Saturday, May 05, 2007
Gary, a Citizen Journalist,
provides the 300th story
marking the 1st anniversary
of THE LEGISLATURE RAIDS.
GARY posted a message for me on Bill Tieleman's thread at The Tyee. Gary wrote:
Mary, at the end of March I had advised you that I would be in Van from about april 11th to 17th and would try to make all court dates that I could. As it turned out I could only make one. That I beleive was on the twelfth. Not being familiar with internet cafe's I was pressed to find other places to get at a computer. I finally used a community internet place but it wouldn't let me into your blog. Security they said. Anyway it was I who talked to Meghan outside the court. She has done a good job of communicating things to you from memory.
A couple of things missed by everyone reporting that day were:
A charter application was due to be heard by May 7th if possible (that's this monday). Bennett asked if it could be concluded in May.
Clients are not required to attend Disclosure.
The week of June 25th Justice Bennett has a matter she will deal with at that time.
As to a TRIAL DATE Justice Bennett asked, "Is there any thought to JULY 9TH?"
Defence council is not available May 17th and 18th.
Then Justice Bennett asked if there was any discussion on summer break. It was apparently agreed tha the month of August was good. So she set August 3rd to adjourn for the summer.
And there was a discussion of an October 9th voir dire in camera. Or a voir dire about "in Camera" It was very hard to hear.
So, on The Tyee thread following Bill Tieleman's story, BC Mary wrote:
Gary: if you're at home now and able to use your own computer comfortably, we'd all appreciate it if you filled out these details as much as possible. I'd like to post it on the main space. OK?
And thanks again for your kind words posted on The Tyee for this web-site ... and for keeping these very important trial date notes for us.
- BC Mary.
Then GARY came onto The Legislature Raids and left this in the Comments section:
Hi Mary. Here's what I have jotted down from that day.
Defence was discussing something about all internal documents. Something about 1004 pages. They were moving for April 18th rather than the 16th. (If memory serves, that was to start disclosure).
The defence wanted the Charter Applications to commence at the conclusion of disclosure.
The crown took no position on this.
My next note is not too clear but it says "Date Wed 11th dissent. Moving to 18th"
Defence was seeking a release and would probably be slowed down by a week.
Justice Bennett said disclosure would commence April 18th
There was a discussion about a charter application on May 7th.
Then Justice Bennett said that she wanted all outstanning requests from the crown to the defence by noon. There was a discussion about logistics . Each office being far apart etc.
Then the Bornmann issue was discussed (about classes taught with him apparently present) and it was agreed that it was not an issue. Court will start at 10 AM and Justice Bennett "will not stand down"
The week of the 23rd Justice Bennett had a matter that she fully expected to be adjourned.
The next 6 items are listed above in your comment.
Then madam justice "arbitrarily set 120 days" for the actual court case. Which I assume will be counted around holidays and a voir dire, and weekends. Now I'm not exactly sure if the voir dire is about this case or another one that defence is working on.
Then there was a question to a Mr. Coffee about the delivery of some items to defence.He said he sent previously claimed items and some were returned "not relevant"
On viewing documents it was discussed that court doesn't have the staff . I can't quite remember how this all went. Whether it was for copying documents or editing or whatever.
My next and final note has to do with access by the media and public.
At some point after disclosure they had to work out access by the Media and the Public. They were considering the 16th and 17th (of April) to invite the media (at this point the public was not mentioned) to work out something.
That's the way I have it noted Mary. My memory probably would have been fresher 3 weeks ago. But there you go. Bill may have other notes that would embellish this. You are most welcome to use it in context with his work.
# posted by Gary : May 4, 2007 10:36 AM
Many thanks to GARY for his patience and diligence in gathering this information for us. I hope others will add something, too. Just use the Comments section. Next pre-trial hearing is Monday 7 May at 10:00 AM in Courtroom RBG. - BC Mary.
I wonder if you've done any research into the Special Prosecutor and his background. He comes from a particular establishment law firm now called Fasken Martineau. However, if you go back a few years in your research you'll find that you get more information if you use their old name - Russell DuMoulin.
A lot of interesting folks got their start and a lot more at The Firm. And The Firm still represents and speaks for a great many 'establishment' clients.
I was looking into the Crown Council Act [RSBC 1996] Chapter 87.
It may be a good idea to read the whole act but Section 4 Through 8 tells us something. From the top down: The Attorney General
The Assistant Attorney General
The Deputy Assiatant Attorney General
The Special Prosecutor.
In reading this act I get the impression that The Attorney General has a bit of Teflon on his ministery.
In general it appears that the Special Prosecuter gets his direction from the Deputy Attorney General and/or The Assistant Deputy Attorney General IN WRITING
You can find it at:
Actually I have researched a little about him. I also checked some of his major cases. He has worked quite a broad spectrum and appears to have worked for some of us ordinary folk as well.
And you are correct in that he is well connected to the establishment as well as the government.
Special Prosecutor's are appointed by the Assistant Deputy Minister of the Criminal Justice Branch.