The Legislature Raids

.
It's only one line in the Throne Speech of February 9, 2010.  The timing and sneakiness are the hallmark of the premier. With the Olympics starting, not everyone would see that sentence about bringing BC Rail home in order to finish killing it off.

Once again, Gordon Campbell would have us thinking that BC Rail is a small thing, a worn-out old thing to toss aside. "Just move along, folks. Nothin' to see here. Thank you. No, nothin' to see. Just keep movin' along ..."

But what about Deltaport? What about that spur line which runs to Roberts Bank? And what about the valuable lands owned by BC Rail? 

Reprinted from a June 28, 2009 posting:

BC Rail Lands ... attention, please

 

I found a DESCRIPTION OF LANDS at Schedule A in the 457-page "Revitalization Agreement".

There are 2,509 properties covering 101 pages under Part 1 - Fee Simple Lands.  Readers should look this up HERE. The geographical locations of the properties are as follows:




It was a betrayal of democracy which took the British Columbia Railway out of British Columbia hands against the majority wishes.

To continue to sneak what's left of this public asset into private pockets is nothing short of treachery.

Every citizen can do something to stop the give-away of further BCRail lands and assets, and to get the BC Rail trial under way in BC Supreme Court.  Just keep asking the questions.   - BC Mary.

"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
 
Copied, with permission, from Laila Yuile's blog:
Norman Farrell, on June 29th, 2009 said:

Near the Britannia lands, starting south of the mining museum, was a 450 acre parcel known as the Makin lands. This included a good amount of developable land and waterfront including the best beach in the area. A family dispute had the property tied up in litigation for years and the lawyers and the receiver kept it that way until the family’s equity on both sides of the dispute was sucked away. Wow, were they effective running up millions in fees to “protect” the land and its value.

Howe Sound and Britannia is an obvious site for major residential and townsite development. Fortunes will be made in the area two and three decades from now. When we have squeezed out the last of the Fraser Valley ALR, those picturesque mountain slopes and ocean views will be very attractive in Howe Sound. Building lot values of ocean view properties will be $50 – $100 a square foot, in today’s dollars.

Back in the nineties, when I was loosely attached, BC Rail was the key landowner of the region between West Van and Squamish. Everyone who looked at future land use in the corridor had two questions. About zoning and road planning and the key one, “What will BC Rail do?”

Campbell and his pal Jim Moody knew the railway was the key to fortunes, if not for themselves and their friends, but for their children and grandchildren.

A move you will see before Campbell leaves office will be the establishment of new municipal or regional district structures so local impediments won’t stop the big boys from doing what they want.

"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""

.
From today's Speech from the Throne which opens a fake session of the BC Legislature, the people's railway is mentioned:

New accountability and transparency will be brought to BC Ferries as it continues improving services with new ferries, terminals and amenities.

BC Rail will be brought into government and wound down as a Crown corporation.


Question: does this mean that all the BC lands owned by BC Rail are now ... ah, er ... sold off? given away?

These questions won't be answered. Nor will the exquisite irony of this occasion be examined as it should be ... unless the International Press is watching.

You couldn't make up "news" like this. The Reform guy who doesn't like the way democracy is working in Ottawa has shut down the House of Commons. The Reform guy in Victoria doesn't much care for democratic accountability either, so he shut down the BC Legislature. 

But today the red carpet is out on the front steps of the BC Legislature because [no, I am NOT making this up] the Ottawa guy wants a legislative forum someplace in Canada where he can speak his mind. Or some such thing.

Just why did Stephen Harper want Gordon Campbell to pry open the BC Legislature, anyway?

No answers HERE.  OR HERE. As usual, the best place to look for BC Rail answers is HERE.

Note the electrical shock in the first paragraph HERE. 

.
Tomorrow, February 10, 2010, two very familiar people will appear in public and we will discover how very little we know about them except for their names.

Dave Basi and Bobby Virk have lived the past 7 years under an enormous dark cloud ... ever since police raided their offices in the BC Legislature. Never mind that no parliament in the British Commonwealth has ever been breached by police bearing Search Warrants ... phhttt, so what? It's as if the objects of those warrants no longer exist, as persons. It's as if we dare not say "Good morning!" if we met them on the sidewalk. Perhaps that's a good thing. Perhaps it has given Basi and Virk and their families as much privacy as is possible, in the circumstances.  But I don't think so. I think we could have done better, all around.

For the general public, it hasn't been so good either. From Day One -- Dec. 28, 2003 - the provincial leadership in Victoria seems to step aside from the legitimate concerns that Organized Crime might have infiltrated government.  Is that crazy or what. How could they not care?  How is it that the public is expected not to care?

The provincial government failed in their duty to reassure the population that every effort was being made to correct the problems (if any). As time went on (and on, and on) ... even when there were visible evasions and obstruction from the provincial government ... the premier seemed well satisfied with the isolation of Basi, Virk, and Basi.  That didn't help the people. That was the wrong message. It merely shifted that dark cloud over the premier's head, as well.

Tomorrow will be different. Instead of hearing only their names being discussed in court, the two men will be in court themselves. The third man -- Aneal Basi -- will appear by tele-conferencing video from Montreal, where he is working.  I doubt that the premier will attend.

So tomorrow is a rare media opportunity. I'd like to know how Basi and Virk are, in their hearts. Are they employed? I'd like to know how they feel, as this trial approaches. How do they look? Who came to court with them? Will they return to court for the whole trial? That, and more.

As of tomorrow, I want to be able to feel that Basi, Virk, and Basi are actually part of this process we're going through ... that is, our effort to seek out, understand and stomp on any Organized Crime tentacles which are working their way into the BC Legislature. 

There's no point suggesting that Palmer, Baldrey or Bill Good might do this work for us ... and they've pretty much got control of the BC media.  They've had their chance and they blew it.

But tomorrow 10,000 foreign journalists should be in Vancouver for The Games. They will be looking for interesting stories. OK, tell them this: British Columbia has spent 7 years on the biggest Game of all: trying to find out how we lost the nation's 3rd largest railway. Yes, it's hard to believe unless you're British Columbian, but we know that our current premier was elected on the promise never to sell this jewel, this lifeline of economic health for a big province.  But somehow, for a lousy $1Billion, BC Rail is running under the CN brand now. This fails to impress a province where BC grow-ops are hauling in $6 to $7Billion a year.  Us? We were supposed to get $1Billion but we're not even sure we received it.

Gordo the deal-maker will say that he didn't sell BC Rail ... he only leased it for 990 years, haha, hoho. He probably won't tell the International Press that the "deal" is still partially secret, either.* Or that more people might need to be charged; and that it might be a good idea to separate the smaller crimes from the massive crimes. But then, our own media is silent on the significance of all this, too.

So, starting tomorrow I want to see the International media getting ready for the most important trial in BC history. I know in my heart that it's not asking too much to want to see some in-depth reporting with quotes from Basi and Virk, with a dateline Vancouver BC - Wed., Feb. 10, 2010.   - BC Mary.

*Here's what Gordo did say: "I heard that it [the raids on the Legislature] had to do potentially with money laundering and drugs. That's the extent of it," Campbell said of his briefing. "Everything that the Solicitor General did, was done with the approval of the R.C.M.P."    

.
By Keith Fraser
The Province - Feb. 8, 2010


 B.C.'s long-awaited Basi-Virk trial is expected to get under way late in April, the Crown said Monday.

Special prosecutor Bill Berardino told B.C. Supreme Court Madam Justice Anne MacKenzie that most pre-trial motions have been dealt with and the case is ready to proceed.

He also indicated that the three accused are expected to re-elect to be tried by jury instead of by judge alone.

{Snip} ...

Keith Fraser's complete report is HERE.

"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""

will start in late April or sooner for 8 to 10 weeks; likely to be heard by jury

Trial by jury could begin earlier in April at judge's request

By Bill Tieleman
24 hours columnist - Feb. 8, 2010

The trial of three men facing corruption charges in the B.C. Legislature raid case will begin in late April or sooner for eight to 10 weeks, a B.C. Supreme Court justice heard Monday.

And David Basi, Bob Virk and Aneal Basi – the three former B.C. Liberal government aides facing charges connected to the $1 billion sale of B.C. Rail in 2003 – want a jury trial, defence lawyers say.

Justice Anne MacKenzie said she wants the trial completed by summer, prompting Special Prosecutor Bill Berardino to suggest starting earlier in April might be possible.

Outside court Michael Bolton, representing David Basi, said: “The accused want a jury trial.”


{Snip} ...

Bill Tieleman's full column is HERE.

MORE TO COME

.

.
Today's BC Supreme Court listing is almost 5 pages with new information.  Readers would be well advised to go to the Supreme Court listing, accessible by clicking on BC Criminal Court in the left margin ... then Adult Supreme Court Lists  ... then Vancouver Law Courts - Supreme Court list.

When the pdf file opens today, it will show the listings for two separate trials.

* Case #134750-1-D, which is Dave Basi, Tony Young, Jim Duncan, and the Sooke Agricultural Land Reserve bribery charges. It's worth a close look, for counts ranging from 001, 002, 003, 004 and 005, 006, 007, 008 and 005, 006, 007, 008 repeated.

Start-time is 9:30 AM, BC Supreme Court, Vancouver.


* #23299-19, starting at 10:00 AM, is the BC Rail Case, with Dave Basi, Bobby Virk, Aneal Basi, with some unusual headings, such as:

Her Majesty The Queen vs. Limited Access (Dave Basi) and others.

and an ORDER THAT:

001. Shared services need no longer retain back-up tapes presently in the possession or control of Shared Services of British Columbia which were located and are being held in response to the court's July 20, 2009 O'Connor order.

and

002. The Province, through its counsel, shall provide to each of the defense counsel, and in the absence of an objection by any of the defense counsel, shall provide to the counsel for the Special Prosecutor certain documents in respect of which there is a claim of privilege.

etc.

.
Check Bill Tieleman's blog HERE for more details.

.
The CanWest article is HERE.

Way, way back in time, I wanted to attend the first pre-trial hearing for Basi, Virk, Basi: Although Case #23299 was written on the BC Supreme Court (Victoria) schedule as taking place in Courtroom 101, I held vigil until there was nobody left but the Judge and me; I never saw the Accused, the Crown Prosecutor, or their Defence lawyers that day. They didn't appear. Who knows why? Thereafter I tried accessing the court dates via court services in other towns, no luck.  It was all a mystery. There were even people telling me it was my fault ... people who claimed they could work the system with no trouble whatever.

To date, only Robin Mathews has attempted to open up these lines of accessibility to the public. His reports opened our eyes to the difficulties. But there were still people who claimed that he was in the wrong, not the court system.

Now this extraordinary piece of investigative journalism opens the doors for the public. This, by gosh, is what journalism is all about: to go where citizens need to go, and to ask the questions citizens need to ask.

Very special thanks to the journalists and to CanWest News Services for investigating the BC court system. I won't say "What took you so long?" but I will say that this is an extremely helpful report.

- BC Mary.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Many B.C. courhouses [sic] keep public from viewing key police documents, investigation finds
 

BY ROB SHAW, LOUISE DICKSON AND LINDSAY KINES

CANWEST NEWS SERVICE - FEBRUARY 4, 2010


B.C. courthouses are routinely breaking rules designed to let the public keep a watchful eye on search and seizures done by their local police departments, an investigation has found.

Six of 10 courthouses on Vancouver Island and in the Lower Mainland investigated by the Victoria Times Colonist do not provide a binder of recent unsealed search warrants for the public to view, even though it is provincial policy to do so. A seventh courthouse offered a binder three months out of date.

These registries placed onerous, and sometimes insurmountable, hurdles in the way of accessing documents. The roadblocks all but prevent ordinary British Columbians from scrutinizing how police search homes and businesses and what arguments they are using in court to convince a judge or justice of the peace that such searches are necessary.

According to a 2001 circular to all B.C. courthouse staff, each of B.C.’s 44 provincial courthouses is required to maintain a free public file that displays copies of recent unsealed search warrants in chronological order, within 24 hours of those warrants being deemed public documents by the court.

The policy is supposed to increase convenience at courthouse registries, free the public from having to ask for individual warrants, and bring B.C.’s justice system into line with a 1982 Supreme Court of Canada ruling that said courthouses should have their records available for easy inspection by the public.

But there are no such binders for search warrants in courthouses in Victoria, Victoria’s Western Communities, Duncan, Nanaimo, Port Alberni and Vancouver. Courtenay, Surrey and North Vancouver do follow the rules and provide the files. New Westminster does, too, but its file hasn’t been updated since October.

This uneven policy can dramatically affect the public’s access to information about the court system, and cases that are in the public interest.

Indeed, search warrants have provided crucial information for several recent high-profile news stories.

When the story of a major privacy breach in the B.C. government broke last year, it took court documents to shed light on the real story the provincial government wasn’t telling.

Sensitive personal information from 1,400 income assistance clients was found inside the Victoria home of a government supervisor who was under RCMP investigation.

The province moved quickly to play down the incident, but the Times Colonist used court files and a search warrant to reveal the true scope of the breach, including the supervisor’s past criminal record for fraud and police allegations the employee had used a fake identity to obtain his government job.

Two simple court documents was all it took to blow holes in the government’s official story. But it almost didn’t happen.

Reporters had to fight an uphill battle at Victoria’s courthouse registry. Staff there require you to have a precise street address and the exact date a warrant was processed to run a search. If the information is slightly off — say, a day early, or the address is in another part of the block — the clerks say the warrant can’t be found.

Not only is this precise requirement not backed up in provincial rules, but it’s also a hurdle that’s frequently insurmountable because police no longer release the specific addresses where crimes or police raids take place due to what they say are privacy restrictions.

Unless you sweet-talk the clerk, or stumble across a raid in progress, you’re likely to face rejection when asking for a warrant at Victoria’s courthouse counter. The Times Colonist asked Victoria’s senior manager for courthouse administration to explain this practice, but the call was not returned.

The requirement that the public produce a date or address to see a warrant “is totally the invention of some bureaucrat,” said Dean Jobb, author of Media Law for Canadian Journalists and associate professor at the school of journalism, University of King’s College in Halifax.

“There is nothing in the law that says, ‘Oh, it’s open if you basically know what’s in it. Okay, you can see the search warrant if you happen to be walking down the street when the officers moved in,’ or ‘You can see the warrant if you have good enough police sources that someone tipped you off.’ Come on. I mean, this is ludicrous.

“If it’s open, it should be easily open. There shouldn’t be wheels within wheels. There shouldn’t be little hoops you have to jump through. It shouldn’t be who you know.”

Such a policy can be abused because police can keep quiet about sensitive searches, and release details about others when they want publicity. “So the police start leaking stuff in their own interest, and that’s in nobody’s interest,” Jobb said.

In the case of the government privacy breach, the Times Colonist had obtained, through unofficial channels, the date of the police raid and the man’s address. But it took three visits to get all the information, and there was no explanation why that was the case.

The information in the RCMP search warrant contained sworn statements by a police officer that contradicted the government’s official line, prompting a number of news stories that pressed the government to launch an internal review, which produced a blistering critique on its own failure to properly handle the scandal.

Without access to court records, the government’s questionable story might have been allowed to stand for months, perhaps years.

In Surrey, the free binder of unsealed warrants is standard reading for curious court reporters and public watchdogs.

That’s how a CBC radio reporter shed new light on another government scandal last year. He was doing a routine check of the binders when he came across a 99-page warrant detailing an alleged 2007 kickback scheme involving a top bureaucrat in the Ministry of Health.

Though some of the details had been reported earlier, the government had managed to keep a lid on the extent of the allegations. The search warrant blew that lid off.

It revealed RCMP allegations that Dr. Jonathan Burns double-billed the ministry tens of thousands of dollars while he was both the head of a company trying to sell electronic health software to provincial health authorities, and a consultant on the government’s multimillion-dollar e-health program. The warrant also alleged that Burns offered favours to former assistant deputy health minister Ron Danderfer, who oversaw the e-health program, in turn for Danderfer inflating Burns’ government expenses and hiring his wife and daughter. A special prosecutor is overseeing whether criminal charges will be laid in the case.

The attorney-general’s ministry provided conflicting answers about the release of search warrants, but eventually admitted that it writes the rule book, not individual courthouses or judges. But it did not explain what, if anything, it is doing to get all courthouses on the same page.

It’s not the first time the provincial government has found itself under pressure to enforce a single policy on search warrants.

The Vancouver Sun fought for, and won, better access to warrants in the 1980s by lobbying the assistant deputy attorney-general. The Sun argued that the right of access to public documents was effectively being denied because warrants were handled by justices of the peace and they were generally reluctant to share the information. In response, Vancouver Provincial Court began keeping a binder of publicly available search warrants under its front counter. Other courts were expected to follow.

Two decades later, the Supreme Court of Canada is as firm as ever on the public’s right of access to search warrants. But the Vancouver Provincial Court no longer keeps its binder.

Instead, Vancouver has reverted back to a system that requires a person to submit a form at the registry with personal information and as many details as possible about a warrant before a justice of the peace will even look at the request.

.
By Lindsay Kines, Rob Shaw and Louise Dickson

Canwest News Service - February 4, 2010

The full report is HERE.


He's a two-time killer from Victoria, but his latest murder trial was moved to another city to ensure he gets a fair hearing.

It's a case with the potential to reveal a fair bit about public safety in your community.

Want to know what happened in open court?

Sorry, only the judge can release the tapes from the trial and she's away on holidays. Try back in a couple of weeks. Maybe you can order the transcripts then.

Next case.

She was a well-known musician on Hornby Island. Her body was found in a marina last November. A search warrant that describes the RCMP's hunt for her killer is in a file labelled "public access" at the Courtenay courthouse. You have a right to a copy. Want one?

Sorry, the courthouse staff say you can look at the warrant, but only the suspect or his lawyer get a copy. By the way, are you the suspect? No?

Next case.

He's a 44-year-old North Vancouver man facing charges for trying to use the Internet to lure a 13-year-old Colorado girl into a sexual relationship. There's an unsealed search warrant in a public file over at the North Vancouver courthouse that explains what the police know. It might even give parents a few tips on how to better protect their kids. Want to see the warrant?

Sorry, the justice of the peace just removed it from the folder as you were looking at it. She figures the Crown forgot to seal the warrant, and she's pretty sure they'll want to put it under wraps — especially now that you've asked to see it.

"You could push it," she says, "but . . . "

Next case.


It's not supposed to work like this.

We have an open court system in Canada. On most days of the week, you can walk into a courtroom, plunk yourself down, and watch our judges, prosecutors and defence lawyers at work.

Except in rare cases, nobody checks your ID at the door. Nobody demands to know why you're there or what possible interest you have in a particular case.

"Openness is necessary to maintain the independence and impartiality of courts," the Supreme Court of Canada wrote in 2004. "It is integral to public confidence in the justice system and the public understanding of the administration of justice."

The same principle applies to court documents — unless there's a good reason to keep them sealed. But a Times Colonist investigation has found case after case — including the ones described above — in which B.C. court registries routinely deny access to public documents. Court transcripts, criminal charges, unsealed warrants, even the names of people accused of crimes have all been withheld.

From Victoria to Courtenay, Surrey to North Vancouver, we encountered a court system where the rules change from one jurisdiction to the next, where front-line courthouse staff often seem unsure what they can or cannot release, and where the public can expect to answer a number of personal questions before getting access to court records.

Other provinces have tried to ensure a more consistent approach by laying out policies for public access. Ontario struck a justice panel with the media and developed a 21-page policy manual now posted online and distributed to court staff.

Indeed, every province west of the Maritimes, except B.C., has similar policies, posted on the Internet, that make clear what the public has a right to see.

The B.C. Attorney General's ministry, however, initially denied even having a policy, let alone one readily available to the public. A "one size fits all" policy would be unworkable given that every case is different, the ministry's court services branch said in a e-mail to the Times Colonist.

But after the newspaper learned of an internal 1994 provincial court policy, the ministry confirmed that it remains in effect, and released a copy.

Not that staff appear to be following it with any consistency.

Our reporters surveyed 10 courthouses on Vancouver Island and the Lower Mainland in recent weeks and found a wide range of responses to requests for the same types of files at each registry.

The differing policies from one courthouse to the next were especially stark when we tried to get access to search warrant information.

The Supreme Court of Canada decided 28 years ago that the public can look at warrants once the search is done and the police have reported what they found.

But in B.C., access varies. In Victoria, Duncan and Nanaimo, the public has to provide the date and address of a search before registry employees will even begin to look for a warrant.

.

By Robin Mathews - Feb.1, 2010



Trial in the Supreme Court of British Columbia is imminent for Dave Basi, Bob Virk, and Aneal Basi facing (variously) fourteen counts of fraud, breach of trust, and money laundering as part of the BC Rail Scandal (the corrupt transfer of BC Rail to CNR by the Gordon Campbell government).  The January 25, 2010 brief hearing in B.C. Supreme Court set the gears turning for an announcement on February 8 or 10 of trial to begin … soon.

On the surface all is well; “appearances” are being kept up by those involved.  Beneath the surface, however, a very different condition exists, revealing, I believe, that the legal and court system in British Columbia is in almost complete breakdown.  PART TWO examines that condition. 

Surprisingly – there is a comic aspect to the devastating story of increasing  breakdown of the rule of law and the administration of justice in British Columbia.  It comes in the person of celebrated criminologist at SFU, Professor Neil Boyd.  As if on schedule his Report for the Canadian Bar Association has been made public just before (it seems) the Basi, Virk, and Basi trial. 

With the dead reckoning of a top stand-up comic, Boyd suggests there is nothing really wrong with the legal system in B.C. [Laughter] Moreover, a little education of the population, he believes, is all that is needed to erase what is, in fact, the highest dissatisfaction in all Canada with the legal system. [More laughter]  Then, says Boyd, a series of meetings should be held, including RCMP, (Special?) Crown Prosecutors, the judiciary, the Attorney General’s ministry, the Solicitor-General, and others.  All the people, in short, who I see as hard at work destroying the administration of justice in B.C. should gather together to create a Public Relations booklet intended to boost public confidence, dramatically, in the legal system. [Loud laughter that softens, and then turns into weeping].

Professor Boyd cannot have been paid highly enough for his work.  It is of priceless value to Gordon Campbell and his associates, right now.

In PART ONE I demonstrated that the appointment of William Berardino as Special Crown Prosecutor in the Basi, Virk, and Basi matter should never have taken place.  British Columbians can be content, I believe, that the Special Crown Prosecutor in the case should not be there.  Because of his unacceptable ties to the Gordon Campbell ministry that appointed him, whatever he does in the trial will not only rest under continuing suspicion; it will be, I believe, fundamentally illegitimate.  He should not be there.

When assistant deputy Attorney General Robert Gillen wrote me an absurd reply to my letter asking the Attorney General, Michael de Jong, to remove Mr. Berardino, Mr. Gillen was smoother and more slippery than a snake. (See PART ONE).

He wouldn’t say Mr. Berardino is acceptable as Special Crown Prosecutor – because I believe he knows he isn’t. Assistant deputy Attorney General  Gillen refused to discuss the matter.  Had Berardino’s been a legitimate appointment, I’m pretty certain Mr. Gillen would have written to tell me that in no uncertain terms. 

Instead, he refused to discuss the matter!

Mr. Gillen made what must be accepted as the formal response of the Attorney General of British Columbia.  Presented with substantial evidence of the unacceptability of a Crown Prosecutor in a case upon which the survival of the Gordon Campbell government may hang because of its probable involvement in illegal activities, Mr. Gillen simply refused to engage.

Apparently, several people were approached to take the role of Special Crown Prosecutor.  Among them, Josiah Wood filled the position for several days, withdrawing before the appointment of William Berardino.  I requested the Attorney General to make public all of the people approached and their reasons for refusing appointment.  There may have been “special prosecutor shopping” by the Attorney General’s ministry such as brought the judge in the case of the accused men from Bountiful, B.C. to stop that action.

The assistant deputy Attorney General refused even to refer to my request.

He refused, as well, to confront the larger issue of manipulation by the Attorney General’s ministry of prosecutorial appointments for political gain - for which there is growing allegation. The case just launched (by one of the Bountiful accused) against the former Attorney General alleging that he acted in a manner that was “high-handed, arbitrary, reckless, abusive, improper and inconsistent with the honour of the Crown and the administration of justice” is one example.  An open Public Inquiry into prosecutorial services in British Columbia is absolutely essential.  As long as it is refused by the Gordon Campbell government, reasonable British Columbians may assume the present system is maintained to violate the rule of law and to undermine the administration of justice.

Defence counsel has used the phrase “the fix was in” to describe the early drive by Gordon Campbell to transfer BC Rail to CNR. The Gordon Campbell team, it is alleged, pretended there was an open auction for BC Rail, a fair competition.  But “the fix was in” says Defence counsel.  BC Rail – before ever being announced as “for sale” - was going to go to CNR whatever happened.

I believe the whole process involved the Gordon Campbell team in criminal Breach of Trust. The “fraudulent sale” of BC Rail involved that team, I believe, in calculated lying to the public, in “scuttling” BC Rail to destroy its value, in paying huge sums of money to prepare the fraudulent evaluation for the sale, and then to conduct a fraudulent, expensive, “open, public auction”.

I believe Defence counsel in the Basi, Virk, and Basi pre-trial years have brought a great deal of evidence together pointing to the validity of those allegations – material now in the hands of lawyers and the courts.  The evidence awaits the natural next step, which is for the RCMP to conduct a criminal investigation of Gordon Campbell and all his associates connected to the corrupt transfer of BC Rail to CNR. 

I wrote to RCMP Deputy Commissioner Gary Bass requesting a criminal investigation.  He refused.  And he did so, I believe, because he is protecting Gordon Campbell and his associates.  The answer from Deputy Commissioner Bass was characteristic, I believe, of corrupt police forces.  He said, in effect, “You get the evidence for us” – knowing I do not have the power to investigate.

The refusal of Gary Bass takes the story back to the early investigations by the RCMP in the BC Rail Scandal and to the appointment of William Berardino as Special Crown Prosecutor. 

Court affidavit materials gained by NDP justice critic Leonard Krog reveal that top civil servants were having unrecorded conversations with RCMP about the issues involved and the forthcoming RCMP search warrant raids on legislative offices. Strategy meetings were held, one at least attended by then-RCMP Deputy Commissioner Beverley Busson.  Moreover, we are led to believe that communications went between RCMP and Solicitor General Rich Coleman. Indeed, during pre-trial hearings, Michael Bolton for the Defence suggested that Coleman had a role in shaping the form police investigation would take – with the implication that Coleman steered investigation away from Campbell and associates – as a member of cabinet. 

What is more, police notes - Defence argues - refer to “investigation” of Gary Collins then-finance minister, as late as December 12, 2003.  At the conclusion of the “raids” (Dec. 28, 2003) however, with heaps of unexamined materials around them, RCMP announced that no elected officials were being or would be investigated. 

The RCMP “raids” that had just been made on legislature offices were only made on the offices of Dave Basi and Bob Virk, cabinet aides.  No RCMP “raid” was made on the office of Gary Collins, boss of Dave Basi, even though Collins was noted by RCMP as being investigated and being under  surveillance just a few weeks before.

All involved apparently knew the offices of Basi and Virk were going to be raided.  All also had to know that William Berardino had been a long-time partner and colleague of Attorney General Geoff Plant and Deputy Attorney General Allan Seckel (who appointed him as Special Crown Prosecutor before the raids).  It is in the realm of real possibility that Mr. Berardino advised on the nature and target of the raids - which went nowhere near the offices of the three cabinet ministers closest in work to Basi and Virk, the offices of Gordon Campbell, Judith Reid, and Gary Collins.

During the long pre-trial hearing period in which counsel for the accused were seeking evidence to use in the defence of their clients, delay, delay and botched disclosure marked the response of the RCMP – so much so that Madam Justice Elizabeth Bennett showed distinct impatience.

When Mr. George Copley, counsel (in fact) for the cabinet reported the extraordinary, historic event – that key e-mail records of cabinet matters related to the BC Rail Scandal had been, inexplicably, destroyed, the Attorney General’s office snoozed, initiating no action.  British Columbians who expected the RCMP to move on the matter with the speed the Force had used to taser Robert Dziekanski and to shoot Ian Bush through the back of the head in the Houston, B.C. police station were disappointed.  The RCMP did … nothing.

In the courtroom, Defence counsel asked Madam Justice Elizabeth Bennett to summon to the court without delay, for cross-examination, the actors involved in the destruction of what may be key evidence.  Madam Justice Bennett refused to summon them … at all.

Over time, some of the lost material was retrieved (causing delay and additional expense).  But only SOME of it was retrieved.

British Columbians will never know how much or what material was improperly destroyed.  They may be excused if they have a perception of the RCMP in British Columbia as the servant of the Gordon Campbell government in any matter – legal or illegal –in which that government chooses to engage.

Indeed … the refusal of RCMP Deputy Commissioner Gary Bass to undertake an announced criminal investigation of Gordon Campbell and associates in the transfer of BC Rail to CNR may, in fact, be – in itself – a criminal dereliction of responsibility.

[All of that is written with a profound sense that in the RCMP there are men and women of the highest probity who are presently almost invisible and unable to stem the increasing corruption of the Force.]

As a result of the refusal of the RCMP to investigate Gordon Campbell and associates, the trial of Basi, Virk, and Basi – except as it shows the embarrassing corruption of the Gordon Campbell forces – will be largely a phony, sand-box game.  It will be as if the famous Nuremburg Trial of Nazis at the end of the Second World War was conducted – but with only a few foot soldiers taking the stand as accused people.  And it may be as if the prosecutor was from the Nazi high command, happy to use a few foot soldiers to be sacrificed for “the men who really matter”.

Some of Special Crown Prosecutor William Berardino’s actions in the Basi, Virk, and Basi matter bring us up against the B.C. Supreme Court structure in an embarrassing way.  That structure looks increasingly as if it is a corrupt playground of corrupt politicians.

To begin, Associate Chief Justice Patrick Dohm has played a disturbing role in the BC Rail Scandal from the beginning.  Signing all the search warrants for the RCMP “raids” on legislature offices in 2003 as well as on private offices and homes, his behaviour since has been strange. I have come to believe that he works actively to shield Gordon Campbell and his associates from the investigative scrutiny they should undergo.

For the years I have observed the pre-trial hearings involving Basi, Virk, and Basi I have believed Mr. Dohm’s so-called “Practice Directions” (issued to all relevant court officers) suppress information the British Columbia public has a right to receive openly.

When the search warrants from all the RCMP “raids” should have been made public, Mr. Dohm sealed them.  I believe he did so illegitimately.  When he – after public pressure – released them to the public, the release was a farce.  Most of the material was censored by heavy black erasures of most of the text.  He did not, in effect, ever release the search warrant material related to anyone but the (later) accused.

If the search warrant raids were just, fairly undertaken, and properly planned, why are the search warrants still censored?  They are conventionally considered public property. The only full information released is that covering the (later) accused men, almost as if focussing attention away from others searched.

When pressed for information about the warrants in the period during which he had completely sealed them, Mr. Dohm responded. His response was to have William Berardino prepare a report on them, in the place of Mr. Dohm,  for members of the press.  That was an astonishing action. The relation between judges and prosecutors should always be handled with kid gloves.  Judges and prosecutors should not be, and should not even seem to be, working together.  Prosecutors ARE NOT the same things as, or the equals of judges.  Associate Chief Justice Dohm seemed to say “to hell with that principle.  William Berardino and I are working hand in glove, with exactly the same aims”.

Mr. Dohm’s most egregious action – in my experience – was his buffoon-like appearance in court in June, 2009, to hear Mr. Berardino’s motion to have Madam Justice Elizabeth Bennett removed from the Basi, Virk, and Basi matters.

I am convinced there was no sound reason to move Madam Justice Elizabeth Bennett.  Start there.

Mr. Berardino looked foolish, saying she should be removed because she couldn’t be in two places at once (to which comment Associate Chief Justice Patrick Dohm responded with enthusiasm).  Mr. Berardino also said – opening a serious, unchallenged allegation – the court process had not been conducted as it should have been.

Associate Chief Justice Dohm asked no questions.  When Defence counsel rose to challenge Mr. Berardino’s statement, Mr. Dohm shut up the speaker, forbidding him to speak.  Then Mr. Dohm said he had Madam Justice Elizabeth Bennett’s replacement already chosen, and that he would be back – apparently to announce the name.  He never returned.  His short time in court was the ugliest event I have witnessed in the Basi, Virk, and Basi pre-trial hearings.

From then on, Madam Justice Elizabeth Bennett slowly evaporated from the case.  Her removal is deeply disturbing.  It looks improper.  It appears to be the result of a kind of unsavoury collaboration between the Associate Chief Justice and the Special Crown Prosecutor – setting up a “process” that was in fact no process at all.  If Madam Justice Elizabeth Bennett was removed for reasons other than the half-baked ones given at the time – what were the reasons?

The answer may lie in the arrival of Madam Justice Anne MacKenzie in Justice Bennett’s place.  She has acted to prevent Defence counsel from getting access to materials – as I see the situation – that might call into question the actions of Gordon Campbell and associates in the BC Rail Scandal and their relation to the accused. 

Madam Justice Elizabeth Bennett permitted disclosure applications that might reveal material relevant to the Defence of the accused – in a quite wide-ranging way.  As a result important, relevant materials were obtained, material of real use to the Defence. The applications for disclosure revealed again and again that Defence counsel were not on “fishing expeditions” but following logical lines of investigation.

Justice Bennett, too, however, appeared to me to push Defence counsel away from key cabinet officers involved with the RCMP search warrant “raids” on legislature offices.  People like Rich Coleman, Solicitor General at the time, for instance.  (I registered criticisms of her failure to end RCMP delay by firm action.) But she was otherwise, mostly, open to requests for disclosure.  Madam Justice Anne MacKenzie has not been so.

It is almost as if Associate Chief Justice Patrick Dohm said: “someone has  to get to Madam Justice Elizabeth Bennett and close her down – and I’m just the man to do it.  To hell with the fair administration of justice”.  No proper and full explanation has been given for the removal of Madam Justice Bennett as far as I’m concerned.

The implications of what I have just written are massive.  I am suggesting that – as fairly and clearly as I have been able to observe matters – I believe there has been improper judicial interference with the administration of justice in the Basi, Virk, and Basi case.  I have come to believe that the appointment of Madam Justice Anne MacKenzie was undertaken not impartially but with an intended partial – that is biased – intention. 

I believe that – to this date – she has fulfilled that purpose.  As Keith Fraser (Vancouver Province) commented a short time ago, Madam Justice Anne MacKenzie hasn’t once found or ruled or decided in favour of Defence counsel wishes since she took over from Madam Justice Bennett. 

Madam Justice MacKenzie has changed the character and direction of pre-trial hearings in the Basi, Virk, and Basi matter.  Her task has seemed to be – as I have said – to prevent Defence from high-lighting connections among cabinet policy, members of cabinet, cabinet actions and the behaviour of the accused. 

I expect that she will use all her judicial power in the trial to serve the same ends, which are – briefly, as I see them – to protect Gordon Campbell and his associates in the corrupt transfer of BC Rail to CNR from being closely connected to the accused and/or examined, themselves, in answer to allegations of criminal behaviour.

If what I have said in this review is correct, the RCMP has failed, seriously, in its role.  The judiciary has failed.  The Attorney General’s ministry has failed in the appointment of a Special Crown Prosecutor – and, perhaps, has engaged consciously in behaviour that is improper.

The trial, then, will be prosecuted by a Special Crown Prosecutor whom I believe was wrongfully appointed (see PART ONE). It will be – in my opinion – based upon evidence (for the prosecution) gained by RCMP officers sometimes deliberately biased in their investigation, sometimes refusing to investigate leads to possible evidence of (connected) wrong-doing among senior elected politicians.  It will be a tiny case which will be conducted – and has been so set up by judiciary and prosecution, I believe – to draw attention away from the fact that parallel cases, now, should be being conducted against highest ranking (present and past) political actors.

It will be conducted by a judge whose grasp of the case (because of her sudden, late appearance in the pre-trial processes) is, I believe, necessarily limited.  That judge will act, I believe, under the suspicion that she is a political appointee sent in as an instrument to serve the will of forces that cannot be fully identified.

The trial of Basi, Virk, and Basi will, I believe, be a grand pretence.  As a game of pretending it will be faultless.  The conventional press and media will pretend the Special Crown Prosecutor is totally legitimate.  They will pretend that the evidence he brings forward and the witnesses he produces are truly what a full and fair investigation of all the linkages to Basi, Virk, and Basi would produce. (Those linkages, properly pursued would, I allege, ineluctably draw in related people and highly complex actions by senior government officials in the transfer of BC Rail to CNR that would suggest the need for additional accusations.)

The Special Crown Prosecutor may even produce specially selected RCMP investigating officers as witnesses to corroborate what I believe will be the sham being presented.  RCMP Deputy Commissioner Gary Bass, I believe, will have been fully cooperative in the matter, fulfilling – what I believe - is the primary role of “E” Division (the B.C. RCMP) - to protect Gordon Campbell and his associates before all else … in whatever improper actions they choose to undertake.

Professor Neil Boyd, celebrated criminologist at SFU, may even use the trial as an example of the superb operation of our legal system.  If he does, he ought to be paid richly for a ringing endorsement of what I believe will be (from the side of the prosecution) a wholly “manufactured” trial.

.
By BC Mary

There are simple tests for understanding the role of the media in British Columbia. Here's one test. Try to find the January 2003 article Petti Fong wrote  after interviewing Gordon Campbell's cell-mate at the Wailuku Police Station, Hawaii.

Try. Go ahead. You won't find it. But it's worth trying, if you're prepared to ask yourself why that story has disappeared.

Vancouver Sun and The Province had Fong's full, up-close and personal account of the Maui Affair from journalist, Petti Fong. Sun publisher, Patricia Graham later told BC Business magazine that the story had been killed because Gordo's cell-mate was described to The Sun as a "complete prevaricator" or, as a Sun editor said, "as opposed to a premier who says his government won't sell BC Rail, hasn't expanded gambling ... "

The massive neglect the Campbell drunk driving story received was the diametric opposite to the massive magnifying-glass under which all things NDP or former BC Premier Glen Clark had been placed.  That particular Vancouver Sun editor, Charles Smith, resigned in 2003. [There must be copies of Petti Fong's story around.]

Part 1 of this series talked about the press conference of Jan. 12, 2003, which took previous suspicions of media bias to a new level of firm conviction that CanWest Global was a branch of the Campbell government and that neither could be trusted.  [There must be copies of that film around, including "the question" followed by the stunned silence.]

It demeans us that our own BC media couldn't publish the story of our premier's arrest, and couldn't even tell us that there were hours in which the B.C. premier's chair was vacant and vulnerable. It demeans us that a foreign news media could write up a report worthy of an A+ in any journalism class, accurately titled Canadian official fined for driving drunk on Maui. Honolulu Star Bulletin, March 25, 2003.

The truly embarrassing part of being so demeaned is that the Hawaiin media was telling British Columbians things we needed to know; important things we'd never hear otherwise. E.g.,

He [Gordon Campbell] has told the news media that he had three martinis and some wine while dining with friends Fred Latremouille and Kathy Baldazzi during his annual vacation on Maui and was returning to a place where he was staying.

Deputy Prosecutor Mark Simonds said that about 12:55 a.m. a police officer stopped next to Campbell at a traffic light, and when the light changed, Campbell sped his vehicle forward.

The police officer said Campbell crossed the double solid line to his left, then pulled to his right crossing into the bicycle lane, Simonds said.

Campbell's driving was erratic, sometimes hitting his brakes, and he almost crossed into a lane that had a motor vehicle going in the opposite direction, he said.

Simonds said when the police officer stopped Campbell, he had a strong odor of liquor, an oily face and slurred speech.

But they didn't know our Gordo. He was lying, of course. He was very, very drunk.  Here's what a commentor said on this blog:

" ... a little high school level chemistry is all that is needed to improve our understanding of the Premier's Blood Alcohol Content:

Did you know that Gordon Campbell's blood alcohol rate would actually have been higher had he been in BC instead of Hawaii?

Quote: 

I looked up the methods used for measuring blood alcohol right after the news broke. I did the following simple math and sent my findings to all of the papers and the news stations. None of them published the new info I provided. I think I may have also commented upon it in the Tyee, but I am not sure.

In BC, blood alcohol content is measured by volume; in Hawaii, it is measured by weight.

8 grams of alcohol per 100 ml = 0.08% in Hawaii.

Ethyl alcohol has a speciffic gravity of 0.785 which means 1 ml of alcohol weighs 0.785 grams.

0.161/0.785 = 0.205

That means Campbell would have blown 0.205 at the roadside, and the 0.149 station measurement would have equaled 0.190 had it been measured by volume - the BC method!

For our way of thinking, Campbell was 2.5 times the legal limit, not twice the legal limit. At the time of the arrest, (with Campbell's body weight figured at 185 lbs.) that's probably at least 2 more martinis in his system - quite possibly 3.

End of quote.

So much for the B.C. media.


It would be a mistake to conclude that certain issues become improper, and shouldn't be mentioned simply because they might embarrass people in high places.

The Queen's family knows that this isn't true. And here in B.C., Kevin Potvin shot that theory full of holes when he published Is Gordon Campbell a 'Made Man'? on May 12, 2005. It's still readily available even in a province where a tell-all profile on Gordo is a rare event.

Fact is: there is absolutely no reason why the truth can't be told, with due respect for the subjects and the players. 

The awful fact is that if our civil democracy is to survive, the truth must be told. Absolutely must be told.  And it's entirely possible that we wouldn't need to endure the loss of a major railway or  painful events like the BC Rail Trial (Basi, Virk, Basi) if BC government developments had been fully and regularly  explored in B.C. news media.

CanWest has no excuses left. The Asper Empire of CanWest Global can find 1,001 ways to tell the lurid details of Pickton murders and to linger over street-level violence. It can illuminate the details of Gordo's Golden Era.  But it can't say "Whoa ... just a moment ... have you thought this legislation / this decision / this sweeping announcement through, Mr Premier?"

Of course it could do that. But CanWest Global chooses to turn away and completely ignore stories such as the trial and sentencing of Jasmohan Bains, the very person police were tracking when they made their unprecedented raid on the BC Legislature. "When there's news, we will publish it," sniffed the Editor-in-Chief of Victoria Times Colonist ... and they didn't.  Why not?

So CanWest's tactics of turning their back on the public's right to now has, in my view, brought bankruptcy on them by failing to serve the public interest.

People are not apathetic. But they cannot respond to, or act upon, information they've never heard about. And when eventually, the citizens of B.C. hear about the extent of the betrayal, they are invigorated. We have seen this ourselves. The public mood is shifting to: "Gordo has gone way, way too far ..." 

But Gordo still hasn't learned that he can't have it both ways. He can't pump up a syrupy happy-home story about their English housekeeper without also inviting media scrutiny as to whether his marriage was actually as blissful as that story suggested. And apparently it was not.  [Someone must still have copies of those stories.]


Gordo's Gang can't orchestrate a propaganda barrage against Gordon Wilson, former  leader of the BC Liberal Party and Judi Tyabji M.L.A., without inviting scrutiny of his own public/private P3 kind of life.

Signs of Gordo were all over the assault against former premier Glen Clark.

But  Gordo's response has been to establish zones of protective silence. One such zone surrounds his Executive Assistant, Lara Dauphinee. Whereas he might seem more likeably "open and transparent" if he said, "Yes, unfortunately it is true: Nancy and I have divorced; and my fiancee/wife is now ____ [fill in the blank]."  Evidence? Try to find a photo of Lara Dauphinee who is said to be "never far from his side." Try finding just one photo of her, despite all the grumblings "off the record".

But Gordo doesn't work that way. We may have seen clear evidence of his strategy during the May 2009 provincial election campaign. Several reliable sources have told me that it was my previous 4-part story about Lara Dauphinee which sparked the sudden change of pace before the May 2009 election. 

Remember how there was no participation by Mrs Nancy Campbell or the official Campbell family in the May 2009 provincial election? Then ... suddenly, there they were: Gordo wreathed in full frontal smiles.  Nancy -- in the background -- often ill at ease. Two hulking sons suddenly "working hard on the campaign" for dear old Dad. Bringing up the rear: the young wives and a baby. Gordo's happy family. So sudden.

Quote from "Concerned Citizen":

Gordon Campbell, having been so publicly and manipulatively self-righteous and accusatory of Premier Glen Clark, Opposition Leader Gordon Wilson and M.L.A. Judi Tyabji, simply in order to steal their power, invited a public searchlight onto himself for the rest of his career.

"Once the invasive searchlight was of no benefit to him personally, Gordo made damn sure it was turned off. It is Gordon Campbell's lack of integrity that has allowed him to behave so selfishly and recklessly in both his personal/public life. It explains "how he is destroying democracy and the forests and the fishery and healthcare." Total selfishness and lack of integrity in a leader is always very consequential to citizens. Thus we need to shine the same light on the possibly sociopathic Gordon Campbell that he has schemed to shine on others. What goes around is supposed to come around, and I certainly hope it does in this situation. I don't care per se what anyone does with their dick. It's what they do with their mind, heart, and soul that matters. Gordon Campbell, if he is in a sexual relationship with Lara, has chosen to have taxpayers, at huge expense, keep her at his side at all times. That is shameless and severely lacking in integrity on many levels, and if it is true, his dick is shining the light all by itself."

End of quote.

So there is another reliable test for evaluating the mainstream media in BC. Try to find a story, a photo, or even a mention of the woman who is not only on the B.C. government payroll as the current premier's Deputy Chief of Staff as well as  his Executive Assistant, but also has long been rumoured to be the premier's mistress, as well.

Try. Go ahead and try. You won't find much. Then ask yourself if there might be other things sealed away from public scrutiny ... for example, the fine print on the tainted deal giving BCRail to CN.


This was Part 2 of a 4-part series.