure may be moved by a Minister on the privilege motion. If during the proceedings the motion is adopted, then the terms of the motion are implemented. If the motion is defeated, the proceedings are ended. Only the House can decide if an offence has been committed.
The function of the Speaker is limited to deciding whether the matter is of such a character as to entitle the Member who has raised the question to move a motion which will have priority over Orders of the Day; that is, in the Speaker’s opinion, there is a prima facie question of privilege. If there is, the House must take the matter into immediate consideration. Ultimately, it is the House which decides whether a breach of privilege or a contempt has been committed.
Well done, Rachel. It also irritated me that he used your previous surname. What a numbskull. He must resign.
How were those words removed? Did someone request the words be removed? If so, there should be a record of who made the request?
I was going to say "For the record..." Oh, never mind. Speaker wants me to shut up and color.
BUSTED!! 😂😂😂
The Speaker’s ruling does not extend to deciding whether a breach of privilege has in fact been committed. This is a matter which can be decided only by the House itself.
...please explain...Thank you
@@shirleyfaye1179 The speakership is a distinct office of Parliament. It is subject to the House of Commons which it serves. The individual who serves as speaker is not the speakership itself but, in the rules of the House, is treated as if he or she is the office they hold. The system tries to treat the Speaker as a neutral for the sake of civility but that depends on the integrity of the individual in the chair. The House decides, ultimately, on motions.
The Speaker (the office or position) is neutral (at least nominally) given its purpose in serving the House as a whole (rather than the Cabinet or any particular partisan grouping). Tradition has produced conventions, much of this is codified in rules that the House has voted to adopt. All that said, the Speaker can rule that a motion is, on first look or on its face, is legit and then can take steps like negotiating an administrative proposal to refer the motion to a House committee (such as one that deals with the rules and such) for inquirying what's what. This is where most such motions get dealt with or are resolved.
Motions like the one Thomas put on the record are much more challenging -- because it challenges the speakership itself and that is because Fergus, the holder of the chair, is implicated not only in his rash decision on his feet to expel Thomas, mistakenly or otherwise, but also because of the strange treatment of the business in the Hanzard process. Plus the way the Blues went offline somehow.
So at this point the political gamesmanship inevitably takes over. The rules are for fairly normal events and are based on precedent. This looks like new territory. And in my opinion, it is also very much about the rights of Parliament, of parties, of individual MPs, and of Thomas in particular. It is a serious matter for our representative form of government. Can this be dealt with in a arational and intelligent way with an eye to the future and conserving the role of democarcy in this parliamentary system that has been much corroded already?
This specific motion is about several things but significantly it is about the speakership which administrates the process for both the Blues and Hansard. So there are multiple issues that are raised in the MP's motion.
Probably Fergus, the Speaker at issue, should let someone else step in to rule, because Fergus is directly at issue as the individual responsible for deciding to evict the MP. If the motion is ruled as legit, prima facia, then the House can vote on the motion -- and can amend it also -- which decides how far these multiple issues are investigate and resolved.
Fergus might play politics (as he is wont to do and as Trudy is wont to encourage). He might stand in the House and apologise to Thomas and the Libs make some sort of a deal, backgroom of course, to take it to the committee they prefer and which they can get a majority in the House to approve. This is a can of worms. Barring the support of a majority of MPs, Fergus might resign (decisive and no return path) or step down temporarily (bizarre and dysfunctional). I'm betting the Libs and other parties are doing massive weekend polling on various aspects. Almost certain that most people do not care about this at all. Those who do are probably anti-Liberal (among those 40-plus percent indicating they'd vote PC). The real survey is the vote in the House should the motion be accepted as legit.
If the motion is decline (unlikely) the politics could get intense but that is all gonna be a sort of insider ballgame that may alienate many Canadians who already have a very poor opinion of how the House conducts its business.
I stand with Rachel
If the terms of the privilege motion stipulate that the matter be referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, then the adoption of the motion by the House constitutes an order of reference to the Committee. The Committee does not have the power to punish. This power rests with the House. The Committee may only study the matter and report to the House. Frequently, the Committee's report itself may be sufficient to put an end to the matter and no further action is required by the House.A report may recommend that the Speaker take some action or that some administrative action be taken.
That person or persons who altered legal documents need to be found and jailed ASAP.That is Canadian law.Without delay.
CBC edited out when polievre said "I Withdraw" as well from their footage, and instead reused one of the clips where he did not say it.
what happened next?
Corruption abound in liberal land!!!
Speaker Diversity Hire...
You basically Columbo'd that biased disgrace of a speaker with the evidence. ahahahahahah
If the Speaker rules that there is not a prima facie question of privilege, the matter ends there. However, if in the future additional information comes to light, the Member who raised the question of privilege or any other Member may raise the matter again.
Does the speaker not have anything to say now?
Whoooot! We salut you!😮❤❤❤
Criminal Code of Canada - Section 366(2):
Section 366(2) of the Criminal Code of Canada outlines the offence of making a false document.
(a) Alter a genuine document in any material part.
(b) Make a material addition to a genuine document (e.g., adding false information, a false date, a false attestation, or a false seal).
(C) Make a material alteration in a genuine document (e.g., erasing, obliterating, or removing material information).
The purpose is to prohibit people from creating or altering documents with the intent to deceive or defraud others.
Penalties for making a false document can be severe, including significant fines and prison time1.