Saturday, March 31, 2007
"The Crown" blocked? In denial? What?
.
Isn't it marvelous, the way something can be right in front of our eyes ... and we don't see it? Over and over, we've been told that "The Crown" has fallen behind in providing documents necessary to a fair trial for Basi, Virk and Basi.
"The Crown" failed to provide all those documents. "The Crown" needs to respond to the defence Application for Disclosure. The Crown?
That's what I thought ... that The Crown was failing in its very important duties. The Crown, I thought, seemed to be doing an inexplicably sloppy job of not providing documents which the defence requested. The Crown.
How did I get the idea that "The Crown" had full access to whatever documents are required to conduct a fair trial of Basi, Virk, Basi?
Well, in this case, "It's the government, stupid." It's the government which holds all those documents (in trust, on behalf of the public, I thought). And so it's the government which poor ol' Bill Berardi, Crown Prosecutor, must turn to, as he tries to fulfill his own immense duties as "The Crown" (that's us) vs. Basi, Virk, Basi.
Poor ol' Berardi. Imagine his predicament, caught between a clamouring public and the Campbell Government.
Just imagine: Bill B. picks up the phone: "Ah, er Gordon ... I'm trying to find the written reasons for the instant dismissal of Dave Basi ..." And Gordon cuts in with "Bill? Bill who? Oh, that must be Bill 6, well, we've dealt with that. See my E.A. for copies." Slam.
Poor ol' Bill. Remember Bhupinder's little eyewitness report from Justice Bennett's courtroom, in which Ol' Bill was seen slumped hopelessly in his chair while the defence lawyers battled for permission to enter the Project Room? Poor, uncomfortable Ol' Bill. [See more about Berardino on "I want to investigate things for myself" by Bhupinder Mattu, published in this blog on 1/27/07.]
And yet, dammit, what about us? When they say "The Crown" doesn't that mean you? me? All of us? So what about the public's right to know? What about history's need to know? What about a fair trial? What about giving Bill Berardino the documents he needs to prosecute this hugely important B.C. Rail trial?
Sheesh ... only 70 questions?? But the B.C. Opposition finally stood up and delivered those questions. Next date to watch for: April 16.
- BC Mary.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
.
Isn't it marvelous, the way something can be right in front of our eyes ... and we don't see it? Over and over, we've been told that "The Crown" has fallen behind in providing documents necessary to a fair trial for Basi, Virk and Basi.
"The Crown" failed to provide all those documents. "The Crown" needs to respond to the defence Application for Disclosure. The Crown?
That's what I thought ... that The Crown was failing in its very important duties. The Crown, I thought, seemed to be doing an inexplicably sloppy job of not providing documents which the defence requested. The Crown.
How did I get the idea that "The Crown" had full access to whatever documents are required to conduct a fair trial of Basi, Virk, Basi?
Well, in this case, "It's the government, stupid." It's the government which holds all those documents (in trust, on behalf of the public, I thought). And so it's the government which poor ol' Bill Berardi, Crown Prosecutor, must turn to, as he tries to fulfill his own immense duties as "The Crown" (that's us) vs. Basi, Virk, Basi.
Poor ol' Berardi. Imagine his predicament, caught between a clamouring public and the Campbell Government.
Just imagine: Bill B. picks up the phone: "Ah, er Gordon ... I'm trying to find the written reasons for the instant dismissal of Dave Basi ..." And Gordon cuts in with "Bill? Bill who? Oh, that must be Bill 6, well, we've dealt with that. See my E.A. for copies." Slam.
Poor ol' Bill. Remember Bhupinder's little eyewitness report from Justice Bennett's courtroom, in which Ol' Bill was seen slumped hopelessly in his chair while the defence lawyers battled for permission to enter the Project Room? Poor, uncomfortable Ol' Bill. [See more about Berardino on "I want to investigate things for myself" by Bhupinder Mattu, published in this blog on 1/27/07.]
And yet, dammit, what about us? When they say "The Crown" doesn't that mean you? me? All of us? So what about the public's right to know? What about history's need to know? What about a fair trial? What about giving Bill Berardino the documents he needs to prosecute this hugely important B.C. Rail trial?
Sheesh ... only 70 questions?? But the B.C. Opposition finally stood up and delivered those questions. Next date to watch for: April 16.
- BC Mary.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
.
Friday, March 30, 2007
B.C. Rail lobbyists contacted Finance officials, writes Gary Mason
.
GARY MASON
Globe and Mail - 30 March 2007
VANCOUVER — ... Back in August of 2003, Paul Taylor was arguably the most powerful bureaucrat in the B.C. government and a friend of Brian Kieran, a lobbyist with the Victoria-based government relations firm Pilothouse. Pilothouse represented OmniTRAX, an American company that was bidding on the controversial rail sale that was being handled by the B.C. Ministry of Finance. {snip}
In an e-mail to Mr. Bornmann and a third partner, Jamie Elmhirst, dated Aug. 23, 2003, Mr. Kieran talks about a fishing trip he'd had earlier in the day with Mr. Taylor. The e-mail describes how Mr. Taylor went to bat for Pilothouse in a bid to get the firm work with the New Car Dealers of BC, formerly called the B.C. Automobile Dealers Association, of which Mr. Taylor was president before becoming deputy finance minister.
The memo describes Mr. Taylor recalling a recent meeting he'd had with Glen Ringdal, current president of the association.
"Paul told Glen he needed GR [government relations] on the ground . . . needed us," the e-mail reads.
"Paul says they have been missing stuff. He is totally amazed that BCADA has not got in the habit of coming to him for help on their issues.
"Paul says he continues to be very close friends with several store owners and really likes the industry. One owner has offered to bank roll Paul if he ever decided to buy a dealership. Paul was making it clear he will be there for us."
The e-mail then goes on to state that Mr. Taylor apparently told Mr. Ringdal he would have to pay about $50,000 a year for good government relations work.
"That's why Glen says he has a number in mind," wrote Mr. Kieran, referring to an earlier discussion with Mr. Ringdal. "Knowing that I'm inclined to come in at $6,000 [a month] and be prepared to retreat to $5,000. It will be more than the $50,000 but Glen doesn't have many options and he's still saving thousands."
The memo goes on: "Paul also says he has a special fund for $1 million for special projects."
In a reply to the e-mail later that same evening, Mr. Elmhirst writes, "Yah, well I could come up with this kind of great intel too if I lived next door to a blabby deputy minister!"
Contacted by The Globe and Mail about the e-mail, Mr. Ringdal confirmed that Pilothouse was hired by the association around this time to do some lobbying on its behalf in Victoria.
Asked if it was Mr. Taylor who recommended Pilothouse to him, Mr. Ringdal said: "It's not inconceivable. I got to know Paul because he's a friend of one of our very big dealers. That's where I would run into him. The fact he would make that kind of suggestion would not be untoward. That's very possible but I don't quite recall."
Later, Mr. Ringdal said he respected Mr. Taylor's understanding of how government worked. Asked about the overall contents of Mr. Kieran's e-mail, Mr. Ringdal said: "It sounds to me like [Mr. Taylor] was helping them get work and indeed he did. Which turned out to be fine."
Mr. Ringdal said that after Pilothouse was hired, he recalls being in several meetings with Finance Ministry staff who would have reported directly to Mr. Taylor. But he can only recall Mr. Taylor being in "one or two" meetings in which Mr. Ringdal and possibly a representative from Pilothouse would have been lobbying for changes that benefited the automobile dealers association.
At the time, the automobile dealers were looking for a number of tax cuts from the Finance Ministry.
There is no evidence that Mr. Taylor specifically approved or recommended specific changes that would benefit the association.
Mr. Taylor, meantime, said he was recently sent a copy of the e-mail by a person he would not identify. He said it was likely leaked to the media "to achieve mischief."
"It's an unfortunate e-mail that reflected a private conversation between two people [he and Mr. Kieran]. We were out fishing together and at the end of the day there's nothing of real substance in it I would say."
Mr. Taylor confirmed that he and Mr. Kieran had boats in the same marina and would go fishing together from time to time.
"Go back and understand one thing," Mr. Taylor told The Globe. "I was past president of the automobile dealers association. So I'd seen Mr. Ringdal from time to time. I may have had conversations with him from time to time."
He said he did not have any recollection about talking to Mr. Ringdal about hiring Pilothouse. {snip}
Mr. Taylor is now president of the Crown-owned Insurance Corporation of B.C. Mr. Kieran and partner Mr. Bornmann are expected to testify for the Crown.
Full story at: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20070330.wxbcmason30/BNStory/National/home
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
.
GARY MASON
Globe and Mail - 30 March 2007
VANCOUVER — ... Back in August of 2003, Paul Taylor was arguably the most powerful bureaucrat in the B.C. government and a friend of Brian Kieran, a lobbyist with the Victoria-based government relations firm Pilothouse. Pilothouse represented OmniTRAX, an American company that was bidding on the controversial rail sale that was being handled by the B.C. Ministry of Finance. {snip}
In an e-mail to Mr. Bornmann and a third partner, Jamie Elmhirst, dated Aug. 23, 2003, Mr. Kieran talks about a fishing trip he'd had earlier in the day with Mr. Taylor. The e-mail describes how Mr. Taylor went to bat for Pilothouse in a bid to get the firm work with the New Car Dealers of BC, formerly called the B.C. Automobile Dealers Association, of which Mr. Taylor was president before becoming deputy finance minister.
The memo describes Mr. Taylor recalling a recent meeting he'd had with Glen Ringdal, current president of the association.
"Paul told Glen he needed GR [government relations] on the ground . . . needed us," the e-mail reads.
"Paul says they have been missing stuff. He is totally amazed that BCADA has not got in the habit of coming to him for help on their issues.
"Paul says he continues to be very close friends with several store owners and really likes the industry. One owner has offered to bank roll Paul if he ever decided to buy a dealership. Paul was making it clear he will be there for us."
The e-mail then goes on to state that Mr. Taylor apparently told Mr. Ringdal he would have to pay about $50,000 a year for good government relations work.
"That's why Glen says he has a number in mind," wrote Mr. Kieran, referring to an earlier discussion with Mr. Ringdal. "Knowing that I'm inclined to come in at $6,000 [a month] and be prepared to retreat to $5,000. It will be more than the $50,000 but Glen doesn't have many options and he's still saving thousands."
The memo goes on: "Paul also says he has a special fund for $1 million for special projects."
In a reply to the e-mail later that same evening, Mr. Elmhirst writes, "Yah, well I could come up with this kind of great intel too if I lived next door to a blabby deputy minister!"
Contacted by The Globe and Mail about the e-mail, Mr. Ringdal confirmed that Pilothouse was hired by the association around this time to do some lobbying on its behalf in Victoria.
Asked if it was Mr. Taylor who recommended Pilothouse to him, Mr. Ringdal said: "It's not inconceivable. I got to know Paul because he's a friend of one of our very big dealers. That's where I would run into him. The fact he would make that kind of suggestion would not be untoward. That's very possible but I don't quite recall."
Later, Mr. Ringdal said he respected Mr. Taylor's understanding of how government worked. Asked about the overall contents of Mr. Kieran's e-mail, Mr. Ringdal said: "It sounds to me like [Mr. Taylor] was helping them get work and indeed he did. Which turned out to be fine."
Mr. Ringdal said that after Pilothouse was hired, he recalls being in several meetings with Finance Ministry staff who would have reported directly to Mr. Taylor. But he can only recall Mr. Taylor being in "one or two" meetings in which Mr. Ringdal and possibly a representative from Pilothouse would have been lobbying for changes that benefited the automobile dealers association.
At the time, the automobile dealers were looking for a number of tax cuts from the Finance Ministry.
There is no evidence that Mr. Taylor specifically approved or recommended specific changes that would benefit the association.
Mr. Taylor, meantime, said he was recently sent a copy of the e-mail by a person he would not identify. He said it was likely leaked to the media "to achieve mischief."
"It's an unfortunate e-mail that reflected a private conversation between two people [he and Mr. Kieran]. We were out fishing together and at the end of the day there's nothing of real substance in it I would say."
Mr. Taylor confirmed that he and Mr. Kieran had boats in the same marina and would go fishing together from time to time.
"Go back and understand one thing," Mr. Taylor told The Globe. "I was past president of the automobile dealers association. So I'd seen Mr. Ringdal from time to time. I may have had conversations with him from time to time."
He said he did not have any recollection about talking to Mr. Ringdal about hiring Pilothouse. {snip}
Mr. Taylor is now president of the Crown-owned Insurance Corporation of B.C. Mr. Kieran and partner Mr. Bornmann are expected to testify for the Crown.
Full story at: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20070330.wxbcmason30/BNStory/National/home
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
.
Thursday, March 29, 2007
Opposition asks: why is government refusing to release documents?
.
In an attempt to get the judge to order the government to release documents that are essential to their defence, lawyers for Basi, Virk and Basi filed an application for disclosure in early March. Now Carole James and the NDP Opposition are demanding answers - and a public enquiry to get them.
The circumstances of the sale of BC Rail lie at the heart of the case, and in the Legislature Carole James asked why has the government failed -- for over a year -- to release the documents? When this case began, the premier personally pledged that the government would fully cooperate in the investigation. Now it seems that the government is withholding information. Why is the government refusing to cooperate?"
The reason could be that the defense lawyers are alleging that Basi was carrying out the political instructions of his superiors - with their knowledge and consent."These allegations suggest other officials like former Finance Minister Gary Collins may have been much more involved than anyone has admitted" said James.
"It is time to clear the air" said James. "The Campbell government must immediately release the documents. They must also commit to holding a public inquiry into the sale of BC Rail as soon as the criminal proceedings are over. British Columbians deserve to know the truth, and a public inquiry is the only way we will ever know what happened."
From The Democrat. March 2007.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
[I think many of us have failed to distinguish between the duties of the Crown prosecutors and the duties of the government. I had thought that all documents were available to the Crown prosecutors and that, if the Crown failed to provide documents it was entirely their fault, nobody else's. This may, in fact, be true. But having now heard from the B.C. Opposition, it appears that there is another active participant in the trial of Basi, Virk, Basi -- the government -- and that they may be sitting on documents crucial to a fair trial for three former employees. -BC Mary]
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
In an attempt to get the judge to order the government to release documents that are essential to their defence, lawyers for Basi, Virk and Basi filed an application for disclosure in early March. Now Carole James and the NDP Opposition are demanding answers - and a public enquiry to get them.
The circumstances of the sale of BC Rail lie at the heart of the case, and in the Legislature Carole James asked why has the government failed -- for over a year -- to release the documents? When this case began, the premier personally pledged that the government would fully cooperate in the investigation. Now it seems that the government is withholding information. Why is the government refusing to cooperate?"
The reason could be that the defense lawyers are alleging that Basi was carrying out the political instructions of his superiors - with their knowledge and consent."These allegations suggest other officials like former Finance Minister Gary Collins may have been much more involved than anyone has admitted" said James.
"It is time to clear the air" said James. "The Campbell government must immediately release the documents. They must also commit to holding a public inquiry into the sale of BC Rail as soon as the criminal proceedings are over. British Columbians deserve to know the truth, and a public inquiry is the only way we will ever know what happened."
From The Democrat. March 2007.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
[I think many of us have failed to distinguish between the duties of the Crown prosecutors and the duties of the government. I had thought that all documents were available to the Crown prosecutors and that, if the Crown failed to provide documents it was entirely their fault, nobody else's. This may, in fact, be true. But having now heard from the B.C. Opposition, it appears that there is another active participant in the trial of Basi, Virk, Basi -- the government -- and that they may be sitting on documents crucial to a fair trial for three former employees. -BC Mary]
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Bill Tieleman with a new bombshell ...
.
LAWYERS FOR FORMER GOVERNMENT AIDES SAY CROWN IS WITHHOLDING POLICE NOTES AND WIRETAP LOGS
By Neal Hall
Vancouver Sun
March 29, 2007
Defence lawyers filed thousands of pages of material Wednesday to support a previous disclosure application related to two former provincial government aides facing trial on charges of fraud, breach of trust and accepting a benefit.
The police investigation, which began with a drug trafficking probe in 2002, led the RCMP to a raid on the legislature in December 2003, when search warrants were executed on the offices of Udhe Singh (Dave) Basi and Bobby Singh Virk.
Basi's cousin, Aneal Basi, a former Liberal communications officer, also is accused of two counts of money-laundering. The offences are related to the $1-billion sale of BC Rail to Canadian National Railway.
Vancouver lawyer Michael Bolton, representing Dave Basi, said Wednesday that about 2,000 pages of defence material were filed in support of its disclosure application. The material includes police notes and information from wiretap logs, he said.
Bolton said the material likely won't be publicly released until it is examined by the trial judge, B.C. Supreme Court Justice Elizabeth Bennett.
The disclosure application is scheduled to be heard starting April 2 and is expected to take a few days. The defence claims hundreds of documents still haven't been disclosed by police and special prosecutor Bill Berardino.
Beginning April 16, the defence will launch into two voir dires: The first will involve a legal challenge of the wiretap authorization -- a judge authorized police to secretly record phone conversations -- and the second will be a challenge of the search warrants. At the time of the raid, Dave Basi was a ministerial assistant to Gary Collins, then finance minister. Virk was a ministerial assistant to then transportation minister Judith Reid. The Crown alleges the ministerial assistants put the bidding process for BC Rail at risk by leaking documents in hopes of securing federal government positions or other benefits.
nhall@png.canwest.com
_______________________________________________
[The headline contradicts Paragraph #4, doesn't it? - BC Mary.]
_______________________________________________
Bill - Number One guy on the B.C. Rail Case - thank you!
_______________________________________________
LAWYERS FOR FORMER GOVERNMENT AIDES SAY CROWN IS WITHHOLDING POLICE NOTES AND WIRETAP LOGS
By Neal Hall
Vancouver Sun
March 29, 2007
Defence lawyers filed thousands of pages of material Wednesday to support a previous disclosure application related to two former provincial government aides facing trial on charges of fraud, breach of trust and accepting a benefit.
The police investigation, which began with a drug trafficking probe in 2002, led the RCMP to a raid on the legislature in December 2003, when search warrants were executed on the offices of Udhe Singh (Dave) Basi and Bobby Singh Virk.
Basi's cousin, Aneal Basi, a former Liberal communications officer, also is accused of two counts of money-laundering. The offences are related to the $1-billion sale of BC Rail to Canadian National Railway.
Vancouver lawyer Michael Bolton, representing Dave Basi, said Wednesday that about 2,000 pages of defence material were filed in support of its disclosure application. The material includes police notes and information from wiretap logs, he said.
Bolton said the material likely won't be publicly released until it is examined by the trial judge, B.C. Supreme Court Justice Elizabeth Bennett.
The disclosure application is scheduled to be heard starting April 2 and is expected to take a few days. The defence claims hundreds of documents still haven't been disclosed by police and special prosecutor Bill Berardino.
Beginning April 16, the defence will launch into two voir dires: The first will involve a legal challenge of the wiretap authorization -- a judge authorized police to secretly record phone conversations -- and the second will be a challenge of the search warrants. At the time of the raid, Dave Basi was a ministerial assistant to Gary Collins, then finance minister. Virk was a ministerial assistant to then transportation minister Judith Reid. The Crown alleges the ministerial assistants put the bidding process for BC Rail at risk by leaking documents in hopes of securing federal government positions or other benefits.
nhall@png.canwest.com
_______________________________________________
[The headline contradicts Paragraph #4, doesn't it? - BC Mary.]
_______________________________________________
Bill - Number One guy on the B.C. Rail Case - thank you!
_______________________________________________
B.C. Opposition speaks up: "Come clean on B.C. Rail" they say. "Call a Public Inquiry! and answer these 70 questions!!"
.
MEDIA RELEASE
For Immediate Release
March 29, 2007
NDP DEMANDS ANSWERS ON SALE OF B.C. RAIL
VICTORIA–In an effort to get the B.C. Liberal government to come clean on the problematic circumstances surrounding the sale of B.C. Rail, New Democrat MLA Leonard Krog is demanding that the Attorney General provide answers to a series of 70 questions.
“It has become increasingly clear that the Campbell Liberals will do whatever they can to avoid being held accountable for what might have happened during the sale of B.C. Rail“, said Krog, the New Democrat Critic for the Attorney General. “British Columbians deserve answers to these questions.”
Under the rules of the B.C. Legislative Assembly, an MLA can submit written questions for any government Minister. These questions are in addition to those raised during oral question period.
“Several years after the Campbell Liberals broke their promise not to sell B.C. Rail, the people of British Columbia are still waiting to know what went on during those negotiations,” said Krog, the MLA for Nanaimo.
“For instance, the Attorney General has refused to answer our questions about whether his government will commit to hold a public inquiry into the sell-off of B.C. Rail as soon as the criminal proceedings conclude so that B.C. taxpayers can finally get the answers they deserve,” continued Krog. “That is completely unacceptable.”
In April, the B.C. Supreme Court will begin hearing the case for three former Liberal political staff facing charges of fraud, influence peddling, and money laundering as a result of police investigations that culminated in the December 2003 raid of the Legislature.
-- 30 --
The questions submitted are available upon request or from the Legislature website at : http://www.leg.bc.ca/38th3rd/votes/v070328.htm
Media Contact: Sara Goldvine (250)208-3560
NOTICE OF QUESTIONS
Monday, April 16 [Comment: On this date, a 3-week hearing on disclosure begins in B.C. Supreme Court in the matter of HMTQ vs Basi, Virk, Basi. - BC Mary]
1 Mr. Krog to ask the Hon. Attorney General the following questions pertaining to the BC Rail deal:--
1. Will the government hold a public inquiry into the sell-off of BC Rail as soon as the criminal proceedings conclude so that B.C. taxpayers can finally get the answers they deserve?
2. When did the government first learn that the BC Rail deal was the target of an in-depth RCMP investigation?
3. When will the government release all documents -- including documents which may not be directly linked to the charges -- that relate to government policies or decisions regarding BC Rail?
4. Has the investigation into the sale of BC Rail uncovered evidence that other government policies or decisions may have been illegally or inappropriately affected? If yes, will the government release all such documents -- including documents which may not be directly related to the charges?
5. Did the BC Rail Steering Committee discuss the potential for the BC Rail deal to collapse if only one bidder remained in the bidding process?
6. Will the government release all minutes for meetings of the BC Rail Steering Committee?
7. Will the government release all documents produced for the BC Rail Steering Committee?
8. Did members of the Steering Committee or other members of the government caucus meet with or communicate with any of the proponents or their representatives during the process to sell BC Rail?
9. Did the Premier or any of his staff meet with or communicate with any of the proponents or their representatives during the process to sell BC Rail?
10. Can the government explain why then-Solicitor General Rich Coleman briefed the Premier before the search warrants were executed?
11. Can the government explain why then-Solicitor General Rich Coleman briefed the Premier's Chief of Staff Martyn Brown immediately after the warrants were executed and before alerting the public?
12. Why was Martyn Brown given the go-ahead to fire Dave Basi immediately, prior to any charges being laid?
13. How can the government defend the propriety of the Solicitor General's actions against the charge that in briefing the Premier and his top political staffer, this government put its political interests ahead of the public interest?
14. Why was provincial government staff allowed to organize for the federal Liberals in the Legislature using taxpayer resources?
15. What steps did the Premier take to ensure that the BC Liberal Party did not benefit from illegal activities by staff?
16. Will the government release the tapes and/or transcripts of phone conversations between the Premier and government ministers that were gathered during the criminal investigation into the sale of BC Rail?
17. Given the government's own forecasts for significant coal mining activity, why were projections based on coal export growth deliberately left out of revenue calculations for the BC Rail line?
18. Did the government consider canceling the sale of the BC Rail freight division?
19. Will the government release any and all correspondence with the RCMP and BC Rail about rescinding the sale of the BC Rail freight division?
20. If the government considered canceling the sale of the BC Rail freight division, was compensation considered for any proponents?
21. What discussions took place concerning the issue of whether CN Rail had paid too much or too little for the BC Rail freight division?
22. What was the estimated value of former BC Rail assets in 2003, before they were sold? What is the estimated value of those former BC Rails assets now?
23. Did CP Rail express concerns about the clear breach of fairness in the process to sell BC Rail prior to their letter of Nov. 21, 2003?
24. Did the government -- including any and all government ministers, the BC Rail steering committee, the government caucus and/or its advisors or technical specialists -- ever discuss the consequences of OmniTRAX dropping out of the bidding process prior to or following the withdrawal of CP Rail?
25. Did the government consider the potential consequences of a small number of proponents or a single proponent during the sale of BC Rail for its goal of "maximizing value to the province"?
26. Did the government consider the potential negative political ramifications of a small number of proponents or a single proponent during the sale of BC Rail?
27. What was discussed at the Dec. 12, 2003, meeting held at Vancouver restaurant Villa del Lupo between the Minister of Finance and senior executives from OmniTRAX, the second-place finisher in the bidding process for the government-owned BC Rail?
28. Will the government ensure that tapes and transcripts resulting from the surveillance of the Minister of Finance's meeting with OmniTRAX officials are made public?
29. Did the Minister of Finance meet with other proponents during the transaction process?
30. Was it the Minister of Finance who ordered confidential government information to be leaked to a lobby firm representing OmniTRAX?
31. If it was not the Minister of Finance who ordered confidential government information to be leaked to a lobby firm representing OmniTRAX, was the Premier's Office or any other government official responsible for this order?
32. Will the government release the "meeting minutes, presentations and other documents" referred to in the Charles River Associates report on the BC Rail bidding process?
33. Did Charles River Associates review meetings, conversations or communications outside the official process -- particularly those including ministers and ministerial aides -- in their analysis of the fairness of the BC Rail transaction process?
34. Will the government release all documents including emails, reports, interview transcripts relating to the two information leaks referenced in the Charles River Associates report?
35. Can the government provide concrete evidence for their claim that the information leaks referenced in the Charles River Associates report did not materially affect the sale of BC Rail?
36. Will the government provide the full list of files and issues in the purview of or involving David Basi, Aneal Basi and Bob Virk between June 2001 and December 2003?
37. Did the government order an internal investigation into every file that Mr. Basi touched while he worked as a top political aide to the Minister of Finance -- and if not, why not?
38. Did the government order an internal investigation into every file that Mr. Virk touched while he worked as a top political aide to the Minister of Transportation -- and if not, why not?
39. Will the government provide an explanation as to why Dave Basi was fired immediately -- prior to any charges -- while Bob Virk was only suspended?
40. Can the government provide assurances and evidence of the statement made by the then-Finance Minister in December 2003 that Dave Basi "was not involved in the budget process, never has been" and "was not involved in the drafting of legislation or policy development."
41. Will the government conduct a review of every decision made to remove land from the ALR while Mr. Basi worked in the Campbell administration?
42. Will the government provide a full enumeration of all government activities and files that involved Dave Basi and/or Bob Virk and the principals and staff of Pilothouse Public Affairs?
43. Is the government aware of any other potential or ongoing investigations that involve Basi, Virk, or Pilothouse and any other minister, ministry or public body -- and if so, what are they?
44. Will the government provide a full enumeration of the roles played in this investigation -- or any other related investigation -- by Mark Marissen, husband of then Deputy Premier Christy Clark, and Bruce Clark, the brother of the then-Deputy Premier?
45. What materials did the Special Prosecutor withhold from the defence that were the subject of the February 27, 2007 defence application?
46. Will the government provide a full enumeration of all government activities associated with Pilothouse Public Affairs?
47. Will the government provide a full enumeration of all government activities associated with K&E Public Affairs?
48. Why did the government allow Erik Bornman of Pilothouse Public Affairs to continue his lobbying activities after he had informed Bill Berardino that he had bribed Dave Basi?
49. Why did the government allow Brian Kieran of Pilothouse Public Affairs to continue his lobbying activities after he had informed the RCMP that he had tried to bribe Dave Basi?
50. Can the government assure British Columbians that lobbyists Erik Bornman and Brian Kieran no longer have access to senior government staff?
51. Why did the BC Liberal Party continue to accept money in 2004 from lobbyists named in the original warrants, long after the raids on the Legislature?
52. Why won't the BC Liberal government allow an all-party review of the Lobbyists Registration Act in order to have greater accountability over who is influencing government and how?
53. When did the Attorney General and Premier first become aware that the lead RCMP inspector was the brother-in-law of Kelly Reichart, Executive Director of the BC Liberal Party?
54. How did Kelly Reichert learn that Erik Bornman had been granted immunity in exchange for providing information about David Basi and Bob Virk?
55. When did the Attorney General and Premier first become aware that information related to the investigation was leaked to Kelly Reichart and was subsequently leaked by Mr. Reichart to principals in the investigation?
56. Does the Attorney General agree that the actions of Mr. Reichart risked compromising the investigation?
57. Why does Mr. Reichart continue to serve as the Executive Director of the BC Liberal Party?
58. Given that one of the government's objectives for the BC Rail transaction was "ensuring integrated North American access to preferred markets and carriers for interline rail shipments", why would the government attempt to sell the Roberts Bank Spur line separately, following the withdrawal of CP Rail?
59. Is it true that in November 2003, Dave Basi advised OmniTRAX that the then-Minister of Finance had authorized a consolation prize for OmniTRAX in exchange for that company staying in the bidding process?
60. Was this consolation prize the BC Rail spur line?
61. How much was the consolation prize valued at?
62. Was OmniTRAX offered any Delta ALR lands for expansion of the port as part of this consolation prize?
63. If it were not for the alleged criminal actions of high-ranking aides, would the government have proceeded with the sale of the BC Rail spur line?
64. Does $900,000 represent the total cost to taxpayers of cancelling the sale of the spur line, or did the final tab come in even higher than that? What was the final tab?
65. What was the estimated value of the spur line in 2004, when the sale was put on hold?
66. What was the estimated value of the spur line when the sale was totally cancelled in February 2006?
67. What is the estimated value of the spur line now?
68. Why won't the government exercise its rights under article 10.2 of the Revitalization Agreement to inspect all of CN's maintenance records for the former BC Rail line?
69. When will the government investigate the rash of tragic derailments since 2004 in order to shed light on this safety scandal?
70. Why has the government refused to provide evidence for its claim that the government discussed safety and maintenance with the proponents during the negotiations to sell BC Rail?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Thanks to Bill Tieleman for this. http://billtieleman.blogspot.com/
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
MEDIA RELEASE
For Immediate Release
March 29, 2007
NDP DEMANDS ANSWERS ON SALE OF B.C. RAIL
VICTORIA–In an effort to get the B.C. Liberal government to come clean on the problematic circumstances surrounding the sale of B.C. Rail, New Democrat MLA Leonard Krog is demanding that the Attorney General provide answers to a series of 70 questions.
“It has become increasingly clear that the Campbell Liberals will do whatever they can to avoid being held accountable for what might have happened during the sale of B.C. Rail“, said Krog, the New Democrat Critic for the Attorney General. “British Columbians deserve answers to these questions.”
Under the rules of the B.C. Legislative Assembly, an MLA can submit written questions for any government Minister. These questions are in addition to those raised during oral question period.
“Several years after the Campbell Liberals broke their promise not to sell B.C. Rail, the people of British Columbia are still waiting to know what went on during those negotiations,” said Krog, the MLA for Nanaimo.
“For instance, the Attorney General has refused to answer our questions about whether his government will commit to hold a public inquiry into the sell-off of B.C. Rail as soon as the criminal proceedings conclude so that B.C. taxpayers can finally get the answers they deserve,” continued Krog. “That is completely unacceptable.”
In April, the B.C. Supreme Court will begin hearing the case for three former Liberal political staff facing charges of fraud, influence peddling, and money laundering as a result of police investigations that culminated in the December 2003 raid of the Legislature.
-- 30 --
The questions submitted are available upon request or from the Legislature website at : http://www.leg.bc.ca/38th3rd/votes/v070328.htm
Media Contact: Sara Goldvine (250)208-3560
NOTICE OF QUESTIONS
Monday, April 16 [Comment: On this date, a 3-week hearing on disclosure begins in B.C. Supreme Court in the matter of HMTQ vs Basi, Virk, Basi. - BC Mary]
1 Mr. Krog to ask the Hon. Attorney General the following questions pertaining to the BC Rail deal:--
1. Will the government hold a public inquiry into the sell-off of BC Rail as soon as the criminal proceedings conclude so that B.C. taxpayers can finally get the answers they deserve?
2. When did the government first learn that the BC Rail deal was the target of an in-depth RCMP investigation?
3. When will the government release all documents -- including documents which may not be directly linked to the charges -- that relate to government policies or decisions regarding BC Rail?
4. Has the investigation into the sale of BC Rail uncovered evidence that other government policies or decisions may have been illegally or inappropriately affected? If yes, will the government release all such documents -- including documents which may not be directly related to the charges?
5. Did the BC Rail Steering Committee discuss the potential for the BC Rail deal to collapse if only one bidder remained in the bidding process?
6. Will the government release all minutes for meetings of the BC Rail Steering Committee?
7. Will the government release all documents produced for the BC Rail Steering Committee?
8. Did members of the Steering Committee or other members of the government caucus meet with or communicate with any of the proponents or their representatives during the process to sell BC Rail?
9. Did the Premier or any of his staff meet with or communicate with any of the proponents or their representatives during the process to sell BC Rail?
10. Can the government explain why then-Solicitor General Rich Coleman briefed the Premier before the search warrants were executed?
11. Can the government explain why then-Solicitor General Rich Coleman briefed the Premier's Chief of Staff Martyn Brown immediately after the warrants were executed and before alerting the public?
12. Why was Martyn Brown given the go-ahead to fire Dave Basi immediately, prior to any charges being laid?
13. How can the government defend the propriety of the Solicitor General's actions against the charge that in briefing the Premier and his top political staffer, this government put its political interests ahead of the public interest?
14. Why was provincial government staff allowed to organize for the federal Liberals in the Legislature using taxpayer resources?
15. What steps did the Premier take to ensure that the BC Liberal Party did not benefit from illegal activities by staff?
16. Will the government release the tapes and/or transcripts of phone conversations between the Premier and government ministers that were gathered during the criminal investigation into the sale of BC Rail?
17. Given the government's own forecasts for significant coal mining activity, why were projections based on coal export growth deliberately left out of revenue calculations for the BC Rail line?
18. Did the government consider canceling the sale of the BC Rail freight division?
19. Will the government release any and all correspondence with the RCMP and BC Rail about rescinding the sale of the BC Rail freight division?
20. If the government considered canceling the sale of the BC Rail freight division, was compensation considered for any proponents?
21. What discussions took place concerning the issue of whether CN Rail had paid too much or too little for the BC Rail freight division?
22. What was the estimated value of former BC Rail assets in 2003, before they were sold? What is the estimated value of those former BC Rails assets now?
23. Did CP Rail express concerns about the clear breach of fairness in the process to sell BC Rail prior to their letter of Nov. 21, 2003?
24. Did the government -- including any and all government ministers, the BC Rail steering committee, the government caucus and/or its advisors or technical specialists -- ever discuss the consequences of OmniTRAX dropping out of the bidding process prior to or following the withdrawal of CP Rail?
25. Did the government consider the potential consequences of a small number of proponents or a single proponent during the sale of BC Rail for its goal of "maximizing value to the province"?
26. Did the government consider the potential negative political ramifications of a small number of proponents or a single proponent during the sale of BC Rail?
27. What was discussed at the Dec. 12, 2003, meeting held at Vancouver restaurant Villa del Lupo between the Minister of Finance and senior executives from OmniTRAX, the second-place finisher in the bidding process for the government-owned BC Rail?
28. Will the government ensure that tapes and transcripts resulting from the surveillance of the Minister of Finance's meeting with OmniTRAX officials are made public?
29. Did the Minister of Finance meet with other proponents during the transaction process?
30. Was it the Minister of Finance who ordered confidential government information to be leaked to a lobby firm representing OmniTRAX?
31. If it was not the Minister of Finance who ordered confidential government information to be leaked to a lobby firm representing OmniTRAX, was the Premier's Office or any other government official responsible for this order?
32. Will the government release the "meeting minutes, presentations and other documents" referred to in the Charles River Associates report on the BC Rail bidding process?
33. Did Charles River Associates review meetings, conversations or communications outside the official process -- particularly those including ministers and ministerial aides -- in their analysis of the fairness of the BC Rail transaction process?
34. Will the government release all documents including emails, reports, interview transcripts relating to the two information leaks referenced in the Charles River Associates report?
35. Can the government provide concrete evidence for their claim that the information leaks referenced in the Charles River Associates report did not materially affect the sale of BC Rail?
36. Will the government provide the full list of files and issues in the purview of or involving David Basi, Aneal Basi and Bob Virk between June 2001 and December 2003?
37. Did the government order an internal investigation into every file that Mr. Basi touched while he worked as a top political aide to the Minister of Finance -- and if not, why not?
38. Did the government order an internal investigation into every file that Mr. Virk touched while he worked as a top political aide to the Minister of Transportation -- and if not, why not?
39. Will the government provide an explanation as to why Dave Basi was fired immediately -- prior to any charges -- while Bob Virk was only suspended?
40. Can the government provide assurances and evidence of the statement made by the then-Finance Minister in December 2003 that Dave Basi "was not involved in the budget process, never has been" and "was not involved in the drafting of legislation or policy development."
41. Will the government conduct a review of every decision made to remove land from the ALR while Mr. Basi worked in the Campbell administration?
42. Will the government provide a full enumeration of all government activities and files that involved Dave Basi and/or Bob Virk and the principals and staff of Pilothouse Public Affairs?
43. Is the government aware of any other potential or ongoing investigations that involve Basi, Virk, or Pilothouse and any other minister, ministry or public body -- and if so, what are they?
44. Will the government provide a full enumeration of the roles played in this investigation -- or any other related investigation -- by Mark Marissen, husband of then Deputy Premier Christy Clark, and Bruce Clark, the brother of the then-Deputy Premier?
45. What materials did the Special Prosecutor withhold from the defence that were the subject of the February 27, 2007 defence application?
46. Will the government provide a full enumeration of all government activities associated with Pilothouse Public Affairs?
47. Will the government provide a full enumeration of all government activities associated with K&E Public Affairs?
48. Why did the government allow Erik Bornman of Pilothouse Public Affairs to continue his lobbying activities after he had informed Bill Berardino that he had bribed Dave Basi?
49. Why did the government allow Brian Kieran of Pilothouse Public Affairs to continue his lobbying activities after he had informed the RCMP that he had tried to bribe Dave Basi?
50. Can the government assure British Columbians that lobbyists Erik Bornman and Brian Kieran no longer have access to senior government staff?
51. Why did the BC Liberal Party continue to accept money in 2004 from lobbyists named in the original warrants, long after the raids on the Legislature?
52. Why won't the BC Liberal government allow an all-party review of the Lobbyists Registration Act in order to have greater accountability over who is influencing government and how?
53. When did the Attorney General and Premier first become aware that the lead RCMP inspector was the brother-in-law of Kelly Reichart, Executive Director of the BC Liberal Party?
54. How did Kelly Reichert learn that Erik Bornman had been granted immunity in exchange for providing information about David Basi and Bob Virk?
55. When did the Attorney General and Premier first become aware that information related to the investigation was leaked to Kelly Reichart and was subsequently leaked by Mr. Reichart to principals in the investigation?
56. Does the Attorney General agree that the actions of Mr. Reichart risked compromising the investigation?
57. Why does Mr. Reichart continue to serve as the Executive Director of the BC Liberal Party?
58. Given that one of the government's objectives for the BC Rail transaction was "ensuring integrated North American access to preferred markets and carriers for interline rail shipments", why would the government attempt to sell the Roberts Bank Spur line separately, following the withdrawal of CP Rail?
59. Is it true that in November 2003, Dave Basi advised OmniTRAX that the then-Minister of Finance had authorized a consolation prize for OmniTRAX in exchange for that company staying in the bidding process?
60. Was this consolation prize the BC Rail spur line?
61. How much was the consolation prize valued at?
62. Was OmniTRAX offered any Delta ALR lands for expansion of the port as part of this consolation prize?
63. If it were not for the alleged criminal actions of high-ranking aides, would the government have proceeded with the sale of the BC Rail spur line?
64. Does $900,000 represent the total cost to taxpayers of cancelling the sale of the spur line, or did the final tab come in even higher than that? What was the final tab?
65. What was the estimated value of the spur line in 2004, when the sale was put on hold?
66. What was the estimated value of the spur line when the sale was totally cancelled in February 2006?
67. What is the estimated value of the spur line now?
68. Why won't the government exercise its rights under article 10.2 of the Revitalization Agreement to inspect all of CN's maintenance records for the former BC Rail line?
69. When will the government investigate the rash of tragic derailments since 2004 in order to shed light on this safety scandal?
70. Why has the government refused to provide evidence for its claim that the government discussed safety and maintenance with the proponents during the negotiations to sell BC Rail?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Thanks to Bill Tieleman for this. http://billtieleman.blogspot.com/
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Wednesday, March 28, 2007
Trouble at Harmony Airways
.
News of Harmony's business plight comes less than four months after former B.C. finance minister Gary Collins quit the airline after two years as president and CEO.
Collins said at the time his departure did not signal trouble at Harmony and that he just wanted to explore new business opportunities. Collins becomes the new senior vice-president of Belkin Industries on April 1.
Full story at: www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/story.html
............................................................................................................
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=74gwjO7X4Fw
News of Harmony's business plight comes less than four months after former B.C. finance minister Gary Collins quit the airline after two years as president and CEO.
Collins said at the time his departure did not signal trouble at Harmony and that he just wanted to explore new business opportunities. Collins becomes the new senior vice-president of Belkin Industries on April 1.
Full story at: www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/story.html
............................................................................................................
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=74gwjO7X4Fw
Monday, March 26, 2007
Robin Mathews, from Criminal Registry: "copies may be obtained in future"
.
The letter came to me from H.L. McBride a supreme court law officer, dated March 9, 2007. It concerned the Queen (Regina) v. Basi, Basi and Virk. With copies to the four lawyers involved, the letter recorded the matters known - that there was an "unauthorized" release of the Application of Disclosure of Feb 26, and the fact that Madam Justice Bennett was releasing it to me - a copy sent to me.
The key part of the letter to me, however, came in the last paragraph. It reads as follows:
"During the hearing, Madam Justice Bennett also indicated that she will be establishing a protocol for media and public access to documents filed in this matter. In the future, copies of further documents ordered released may be obtained from the Criminal Registry upon payment of the usual photocopying charges. If you have questions, please contact me."
I was in court on March 6 when Madam Justice Bennett made clear that she intended the matters of this case to be open and she intended documents to be available to the public unless there was clear reason why one or another document should not be available.
(First, as I pointed out to Madam Justice Bennett in a letter, documents have been consistently available from counsel even while clerks at Criminal Registry have been absolutely denying them to people who apply there to receive them. Secondly, the protocol imposed by Associate Chief Justice Patrick Dohm denying almost all documents to the public from Criminal Registry is a denial of the freedoms of Canadians; it is an intolerable imposition of secrecy, and very probably illegal.)
With the letter from H.L.McBride in my possession on March 26, 2007 - three weeks after Madam Justice Bennett made her decision and announced it in court and saw it reported in the newspapers - I went to the desk at Criminal Registry to request (1) a copy of the March 14 filing by the Special Prosecutor of his reply to the Application for Disclosure of Feb. 26 made by the Defence, and (2) to request a copy of the Charter Challenge filed by the Defence on March 21, and (3) the reply of Defence to the response by the Crown Special Prosecutor to the Application for Disclosure of Feb 26.
The young woman at Criminal Registry seemed pleased to tell me that she would not let me have any of the documents. She read the letter referred to in the first paragraph above. The documents, she said, had not been "ordered released". I told the young woman I knew that she couldn't give me her full name because clerks in Criminal Registry live in such great danger, but would she give me her first name. It is Danica. I simply want to record that Danica was not different than any of the other clerks there; she was equally as rude and arrogant as all the others I have dealt with in Criminal Registry.
Before leaving the Supreme Court building I asked to speak with Mary Ellen Pearce who is the Criminal Trial Coordinator. I explained the situation to her; she read the letter from H.L. McBride and made a copy of it. She was gracious, and - of course - helpless. She asked me to write down on the obverse side of her copy of the letter the specific documents I wanted, which I happily did.
Mary Ellen Pearce said at one point something to the effect "that I suppose you know documents are not usually released from Criminal Registry". I said I knew that and I hoped the ruling would be broken before too long. I felt rather as someone might have felt in 1944 going to a Nazi Gestapo office in, say, Poland, looking for a relation. Some gracious person would probably have said: "You know people who are Jews or Gypsies or homosexuals or political dissidents are sent to Buchenwald to be gassed." She would have said it graciously, no doubt, no more questioning the fact than Mary Ellen Pearce questioned the right of Associate Chief Justice Patrick Dohm to deny to Canadians the right to examine and to possess copies of matters placed on record in the highest British Columbia court.
In my letter to Madam Justice Elizabeth Bennett on March 8, I thanked her for intervening and changing the status of documents in the Basi, Basi, Virk matter. I wrote, in addition: "I look forward to and anticipate receiving service from the desk at Criminal Registry". She did not write back and say, "don't waste your time because I don't intend to release documents." And so I wasted an afternoon, one more time, attempting to get what is the right of any Canadian to get from the Supreme Court of British Columbia. And once again, I was denied.
Let us hope the whole matter is a confused heap and tangle of orders misunderstood in Criminal Registry. With the most generous interpretation put on the matter, however, it does not speak well of either the competence or the reliability of the Supreme Court of British Columbia.
I will write to Madam Justice Elizabeth Bennett again ...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Thank you, Robin. Good Luck. A bit like a Franz Kafka novel, isn't it?
- BC Mary.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
.
The letter came to me from H.L. McBride a supreme court law officer, dated March 9, 2007. It concerned the Queen (Regina) v. Basi, Basi and Virk. With copies to the four lawyers involved, the letter recorded the matters known - that there was an "unauthorized" release of the Application of Disclosure of Feb 26, and the fact that Madam Justice Bennett was releasing it to me - a copy sent to me.
The key part of the letter to me, however, came in the last paragraph. It reads as follows:
"During the hearing, Madam Justice Bennett also indicated that she will be establishing a protocol for media and public access to documents filed in this matter. In the future, copies of further documents ordered released may be obtained from the Criminal Registry upon payment of the usual photocopying charges. If you have questions, please contact me."
I was in court on March 6 when Madam Justice Bennett made clear that she intended the matters of this case to be open and she intended documents to be available to the public unless there was clear reason why one or another document should not be available.
(First, as I pointed out to Madam Justice Bennett in a letter, documents have been consistently available from counsel even while clerks at Criminal Registry have been absolutely denying them to people who apply there to receive them. Secondly, the protocol imposed by Associate Chief Justice Patrick Dohm denying almost all documents to the public from Criminal Registry is a denial of the freedoms of Canadians; it is an intolerable imposition of secrecy, and very probably illegal.)
With the letter from H.L.McBride in my possession on March 26, 2007 - three weeks after Madam Justice Bennett made her decision and announced it in court and saw it reported in the newspapers - I went to the desk at Criminal Registry to request (1) a copy of the March 14 filing by the Special Prosecutor of his reply to the Application for Disclosure of Feb. 26 made by the Defence, and (2) to request a copy of the Charter Challenge filed by the Defence on March 21, and (3) the reply of Defence to the response by the Crown Special Prosecutor to the Application for Disclosure of Feb 26.
The young woman at Criminal Registry seemed pleased to tell me that she would not let me have any of the documents. She read the letter referred to in the first paragraph above. The documents, she said, had not been "ordered released". I told the young woman I knew that she couldn't give me her full name because clerks in Criminal Registry live in such great danger, but would she give me her first name. It is Danica. I simply want to record that Danica was not different than any of the other clerks there; she was equally as rude and arrogant as all the others I have dealt with in Criminal Registry.
Before leaving the Supreme Court building I asked to speak with Mary Ellen Pearce who is the Criminal Trial Coordinator. I explained the situation to her; she read the letter from H.L. McBride and made a copy of it. She was gracious, and - of course - helpless. She asked me to write down on the obverse side of her copy of the letter the specific documents I wanted, which I happily did.
Mary Ellen Pearce said at one point something to the effect "that I suppose you know documents are not usually released from Criminal Registry". I said I knew that and I hoped the ruling would be broken before too long. I felt rather as someone might have felt in 1944 going to a Nazi Gestapo office in, say, Poland, looking for a relation. Some gracious person would probably have said: "You know people who are Jews or Gypsies or homosexuals or political dissidents are sent to Buchenwald to be gassed." She would have said it graciously, no doubt, no more questioning the fact than Mary Ellen Pearce questioned the right of Associate Chief Justice Patrick Dohm to deny to Canadians the right to examine and to possess copies of matters placed on record in the highest British Columbia court.
In my letter to Madam Justice Elizabeth Bennett on March 8, I thanked her for intervening and changing the status of documents in the Basi, Basi, Virk matter. I wrote, in addition: "I look forward to and anticipate receiving service from the desk at Criminal Registry". She did not write back and say, "don't waste your time because I don't intend to release documents." And so I wasted an afternoon, one more time, attempting to get what is the right of any Canadian to get from the Supreme Court of British Columbia. And once again, I was denied.
Let us hope the whole matter is a confused heap and tangle of orders misunderstood in Criminal Registry. With the most generous interpretation put on the matter, however, it does not speak well of either the competence or the reliability of the Supreme Court of British Columbia.
I will write to Madam Justice Elizabeth Bennett again ...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Thank you, Robin. Good Luck. A bit like a Franz Kafka novel, isn't it?
- BC Mary.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
.
Sunday, March 25, 2007
PART V - Notice of Application for Disclosure
By Anonymous
Returning to our look at defence counsels’ Notice of Application for Disclosure, you’ll remember we left former Finance Minister Gary Collins entertaining guests at the Villa Del Lupo.
There’s nothing on record about who picked up the tab. I can imagine, since it seems more than probable that Minister Collins came to dinner that day bearing gifts, that the folks from OmniTRAX paid the freight. One thing for sure, some of the RCMP officers who were also out on the town watching and listening that night probably do know and maybe, if this trial actually goes ahead and Madame Justice Bennett places enough of the ‘secret documentation’ behind this case on the record, then even we, the public, will find out. We may even learn how big a tip the two fancy dan guys from Denver left on the table for them that night. Mind you, police ethical standards being what they are, I’m sure the cops in the waiters’ uniforms that day left the tips with the full time wait staff.
I’ll get back to the story in just a moment, but first, because the RCMP is going to play a bigger role in this episode we need to step back for just a moment and introduce, or re-introduce a ‘minor’ player and one or two others who may not be bit players at all.
First, there is RCMP Corporal Cowan. He was mentioned briefly in ¶ 16 of the defence Notice and, if you’ve been following this story in the media you might remember that he played a somewhat more important role in Gary Mason’s ‘Christmas Ode to the Accused’ in the Globe and Mail on December 23, 2006. At that time Mr. Mason made a pretty big deal about the fact that Corporal Cowan, an RCMP “commercial crime investigator’ had been assigned to monitor David Basi’s phone calls. You see, Mr. Mason wanted everybody to know that CCI Cowan had purchased a home from Mr. Basi’s mother in 1999.
In Gary Mason’s ‘Globe’ article he adds a lot of extra detail about this relationship, stuff he obviously got from David Basi himself. In fact, some of these alleged ‘facts’ played a big part in the argument Mason makes for writing that there isn’t much of a case against the ‘boys’ at all and, in fact, it’s all the cops’ fault for picking on them. Suffice to say that may have been Gary Mason’s view but it does not appear to have been the view of defence counsel. From ¶ 17 it’s clear that Corporal Cowan had advised his superior officers of the situation, although, as they put it, the timing and circumstances of this disclosure are not revealed. For the moment at least, I think we can ignore the possibility that any of this is terribly important.
The next player on the Crown’s team is much more important.
At some point before the Villa Del Lupo dinner on December 12, 2003, a certain Sergeant Debruyckere became the team leader of “Project Everywhichway” - tasked as he was to determine if any fraud or breach of trust had been committed. (¶ 49).
Now, Sergeant Debruyckere, unlike Corporal Cowan, is a much more problematic figure.
The media have been dwelling on the questionable role of the RCMP in a number of cases and there is a proposal from RCMP Staff Sergeant John Ward for a new pilot project to oversee high profile RCMP investigations in British Columbia. (Vancouver Sun March 22, 2007). As we will see, Sergeant Debruyckere and his behavior may well provide the new project with some interesting material.
Why?
Well, to start with, because, as ¶ 50 tells us, at the time Debruyckere assumed his duties as major domo of the “Project Everywhichway” team he had what one might assume was a ‘possible’ conflict of interest. That is, Sgt Debruyckere’s brother-in-law, Kelly Reichert, was the Executive Director of the B.C. Liberal Party. Further, he sat on the B.C. Liberal Party Election Campaign Team with Finance Minister Collins and was the acting Director of the B.C. Liberal Election Team (¶ 51).
Now, as did Constable Cowan, Sgt. Debruyckere advised his superiors about this potential conflict (¶ 52) and, presumably, a decision was made to leave Debruyckere in command of the project. These facts, incomplete as they are, come from material already disclosed to the defence by the Crown.
¶ 52 then moves events from December 12, 2003 forward into 2004 and, as such, seems discordant with the narrative. Even so, it contains information that requires some close analysis:
1. Sometime in 2004 a ‘leak’ of undisclosed origin revealed that Erik Bornmann had provided information about Messrs Basi and Virk to the RCMP; and
2. This ‘leak’ included the fact the Mr. Kelly Reichert was aware of the fact that “Mr. Bornmann had been granted immunity from prosecution” in exchange for information about Messrs Basi and Virk; further
3. Bornmann had also told the police that Mr. Elmhirst was also aware of this fact; and
4. Strange though it seems, Erik Bornmann had suggested that there might be an ‘Officer Reichert’ in the RCMP.
The defence, according to its submission, is suggesting that there is an indication that elements within the ‘political’ wing of the B.C. Liberal Party (as opposed to its government wing) were aware of details concerning the status and progress of this investigation at a point where that would appear to be entirely inappropriate – to say the very least. Such a knowledge would, there is a strong implication, indicate the possibility of some kind of interference with the progress and integrity of a criminal investigation.
Now, keeping this knowledge in mind, let us return to the defence narrative.
In ¶ 53 the plot thickens considerably; keeping in mind the fact that that December 12, 2003 was the same day that Sgt Debruyckere and his team were setting up for and executing a complex surveillance operation in and around the Villa Del Lupo the defence goes on to assert that, by that same day:
a) The police were in possession of evidence that tended to eliminate both Basi and Virk as suspects with respect to criminal activity in conjunction with the sale of B.C. Rail, and yet;
b) They still sought and obtained the necessary warrant(s) to search offices within the B.C. Legislature, even though;
c) The police, according to the information given to Mr. Justice Patrick Dohm, had said that Minister Collins WAS NOT a target of the investigation.
There is clearly a problem with this scenario as reported and submitted by the defence and it does not take a Sherlock Holmes to appreciate what it is.
The contradictions and inconsistencies inherent in ¶ 53 are the following:
1. Is it possible that the RCMP would mount the kind of complicated and sophisticated operation necessary to observe and record the meeting between Minister Collins and OmniTRAX executives Pat Broe and Dwight Johnson if Mr. Collins were NOT a target of the investigation?
2. Did the RCMP deceive Mr. Justice Patrick Dohm by telling him that Collins was not a suspect when, in fact, Collins was under suspicion?
3. Or, was the actual target of the RCMP investigation some other member of the Campbell Cabinet?
4. If, as the defence asserts, there was exculpatory information in the hands of the investigating team relative to the role of Basi and Virk at the time of the Villa Del Lupo surveillance operation, what and whom were the RCMP after at that time – both in terms of their warrant for the Legislature and in their efforts to follow and report on Mr. Collins’ activities and his meeting with Broe and Johnson about the “consolation prize”?
¶ 54 – ¶ 58 tell the story of the Debruyckere team’s campaign to get a warrant to search office(s) at the Legislature and introduce another new character into the play list – a Mr. David Harris – the ‘first’ Special Prosecutor in the case. In order to cover all bases, the RCMP not only applied to Mr. Justice Patrick Dohm for a warrant, they also informed the speaker of the House, Mr. Claude Richmond, and sought his authorization. Although the details and dates of these meetings are not disclosed and have not been ( according to ¶ 55) recorded or written down, we do know that as late as December 28, 2003 the warrant so issued was for the wrong office number. Upon realizing this, the team contacted Harris and was advised to disband the search planned for that day, obtain a corrected warrant, and perform the search the following day.
Despite this the Debruyckere team sought ‘other’ legal advice ( ¶ 58) and had Corporal Cowan contact Mr. Justice Dohm by telephone in order to get authorization to continue with the raid upon the correct office on December 28.
If this story seems comical and contains elements about which there are still a lot of questions to be answered, the next part in this series will have you scratching your head.
All of the questions and concerns about the behavior of the RCMP and the integrity of this case, especially as regards the possibility of political interference up to this point will become even more problematic when the next part of the defence “Notice of Application for Disclosure” is discussed here in a few days time. There have been a couple of court appearances in the case since this “Notice” was filed on Feb. 26 but, to this point, I have not yet obtained any further documentation that I can share with you.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Anonymous: This posting represents a lot of careful work generously presented here. Thank you ... from all of us, thank you. - BC Mary.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Returning to our look at defence counsels’ Notice of Application for Disclosure, you’ll remember we left former Finance Minister Gary Collins entertaining guests at the Villa Del Lupo.
There’s nothing on record about who picked up the tab. I can imagine, since it seems more than probable that Minister Collins came to dinner that day bearing gifts, that the folks from OmniTRAX paid the freight. One thing for sure, some of the RCMP officers who were also out on the town watching and listening that night probably do know and maybe, if this trial actually goes ahead and Madame Justice Bennett places enough of the ‘secret documentation’ behind this case on the record, then even we, the public, will find out. We may even learn how big a tip the two fancy dan guys from Denver left on the table for them that night. Mind you, police ethical standards being what they are, I’m sure the cops in the waiters’ uniforms that day left the tips with the full time wait staff.
I’ll get back to the story in just a moment, but first, because the RCMP is going to play a bigger role in this episode we need to step back for just a moment and introduce, or re-introduce a ‘minor’ player and one or two others who may not be bit players at all.
First, there is RCMP Corporal Cowan. He was mentioned briefly in ¶ 16 of the defence Notice and, if you’ve been following this story in the media you might remember that he played a somewhat more important role in Gary Mason’s ‘Christmas Ode to the Accused’ in the Globe and Mail on December 23, 2006. At that time Mr. Mason made a pretty big deal about the fact that Corporal Cowan, an RCMP “commercial crime investigator’ had been assigned to monitor David Basi’s phone calls. You see, Mr. Mason wanted everybody to know that CCI Cowan had purchased a home from Mr. Basi’s mother in 1999.
In Gary Mason’s ‘Globe’ article he adds a lot of extra detail about this relationship, stuff he obviously got from David Basi himself. In fact, some of these alleged ‘facts’ played a big part in the argument Mason makes for writing that there isn’t much of a case against the ‘boys’ at all and, in fact, it’s all the cops’ fault for picking on them. Suffice to say that may have been Gary Mason’s view but it does not appear to have been the view of defence counsel. From ¶ 17 it’s clear that Corporal Cowan had advised his superior officers of the situation, although, as they put it, the timing and circumstances of this disclosure are not revealed. For the moment at least, I think we can ignore the possibility that any of this is terribly important.
The next player on the Crown’s team is much more important.
At some point before the Villa Del Lupo dinner on December 12, 2003, a certain Sergeant Debruyckere became the team leader of “Project Everywhichway” - tasked as he was to determine if any fraud or breach of trust had been committed. (¶ 49).
Now, Sergeant Debruyckere, unlike Corporal Cowan, is a much more problematic figure.
The media have been dwelling on the questionable role of the RCMP in a number of cases and there is a proposal from RCMP Staff Sergeant John Ward for a new pilot project to oversee high profile RCMP investigations in British Columbia. (Vancouver Sun March 22, 2007). As we will see, Sergeant Debruyckere and his behavior may well provide the new project with some interesting material.
Why?
Well, to start with, because, as ¶ 50 tells us, at the time Debruyckere assumed his duties as major domo of the “Project Everywhichway” team he had what one might assume was a ‘possible’ conflict of interest. That is, Sgt Debruyckere’s brother-in-law, Kelly Reichert, was the Executive Director of the B.C. Liberal Party. Further, he sat on the B.C. Liberal Party Election Campaign Team with Finance Minister Collins and was the acting Director of the B.C. Liberal Election Team (¶ 51).
Now, as did Constable Cowan, Sgt. Debruyckere advised his superiors about this potential conflict (¶ 52) and, presumably, a decision was made to leave Debruyckere in command of the project. These facts, incomplete as they are, come from material already disclosed to the defence by the Crown.
¶ 52 then moves events from December 12, 2003 forward into 2004 and, as such, seems discordant with the narrative. Even so, it contains information that requires some close analysis:
1. Sometime in 2004 a ‘leak’ of undisclosed origin revealed that Erik Bornmann had provided information about Messrs Basi and Virk to the RCMP; and
2. This ‘leak’ included the fact the Mr. Kelly Reichert was aware of the fact that “Mr. Bornmann had been granted immunity from prosecution” in exchange for information about Messrs Basi and Virk; further
3. Bornmann had also told the police that Mr. Elmhirst was also aware of this fact; and
4. Strange though it seems, Erik Bornmann had suggested that there might be an ‘Officer Reichert’ in the RCMP.
The defence, according to its submission, is suggesting that there is an indication that elements within the ‘political’ wing of the B.C. Liberal Party (as opposed to its government wing) were aware of details concerning the status and progress of this investigation at a point where that would appear to be entirely inappropriate – to say the very least. Such a knowledge would, there is a strong implication, indicate the possibility of some kind of interference with the progress and integrity of a criminal investigation.
Now, keeping this knowledge in mind, let us return to the defence narrative.
In ¶ 53 the plot thickens considerably; keeping in mind the fact that that December 12, 2003 was the same day that Sgt Debruyckere and his team were setting up for and executing a complex surveillance operation in and around the Villa Del Lupo the defence goes on to assert that, by that same day:
a) The police were in possession of evidence that tended to eliminate both Basi and Virk as suspects with respect to criminal activity in conjunction with the sale of B.C. Rail, and yet;
b) They still sought and obtained the necessary warrant(s) to search offices within the B.C. Legislature, even though;
c) The police, according to the information given to Mr. Justice Patrick Dohm, had said that Minister Collins WAS NOT a target of the investigation.
There is clearly a problem with this scenario as reported and submitted by the defence and it does not take a Sherlock Holmes to appreciate what it is.
The contradictions and inconsistencies inherent in ¶ 53 are the following:
1. Is it possible that the RCMP would mount the kind of complicated and sophisticated operation necessary to observe and record the meeting between Minister Collins and OmniTRAX executives Pat Broe and Dwight Johnson if Mr. Collins were NOT a target of the investigation?
2. Did the RCMP deceive Mr. Justice Patrick Dohm by telling him that Collins was not a suspect when, in fact, Collins was under suspicion?
3. Or, was the actual target of the RCMP investigation some other member of the Campbell Cabinet?
4. If, as the defence asserts, there was exculpatory information in the hands of the investigating team relative to the role of Basi and Virk at the time of the Villa Del Lupo surveillance operation, what and whom were the RCMP after at that time – both in terms of their warrant for the Legislature and in their efforts to follow and report on Mr. Collins’ activities and his meeting with Broe and Johnson about the “consolation prize”?
¶ 54 – ¶ 58 tell the story of the Debruyckere team’s campaign to get a warrant to search office(s) at the Legislature and introduce another new character into the play list – a Mr. David Harris – the ‘first’ Special Prosecutor in the case. In order to cover all bases, the RCMP not only applied to Mr. Justice Patrick Dohm for a warrant, they also informed the speaker of the House, Mr. Claude Richmond, and sought his authorization. Although the details and dates of these meetings are not disclosed and have not been ( according to ¶ 55) recorded or written down, we do know that as late as December 28, 2003 the warrant so issued was for the wrong office number. Upon realizing this, the team contacted Harris and was advised to disband the search planned for that day, obtain a corrected warrant, and perform the search the following day.
Despite this the Debruyckere team sought ‘other’ legal advice ( ¶ 58) and had Corporal Cowan contact Mr. Justice Dohm by telephone in order to get authorization to continue with the raid upon the correct office on December 28.
If this story seems comical and contains elements about which there are still a lot of questions to be answered, the next part in this series will have you scratching your head.
All of the questions and concerns about the behavior of the RCMP and the integrity of this case, especially as regards the possibility of political interference up to this point will become even more problematic when the next part of the defence “Notice of Application for Disclosure” is discussed here in a few days time. There have been a couple of court appearances in the case since this “Notice” was filed on Feb. 26 but, to this point, I have not yet obtained any further documentation that I can share with you.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Anonymous: This posting represents a lot of careful work generously presented here. Thank you ... from all of us, thank you. - BC Mary.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Saturday, March 24, 2007
Legislature raid case to go ahead
.
Perhaps we should remind ourselves of the likely dates for new developments in the Basi, Virk, Basi trial. Here's what Supreme Court Justice Elizabeth Bennett said on March 8 about the timing:
________________________________________________
Legislature raid case to go ahead, judge says
Despite defence application for disclosure, pretrial motions set to begin on April 16
MARK HUME
The Globe and Mail - 8 March 2007
VANCOUVER -- The judge in a case that involved an unprecedented police raid on the British Columbia Legislature made it clear yesterday the trial is going ahead despite a recent defence application for disclosure that led to some media speculation proceedings might be stayed.
"The public interest in having this case heard outweighs just about everything else," Madam Justice Elizabeth Bennett of the B.C. Supreme Court said after hearing another lengthy wrangle over the disclosure process, during which it was revealed that the defence may seek privileged cabinet documents.
Judge Bennett's statement was unprompted, but in the context of the testy legal sparring that preceded it, the comment was clearly meant to signal the oft-delayed trial is still on track for pretrial motions to begin on April 16.
She set April 2 for the next court hearing.
Full story in The Globe and Mail at: www.theglobeandmail.com%2Fservlet%2FArticleNews%2FTPStory%2FLAC%2F20070308%2FBCVIRK08%2FColumnists%2FColumnist%3Fauthor%3DMark%2BHume&ord=4029961&brand=theglobeandmail&force_login=true
.
Perhaps we should remind ourselves of the likely dates for new developments in the Basi, Virk, Basi trial. Here's what Supreme Court Justice Elizabeth Bennett said on March 8 about the timing:
________________________________________________
Legislature raid case to go ahead, judge says
Despite defence application for disclosure, pretrial motions set to begin on April 16
MARK HUME
The Globe and Mail - 8 March 2007
VANCOUVER -- The judge in a case that involved an unprecedented police raid on the British Columbia Legislature made it clear yesterday the trial is going ahead despite a recent defence application for disclosure that led to some media speculation proceedings might be stayed.
"The public interest in having this case heard outweighs just about everything else," Madam Justice Elizabeth Bennett of the B.C. Supreme Court said after hearing another lengthy wrangle over the disclosure process, during which it was revealed that the defence may seek privileged cabinet documents.
Judge Bennett's statement was unprompted, but in the context of the testy legal sparring that preceded it, the comment was clearly meant to signal the oft-delayed trial is still on track for pretrial motions to begin on April 16.
She set April 2 for the next court hearing.
Full story in The Globe and Mail at: www.theglobeandmail.com%2Fservlet%2FArticleNews%2FTPStory%2FLAC%2F20070308%2FBCVIRK08%2FColumnists%2FColumnist%3Fauthor%3DMark%2BHume&ord=4029961&brand=theglobeandmail&force_login=true
.
Thursday, March 22, 2007
RCMP will investigate RCMP?
.
RCMP Staff Sergeant John Ward has announced a new pilot project created to oversee high profile RCMP investigations in British Columbia. Could this mean ... the B.C. Rail affair? Could it mean specifically RCMP Sgt Debruyckere's role as team leader whose job was to investigate whether any fraud or breach of trust offences were committed in relation to the sale of B.C. Rail, because Sgt Debruyckere was brother-in-law to Kelly Reichert, then-executive director of the provincial B.C. Liberal Party?
Ward said this new pilot project will run throughout B.C. for a year and, if successful, may expand across the country. He said the program has been launched by both the RCMP and Commission for Public Complaints Against the RCMP.
Source: The Vancouver Sun, 22 March 2007.
______________________________________________
.
RCMP Staff Sergeant John Ward has announced a new pilot project created to oversee high profile RCMP investigations in British Columbia. Could this mean ... the B.C. Rail affair? Could it mean specifically RCMP Sgt Debruyckere's role as team leader whose job was to investigate whether any fraud or breach of trust offences were committed in relation to the sale of B.C. Rail, because Sgt Debruyckere was brother-in-law to Kelly Reichert, then-executive director of the provincial B.C. Liberal Party?
Ward said this new pilot project will run throughout B.C. for a year and, if successful, may expand across the country. He said the program has been launched by both the RCMP and Commission for Public Complaints Against the RCMP.
Source: The Vancouver Sun, 22 March 2007.
______________________________________________
.
Monday, March 19, 2007
The Raid - a Novel. By Ken Merkley
.
Anyone walking past Trafford Publishing in Victoria could drop in, pay $30., and have them print up a copy of Ken Merkley's book, The Raid - A Novel.
I was so eager to see the book, I paid the extra $15 to have it Priority Posted to me. After all, the cover shows the famous photo of the police carrying file boxes out of the B.C. Legislature on
28 December 2003. The cover also says "RCMP Corporal Tim Murphy uncovers inter-connected criminal activities leading him to a shocking secret with major implications for the Province of British Columbia and all of Canada." The back cover talks about a major federal political party which may have used the proceeds from drug sales to pay membership fees for thousands of new party recruits. With tragic ramifications for B.C. and Canada. Doesn't this sound like a book about The Legislature Raids?
Well, it isn't.
Not until the reader gets to Page 377, with only 2 more pages to go, does it become perfectly clear that those of us who search for the significance of the Legislature raids ... have been sucker-punched. Forget minor annoyances such as crossing "Georgia Straight" or hearing from "legal council". Forget where Tim chats up Tomm. Let's just go to where the hero (Tim, not Tomm) meets a political analyst who explains corruption, p.377. This is the nub of the story. Tim, our hero, has just arrested Mr Big and is being asked if he thought Mr Big would have got away with his evil schemes, if Tim hadn't caught him.
The analyst (Tim explains) says yes, with the political climate in B.C. "at a stage where it is feasible for someone like [Mr Big] to succeed ... where the stage has been set by many years of corrupt business-oriented governments being in power in the province and across the country. Especially in B.C., their policies have made the electorate truly cynical, apathetic, defeatist. When you combine that with a monopolistic media that supports their agenda, the voters feel that they can do nothing to change the situation and are truly open to manipulation."
RCMP Corporal Tim Murphy (believe it or not) continues: The political analyst "said you have to look at the effects of privatization and globalization ... wages and benefits have been driven down ... businesses increasingly manufacture their products offshore. Then they put in place laws that remove the right to strike for most public sector workers, destroyed the public health care system, and cut back on pensions and workers' compensation benefits. This created an atmosphere of fear amongst the working class.
"Naturally" continues our mythical hero, "you would expect them to turn to pro-labour parties to form an alternative government, but the media has hammered away at the dastardly consequences should they ever again obtain power ...
"Next you add corruption. Voters witness greedy governments and businesses working together to reward each others' friends." Legislating huge salary increases for themselves, switching parties, with punishment for blatant infractions going only to minor players or whistle-blowers. "This, in turn, causes the public to determine it is fine to take advantage of the system ... in fact, this political analyst thinks the political climate is now such that a majority of the electorate believes it is permissible to accept money for casting their votes and it's especially okay to be paid for voting for a particular party."
Not everybody feels this way, says Tim. "But enough do, that the same governments continue to be re-elected no matter how greedy and corrupt they are." [Which sounds like the story-outline for a really good book! - BC Mary]
So Tim has captured Mr Big, "the first to take advantage of this business-dominated political climate to attempt to obtain total control of the government anywhere in Canada. And if we don't learn quickly from this lesson, he won't be the last."
"But Tim," his friend asks, "you say it is the first, but wasn't there a similar episode a few years ago that started out the same with a raid on the legislature?
"Yes ... some of the circumstances were the same, including the police pinpointing a couple of cabinet ministers' aides who were accused of taking advantage of their positions to better themselves economically. But it turned out they were just a couple of two-bit players who may have been trying to benefit from the provincial sell-off of a Crown corporation by feeding insider information to one of the bidders. I don't even remember what, if anything, they were charged with, but it pales in significance to this operation."
"So," says Tim's friend, "you wouldn't put Mr Big's scheme in the same category?"
"No," says Corporal (soon to be Sergeant) Tim. [Now pay attention, folks, here's the big clue about this book ...] "Over the last 10 years matters have become a good deal worse than they were then. People are willing to play for keeps and be very brutal to get what they want when the rewards for success are so much more meaningful. After all, this is 2013."
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Ken Merkley, retired senior military officer, lives near Victoria.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Anyone walking past Trafford Publishing in Victoria could drop in, pay $30., and have them print up a copy of Ken Merkley's book, The Raid - A Novel.
I was so eager to see the book, I paid the extra $15 to have it Priority Posted to me. After all, the cover shows the famous photo of the police carrying file boxes out of the B.C. Legislature on
28 December 2003. The cover also says "RCMP Corporal Tim Murphy uncovers inter-connected criminal activities leading him to a shocking secret with major implications for the Province of British Columbia and all of Canada." The back cover talks about a major federal political party which may have used the proceeds from drug sales to pay membership fees for thousands of new party recruits. With tragic ramifications for B.C. and Canada. Doesn't this sound like a book about The Legislature Raids?
Well, it isn't.
Not until the reader gets to Page 377, with only 2 more pages to go, does it become perfectly clear that those of us who search for the significance of the Legislature raids ... have been sucker-punched. Forget minor annoyances such as crossing "Georgia Straight" or hearing from "legal council". Forget where Tim chats up Tomm. Let's just go to where the hero (Tim, not Tomm) meets a political analyst who explains corruption, p.377. This is the nub of the story. Tim, our hero, has just arrested Mr Big and is being asked if he thought Mr Big would have got away with his evil schemes, if Tim hadn't caught him.
The analyst (Tim explains) says yes, with the political climate in B.C. "at a stage where it is feasible for someone like [Mr Big] to succeed ... where the stage has been set by many years of corrupt business-oriented governments being in power in the province and across the country. Especially in B.C., their policies have made the electorate truly cynical, apathetic, defeatist. When you combine that with a monopolistic media that supports their agenda, the voters feel that they can do nothing to change the situation and are truly open to manipulation."
RCMP Corporal Tim Murphy (believe it or not) continues: The political analyst "said you have to look at the effects of privatization and globalization ... wages and benefits have been driven down ... businesses increasingly manufacture their products offshore. Then they put in place laws that remove the right to strike for most public sector workers, destroyed the public health care system, and cut back on pensions and workers' compensation benefits. This created an atmosphere of fear amongst the working class.
"Naturally" continues our mythical hero, "you would expect them to turn to pro-labour parties to form an alternative government, but the media has hammered away at the dastardly consequences should they ever again obtain power ...
"Next you add corruption. Voters witness greedy governments and businesses working together to reward each others' friends." Legislating huge salary increases for themselves, switching parties, with punishment for blatant infractions going only to minor players or whistle-blowers. "This, in turn, causes the public to determine it is fine to take advantage of the system ... in fact, this political analyst thinks the political climate is now such that a majority of the electorate believes it is permissible to accept money for casting their votes and it's especially okay to be paid for voting for a particular party."
Not everybody feels this way, says Tim. "But enough do, that the same governments continue to be re-elected no matter how greedy and corrupt they are." [Which sounds like the story-outline for a really good book! - BC Mary]
So Tim has captured Mr Big, "the first to take advantage of this business-dominated political climate to attempt to obtain total control of the government anywhere in Canada. And if we don't learn quickly from this lesson, he won't be the last."
"But Tim," his friend asks, "you say it is the first, but wasn't there a similar episode a few years ago that started out the same with a raid on the legislature?
"Yes ... some of the circumstances were the same, including the police pinpointing a couple of cabinet ministers' aides who were accused of taking advantage of their positions to better themselves economically. But it turned out they were just a couple of two-bit players who may have been trying to benefit from the provincial sell-off of a Crown corporation by feeding insider information to one of the bidders. I don't even remember what, if anything, they were charged with, but it pales in significance to this operation."
"So," says Tim's friend, "you wouldn't put Mr Big's scheme in the same category?"
"No," says Corporal (soon to be Sergeant) Tim. [Now pay attention, folks, here's the big clue about this book ...] "Over the last 10 years matters have become a good deal worse than they were then. People are willing to play for keeps and be very brutal to get what they want when the rewards for success are so much more meaningful. After all, this is 2013."
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Ken Merkley, retired senior military officer, lives near Victoria.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Saturday, March 17, 2007
The National Police Force Gone Bad
.
RCMP: The National Police Force Gone Bad
By Robin Mathews
Something leaps out at you.
RCMP team leader in December, 2003, "of the investigation into whether any fraud or breach of trust offences were committed in relation to [the sale of ] B.C. Rail" was Sergeant Debruyckere "brother-in-law of then-Executive Director of the B.C. Liberal Party, Kelly Reichert [who was] on the Provincial Liberal Party Election Campaign Team with [Finance] minister [Gary] Collins and acted as the Campaign Director." (pp. 6-7)
In 2004 a leak of information was recorded regarding "star" crown witness against Basi and Virk, Eric Bornmann. "Specifically, the leaked information pertained to Mr. Reichert knowing that Mr. Bornmann had been granted immunity from prosecution in exchange for information against Messrs. Basi and Virk." (p.7)
This, and more, is in the Application for Disclosure of February 26, 2007, filed in the Supreme Court of B.C. by the Defence in the Basi, Basi, Virk matter of the legislature search warrant "raids" on Dec. 28, 2003 which seem - more and more - to be the tail that is wagging the dog in the dirty (perhaps criminal) sale of B.C. Rail by the Gordon Campbell government.
The implications of Liberal/RCMP connections to the legitimacy of the sale, to the role of Gordon Campbell and leading cabinet ministers, and to the focus on the three men charged may well turn out to be enormous. Ominously, the Application for Disclosure (item 62, p. 8) reports that finance minister Gary Collins may have been guilty of telling Dave Basi to inform U.S. OmniTRAX - a supposed bidder for B.C. Rail - that a "consolation prize" would be awarded if they would fake continued interest. Collins then met with OmniTRAX "Executives privately at Villa Del Luppo Restaurant" on December 12, 2003. Nonetheless, "the RCMP elected not to conduct further investigation of Minister Collins".
Before the search warrant "raids" on the legislature on December 28, "RCMP", according to the Application for Disclosure "were focused on developing a major communication and public relations strategy to be executed following the search of the Legislature". That, says the Application, involved "a massive media campaign, talk of the "cancer of organized crime", and an RCMP "media release and televised briefing on December 29 [which] drew a clear connection between Mr. Basi, Mr. Virk and organized crime." (item 59, p. 8)
We have to keep in mind that the Application for Disclosure comes from Defence which wishes to bring forward material demonstrating their clients are not guilty of crimes. The presentation to the court, however, pointing to evidence that is apparently solid must be taken seriously, for it is not in the interest of Defence counsel or of their clients to be frivolous or to appear to be misleading the court.
Perhaps to understand fully what a "major communication and public relations strategy" for the RCMP might entail we should look at a little history and experience.
What follows is information that suggests the RCMP has had highly questionable relations with the Liberal forces of Gordon Campbell, that the relations go a long way back, and that they appear to suggest the RCMP has gone bad and needs total national reconstruction from the top down. A point that has to be born in mind, of key importance, is that there is no effective RCMP oversight body in Canada. None. (The reasons for that go back to the McDonald Report in the 1980s).
The system which involves the Commission for Public Complaints Against the RCMP (the ONLY review organization) is patently ridiculous, an obvious, expensive game of smoke and mirrors. The Commission - let us say - agrees an investigation should be made. The RCMP investigates itself. The Commission may interpret the investigation. The result goes to the top levels of the RCMP for consideration. RCMP has no obligation to do anything, to mete out penalty, to censure officers, anything. It usually writes a little note back to the Commission (saying "get lost" in one way or another).
My own complaint concerned the RCMP investigation of Glen Clark, B.C. premier, charged with having accepted "favours" for influence. The RCMP alleged they had begun the investigation I asked for - the RCMP investigating the RCMP. I received a letter from an RCMP officer a few months after my complaint saying they had 28 or 29 volumes of "evidentiary material" and they were terminating the investigation. Period. I wrote in protest and heard absolutely nothing.
More than three years after I had lodged the complaint - having received not a single word for years - I received a telephone call from the second-in-command at the Commission saying they had completed their investigation and I would be receiving the report after it had been sent to the top level of the RCMP and had been finalized. It arrived with the conclusion that two experienced RCMP officers had WRONGFULLY terminated the investigation. The Commission recommended better training of officers to prevent such things happening, with which the RCMP top brass had no quarrel. And the Commission stated it would leave to the discretion of the RCMP whether they would re-open the investigation or not. The RCMP chose not to do so. For all intents and purposes there was no investigation whatever. The result is that I may fairly retain my conviction that the British Columbia RCMP worked with the Gordon Campbell forces to fake a case that could be fought against Glen Clark with the intention of destroying his political career.
The Glen Clark case arose out of the politics of the time - Liberals under Gordon Campbell, in fact, fighting to break the hold of the NDP on B.C. (More of that to come.)
A totally non-political complaint receiving the same kind of insane treatment as mine involved an ordinary citizen in the Kelowna area who believed he had very important information about the (still unsolved) Mindy Tran murder case. The RCMP refused to take his testimony, coerced him, and much more. The Commission for Public Complaints Against the RCMP took years to do nothing whatever about his case. Find out about all that at www.transfixed.net or at www.mindytran.com
I cite the two widely different cases to show that the Commission for Public Complaints is not a genuine oversight body. Whatever it thinks it does, in fact it provides a cover for RCMP wrong-doing because it gives the public the impression that RCMP illegalities and other kinds of misbehaviour are dealt with - and they are not. As a result, the RCMP can work - legally and illegally - for political forces of its choice and face no penalty or serious review.
In B.C. - to trace a single, revealing line - we may ask if the RCMP has not only obstructed the court proceedings in regard to the Basi, Basi, Virk charges, but has it been working for Gordon Campbell Liberal interests over more than a decade? And has it been perfecting "major communications and public relations" strategies that involve what has come to be called (using RCMP phrasing) "smear and disinformation" tactics?
In the mid-nineties (with Ujjal Dosanjh in the Attorney General position), an almost insane "war" was conducted against Native people and non-Native supporters (about 30) at Gustafsen Lake. (read From Attica to Gastafsen Lake, by Splitting the Sky and Sandra Bruderer, self-published, 2001). The incident involved the RCMP, the Canadian Armed forces, and, it is alleged, wildly illegal activities on the part of "the forces of order". Of particular interest was one RCMP officer who had a significant place in the set of events.
His name is Sergeant Peter Montague. At one point he convinced CBC radio to give special emergency time to broadcast into the Gustafsen Lake community because, apparently, of an impending crisis involving threat to human life. Professor Anthony Hall, a Native Studies expert, and another researcher, concluded the supposed basis for impending crisis argued by Montague was, almost without question, a fabrication.
RCMP Media Relations officer, Montague was a very busy man throughout the operation. At one point in the set of events he was caught on an RCMP videotape - parts of which are missing - saying with a smile "Smear campaigns are our [the RCMP's] specialty" (p. 435, >From Attica to Gustafsen Lake). His words were echoed by Sergeant Dennis Ryan who admitted in court to his statement caught also on videotape that plans were to employ "smear and disinformation". Ryan admitted in court, also, that the RCMP "illegally used juvenile criminal records of some of the militants they believed to be in the camp" with the purpose of discrediting. (p. 435, From Attica to Gustafsen Lake)
At one level the Gustafsen Lake "standoff" was a huge experimental chamber for "smear and disinformation" tactics, RCMP/media collaboration, government complicity, and try-outs of illegal activity to further policy ends. I have barely touched on the astonishing story.
Ujjal Dosanjh made his way to the premiership after (as Attorney General) he had publicly reported the criminal investigation of Glen Clark who, then, resigned in the appropriate fashion. What ensued I call "the fraudulent investigation and trial of Glen Clark, premier of B.C." Dosanjh's New Democrats lost the election to Gordon Campbell (as I saw it, almost as if that was what Dosanjh wanted). Probably for the first time in Commonwealth history, a premier (Dosanjh) announced nearly a week before the election that he expected to lose it. In a short time Dosanjh was working for the Liberal Party. He became a part of Paul Martin's B.C. "dream team" and went to Ottawa to become a federal Liberal cabinet minister.
Peter Montague's transformation is equally interesting. He was twice wooed by Gordon Campbell, it is reported, to run for the B.C. Liberal Party, but refused. After Gustafsen Lake, however, he joined the branch of the B.C. RCMP that conducted the "investigation" of Glen Clark, becoming "the chief investigator in the Clark corruption case" (Globe and Mail, Oct 30 02). He was a part of the strange search warrant "raid" on Glen Clark's East Vancouver home that was marked by the presence of BCTV, filming what became in the minds of many people part of a smear campaign, part of - you might say, to quote from the February 26, 2007 Defence Application for Disclosure in the Supreme Court of B.C. - "a massive media campaign." Glen Clark (in 2002) described the BCTV event as "a carefully orchestrated strategy to maximize media exposure".
Clark's comment was made in the context of a special retirement luncheon for Peter Montague held by journalists on October 29, 2002. Robert Matas, in his Globe and Mail story the next day, wrote "The Vancouver television crew that filmed former premier Glen Clark in his kitchen during a controversial police raid gave a retirement gift yesterday to the chief investigator in the Clark corruption case.
Gary Hanney, a cameraman with BCTV, made the presentation. Senior BCTV reporter, John Daly, who was at Mr. Clark's house during the police raid on March 2, 1999, was also at the luncheon.
Both Mr. Daly and Mr. Hanney refused to explain why they presented a token gift to Staff Sergeant Montague."
Calls have been made in both cases - the Gustafsen Lake "stand-off" and the Glen Clark investigation and trial - for full-scale public inquiries. They have not been forthcoming. As a result, the RCMP feels more and more at ease in its behaviour and practice. On April 10, 2004, the Vancouver Sun reported "RCMP Commissioner Guiliano Zaccardelli and members of Canada's diplomatic corps win honours as big spenders of expense accounts for cabinet ministers and top civil servants". (p. A9) Fallen into disgrace over his conduct involving the RCMP and Maher Arar three years later, Zaccardelli seems to have continued his grand "lifestyle". The Globe and Mail reported in March, 2007 that the "RCMP paid a communications consultant almost $25,000 to help Guiliano Zaccardelli prepare for parliamentary hearings that ultimately led to the former commissioner's resignation." What would he have said if he hadn't the benefit of $25,000 worth of help?
We should not forget that at RCMP headquarters the very large pension trouble and misuse of money commented upon by the auditor general involved misuse of expense accounts, "rampant" nepotism in human resources, miss-sourcing of contracts for $2 million, misuse of consultants, and a case in which "an officer was promoted after working on his superior's house". (Vanc. Sun, Sept 23 07 A4). Notice that no discipline or penalty was meted out to any of the people involved. But innocent Glen Clark, we remember, was charged, investigated for months and months in full public spotlight, tried for 136 days, and ruined for a rumour that he might have thought of giving a favour to someone who worked on his house. Was that whole piece of history the result of a carefully calculated "smear and disinformation" campaign?
Does the RCMP live in a world of double standards? Is it free to commit crimes, certain it will never be penalized? Does it work increasingly for and with - legally and illegally - particular political parties on the Right? The answer to all those questions seems to be: Yes.
Careful Globe and Mail columnist Lawrence Martin did something of a summary of RCMP lows on December 7, 2006, listing many large fiascos - but neither the Gustafsen Lake nor the Glen Clark scandals were among them, perhaps because there are too many RCMP violations of integrity to keep track of. Martin gives room for "honest mistakes". Then he adds: "But too many of the RCMP's recent activities haven't had the look of honest mistakes" (A19). Will the "B.C. legislature raids" be added to the list of large, shady (perhaps criminal) undertakings by the RCMP?
Replacement (temporary?) for the disgraced Guiliano Zaccardelli is former top B.C. RCMP officer Beverley Busson. She was a senior officer and then top officer during many of the events described here. She was top officer when a brother-in-law of a leading B.C. Liberal was "the team leader of the investigation into whether any fraud or breach of trust offences [especially, of course, among Liberals] were committed in relation to B.C. Rail". (item 49, p. 6) She was top officer during the time when - some have alleged - there has been an appearance of a concentration upon the charges against Basi, Basi, and Virk and a parallel RCMP neglect, perhaps, of investigation and (maybe) charges against senior legislature and non-legislature Liberals. She was top officer when Defence was arguing that the RCMP was not cooperating and, perhaps, was blocking evidence necessary to the conduct of the trial presided over by Madam Justice Elizabeth Bennett.
And so we come back to the Supreme Court of B.C. where the Basi, Basi, and Virk trial is imminent, though motions to stay proceedings and/or to call them invalid in the light of Charter violations must still be heard. Bets are still being taken on the likelihood of the trial going ahead. Madam Justice Bennett has said all documents not universally bearing a publication ban will be available to the public. The public's high interest in the case, she declares, must be served. That is reassuring, but it is relatively easy to say.
Much, much more difficult to say is how plain and direct have been the laying of charges and the pursuit of justice in the matter. Could the case against the three men charged have been purposefully fudged (a) to take attention away from the real malefactors? (b) Could it have been purposefully fudged in such a way as to be destroyed by a Charter challenge, declaring violations of the men's fundamental rights in a search for evidence? (c) Could it all be smoke and mirrors prepared by the Gordon Campbell forces and the RCMP working together? And could we all wake up some morning soon to be told the trial has been stayed, no charges exist, and no one will be found guilty of anything? And, in fact, might we be told that the Crown has decided the waters have been so muddied the best thing to do is to turn completely away from the whole matter And Get On With Building British Columbia?
Have the RCMP and the Gordon Campbell Liberals (and the Crown?) worked successfully together in the past to prevent justice from being done, or worse, to engage in acts of injustice (called "crimes")? If so, what is to stop them from being as successful in the present?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
RCMP: The National Police Force Gone Bad
By Robin Mathews
Something leaps out at you.
RCMP team leader in December, 2003, "of the investigation into whether any fraud or breach of trust offences were committed in relation to [the sale of ] B.C. Rail" was Sergeant Debruyckere "brother-in-law of then-Executive Director of the B.C. Liberal Party, Kelly Reichert [who was] on the Provincial Liberal Party Election Campaign Team with [Finance] minister [Gary] Collins and acted as the Campaign Director." (pp. 6-7)
In 2004 a leak of information was recorded regarding "star" crown witness against Basi and Virk, Eric Bornmann. "Specifically, the leaked information pertained to Mr. Reichert knowing that Mr. Bornmann had been granted immunity from prosecution in exchange for information against Messrs. Basi and Virk." (p.7)
This, and more, is in the Application for Disclosure of February 26, 2007, filed in the Supreme Court of B.C. by the Defence in the Basi, Basi, Virk matter of the legislature search warrant "raids" on Dec. 28, 2003 which seem - more and more - to be the tail that is wagging the dog in the dirty (perhaps criminal) sale of B.C. Rail by the Gordon Campbell government.
The implications of Liberal/RCMP connections to the legitimacy of the sale, to the role of Gordon Campbell and leading cabinet ministers, and to the focus on the three men charged may well turn out to be enormous. Ominously, the Application for Disclosure (item 62, p. 8) reports that finance minister Gary Collins may have been guilty of telling Dave Basi to inform U.S. OmniTRAX - a supposed bidder for B.C. Rail - that a "consolation prize" would be awarded if they would fake continued interest. Collins then met with OmniTRAX "Executives privately at Villa Del Luppo Restaurant" on December 12, 2003. Nonetheless, "the RCMP elected not to conduct further investigation of Minister Collins".
Before the search warrant "raids" on the legislature on December 28, "RCMP", according to the Application for Disclosure "were focused on developing a major communication and public relations strategy to be executed following the search of the Legislature". That, says the Application, involved "a massive media campaign, talk of the "cancer of organized crime", and an RCMP "media release and televised briefing on December 29 [which] drew a clear connection between Mr. Basi, Mr. Virk and organized crime." (item 59, p. 8)
We have to keep in mind that the Application for Disclosure comes from Defence which wishes to bring forward material demonstrating their clients are not guilty of crimes. The presentation to the court, however, pointing to evidence that is apparently solid must be taken seriously, for it is not in the interest of Defence counsel or of their clients to be frivolous or to appear to be misleading the court.
Perhaps to understand fully what a "major communication and public relations strategy" for the RCMP might entail we should look at a little history and experience.
What follows is information that suggests the RCMP has had highly questionable relations with the Liberal forces of Gordon Campbell, that the relations go a long way back, and that they appear to suggest the RCMP has gone bad and needs total national reconstruction from the top down. A point that has to be born in mind, of key importance, is that there is no effective RCMP oversight body in Canada. None. (The reasons for that go back to the McDonald Report in the 1980s).
The system which involves the Commission for Public Complaints Against the RCMP (the ONLY review organization) is patently ridiculous, an obvious, expensive game of smoke and mirrors. The Commission - let us say - agrees an investigation should be made. The RCMP investigates itself. The Commission may interpret the investigation. The result goes to the top levels of the RCMP for consideration. RCMP has no obligation to do anything, to mete out penalty, to censure officers, anything. It usually writes a little note back to the Commission (saying "get lost" in one way or another).
My own complaint concerned the RCMP investigation of Glen Clark, B.C. premier, charged with having accepted "favours" for influence. The RCMP alleged they had begun the investigation I asked for - the RCMP investigating the RCMP. I received a letter from an RCMP officer a few months after my complaint saying they had 28 or 29 volumes of "evidentiary material" and they were terminating the investigation. Period. I wrote in protest and heard absolutely nothing.
More than three years after I had lodged the complaint - having received not a single word for years - I received a telephone call from the second-in-command at the Commission saying they had completed their investigation and I would be receiving the report after it had been sent to the top level of the RCMP and had been finalized. It arrived with the conclusion that two experienced RCMP officers had WRONGFULLY terminated the investigation. The Commission recommended better training of officers to prevent such things happening, with which the RCMP top brass had no quarrel. And the Commission stated it would leave to the discretion of the RCMP whether they would re-open the investigation or not. The RCMP chose not to do so. For all intents and purposes there was no investigation whatever. The result is that I may fairly retain my conviction that the British Columbia RCMP worked with the Gordon Campbell forces to fake a case that could be fought against Glen Clark with the intention of destroying his political career.
The Glen Clark case arose out of the politics of the time - Liberals under Gordon Campbell, in fact, fighting to break the hold of the NDP on B.C. (More of that to come.)
A totally non-political complaint receiving the same kind of insane treatment as mine involved an ordinary citizen in the Kelowna area who believed he had very important information about the (still unsolved) Mindy Tran murder case. The RCMP refused to take his testimony, coerced him, and much more. The Commission for Public Complaints Against the RCMP took years to do nothing whatever about his case. Find out about all that at www.transfixed.net or at www.mindytran.com
I cite the two widely different cases to show that the Commission for Public Complaints is not a genuine oversight body. Whatever it thinks it does, in fact it provides a cover for RCMP wrong-doing because it gives the public the impression that RCMP illegalities and other kinds of misbehaviour are dealt with - and they are not. As a result, the RCMP can work - legally and illegally - for political forces of its choice and face no penalty or serious review.
In B.C. - to trace a single, revealing line - we may ask if the RCMP has not only obstructed the court proceedings in regard to the Basi, Basi, Virk charges, but has it been working for Gordon Campbell Liberal interests over more than a decade? And has it been perfecting "major communications and public relations" strategies that involve what has come to be called (using RCMP phrasing) "smear and disinformation" tactics?
In the mid-nineties (with Ujjal Dosanjh in the Attorney General position), an almost insane "war" was conducted against Native people and non-Native supporters (about 30) at Gustafsen Lake. (read From Attica to Gastafsen Lake, by Splitting the Sky and Sandra Bruderer, self-published, 2001). The incident involved the RCMP, the Canadian Armed forces, and, it is alleged, wildly illegal activities on the part of "the forces of order". Of particular interest was one RCMP officer who had a significant place in the set of events.
His name is Sergeant Peter Montague. At one point he convinced CBC radio to give special emergency time to broadcast into the Gustafsen Lake community because, apparently, of an impending crisis involving threat to human life. Professor Anthony Hall, a Native Studies expert, and another researcher, concluded the supposed basis for impending crisis argued by Montague was, almost without question, a fabrication.
RCMP Media Relations officer, Montague was a very busy man throughout the operation. At one point in the set of events he was caught on an RCMP videotape - parts of which are missing - saying with a smile "Smear campaigns are our [the RCMP's] specialty" (p. 435, >From Attica to Gustafsen Lake). His words were echoed by Sergeant Dennis Ryan who admitted in court to his statement caught also on videotape that plans were to employ "smear and disinformation". Ryan admitted in court, also, that the RCMP "illegally used juvenile criminal records of some of the militants they believed to be in the camp" with the purpose of discrediting. (p. 435, From Attica to Gustafsen Lake)
At one level the Gustafsen Lake "standoff" was a huge experimental chamber for "smear and disinformation" tactics, RCMP/media collaboration, government complicity, and try-outs of illegal activity to further policy ends. I have barely touched on the astonishing story.
Ujjal Dosanjh made his way to the premiership after (as Attorney General) he had publicly reported the criminal investigation of Glen Clark who, then, resigned in the appropriate fashion. What ensued I call "the fraudulent investigation and trial of Glen Clark, premier of B.C." Dosanjh's New Democrats lost the election to Gordon Campbell (as I saw it, almost as if that was what Dosanjh wanted). Probably for the first time in Commonwealth history, a premier (Dosanjh) announced nearly a week before the election that he expected to lose it. In a short time Dosanjh was working for the Liberal Party. He became a part of Paul Martin's B.C. "dream team" and went to Ottawa to become a federal Liberal cabinet minister.
Peter Montague's transformation is equally interesting. He was twice wooed by Gordon Campbell, it is reported, to run for the B.C. Liberal Party, but refused. After Gustafsen Lake, however, he joined the branch of the B.C. RCMP that conducted the "investigation" of Glen Clark, becoming "the chief investigator in the Clark corruption case" (Globe and Mail, Oct 30 02). He was a part of the strange search warrant "raid" on Glen Clark's East Vancouver home that was marked by the presence of BCTV, filming what became in the minds of many people part of a smear campaign, part of - you might say, to quote from the February 26, 2007 Defence Application for Disclosure in the Supreme Court of B.C. - "a massive media campaign." Glen Clark (in 2002) described the BCTV event as "a carefully orchestrated strategy to maximize media exposure".
Clark's comment was made in the context of a special retirement luncheon for Peter Montague held by journalists on October 29, 2002. Robert Matas, in his Globe and Mail story the next day, wrote "The Vancouver television crew that filmed former premier Glen Clark in his kitchen during a controversial police raid gave a retirement gift yesterday to the chief investigator in the Clark corruption case.
Gary Hanney, a cameraman with BCTV, made the presentation. Senior BCTV reporter, John Daly, who was at Mr. Clark's house during the police raid on March 2, 1999, was also at the luncheon.
Both Mr. Daly and Mr. Hanney refused to explain why they presented a token gift to Staff Sergeant Montague."
Calls have been made in both cases - the Gustafsen Lake "stand-off" and the Glen Clark investigation and trial - for full-scale public inquiries. They have not been forthcoming. As a result, the RCMP feels more and more at ease in its behaviour and practice. On April 10, 2004, the Vancouver Sun reported "RCMP Commissioner Guiliano Zaccardelli and members of Canada's diplomatic corps win honours as big spenders of expense accounts for cabinet ministers and top civil servants". (p. A9) Fallen into disgrace over his conduct involving the RCMP and Maher Arar three years later, Zaccardelli seems to have continued his grand "lifestyle". The Globe and Mail reported in March, 2007 that the "RCMP paid a communications consultant almost $25,000 to help Guiliano Zaccardelli prepare for parliamentary hearings that ultimately led to the former commissioner's resignation." What would he have said if he hadn't the benefit of $25,000 worth of help?
We should not forget that at RCMP headquarters the very large pension trouble and misuse of money commented upon by the auditor general involved misuse of expense accounts, "rampant" nepotism in human resources, miss-sourcing of contracts for $2 million, misuse of consultants, and a case in which "an officer was promoted after working on his superior's house". (Vanc. Sun, Sept 23 07 A4). Notice that no discipline or penalty was meted out to any of the people involved. But innocent Glen Clark, we remember, was charged, investigated for months and months in full public spotlight, tried for 136 days, and ruined for a rumour that he might have thought of giving a favour to someone who worked on his house. Was that whole piece of history the result of a carefully calculated "smear and disinformation" campaign?
Does the RCMP live in a world of double standards? Is it free to commit crimes, certain it will never be penalized? Does it work increasingly for and with - legally and illegally - particular political parties on the Right? The answer to all those questions seems to be: Yes.
Careful Globe and Mail columnist Lawrence Martin did something of a summary of RCMP lows on December 7, 2006, listing many large fiascos - but neither the Gustafsen Lake nor the Glen Clark scandals were among them, perhaps because there are too many RCMP violations of integrity to keep track of. Martin gives room for "honest mistakes". Then he adds: "But too many of the RCMP's recent activities haven't had the look of honest mistakes" (A19). Will the "B.C. legislature raids" be added to the list of large, shady (perhaps criminal) undertakings by the RCMP?
Replacement (temporary?) for the disgraced Guiliano Zaccardelli is former top B.C. RCMP officer Beverley Busson. She was a senior officer and then top officer during many of the events described here. She was top officer when a brother-in-law of a leading B.C. Liberal was "the team leader of the investigation into whether any fraud or breach of trust offences [especially, of course, among Liberals] were committed in relation to B.C. Rail". (item 49, p. 6) She was top officer during the time when - some have alleged - there has been an appearance of a concentration upon the charges against Basi, Basi, and Virk and a parallel RCMP neglect, perhaps, of investigation and (maybe) charges against senior legislature and non-legislature Liberals. She was top officer when Defence was arguing that the RCMP was not cooperating and, perhaps, was blocking evidence necessary to the conduct of the trial presided over by Madam Justice Elizabeth Bennett.
And so we come back to the Supreme Court of B.C. where the Basi, Basi, and Virk trial is imminent, though motions to stay proceedings and/or to call them invalid in the light of Charter violations must still be heard. Bets are still being taken on the likelihood of the trial going ahead. Madam Justice Bennett has said all documents not universally bearing a publication ban will be available to the public. The public's high interest in the case, she declares, must be served. That is reassuring, but it is relatively easy to say.
Much, much more difficult to say is how plain and direct have been the laying of charges and the pursuit of justice in the matter. Could the case against the three men charged have been purposefully fudged (a) to take attention away from the real malefactors? (b) Could it have been purposefully fudged in such a way as to be destroyed by a Charter challenge, declaring violations of the men's fundamental rights in a search for evidence? (c) Could it all be smoke and mirrors prepared by the Gordon Campbell forces and the RCMP working together? And could we all wake up some morning soon to be told the trial has been stayed, no charges exist, and no one will be found guilty of anything? And, in fact, might we be told that the Crown has decided the waters have been so muddied the best thing to do is to turn completely away from the whole matter And Get On With Building British Columbia?
Have the RCMP and the Gordon Campbell Liberals (and the Crown?) worked successfully together in the past to prevent justice from being done, or worse, to engage in acts of injustice (called "crimes")? If so, what is to stop them from being as successful in the present?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Friday, March 16, 2007
NAFTA-NASCO SuperHighway right through B.C.
NAFTA SuperHighway to Super Natural BC
What does the Super Highway as proposed to run from southern Mexico through the United States to northwestern British Columbia, Canada have to do with the sale of BC Rail? BC Rail is the end of the line, the culmination of the Master Plan where the last pieces of the jigsaw fall into place!
The proposed "Super Highway" will be a 10-lane highway. Can you imagine how much arable land that will gobble up! The super highway location also has extensive trackage in the central United States along the Mississippi River valley from the Great Lakes to the Gulf of Mexico.
What does the Super Highway as proposed to run from southern Mexico through the United States to northwestern British Columbia, Canada have to do with the sale of BC Rail? BC Rail is the end of the line, the culmination of the Master Plan where the last pieces of the jigsaw fall into place!
The proposed "Super Highway" will be a 10-lane highway. Can you imagine how much arable land that will gobble up! The super highway location also has extensive trackage in the central United States along the Mississippi River valley from the Great Lakes to the Gulf of Mexico.
Overlay the proposed 10-lane highway with the Rail lines as pictured below:
BC Ports Strategy – BC Government quote:
“Canada’s prosperity depends upon its success in world trade. British Columbia’s ports make this trade possible. They handle half of Canada’s maritime exports and 85% of the western provinces marine exports from grain, coal and forest products to petroleum and petrochemicals.”
Existing west coast port facilities are severely limited in their ability to expand. The current congestion on southern highway and rail lines is economically impacting delivery times and cost. The new Port of Prince Rupert will be focused solely on the movement of containers, grain and coal.
There are three deep-sea port locations in British Columbia connected to the continental highway and rail grid: the lower mainland, Prince Rupert and Kitimat.
Today Kitimat has three privately owned terminals used strictly for the owners' specific operations but, uniquely in the province, there is foreshore land in Kitimat that has been identified as available and developable for a deep water break bulk facility.
Advantages of Kitimat
A new break bulk port facility in Kitimat would have some decided advantages:
• Foreshore land available for development
• Significant distance and time advantages for Asian routings
• Complements the container port in Prince Rupert
• Significant shorter transport distance for export cargoes originating from much of
northern and central British Columbia and possibly from northern Alberta
• More efficient, cost-effective shipping for forest products out of northern B.C.
• Calm sea conditions
• Three vacant sites suitable for backup cargo assembly
• An existing rail line to Kitimat
http://www.gov.bc.ca/ecdev/down/bc_ports_strategy_sbed_mar_18_05.pdf
http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:GwygQMZFMVoJ:www.chamber.ca/cmslib/general/transkitimat.pdf+Deep+sea+port+Prince+Rupert+shipping+coal&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=ca&client=firefox-a
Raw log exports, dirty coal from B.C. and gas from the tar sands of Alberta all shipped out through the calm seas of the Inside Passage. How convenient to have a trade agreement called TILMA! And, when the government statement says that “more efficient, cost-effective shipping” will be the result, it does not mean for the province, it means for business. After all, Campbell has and is seeing to it that all assets once held by the people of this province are being sold off and not always to the highest bidder.
When Campbell sold BC Rail, he didn’t make money for the province. BC Rail sold at bargain basement prices, all to the advantage and “cost-effectiveness” of business. It was a set-up for the benefit of business.
BC Rail was a class II regional railway and the third largest in Canada, operating 2,320 km (1,441 miles) of mainline track. BC Rail was owned by the provincial government from 1918 until 2004, when it was sold to Canadian National Railway and now operates under the reporting marks of the Association of American Railways.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BC_Rail#_note-0
Combined with the indignity of practically giving away the valuable asset of BC Rail, tankers are plying the waters off the northern coastline of BC...where they shouldn't be...in fact they are breaking environmental laws and a decades-long moratorium on transporting dangerous chemicals and gaseous cargo within the Inside Passage.
Quoting from the Backgrounder on Threats from Tankers in BC’s Inside Passage:
“1. Methanex, in partnership with Alberta-based Encana, is currently importing condensate, a natural gas byproduct used to dilute thick crude oil, in oil tankers to Kitimat where the dilutant is being offloaded onto railway cars for transport to Alberta. The condensate, a toxic mix of chemicals and petroleum derivates needed to ease the flow of oil through pipelines, is being imported from Belize and other places in South America as well as Asia. The condensate tankers are very large (50,000 dwt) and carry approximately 350,000 barrels of condensate.
2. Alberta-based energy giant Enbridge is seeking approval of a $4 billion project that would bring oil tankers into BC’s inside passage to ship 800,000 to 1,000,000 barrels per day of exported tar sands crude oil from a pipeline originating in Alberta to destinations in China, India and California. Three to ten tankers per week would travel 100 kilometers through the inside passage and coastal waters, another 140 kilometers up a fjord to transport crude from an oil tanker terminal in Kitimat, BC.
3. Both Enbridge and Kinder Morgan are seeking approval for competing pipelines that would transport 150,000 and 100,000 barrels per day each in imported “condensate” off tankers in Kitimat into a 1,200 km long pipeline bound for Alberta. Both these proposals are currently seeking regulatory approval.
4. Kitimat LNG has received a provincial environmental assessment certificate for a Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) terminal in Kitimat. LNG is a very cold liquid natural gas approximately -260° F), containing mostly methane, but typically including other “hot” or “wild” hydrocarbons such as ethane and propane, and other toxic contaminants. Proposed LNG terminals are facing stiff opposition from communities across North America, with communities as diverse as Quebec City, Passamaquoddy Bay on the border of Maine and Nova Scotia, Malibu, Homboldt, Vallejo, Long Beach and Oxnard in California, Boston and Fall River in Massachusetts opposing LNG projects for environmental, security and health reasons.
5. Recently Pembina announced the $700 million Condensate Pipeline Project which if approved would transport 100,000 barrels a day of condensate from Kitimat to Summit Lake north of Prince George. From there Pembina will reverse the flow of existing pipeline currently carrying crude to ship condensate to the tar sands. Industry considers a 15% recovery of an oil spill a success; even in perfect conditions. A full recovery has never been achieved. Given that weather on the BC coast can be quite extreme with winds at over 25 knots in winter and waves reaching three stories in height- any spill in this region would have devastating environmental and economic consequences.
http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:EsqAJn58nQJ:www.cpawsbc.org/pdfs/TankerThreats_backgrounder.pdf+Tankers+full+of+gas+in+inside+passage&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=2&gl=ca&client=firefox-a
Tankers in the Inside Passage, coal mining in Northern BC, Alberta to look like a moonscape in no time flat with her rivers being poisoned and rumors of the Athabasca running out of water as industry gobbles up 5 gallons of water to make one gallon of gas. And, as if there isn’t enough polluting of the planet I heard on CBC radio yesterday that China is planning on building 2,500 coal-fired plants with BC helping out, no doubt, through the exporting of coal. Sheer madness.
Now we know, don't we, why the corporate media has been so quiet. There's money to be made.
What part did we, the long-suffering, tax-paying citizens play in the sale of BC Rail. Anyone remember? The short answer is nothing. We weren’t consulted, neither were we asked. The Liberal gods dictated and so shall it be.
In the meantime a seismic shift has occurred with the world recognizing both peak oil and global warming while Campbell dreams of his Gateway Project to Asia. Does he care? No, not Campbell. Not the BC Liberals. Not the coal mining companies. Not the companies operating in the tar sands. Not CN Rail. Not China. None of them care. Not while the inmates are running the asylum.
By Rita Dawson, Ladysmith B.C.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Much later, on 22 June 2007, this Vancouver Sun item:
ALASKA-CANADA RAIL LINE WOULD BE A BOON, STUDY SAYS
Reuters
Friday, June 22, 2007
A railway linking Alaska to the rest of North America would create wider benefits even if freight revenue did not cover the projected $10.5-billion US construction cost, according to a new study.
Building a more than 3,300-kilometre line between existing railways in Alaska and Canada would spur mining development and open a new trade route to Asia, according to the report released this week by governments of the Yukon and the neighbouring state of Alaska.
The study suggests the rail link would likely have to be funded as a joint public-private project [Oh, what a surprise!! - BC Mary], because projected freight shipping revenues over 50 years would cover only about 75 per cent of the full $10.5-billion investment.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Wednesday, March 14, 2007
B.C. Rail was part of the continental plan for North American Union
While Gordon Campbell was promising in 2001 that his government, if elected, would never sell British Columbia Railway, plans for the North American Union based upon the NAFTA-NASCO SuperCorridor were under way. One glance at this map will explain why our railway proved irresistible to the empire-builders (elected and unelected). Many thanks to Salt Spring News, an excellent online news site, for the excerpts and map. And thanks to kootcoot for his skillful transfer of it to this site. - BC Mary.
________________________________________________________
Related: Canadian National Railway
Matt Van Hattem
TRAINS Magazine Wisconsin USA
June 1, 2006
Canadian National Railway Company serves Canada and the central United States over a network of 19,200 route miles. A true transcontinental railroad, its lines stretch from Halifax, Nova Scotia on the Atlantic Coast to Vancouver and Prince Rupert, British Columbia on the Pacific Coast, and north to Prince George, and beyond (see map) and also extend south to reach the Gulf of Mexico at New Orleans and Mobile, Ala. In between, its tracks serve the cities of Quebec, Montreal, Toronto, Buffalo, Detroit, Chicago, Winnipeg, Calgary, Edmonton, St. Louis, Memphis, and Pittsburgh. ...
Canadian National merger family tree
TRAINS Magazine Wisconsin USA June 2, 2006
A genealogy of the well-known railroads that make up today's CN.
Endnotes: In our musings, we are coming to see the giveaway of BC Rail as perhaps part of the North American Union project, just as the Campbell coalition's energy policies are a part of that corporatist hidden-in-plain-view project.
Over the period 1986-2006, the overall funding for the four-thousand-mile NAFTA-NASCO SuperCorridor--running through the heart of the United States from Mexico to Canada--has two financial components, one private, one public.
The NASCO Corridor encompasses US Interstate Highways 35, 29 and 94, and the significant east/west connectors to those highways in the United States, Canada and Mexico.
The Corridor directly impacts the continental trade flow of North America. Membership includes public and private sector entities along the Corridor in Canada, the United States and Mexico.
________________________________________________
The B.C. Rail story is crying out for a Public Inquiry but only if it guarantees a final, full report to the people of B.C. - BC Mary.
________________________________________________
.
Monday, March 12, 2007
Beware the Ides of March. Bill 6 passed third reading today March 15, 4:40 PM
.
BREAKING NEWS: BILL 6 ELIMINATING OUR RIGHT TO KNOW, HAS PASSED.
Bill 6, Public Inquiry Act, reported complete without amendment, read a third time ... and passed 4:40PM Thursday 15 March 2007. The vote was 36 to 21. Notably missing: Premier Gordon Campbell, Opposition Leader Carole James. http://www.leg.bc.ca/hansard/38th3rd/H70315y.htm
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Without public discussion" ... "with no debate in the Legislature" ... and now Bill 6 to legalize suppression of Public Inquiry findings ... these things seem to be part of a procedure for allowing the loss of huge public assets. For an exceptionally informative video describing the loss of another huge public asset, please (you'll be glad you did) click onto: http://www.workingtv.com/saveourrivers/2007/apr/dvdweb/hintstream/qt/april2007_01.mov
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The Public Inquiry Act, Bill 6 nick-named the Secret Inquiry Act by the Opposition, came back before the current session of the B.C. Legislature after being shelved by the B.C. Liberal Government last spring.
Leonard Krog, the NDP Opposition justice critic, said the bill strikes at the right of British Columbians to know precisely what their government is doing.
Bill 6, if allowed to pass into law, would see reports from public inquiries be delivered to a minister, rather than to the Legislature. As it stands now, Cabinet would have the ability to withhold part or all of the inquiry's report.
"The Opposition has been calling for a public inquiry into the sale of B.C. Rail because of questions around the sale process and about the new owner's spotty safety record," Krog said.
"The B.C. Liberals want to have the power to decide what happens to the results of such an inquiry. This bill would allow them to keep the report secret."
_______________________________________________
[I've kept my promise that this blog would be non-partisan. Bill 6, in my opinion, crosses party lines and affects us all. Public accountability is an essential part of a Public Inquiry ... or why have one?
Let's persuade our M.L.A.s to kill Bill 6 in its present form, then to make the Public Inquiry Act fully accountable to the Legislature and to the public.
And let's hope that -- whatever the outcome of the trial of Basi, Virk, Basi -- there's a Public Inquiry followed by published findings telling us exactly what happened to B.C. Rail. - BC Mary.]
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Special thanks to "dl" for sending in this news.
________________________________________________
.
BREAKING NEWS: BILL 6 ELIMINATING OUR RIGHT TO KNOW, HAS PASSED.
Bill 6, Public Inquiry Act, reported complete without amendment, read a third time ... and passed 4:40PM Thursday 15 March 2007. The vote was 36 to 21. Notably missing: Premier Gordon Campbell, Opposition Leader Carole James. http://www.leg.bc.ca/hansard/38th3rd/H70315y.htm
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Without public discussion" ... "with no debate in the Legislature" ... and now Bill 6 to legalize suppression of Public Inquiry findings ... these things seem to be part of a procedure for allowing the loss of huge public assets. For an exceptionally informative video describing the loss of another huge public asset, please (you'll be glad you did) click onto: http://www.workingtv.com/saveourrivers/2007/apr/dvdweb/hintstream/qt/april2007_01.mov
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The Public Inquiry Act, Bill 6 nick-named the Secret Inquiry Act by the Opposition, came back before the current session of the B.C. Legislature after being shelved by the B.C. Liberal Government last spring.
Leonard Krog, the NDP Opposition justice critic, said the bill strikes at the right of British Columbians to know precisely what their government is doing.
Bill 6, if allowed to pass into law, would see reports from public inquiries be delivered to a minister, rather than to the Legislature. As it stands now, Cabinet would have the ability to withhold part or all of the inquiry's report.
"The Opposition has been calling for a public inquiry into the sale of B.C. Rail because of questions around the sale process and about the new owner's spotty safety record," Krog said.
"The B.C. Liberals want to have the power to decide what happens to the results of such an inquiry. This bill would allow them to keep the report secret."
_______________________________________________
[I've kept my promise that this blog would be non-partisan. Bill 6, in my opinion, crosses party lines and affects us all. Public accountability is an essential part of a Public Inquiry ... or why have one?
Let's persuade our M.L.A.s to kill Bill 6 in its present form, then to make the Public Inquiry Act fully accountable to the Legislature and to the public.
And let's hope that -- whatever the outcome of the trial of Basi, Virk, Basi -- there's a Public Inquiry followed by published findings telling us exactly what happened to B.C. Rail. - BC Mary.]
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Special thanks to "dl" for sending in this news.
________________________________________________
.
Saturday, March 10, 2007
Vaughn Palmer 'n' Bill 'n' BC Mary
.
He's 4 days late. Bill Tieleman and Robin Mathews scooped him on Wednesday, 7 March. But here he is: Vaughn Palmer -- Voice of B.C. -- speaking up on behalf of the public interest in the B.C. Rail Trial. And that's a good thing. Palmer doesn't explain why CanWest said nothing about the dramatic 90 minutes in B.C. Supreme Court on the day of the hearing; but he did mention two of the alternate news sources which have followed the case: Bill and [blush] BC Mary. Yep. You saw it in Vancouver Sun, a CanWest newspaper, as follows:
******************************************************************
Coming soon, some answers about the 2003 raid on the legislature
Vaughn Palmer, Vancouver Sun
Saturday, March 10, 2007
VICTORIA - For everyone still wondering about that police raid at the legislature three years ago, there was encouraging news in a Vancouver courtroom this week.
"The public interest in having this case heard outweighs just about everything else," declared Justice Elizabeth Bennett of the B.C. Supreme Court.
She spoke her mind at the latest procedural hearing in the seemingly interminable pretrial phase of the much-delayed case.
It was taken as a sign that the judge has reached the end of her patience with the legal wrangling and means for the case to go to trial, as scheduled, next month.
She surely spoke for many British Columbians, who've been subjected to endless speculation and doubts since police first descended on the provincial parliament at the end of December 2003.
The judge appeared to be taking the side of the public a second time during her comments at Wednesday's hearing.
"These proceedings have to be as open as possible," she said. "We will have a system in place for proper access to documents."
Meaning proper access by the public and the news media, as reporter Mark Hume noted in his account of the hearing, published in the Globe and Mail newspaper Thursday.
The case has generated considerable interest and much speculation in both conventional news media and the online variety. Check out Bill Tieleman's latest piece on the Tyee website. Or Google "BC Mary."
But members of the public are also following the case on their own, or trying to do so. Justice Bennett disclosed in court that she was in receipt of a complaint from someone [Robin Mathews - Mary] who'd been denied access to a document that had been circulated in the news media.
The judge's attitude may not have been improved by the fact that the document -- an application from the defence for more disclosure of information -- had fallen into the hands of the news media before she'd seen it as well.
Perhaps that helped reinforce her determination to get on with the public airing of the case.
The next procedural hearing is set for April 2 and the trial date is April 16.
Proceedings will likely commence with a week or two of legal arguments over the admissibility of evidence gathered through wiretaps and a series of search warrants.
Depending on what survives that winnowing, the public should begin getting answers to questions that have been posed and reposed for more than three years.
There was the sheer spectacle of the raid, followed by the bald declaration from police that it was connected to organized crime and the drug trade.
Then came the revelations of connections to key players in the provincial and federal Liberal parties.
Another shocker was the news that the raid was somehow connected to the sale of BC Rail, the government-owned railway, to CN Rail.
Then the allegation that, to preserve a viable bidding process for the BCR, the B.C. Liberals had dangled some sort of inducement to the second-place finisher. Supposedly, the consolation prize was the inside track on acquiring a second railway, the BCR spur line to the Roberts Bank superport.
Now, this is the point where the reader should be advised that much of this is speculative and none of it has been proven in court.
Note, too, that several of the presumed "bombshells" in this case were duds. The drug charges led nowhere. Most of the names mentioned in connection with the case were neither charged nor accused of wrongdoing.
Still, there's more than enough to warrant a full airing in open court, which is why Bennett's comment this week was so refreshing.
Without presuming to read her mind, I would note that she's been here before.
For she was also the judge in the Glen Clark case, which had similar elements. The charge of breach of trust. A political dimension. Complaints that the charge was overblown and unwarranted.
Bennett skilfully navigated those thickets in a written judgment in 2002.
Here's what she had to say about whether the case should have been aired in open court:
"Our free and democratic society requires such allegations to be investigated and a prosecution undertaken if there is evidence which meets the threshold required for charges to be laid. Anything less would bring the system of justice in disrepute."
Nevertheless, she acquitted Clark. He was guilty of "poor judgment . . . . However, there is nothing in his conduct that crosses the line from an act of folly to behaviour calling for criminal sanction."
Don't take this as a comment on the merits or possible outcomes of the case arising out of the raid on the legislature.
Rather, I wanted to record that Bennett's masterful handling of an earlier, no less politically charged case, suggests this one is in good hands as well.
vpalmer@direct.ca
*****************************************************************
.
He's 4 days late. Bill Tieleman and Robin Mathews scooped him on Wednesday, 7 March. But here he is: Vaughn Palmer -- Voice of B.C. -- speaking up on behalf of the public interest in the B.C. Rail Trial. And that's a good thing. Palmer doesn't explain why CanWest said nothing about the dramatic 90 minutes in B.C. Supreme Court on the day of the hearing; but he did mention two of the alternate news sources which have followed the case: Bill and [blush] BC Mary. Yep. You saw it in Vancouver Sun, a CanWest newspaper, as follows:
******************************************************************
Coming soon, some answers about the 2003 raid on the legislature
Vaughn Palmer, Vancouver Sun
Saturday, March 10, 2007
VICTORIA - For everyone still wondering about that police raid at the legislature three years ago, there was encouraging news in a Vancouver courtroom this week.
"The public interest in having this case heard outweighs just about everything else," declared Justice Elizabeth Bennett of the B.C. Supreme Court.
She spoke her mind at the latest procedural hearing in the seemingly interminable pretrial phase of the much-delayed case.
It was taken as a sign that the judge has reached the end of her patience with the legal wrangling and means for the case to go to trial, as scheduled, next month.
She surely spoke for many British Columbians, who've been subjected to endless speculation and doubts since police first descended on the provincial parliament at the end of December 2003.
The judge appeared to be taking the side of the public a second time during her comments at Wednesday's hearing.
"These proceedings have to be as open as possible," she said. "We will have a system in place for proper access to documents."
Meaning proper access by the public and the news media, as reporter Mark Hume noted in his account of the hearing, published in the Globe and Mail newspaper Thursday.
The case has generated considerable interest and much speculation in both conventional news media and the online variety. Check out Bill Tieleman's latest piece on the Tyee website. Or Google "BC Mary."
But members of the public are also following the case on their own, or trying to do so. Justice Bennett disclosed in court that she was in receipt of a complaint from someone [Robin Mathews - Mary] who'd been denied access to a document that had been circulated in the news media.
The judge's attitude may not have been improved by the fact that the document -- an application from the defence for more disclosure of information -- had fallen into the hands of the news media before she'd seen it as well.
Perhaps that helped reinforce her determination to get on with the public airing of the case.
The next procedural hearing is set for April 2 and the trial date is April 16.
Proceedings will likely commence with a week or two of legal arguments over the admissibility of evidence gathered through wiretaps and a series of search warrants.
Depending on what survives that winnowing, the public should begin getting answers to questions that have been posed and reposed for more than three years.
There was the sheer spectacle of the raid, followed by the bald declaration from police that it was connected to organized crime and the drug trade.
Then came the revelations of connections to key players in the provincial and federal Liberal parties.
Another shocker was the news that the raid was somehow connected to the sale of BC Rail, the government-owned railway, to CN Rail.
Then the allegation that, to preserve a viable bidding process for the BCR, the B.C. Liberals had dangled some sort of inducement to the second-place finisher. Supposedly, the consolation prize was the inside track on acquiring a second railway, the BCR spur line to the Roberts Bank superport.
Now, this is the point where the reader should be advised that much of this is speculative and none of it has been proven in court.
Note, too, that several of the presumed "bombshells" in this case were duds. The drug charges led nowhere. Most of the names mentioned in connection with the case were neither charged nor accused of wrongdoing.
Still, there's more than enough to warrant a full airing in open court, which is why Bennett's comment this week was so refreshing.
Without presuming to read her mind, I would note that she's been here before.
For she was also the judge in the Glen Clark case, which had similar elements. The charge of breach of trust. A political dimension. Complaints that the charge was overblown and unwarranted.
Bennett skilfully navigated those thickets in a written judgment in 2002.
Here's what she had to say about whether the case should have been aired in open court:
"Our free and democratic society requires such allegations to be investigated and a prosecution undertaken if there is evidence which meets the threshold required for charges to be laid. Anything less would bring the system of justice in disrepute."
Nevertheless, she acquitted Clark. He was guilty of "poor judgment . . . . However, there is nothing in his conduct that crosses the line from an act of folly to behaviour calling for criminal sanction."
Don't take this as a comment on the merits or possible outcomes of the case arising out of the raid on the legislature.
Rather, I wanted to record that Bennett's masterful handling of an earlier, no less politically charged case, suggests this one is in good hands as well.
vpalmer@direct.ca
*****************************************************************
.
Thursday, March 08, 2007
CanWest? YooHoo? Ya there, CanWest?
.
Has anyone seen any mention today in either of CanWest's 3 big B.C. daily newspapers concerning the events which occupied 90 dramatic minutes in B.C. Supreme Court Room #73 yesterday? Anything at all?
Madam Justice Elizabeth Bennett, presiding at a pre-trial conference on 7 March 2007, said significantly: "The public interest in having this case heard outweighs just about everything else."
She also said, following discussion among the judge and counsel, that - apparently because of the public interest in this B.C. Rail trial - all documents not under publishing ban will be available upon request from Criminal Registry (perhaps for a slight fee). Madam Justice Bennett graciously opened up scrutiny of documents concerning this trial ... remarking that there is a presumption in the law of public access. CanWest, please note.
And didn't we, on this web-site, receive the assurance of the Editor-in-Chief of the Victoria Times Colonist that "if there is news, [they] plan to publish it" ... ?
Well ... we've got news for CanWest. The B.C. Rail case is inching toward trial. It's a trial which will shake the very foundations of our province. CanWest: this is news. Big news.
- BC Mary.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
.
Has anyone seen any mention today in either of CanWest's 3 big B.C. daily newspapers concerning the events which occupied 90 dramatic minutes in B.C. Supreme Court Room #73 yesterday? Anything at all?
Madam Justice Elizabeth Bennett, presiding at a pre-trial conference on 7 March 2007, said significantly: "The public interest in having this case heard outweighs just about everything else."
She also said, following discussion among the judge and counsel, that - apparently because of the public interest in this B.C. Rail trial - all documents not under publishing ban will be available upon request from Criminal Registry (perhaps for a slight fee). Madam Justice Bennett graciously opened up scrutiny of documents concerning this trial ... remarking that there is a presumption in the law of public access. CanWest, please note.
And didn't we, on this web-site, receive the assurance of the Editor-in-Chief of the Victoria Times Colonist that "if there is news, [they] plan to publish it" ... ?
Well ... we've got news for CanWest. The B.C. Rail case is inching toward trial. It's a trial which will shake the very foundations of our province. CanWest: this is news. Big news.
- BC Mary.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
.
"Public interest in having this case heard, outweighs ... everything else," says Judge
.
Legislature raid case to go ahead, judge says
Despite defence application for disclosure, pretrial motions set to begin on April 16
The Globe and Mail - 8 March 2007
MARK HUME
VANCOUVER -- The judge in a case that involved an unprecedented police raid on the British Columbia Legislature made it clear yesterday the trial is going ahead despite a recent defence application for disclosure that led to some media speculation proceedings might be stayed.
"The public interest in having this case heard outweighs just about everything else," Madam Justice Elizabeth Bennett of the B.C. Supreme Court said after hearing another lengthy wrangle over the disclosure process, during which it was revealed that the defence may seek privileged cabinet documents.
Judge Bennett's statement was unprompted, but in the context of the testy legal sparring that preceded it, the comment was clearly meant to signal the oft-delayed trial is still on track for pretrial motions to begin on April 16.
She set April 2 for the next court hearing. {snip}
The judge, who has often said she scrupulously avoids news coverage of the case, said she was surprised to pick up The Globe in Montreal and find a story about materials that had not yet been set before her.
Special Crown prosecutor William Berardino, Dave Basi's lawyer, Michael Bolton, and Aneal Basi's lawyer, Joseph Doyle, all told court they hadn't leaked the material.
"I can't assist," said Kevin McCullough, the lawyer for Mr. Virk.
Judge Bennett said she raised the matter because a member of the public* had written a letter of complaint saying he had sought, and been refused, a copy of the application from the court registry.
"These proceedings have to be as open as possible," she said. "We will have a system in place for proper access to documents [by the media and public]." {snip}
In the latest application, the defence describes the disclosure process as "materially flawed," and asks the court to issue 19 separate orders to force the release of specific documents.
That application, which contains unproven allegations, led to some media speculation that the Crown's case was in trouble.
But Mr. Berardino appeared not to think so, as he told the court he would be drafting a letter within 48 hours, disputing numerous allegations in the disclosure.
He said the defence would have to respond to that letter by providing documents to back up its claims. {snip} "He's got to do it in writing," Judge Bennett agreed.
* That "member of the public" is Robin Mathews whose watchful presence in court has not only represented the public but, I believe, has helped to raise the court's awareness of the public interest in the B.C. Rail case. Robin deserves great credit for his efforts in this. - BC Mary.
Full story: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20070308.BCVIRK08/TPStory/?query=mark+hume
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
.
Legislature raid case to go ahead, judge says
Despite defence application for disclosure, pretrial motions set to begin on April 16
The Globe and Mail - 8 March 2007
MARK HUME
VANCOUVER -- The judge in a case that involved an unprecedented police raid on the British Columbia Legislature made it clear yesterday the trial is going ahead despite a recent defence application for disclosure that led to some media speculation proceedings might be stayed.
"The public interest in having this case heard outweighs just about everything else," Madam Justice Elizabeth Bennett of the B.C. Supreme Court said after hearing another lengthy wrangle over the disclosure process, during which it was revealed that the defence may seek privileged cabinet documents.
Judge Bennett's statement was unprompted, but in the context of the testy legal sparring that preceded it, the comment was clearly meant to signal the oft-delayed trial is still on track for pretrial motions to begin on April 16.
She set April 2 for the next court hearing. {snip}
The judge, who has often said she scrupulously avoids news coverage of the case, said she was surprised to pick up The Globe in Montreal and find a story about materials that had not yet been set before her.
Special Crown prosecutor William Berardino, Dave Basi's lawyer, Michael Bolton, and Aneal Basi's lawyer, Joseph Doyle, all told court they hadn't leaked the material.
"I can't assist," said Kevin McCullough, the lawyer for Mr. Virk.
Judge Bennett said she raised the matter because a member of the public* had written a letter of complaint saying he had sought, and been refused, a copy of the application from the court registry.
"These proceedings have to be as open as possible," she said. "We will have a system in place for proper access to documents [by the media and public]." {snip}
In the latest application, the defence describes the disclosure process as "materially flawed," and asks the court to issue 19 separate orders to force the release of specific documents.
That application, which contains unproven allegations, led to some media speculation that the Crown's case was in trouble.
But Mr. Berardino appeared not to think so, as he told the court he would be drafting a letter within 48 hours, disputing numerous allegations in the disclosure.
He said the defence would have to respond to that letter by providing documents to back up its claims. {snip} "He's got to do it in writing," Judge Bennett agreed.
* That "member of the public" is Robin Mathews whose watchful presence in court has not only represented the public but, I believe, has helped to raise the court's awareness of the public interest in the B.C. Rail case. Robin deserves great credit for his efforts in this. - BC Mary.
Full story: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20070308.BCVIRK08/TPStory/?query=mark+hume
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
.
Wednesday, March 07, 2007
Robin Mathews from B.C. Supreme Court
.
Dear Mary. There follows a brief "on the spot" report.
In courtroom 73 of the Supreme Court of B.C., March 7, 2007, people gathered concerned with the up-coming (?) trial of Basi, Basi, and Virk in the aftermath charges of the Dec. 28, 2003 search warrant "raids" on B.C. legislature offices, and they were joined at 9:42 a.m. by Madam Justice Elizabeth Bennett. The hearing was to be a half hour in length but ran into a full hour and a half.
Important things were said.
Eleven or twelve people populated the courtroom itself and eight or nine sat in the gallery. A high North window on the seventh floor room of the courthouse looked at and through a part of the huge glass roof sloping away out to the city of Vancouver.
Madam Justice Bennett referred, in opening, to two matters of document release. The first, I gather, was that the Globe and Mail appeared to have the Jan. 26 Application for Disclosure (covered on this blog) before Madam Justice Bennett did. Some kind of a leak it would seem. Surprise. In addition, a "member of the public" complained to the Justice about the fact that when major media were reporting upon and quoting from the Application, that person asked Criminal Registry for a copy and was bluntly refused. She passed the letter to counsel. Discussion followed among the judge and counsel, with the outcome that - apparently because of the public interest in this trial - all documents not under publishing ban will be available upon request from Criminal Registry (perhaps for a slight fee). Madam Justice Bennett graciously opened up scrutiny of documents concerning this trial. She remarked that there is a presumption in the law of public access.
But the repressive "protocol" imposed by Associate Chief Justice Patrick Dohm denying access generally to documents that are public documents in criminal trials is not lifted, and it must be lifted.
A great part of the hearing was devoted to the unfolding dates of steps leading to and concerned with the case. When should materials be filed; when should applications be made; when should they be responded to.... To cut a tangle of wrangling short, to this observer William Berardino, Special Crown Prosecutor, was asking in most circumstances for more time than Defence believed necessary. Was he trying to dislodge the April 2 starting date for the trial? I don't know. But, over dates, Defence and Prosecution tested the limits of courtesy.
In brief, Michael Bolton for Defence said it wanted to know, in short, what was the Crown's "theory of the case". And the Defence, further, pointed out that disclosure material was coming in as late as March 5 - of documents not before disclosed.
In short, it appears that Defence will file an Application on Charter issues (declaring, it seems, that the rights of the accused having been violated, charges are invalid) but that it cannot reasonably do so until it has under its hand materials that are still being disclosed. As late as March 5, documents of importance were disclosed for the first time.
Attempting to get to the core of the wrangling before Madam Justice Bennett, Defence counsel Kevin Mc Cullough declared that they were facing a major disclosure problem - one which, by the way, has dogged the process. How can a Charter Application be made until material is present and studied by Defence counsel? William Berardino rejoined (when Defence sought to speed up relations) that Prosecution needs a record of what is declared to be in dispute, not a telephone conversation about it.
In a few moments of almost digression, George Copley and Valerie Anderson, apparently representing the Province, appeared. Their appearance concerned documents reviewed, or privileged and declared irrelevant and documents apparently involving client privilege (as I understood their interventions). McCullough, for the Defence, intervened and said all the documents were the responsibility of the Special Prosecutor, that he was claiming "standing" in the court for Copley who, in effect, has no standing, and the documents should simply be disclosed. The Court appeared to agree with the burden of the statement by Defence.
Another hearing date is not impossible if filing dates get fouled. Otherwise, the case, it appears, will begin at 9:00 a.m. on April 2. Considering the last column I wrote for vivelecanada.ca which was posted on this blog, I must admit I will be surprised if the case begins on that date. But one more surprise in this unnecessarily convoluted case would not be surprising.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Again, Robin, thanks for your report. Thanks, too, for your valiant efforts to obtain documents for the public. Much appreciated. - BC Mary.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
.
Dear Mary. There follows a brief "on the spot" report.
In courtroom 73 of the Supreme Court of B.C., March 7, 2007, people gathered concerned with the up-coming (?) trial of Basi, Basi, and Virk in the aftermath charges of the Dec. 28, 2003 search warrant "raids" on B.C. legislature offices, and they were joined at 9:42 a.m. by Madam Justice Elizabeth Bennett. The hearing was to be a half hour in length but ran into a full hour and a half.
Important things were said.
Eleven or twelve people populated the courtroom itself and eight or nine sat in the gallery. A high North window on the seventh floor room of the courthouse looked at and through a part of the huge glass roof sloping away out to the city of Vancouver.
Madam Justice Bennett referred, in opening, to two matters of document release. The first, I gather, was that the Globe and Mail appeared to have the Jan. 26 Application for Disclosure (covered on this blog) before Madam Justice Bennett did. Some kind of a leak it would seem. Surprise. In addition, a "member of the public" complained to the Justice about the fact that when major media were reporting upon and quoting from the Application, that person asked Criminal Registry for a copy and was bluntly refused. She passed the letter to counsel. Discussion followed among the judge and counsel, with the outcome that - apparently because of the public interest in this trial - all documents not under publishing ban will be available upon request from Criminal Registry (perhaps for a slight fee). Madam Justice Bennett graciously opened up scrutiny of documents concerning this trial. She remarked that there is a presumption in the law of public access.
But the repressive "protocol" imposed by Associate Chief Justice Patrick Dohm denying access generally to documents that are public documents in criminal trials is not lifted, and it must be lifted.
A great part of the hearing was devoted to the unfolding dates of steps leading to and concerned with the case. When should materials be filed; when should applications be made; when should they be responded to.... To cut a tangle of wrangling short, to this observer William Berardino, Special Crown Prosecutor, was asking in most circumstances for more time than Defence believed necessary. Was he trying to dislodge the April 2 starting date for the trial? I don't know. But, over dates, Defence and Prosecution tested the limits of courtesy.
In brief, Michael Bolton for Defence said it wanted to know, in short, what was the Crown's "theory of the case". And the Defence, further, pointed out that disclosure material was coming in as late as March 5 - of documents not before disclosed.
In short, it appears that Defence will file an Application on Charter issues (declaring, it seems, that the rights of the accused having been violated, charges are invalid) but that it cannot reasonably do so until it has under its hand materials that are still being disclosed. As late as March 5, documents of importance were disclosed for the first time.
Attempting to get to the core of the wrangling before Madam Justice Bennett, Defence counsel Kevin Mc Cullough declared that they were facing a major disclosure problem - one which, by the way, has dogged the process. How can a Charter Application be made until material is present and studied by Defence counsel? William Berardino rejoined (when Defence sought to speed up relations) that Prosecution needs a record of what is declared to be in dispute, not a telephone conversation about it.
In a few moments of almost digression, George Copley and Valerie Anderson, apparently representing the Province, appeared. Their appearance concerned documents reviewed, or privileged and declared irrelevant and documents apparently involving client privilege (as I understood their interventions). McCullough, for the Defence, intervened and said all the documents were the responsibility of the Special Prosecutor, that he was claiming "standing" in the court for Copley who, in effect, has no standing, and the documents should simply be disclosed. The Court appeared to agree with the burden of the statement by Defence.
Another hearing date is not impossible if filing dates get fouled. Otherwise, the case, it appears, will begin at 9:00 a.m. on April 2. Considering the last column I wrote for vivelecanada.ca which was posted on this blog, I must admit I will be surprised if the case begins on that date. But one more surprise in this unnecessarily convoluted case would not be surprising.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Again, Robin, thanks for your report. Thanks, too, for your valiant efforts to obtain documents for the public. Much appreciated. - BC Mary.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
.
Bill Tieleman reporting from B.C. Supreme Court today
.
Hi Mary,
Well, more delay is the word from BC Supreme Court!
And our friend Robin Mathews will be in the news - Justice Elizabeth Bennett started off by saying she had received a letter from a member of the public [that would be our Robin. - BC Mary] concerned as to why they couldn't get a copy of the defence disclosure application from BC Supreme Court's registry.
And Justice Bennett wondered why she had read about the application in the Globe and Mail while she was in Quebec before she had seen the application herself as the presiding judge.
Much "not me" comments in the court from lawyers present but Justice Bennett impressed upon them that a) she wants maximum disclosure and b) it has to be done properly.
Robin talked outside court with Global TV, CP and the Globe about his request.
A lengthy hearing then ensued with the result that the defence disclosure application will be heard starting April 16 for an estimated three weeks. Then Charter applications and questions of privileged evidence.
Perhaps the most telling point was when Justice Bennett noted that she is scheduled to teach a course in July - but will give it up if necessary for the trial!
Looks like a long, long trial awaits if it does indeed go ahead.
I'll be filing a story for 24 hours Thursday edition and may do more for the Tyee subsequently, as well as posting more info and dates on my website blog later today when I get a chance.
Regards,
Bill Tieleman West Star Communications Tel 604-844-7827 Website: http://billtieleman.blogspot.com/
Hear Bill Tieleman on the Bill Good Show every Monday at 10 a.m. on CKNW AM 980 or online at www.cknw.com
Read Bill Tieleman every Tuesday in 24 hours, the Lower Mainland's new free weekday newspaper. Online at:
http://vancouver.24hrs.ca/Columnists/NewsViewsAttitude/
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Bill ... great report. Many thanks! - BC Mary.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
.
Hi Mary,
Well, more delay is the word from BC Supreme Court!
And our friend Robin Mathews will be in the news - Justice Elizabeth Bennett started off by saying she had received a letter from a member of the public [that would be our Robin. - BC Mary] concerned as to why they couldn't get a copy of the defence disclosure application from BC Supreme Court's registry.
And Justice Bennett wondered why she had read about the application in the Globe and Mail while she was in Quebec before she had seen the application herself as the presiding judge.
Much "not me" comments in the court from lawyers present but Justice Bennett impressed upon them that a) she wants maximum disclosure and b) it has to be done properly.
Robin talked outside court with Global TV, CP and the Globe about his request.
A lengthy hearing then ensued with the result that the defence disclosure application will be heard starting April 16 for an estimated three weeks. Then Charter applications and questions of privileged evidence.
Perhaps the most telling point was when Justice Bennett noted that she is scheduled to teach a course in July - but will give it up if necessary for the trial!
Looks like a long, long trial awaits if it does indeed go ahead.
I'll be filing a story for 24 hours Thursday edition and may do more for the Tyee subsequently, as well as posting more info and dates on my website blog later today when I get a chance.
Regards,
Bill Tieleman West Star Communications Tel 604-844-7827 Website: http://billtieleman.blogspot.com/
Hear Bill Tieleman on the Bill Good Show every Monday at 10 a.m. on CKNW AM 980 or online at www.cknw.com
Read Bill Tieleman every Tuesday in 24 hours, the Lower Mainland's new free weekday newspaper. Online at:
http://vancouver.24hrs.ca/Columnists/NewsViewsAttitude/
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Bill ... great report. Many thanks! - BC Mary.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
.
Part IV - Notice of Application for Disclosure
.
Part IV - Notice of Application for Disclosure
By Anonymous
On Sunday we paused our exploration of the defence version of the BC Rail case at paragraph 41. The government of the day has just accepted a bid from CN for the purchase of our B.C. Rail asset; a big chunk of public property and, coincidentally or not, an enormous player in the industrial economy of the province and a potential future player in the public transportation infrastructure has been lost to this province. This happened, as we have already seen, because of a process that, at the very least, has been called into serious question.
I do not intend to get into the details of the 'sale' again at this time. Those who wish to do so can read back over paragraphs 30 - 41 to refresh their memory about what the lawyers for the defendants have said about the 'process'. Suffice to say that, if these allegations and the evidence from the RCMP wiretaps can be sustained in court, there is a strong indication that the 'sale' of B.C. Rail was not an arm's-length commercial transaction. In fact, there is at least the appearance that this was not a legitimate tender and bid process at all. In fact, as much as this case has been characterized as the Basi case, the name it was given last fall - the B.C.Rail case - is far more appropriate.
As we move on to the narrative of events from November 25, 2003 until just prior to the notorious Raid on the Legislature of December 28, readers will encounter some new characters. By the end of this story - that is, by the time we've completed the tour of the Application's “Introduction”, we're going to need a dance card to list all the players.
Immediately after the public announcement that CN was the successful 'bidder' for the spoils of BC Rail, it seems that Finance Minister Collins looked at his day-timer and decided that OmniTRAX was his next priority.
Paragraph 42 - 43 tell us that between November 28, 2003 and December 8, 2003 the RCMP learned, two “… OmniTRAX Executives Pat Broe and Dwight Johnson were going to meet with Minister Collins.” We're told that the meeting is to take place on December 12 at the Villa Del Lupo restaurant in Vancouver. In ¶ 44 we learn this set into motion an elaborate surveillance operation and in ¶ 45 and ¶ 46 we learn why:
¶ 45. The intercepted communication in which Mr. Basi advised Mr. Virk that Minister Collins authorized the Consolation Prize was of substantial significance in respect of whether any criminal wrongdoing could be attributable to Mr. Basi and Mr. Virk.
¶ 46. The RCMP were aware that if Mr. Collins met privately with the OmniTRAX Executives, that this tended to significantly corroborate Mr. Basi's previous advice to Mr. Virk that Minister Collins had approved the Consolation Prize.
And the narrative goes on:
¶ 47. The RCMP were aware that Mr. Virk dealt directly with Minister Collins on the sale of B.C. Rail. To that end, it would make no sense for Mr. Basi to deceive Mr. Virk with respect to Minister Collins' position on the Consolation Prize. The RCMP were also acutely aware that it would make no sense for Mr. Basi to advise OmniTRAX that Minister Collins had authorized the Consolation Prize, and then organize a private meeting between those parties, if that were not the case.
A quick word of caution here: It is important to remember, again, that this is the defence version of events and is, in the nature of its implications only plausible if one accepts the 'theory' the defence is putting forward. These conclusions may well be valid - but they have not yet been tested before a judge. They are only theories at this point. And the use of the phrase 'it would make no sense' is highly suspect and requires the reader to draw conclusions that may be unwarranted.
In any case, a meeting between Mr Collins and two OmniTRAX executives did take place. One can imagine the dramatic possibilities this little meal holds for future exploitation. Let's continue.
¶ 48. On December 12, 2003, Minister Collins in fact met with the OmniTRAX Executives privately at Villa Del Lupo restaurant, wherein the RCMP engaged in a massive surveillance operation to document this meeting. The surveillance included undercover operatives both inside and outside the restaurant and extensive video surveillance and tracking of the parties.
The next section of this story concerns complicated issues and the numerous personalities of several additional individuals as we take the story from that fine dining experience.
Just as a final toast, here's a little blurb about Villa Del Lupo from the restaurant's website:
"Tucked away in a discrete, private setting in the heart of downtown Vancouver, Villa del Lupo offers an unparalleled dining experience. Situated in an ornate heritage mansion, the restaurant boasts a charming and engaging atmosphere that makes guests feel at ease. A visit to the 'House of the Wolf' is like taking a sensory trip into the glory days of a bygone era, an environment that combines the rustic charm of an old world European villa and a 30's-style speakeasy with the swank sophistication of modern technique.
"Villa del Lupo has cultivated a loyal following by consistently delivering a dining experience that remains unsurpassed for over fifteen years, constantly providing a veritable feast for the senses. Skillfully combining prompt, knowledgeable service with an extensive award-winning wine list and a menu that will feed not only the body but the soul, you will find your every desire satiated by the 'House of the Wolf'."
Somehow it seems apt.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Again, thank you Anonymous.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
.
Part IV - Notice of Application for Disclosure
By Anonymous
On Sunday we paused our exploration of the defence version of the BC Rail case at paragraph 41. The government of the day has just accepted a bid from CN for the purchase of our B.C. Rail asset; a big chunk of public property and, coincidentally or not, an enormous player in the industrial economy of the province and a potential future player in the public transportation infrastructure has been lost to this province. This happened, as we have already seen, because of a process that, at the very least, has been called into serious question.
I do not intend to get into the details of the 'sale' again at this time. Those who wish to do so can read back over paragraphs 30 - 41 to refresh their memory about what the lawyers for the defendants have said about the 'process'. Suffice to say that, if these allegations and the evidence from the RCMP wiretaps can be sustained in court, there is a strong indication that the 'sale' of B.C. Rail was not an arm's-length commercial transaction. In fact, there is at least the appearance that this was not a legitimate tender and bid process at all. In fact, as much as this case has been characterized as the Basi case, the name it was given last fall - the B.C.Rail case - is far more appropriate.
As we move on to the narrative of events from November 25, 2003 until just prior to the notorious Raid on the Legislature of December 28, readers will encounter some new characters. By the end of this story - that is, by the time we've completed the tour of the Application's “Introduction”, we're going to need a dance card to list all the players.
Immediately after the public announcement that CN was the successful 'bidder' for the spoils of BC Rail, it seems that Finance Minister Collins looked at his day-timer and decided that OmniTRAX was his next priority.
Paragraph 42 - 43 tell us that between November 28, 2003 and December 8, 2003 the RCMP learned, two “… OmniTRAX Executives Pat Broe and Dwight Johnson were going to meet with Minister Collins.” We're told that the meeting is to take place on December 12 at the Villa Del Lupo restaurant in Vancouver. In ¶ 44 we learn this set into motion an elaborate surveillance operation and in ¶ 45 and ¶ 46 we learn why:
¶ 45. The intercepted communication in which Mr. Basi advised Mr. Virk that Minister Collins authorized the Consolation Prize was of substantial significance in respect of whether any criminal wrongdoing could be attributable to Mr. Basi and Mr. Virk.
¶ 46. The RCMP were aware that if Mr. Collins met privately with the OmniTRAX Executives, that this tended to significantly corroborate Mr. Basi's previous advice to Mr. Virk that Minister Collins had approved the Consolation Prize.
And the narrative goes on:
¶ 47. The RCMP were aware that Mr. Virk dealt directly with Minister Collins on the sale of B.C. Rail. To that end, it would make no sense for Mr. Basi to deceive Mr. Virk with respect to Minister Collins' position on the Consolation Prize. The RCMP were also acutely aware that it would make no sense for Mr. Basi to advise OmniTRAX that Minister Collins had authorized the Consolation Prize, and then organize a private meeting between those parties, if that were not the case.
A quick word of caution here: It is important to remember, again, that this is the defence version of events and is, in the nature of its implications only plausible if one accepts the 'theory' the defence is putting forward. These conclusions may well be valid - but they have not yet been tested before a judge. They are only theories at this point. And the use of the phrase 'it would make no sense' is highly suspect and requires the reader to draw conclusions that may be unwarranted.
In any case, a meeting between Mr Collins and two OmniTRAX executives did take place. One can imagine the dramatic possibilities this little meal holds for future exploitation. Let's continue.
¶ 48. On December 12, 2003, Minister Collins in fact met with the OmniTRAX Executives privately at Villa Del Lupo restaurant, wherein the RCMP engaged in a massive surveillance operation to document this meeting. The surveillance included undercover operatives both inside and outside the restaurant and extensive video surveillance and tracking of the parties.
The next section of this story concerns complicated issues and the numerous personalities of several additional individuals as we take the story from that fine dining experience.
Just as a final toast, here's a little blurb about Villa Del Lupo from the restaurant's website:
"Tucked away in a discrete, private setting in the heart of downtown Vancouver, Villa del Lupo offers an unparalleled dining experience. Situated in an ornate heritage mansion, the restaurant boasts a charming and engaging atmosphere that makes guests feel at ease. A visit to the 'House of the Wolf' is like taking a sensory trip into the glory days of a bygone era, an environment that combines the rustic charm of an old world European villa and a 30's-style speakeasy with the swank sophistication of modern technique.
"Villa del Lupo has cultivated a loyal following by consistently delivering a dining experience that remains unsurpassed for over fifteen years, constantly providing a veritable feast for the senses. Skillfully combining prompt, knowledgeable service with an extensive award-winning wine list and a menu that will feed not only the body but the soul, you will find your every desire satiated by the 'House of the Wolf'."
Somehow it seems apt.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Again, thank you Anonymous.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
.
Tuesday, March 06, 2007
Important dates for B.C. Rail case
.
March 7 - BC Supreme Court Vancouver - Pre-trial conference scheduled to begin at 9 a.m. but may start at 9:30 a.m. This conference will address trial scheduling and other issues. This is the only BC Supreme Court appearance by the defence and Crown prior to the trial start on April 2.
But watch for information arising from two "Filing only" dates: March 14 when Crown responds to 26 Feb defence disclosure application; and March 21: 1) defence files Charter of Rights application, and 2) defence responds to Crown's reply to the disclosure application.
April 2: B.C. Supreme Court trial of HMTQ vs Basi, Virk, Basi begins.
Thanks to Bill Tieleman for this information.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
March 7 - BC Supreme Court Vancouver - Pre-trial conference scheduled to begin at 9 a.m. but may start at 9:30 a.m. This conference will address trial scheduling and other issues. This is the only BC Supreme Court appearance by the defence and Crown prior to the trial start on April 2.
But watch for information arising from two "Filing only" dates: March 14 when Crown responds to 26 Feb defence disclosure application; and March 21: 1) defence files Charter of Rights application, and 2) defence responds to Crown's reply to the disclosure application.
April 2: B.C. Supreme Court trial of HMTQ vs Basi, Virk, Basi begins.
Thanks to Bill Tieleman for this information.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Questions in Legislature over Public Inquiry
..
Priceless support is coming to The Legislature Raids blog. The following helper first informed us of the push for a Public Inquiry to look into the B.C. Rail-CN transaction, and now writes: Here is the TC story I was talking about in my last email. The campbell government is no different than the war criminal Bush who has enacted laws that will retroactively protect him and senior members of his government from prosecution as war criminals. This is outrageous, absolutely outrageous. Now the campbell government wants to change the rules because they can sense the pressure that is building over the bc rail giveaway.
B.C. TO UPDATE PUBLIC INQUIRY LEGISLATION
Lindsay Kines, Times Colonist
March 06, 2007
The B.C. government moved yesterday to update the province's public-inquiry process a year after similar changes died in the face of stiff opposition.
Attorney General Wally Oppal tabled legislation to replace the Public Inquiry Act with a "modern" law that will permit formal and informal commissions of inquiry.
Unlike the bill introduced last spring, Bill 6 will require that all inquiry reports are made public, Oppal said. {Snip}
The NDP, which called last year's bill the Secret Inquiry Act because it allowed cabinet to withhold some reports, said the new legislation is little better.
"It appears that we're getting the same old wolf with a slightly different sheep's clothing," said NDP critic Leonard Krog.
"This act, it appears, still gives cabinet the right to sit on a report for an extended period of time, presumably until after a following election."
Krog said cabinet should be required to release reports by commissions of inquiry within two to three weeks.
"The time should be brief," he said. {snip}
Full story: http://www.canada.com/victoriatimescolonist/news/story.html?id=67c2939c-b9ff-494c-a4cd-b11376833e7f
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
.
Priceless support is coming to The Legislature Raids blog. The following helper first informed us of the push for a Public Inquiry to look into the B.C. Rail-CN transaction, and now writes: Here is the TC story I was talking about in my last email. The campbell government is no different than the war criminal Bush who has enacted laws that will retroactively protect him and senior members of his government from prosecution as war criminals. This is outrageous, absolutely outrageous. Now the campbell government wants to change the rules because they can sense the pressure that is building over the bc rail giveaway.
B.C. TO UPDATE PUBLIC INQUIRY LEGISLATION
Lindsay Kines, Times Colonist
March 06, 2007
The B.C. government moved yesterday to update the province's public-inquiry process a year after similar changes died in the face of stiff opposition.
Attorney General Wally Oppal tabled legislation to replace the Public Inquiry Act with a "modern" law that will permit formal and informal commissions of inquiry.
Unlike the bill introduced last spring, Bill 6 will require that all inquiry reports are made public, Oppal said. {Snip}
The NDP, which called last year's bill the Secret Inquiry Act because it allowed cabinet to withhold some reports, said the new legislation is little better.
"It appears that we're getting the same old wolf with a slightly different sheep's clothing," said NDP critic Leonard Krog.
"This act, it appears, still gives cabinet the right to sit on a report for an extended period of time, presumably until after a following election."
Krog said cabinet should be required to release reports by commissions of inquiry within two to three weeks.
"The time should be brief," he said. {snip}
Full story: http://www.canada.com/victoriatimescolonist/news/story.html?id=67c2939c-b9ff-494c-a4cd-b11376833e7f
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
.
The B.C. Rail bombshells - Bill Tieleman
.
Don't miss Bill Tieleman's story on The Tyee this morning. Bill concludes his 2,000-word article with:
"Believe it or not, this lengthy compendium does not even cover all of the allegations made in the defence disclosure application -- not even close. I have deliberately left out many of the allegations that have been previously reported in The Tyee and other media outlets for reason of space and complexity.
"Suffice it to say that if the Basi, Virk, Basi trial does go ahead as planned, there will be more bombshells than on a bad day in Iraq.
"And if the case is somehow derailed by defence motions, well, British Columbia will have been deprived of the most fascinating trial in decades, a trial that could well alter the course of provincial political history."
Full story at http://thetyee.ca/Views/2007/03/06/BCRail/__________________________________________________
Bill: This analysis ought to win you a Canadian Newspaper Award this year. Where do we vote for that, eh? - BC Mary
__________________________________________________
.
Don't miss Bill Tieleman's story on The Tyee this morning. Bill concludes his 2,000-word article with:
"Believe it or not, this lengthy compendium does not even cover all of the allegations made in the defence disclosure application -- not even close. I have deliberately left out many of the allegations that have been previously reported in The Tyee and other media outlets for reason of space and complexity.
"Suffice it to say that if the Basi, Virk, Basi trial does go ahead as planned, there will be more bombshells than on a bad day in Iraq.
"And if the case is somehow derailed by defence motions, well, British Columbia will have been deprived of the most fascinating trial in decades, a trial that could well alter the course of provincial political history."
Full story at http://thetyee.ca/Views/2007/03/06/BCRail/__________________________________________________
Bill: This analysis ought to win you a Canadian Newspaper Award this year. Where do we vote for that, eh? - BC Mary
__________________________________________________
.
Monday, March 05, 2007
Application for Disclosure publicly exposes highly placed elected officials
.
The Legislature "Raids" in B.C.
Latest Developments: Smelling Rats.
By Robin Mathews
"Under a corrupt government all institutions become corrupt."
British Columbians live in a public world of calculated deceit, breach of trust, and the disintegration of democratic institutions. That condition relates, most importantly, to the Gordon Campbell government and its manipulation of public trust.
That public world heaps profit upon many "trusted" public servants, private institutions, and corporations in pursuit of power, wealth, booty, personal gratification, and the imposition of a dirty, dangerous ideology of private corporate rule.
Nowhere is the condition more evident - strangely - than in the Supreme Court of British Columbia where, on February 26, 2007, "the Defence" (counsel for Udhe Singh (Dave) Basi, Bobby Singh Virk, and Aneal Basi concerning charges arising out of the RCMP search warrant "raids" on B.C. Legislature offices on December 28, 2003) filed an explosive Application for Disclosure of evidence that has not yet (after more than three years) been revealed to counsel to aid it in the defence of the accused facing (altogether) 14 charges laid against them.
The material in the Application for Disclosure draws together and exposes publicly more tightly than before the relation of the men charged and some of their "handlers" - highly placed elected officials, highly placed political party members, and - as I have said before - Gordon Campbell himself, necessarily, as employer by Orders in Council of the men charged.
The game of legalisms is in its fourth year! Madam Justice Elizabeth Bennett is growing old on the case. I believe I detected (at the last hearing I attended) a line of gray where she parts her hair. But we all know, don't we, that no expenditure of time is wasted in the pursuit of justice.
We know, too, that in the polluted game of "legalisms" no tactic will be unused in an attempt to prevent justice from being done. (Conjure up in your mind, just for instance, a theoretical situation in which not one of the Defence, the Special Crown Prosecutor, nor the judge presiding wants justice done. Then watch the "legalisms" unwind and unwind and unwind.)
Basi, Basi, and Virk are - all added up - facing about fourteen charges involving (largely) fraud and breach of trust offences while acting as cabinet officers planted firmly near and acting with people from the "the core" of Gordon Campbell government and the Liberal Party. Because their - apparently - relatively simple, allegedly actionable wrong-doings relate to the Gordon Campbell cabinet, to major provincial political figures, and to large
corporations the prime necessity was for clean, careful, and undelayed justice.
Instead, the whole matter wades through gumbo, in a fog, drowned in a sea of nonsensical and endless chatter. We are in the fourth year of, apparently, almost unbelieveable obstruction, delay, misinformation, apparent intentions to mislead, and abandonment of responsibility.
Who is to blame?
Defence counsel in their Application for Disclosure open areas (justifiably) to consider as entities to blame - the Special Prosecutor, William Berardino, and the RCMP (item 77, pp. 10 and 11). Less emphasized perhaps in the document are the shadowy actions of the Gordon Campbell government and the federal Department of Justice.
In item 77, however, another clause, (f), points in a further direction of possible blame. Whether that clause is intended to invoke the Court itself is difficult to say because the quality of writing in the Application is not of a high order. The clause in question reads that a stay of proceedings is sought, also, because of "(f) the delay to [sic] bringing this matter to trial which is fully attributable to the Crown."
The Crown in our system has two faces. One of them in this matter is, of course, the Special Prosecutor, acting for the Crown. The other face of the Crown is the B.C. Supreme Court itself, the appointed judges, who exercise the "Splendid Objectivity of Majesty" on behalf of Her Royal Highness and on behalf of the people who are her subjects in British Columbia. The capital letters are not meant in jest. One of the most important aspects of a judiciary is its objectivity, its service to law and constitution, its fairness and impartiality. So hard is that to achieve and maintain, it is well described as the "Splendid Objectivity of Majesty".
The "Crown", we all know, has a contrary pair of faces, perhaps best illustrated by all the federal and provincial Attorneys General who are at one and the same time "the highest law officers of the Crown" and highly political cabinet members elected to office for one Party. (Wally Oppal has found how easy it is to be publicly taunted as being more a crass "politico" than a restrained law officer objectively seeking justice.) Fortunately, the judiciary is not elected by a Party, though it is appointed by a Party in Power. Often by class interest and ideology, members of the judiciary find themselves automatically more in sympathy with the wealthy and powerful (however moral or immoral) than with the people.
And so, regrettably, the delay in bringing "this matter to trial ? fully attributable to the Crown" may very well involve Madam Justice Elizabeth Bennett, the judge presiding.
I argue that she has had a large role to play, from which she has all but stepped away. Her primary task has been to see that justice is done. That means she should have, a long time ago, apprized herself of the all the forces in play. She should then (on behalf of The Majestry of the Law and on behalf of the people of British Columbia and all Canada) have ordered the Special Prosecutor, the RCMP (naming as responsible the chief officer in B.C.), the B.C. government (naming as responsible the Attorney General or the Premier), and the federal Justice Department (naming the Minister of Justice) to provide ALL relevant material to the Defence, to do it within a generously measured time, or to face Contempt of Court charges with attached jail sentences.
If the Supreme Court of B.C. can repeatedly send a 78 year old woman, peaceful defender of the forests to jail for Contempt of Court, and if it can send an aged and sick Native woman - it would appear - to her death for refusing to apologize for defending wilderness land, surely that Court can send the Special Prosecutor, the senior B.C. RCMP officer, the Attorney General or the Premier of B.C., and/or the federal Minister of Justice to jail if they be found to be actively failing to produce evidence in matters relating to the most serious possibilities, at the highest levels, of breach of trust, subornation, bribery, and misuse of power - issues hugely more significant than preventing bulldozers from raping small parts of the landscape.
Madam Justice Bennett, we remember, presided at the trial of Glen Clark (which I call "the fraudulent investigation and trial of Glen Clark, B.C. premier"). She did so as if the trial were really about an argument over apparently free work done on an East End residence veranda in order to gain "favours". Refusing to address the dubious and endless RCMP "investigation", the incredible search warrant "raid" on Glen Clark's home - RCMP officers accompanied by BCTV to "cover" the event, the origin in Gordon Campbell's constituency office of the charges against Clark, the evident triviality of the case, and the request by Clark's lawyer (on more than one occasion) to stay the proceedings as (in fact) vexatious, Madam Justice Bennett sat imperturbably while innocent Glen Clark was (I allege) maliciously destroyed and a B.C. political party maliciously crippled.
As I write, Madam Justice Bennett supports the dangerous, undemocratic, and (I allege) wilful protocol imposed on the Criminal Registry of the B.C. Supreme Court by Associate Chief Justice Patrick Dohm to deny information on the public record to British Columbians. By doing so, she may be reflecting her larger attitude to the law, to the constitution, and to the British Columbians she has been appointed to serve.
In their setting out of reasons for (a) further considerable disclosure of evidence and (b) a stay of proceedings, Defence counsel mix (as might be expected) solid reasons with some special pleading. The latter is pretty obvious and needs no comment here.
More important by far are the substantial reasons Defence counsel give for the Application. I will cite only some of the most revealing ones. (1) They state that (item 38, page 5) "On November 17, 2003, the RCMP learned through a series of intercepted communications that Mr. Basi advised OmniTRAX that Minister [Gary] Collins, [minister of finance] had authorized a consolation prize [perhaps a veiled bribe?] for Omnitrax in exchange for them staying in the bidding process?"[for B.C. Rail]. [Negotiations with OmniTRAX for the Roberts Bank spur line were terminated later on advice from the RCMP that the matter was tainted.] Minister Collins met with omniTRAX representatives on December 12, 2003, (page 8, item 62) but "the RCMP elected not to conduct any further investigation of Minister Collins".
Defence counsel report a network of complications involved with "star" prosecution witness, Eric Bornmann and the Special Prosecutor. They allege Bornmann's "story" has changed (p. 8, item 64), that the Special Prosecutor had taken actions that made it possible for Bornmann "to receive a benefit from this conduct of the Special Prosecutor". And that benefits were also received by Mr. Kieran who it is alleged "made an allegation of payment to Mr. Basi that would have been unlawful".(p. 10, item 71). Defence has not, apparently received "full disclosure from the Special Prosecutor of all dealings between [sic] the Special Prosecutor, the RCMP, Mr. MacIntosh [Bornmann's lawyer] and Mr. Bornmann" (page 10, item 72).
Defence counsel report that a large file of federal Liberal Party material is missing (p. 13, item 90). And in that regard (p. 13, item 94), the "Special Prosecutor is also aware that key Crown witnesses who make the allegations of misconduct against the Accused were deeply connected to the Federal Liberal Party, as were the Accused".
Defence counsel report (p. 18, item 133) that statements made by Eric Bornmann against Bruce Clark [brother of - at the time - deputy premier, Christie Clark] "involve an allegation that Mr. Clark bribed Mr. Basi." Needless to say, Defence is unable to get "the entirety of Mr. Bornmann's statements against Mr. Clark."
Defence counsel report that critically important documents about the sale of B.C. Rail are (so far) nowhere to be found.
Indeed, a continuing refrain in the Application is that Defence has been unable to deal with the charges because of the on-going, impenetrable mess created by a wholly unsatisfactory disclosure process over years. The February 26 Application lists an almost unbelieveable succession of materials undisclosed at this late date.
Observers in the courtroom were witness to one "disclosure fiasco". Attempting to be able to survey the materials necessary to the case, a great deal was made by Defence counsel about getting access to the famous "Project Room" of the RCMP - though other places of storage were mentioned. The Project Room was opened by Madam Justice Bennett (Nov. 14, 2006). A huge sigh of relief seemed to rise from Defence counsel. We much less experienced observers in court that day sat over coffee chuckling. We were chuckling at the apparent ingenuousness of Madam Justice Bennett, and the remarkable patience of Defence counsel. We were confident all the material was not in the Project Room. The present Application for Disclosure reveals that at least two other places (and some unknown ones) contain information that Defence (and Madam Justice Bennett) accepted was in the "Project Room".
A quite simple question arises. Why couldn't Madam Justice Bennett "smell a rat" when average observers could see one lumbering across the desk directly in front of her? The question is not, perhaps, an unimportant one.
Defence counsel declare (p. 13, item 93) that the fact of materials being completely missing from the Project room "is not only inconsistent [with] and contrary to what the Special Prosecutor advised this court, but also creates an enormous problem." Quite apart from the problem it creates, what is Madam Justice Elizabeth Bennett going to do with the fact that the Special Prosecutor gave the court information which (to put the case gently) was simply untrue? When are the people in this case going to face the kinds of Contempt of Court charges faced by humble, peaceable, environmental protesters? Or do the Supreme Court and its judges wish to live blissfully and disgracefully in a world of double standards?
Complicating factors not mentioned by Defence enter the matter. In early December, 2003, in relation to the investigation of Victoria police officer Dosanjh, William Berardino was appointed Special Prosecutor by then Attorney General Geoff Plant with whom Berardino had formerly been in practice. Special Prosecutor of the different set of events leading up to the Legislature "raids" was David Harris (p.8, item 57). He advised on the day of the raids. Then he apparently disappeared. William Berardino then, apparently, added matters concerning the Legislature raids to his responsibilities.
When? Why?
More, more, more, could be said. But enough. Except - can we see a pattern in the extraordinary Application for Disclosure of February 26, 2007? To an average, concerned, and reasonably intelligent observer a pattern seems to appear throughout which suggests the Special Prosecutor has been utterly unable or unwilling to fulfill his responsibilities, and that the RCMP has been careless or purposefully obstructive in producing essential materials. I would say it also reveals that the presiding judge has failed to be in control and to insist upon the speedy, competent, fair, and full opening up of materials essential to a trial of integrity.
Overall, the larger number of apparent oversights, lapses, failures to report, apparent obstructions, and seeming refusals to cooperate with Defence appear to provide protection from scrutiny to special people and to special areas. The sale process of B.C. Rail, the actions of cabinet members, the full involvement of the RCMP, and the role of highly placed Liberals outside the legislature have been skirted in a way that is indefensible.
The next-to-final question is a complex and painful one. Has all of the above been acted out as part of a grand scheme to fence in the three men accused, to call them sharks, to prove them independently guilty, and to scapegoat them (however innocent or guilty) in an ocean teeming with sharks, as if the three men are the only sharks present?
An even worse question. Is it possible that having stumbled into a situation in which it is impossible to separate "underlings" from "superiors", major people and major institutions have set to work to stall, delay, obstruct, pervert, and frustrate all legal processes until a mistrial, a stay of proceedings, or some other device may be called for in effect to terminate any significant examination of a large number of gravely serious criminal actions undertaken at the highest level of government activity in British Columbia? And if that is the case, who are the actors involved in the work to stall, delay, obstruct, pervert, and frustrate all legal processes?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Thank you, Robin.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
.
The Legislature "Raids" in B.C.
Latest Developments: Smelling Rats.
By Robin Mathews
"Under a corrupt government all institutions become corrupt."
British Columbians live in a public world of calculated deceit, breach of trust, and the disintegration of democratic institutions. That condition relates, most importantly, to the Gordon Campbell government and its manipulation of public trust.
That public world heaps profit upon many "trusted" public servants, private institutions, and corporations in pursuit of power, wealth, booty, personal gratification, and the imposition of a dirty, dangerous ideology of private corporate rule.
Nowhere is the condition more evident - strangely - than in the Supreme Court of British Columbia where, on February 26, 2007, "the Defence" (counsel for Udhe Singh (Dave) Basi, Bobby Singh Virk, and Aneal Basi concerning charges arising out of the RCMP search warrant "raids" on B.C. Legislature offices on December 28, 2003) filed an explosive Application for Disclosure of evidence that has not yet (after more than three years) been revealed to counsel to aid it in the defence of the accused facing (altogether) 14 charges laid against them.
The material in the Application for Disclosure draws together and exposes publicly more tightly than before the relation of the men charged and some of their "handlers" - highly placed elected officials, highly placed political party members, and - as I have said before - Gordon Campbell himself, necessarily, as employer by Orders in Council of the men charged.
The game of legalisms is in its fourth year! Madam Justice Elizabeth Bennett is growing old on the case. I believe I detected (at the last hearing I attended) a line of gray where she parts her hair. But we all know, don't we, that no expenditure of time is wasted in the pursuit of justice.
We know, too, that in the polluted game of "legalisms" no tactic will be unused in an attempt to prevent justice from being done. (Conjure up in your mind, just for instance, a theoretical situation in which not one of the Defence, the Special Crown Prosecutor, nor the judge presiding wants justice done. Then watch the "legalisms" unwind and unwind and unwind.)
Basi, Basi, and Virk are - all added up - facing about fourteen charges involving (largely) fraud and breach of trust offences while acting as cabinet officers planted firmly near and acting with people from the "the core" of Gordon Campbell government and the Liberal Party. Because their - apparently - relatively simple, allegedly actionable wrong-doings relate to the Gordon Campbell cabinet, to major provincial political figures, and to large
corporations the prime necessity was for clean, careful, and undelayed justice.
Instead, the whole matter wades through gumbo, in a fog, drowned in a sea of nonsensical and endless chatter. We are in the fourth year of, apparently, almost unbelieveable obstruction, delay, misinformation, apparent intentions to mislead, and abandonment of responsibility.
Who is to blame?
Defence counsel in their Application for Disclosure open areas (justifiably) to consider as entities to blame - the Special Prosecutor, William Berardino, and the RCMP (item 77, pp. 10 and 11). Less emphasized perhaps in the document are the shadowy actions of the Gordon Campbell government and the federal Department of Justice.
In item 77, however, another clause, (f), points in a further direction of possible blame. Whether that clause is intended to invoke the Court itself is difficult to say because the quality of writing in the Application is not of a high order. The clause in question reads that a stay of proceedings is sought, also, because of "(f) the delay to [sic] bringing this matter to trial which is fully attributable to the Crown."
The Crown in our system has two faces. One of them in this matter is, of course, the Special Prosecutor, acting for the Crown. The other face of the Crown is the B.C. Supreme Court itself, the appointed judges, who exercise the "Splendid Objectivity of Majesty" on behalf of Her Royal Highness and on behalf of the people who are her subjects in British Columbia. The capital letters are not meant in jest. One of the most important aspects of a judiciary is its objectivity, its service to law and constitution, its fairness and impartiality. So hard is that to achieve and maintain, it is well described as the "Splendid Objectivity of Majesty".
The "Crown", we all know, has a contrary pair of faces, perhaps best illustrated by all the federal and provincial Attorneys General who are at one and the same time "the highest law officers of the Crown" and highly political cabinet members elected to office for one Party. (Wally Oppal has found how easy it is to be publicly taunted as being more a crass "politico" than a restrained law officer objectively seeking justice.) Fortunately, the judiciary is not elected by a Party, though it is appointed by a Party in Power. Often by class interest and ideology, members of the judiciary find themselves automatically more in sympathy with the wealthy and powerful (however moral or immoral) than with the people.
And so, regrettably, the delay in bringing "this matter to trial ? fully attributable to the Crown" may very well involve Madam Justice Elizabeth Bennett, the judge presiding.
I argue that she has had a large role to play, from which she has all but stepped away. Her primary task has been to see that justice is done. That means she should have, a long time ago, apprized herself of the all the forces in play. She should then (on behalf of The Majestry of the Law and on behalf of the people of British Columbia and all Canada) have ordered the Special Prosecutor, the RCMP (naming as responsible the chief officer in B.C.), the B.C. government (naming as responsible the Attorney General or the Premier), and the federal Justice Department (naming the Minister of Justice) to provide ALL relevant material to the Defence, to do it within a generously measured time, or to face Contempt of Court charges with attached jail sentences.
If the Supreme Court of B.C. can repeatedly send a 78 year old woman, peaceful defender of the forests to jail for Contempt of Court, and if it can send an aged and sick Native woman - it would appear - to her death for refusing to apologize for defending wilderness land, surely that Court can send the Special Prosecutor, the senior B.C. RCMP officer, the Attorney General or the Premier of B.C., and/or the federal Minister of Justice to jail if they be found to be actively failing to produce evidence in matters relating to the most serious possibilities, at the highest levels, of breach of trust, subornation, bribery, and misuse of power - issues hugely more significant than preventing bulldozers from raping small parts of the landscape.
Madam Justice Bennett, we remember, presided at the trial of Glen Clark (which I call "the fraudulent investigation and trial of Glen Clark, B.C. premier"). She did so as if the trial were really about an argument over apparently free work done on an East End residence veranda in order to gain "favours". Refusing to address the dubious and endless RCMP "investigation", the incredible search warrant "raid" on Glen Clark's home - RCMP officers accompanied by BCTV to "cover" the event, the origin in Gordon Campbell's constituency office of the charges against Clark, the evident triviality of the case, and the request by Clark's lawyer (on more than one occasion) to stay the proceedings as (in fact) vexatious, Madam Justice Bennett sat imperturbably while innocent Glen Clark was (I allege) maliciously destroyed and a B.C. political party maliciously crippled.
As I write, Madam Justice Bennett supports the dangerous, undemocratic, and (I allege) wilful protocol imposed on the Criminal Registry of the B.C. Supreme Court by Associate Chief Justice Patrick Dohm to deny information on the public record to British Columbians. By doing so, she may be reflecting her larger attitude to the law, to the constitution, and to the British Columbians she has been appointed to serve.
In their setting out of reasons for (a) further considerable disclosure of evidence and (b) a stay of proceedings, Defence counsel mix (as might be expected) solid reasons with some special pleading. The latter is pretty obvious and needs no comment here.
More important by far are the substantial reasons Defence counsel give for the Application. I will cite only some of the most revealing ones. (1) They state that (item 38, page 5) "On November 17, 2003, the RCMP learned through a series of intercepted communications that Mr. Basi advised OmniTRAX that Minister [Gary] Collins, [minister of finance] had authorized a consolation prize [perhaps a veiled bribe?] for Omnitrax in exchange for them staying in the bidding process?"[for B.C. Rail]. [Negotiations with OmniTRAX for the Roberts Bank spur line were terminated later on advice from the RCMP that the matter was tainted.] Minister Collins met with omniTRAX representatives on December 12, 2003, (page 8, item 62) but "the RCMP elected not to conduct any further investigation of Minister Collins".
Defence counsel report a network of complications involved with "star" prosecution witness, Eric Bornmann and the Special Prosecutor. They allege Bornmann's "story" has changed (p. 8, item 64), that the Special Prosecutor had taken actions that made it possible for Bornmann "to receive a benefit from this conduct of the Special Prosecutor". And that benefits were also received by Mr. Kieran who it is alleged "made an allegation of payment to Mr. Basi that would have been unlawful".(p. 10, item 71). Defence has not, apparently received "full disclosure from the Special Prosecutor of all dealings between [sic] the Special Prosecutor, the RCMP, Mr. MacIntosh [Bornmann's lawyer] and Mr. Bornmann" (page 10, item 72).
Defence counsel report that a large file of federal Liberal Party material is missing (p. 13, item 90). And in that regard (p. 13, item 94), the "Special Prosecutor is also aware that key Crown witnesses who make the allegations of misconduct against the Accused were deeply connected to the Federal Liberal Party, as were the Accused".
Defence counsel report (p. 18, item 133) that statements made by Eric Bornmann against Bruce Clark [brother of - at the time - deputy premier, Christie Clark] "involve an allegation that Mr. Clark bribed Mr. Basi." Needless to say, Defence is unable to get "the entirety of Mr. Bornmann's statements against Mr. Clark."
Defence counsel report that critically important documents about the sale of B.C. Rail are (so far) nowhere to be found.
Indeed, a continuing refrain in the Application is that Defence has been unable to deal with the charges because of the on-going, impenetrable mess created by a wholly unsatisfactory disclosure process over years. The February 26 Application lists an almost unbelieveable succession of materials undisclosed at this late date.
Observers in the courtroom were witness to one "disclosure fiasco". Attempting to be able to survey the materials necessary to the case, a great deal was made by Defence counsel about getting access to the famous "Project Room" of the RCMP - though other places of storage were mentioned. The Project Room was opened by Madam Justice Bennett (Nov. 14, 2006). A huge sigh of relief seemed to rise from Defence counsel. We much less experienced observers in court that day sat over coffee chuckling. We were chuckling at the apparent ingenuousness of Madam Justice Bennett, and the remarkable patience of Defence counsel. We were confident all the material was not in the Project Room. The present Application for Disclosure reveals that at least two other places (and some unknown ones) contain information that Defence (and Madam Justice Bennett) accepted was in the "Project Room".
A quite simple question arises. Why couldn't Madam Justice Bennett "smell a rat" when average observers could see one lumbering across the desk directly in front of her? The question is not, perhaps, an unimportant one.
Defence counsel declare (p. 13, item 93) that the fact of materials being completely missing from the Project room "is not only inconsistent [with] and contrary to what the Special Prosecutor advised this court, but also creates an enormous problem." Quite apart from the problem it creates, what is Madam Justice Elizabeth Bennett going to do with the fact that the Special Prosecutor gave the court information which (to put the case gently) was simply untrue? When are the people in this case going to face the kinds of Contempt of Court charges faced by humble, peaceable, environmental protesters? Or do the Supreme Court and its judges wish to live blissfully and disgracefully in a world of double standards?
Complicating factors not mentioned by Defence enter the matter. In early December, 2003, in relation to the investigation of Victoria police officer Dosanjh, William Berardino was appointed Special Prosecutor by then Attorney General Geoff Plant with whom Berardino had formerly been in practice. Special Prosecutor of the different set of events leading up to the Legislature "raids" was David Harris (p.8, item 57). He advised on the day of the raids. Then he apparently disappeared. William Berardino then, apparently, added matters concerning the Legislature raids to his responsibilities.
When? Why?
More, more, more, could be said. But enough. Except - can we see a pattern in the extraordinary Application for Disclosure of February 26, 2007? To an average, concerned, and reasonably intelligent observer a pattern seems to appear throughout which suggests the Special Prosecutor has been utterly unable or unwilling to fulfill his responsibilities, and that the RCMP has been careless or purposefully obstructive in producing essential materials. I would say it also reveals that the presiding judge has failed to be in control and to insist upon the speedy, competent, fair, and full opening up of materials essential to a trial of integrity.
Overall, the larger number of apparent oversights, lapses, failures to report, apparent obstructions, and seeming refusals to cooperate with Defence appear to provide protection from scrutiny to special people and to special areas. The sale process of B.C. Rail, the actions of cabinet members, the full involvement of the RCMP, and the role of highly placed Liberals outside the legislature have been skirted in a way that is indefensible.
The next-to-final question is a complex and painful one. Has all of the above been acted out as part of a grand scheme to fence in the three men accused, to call them sharks, to prove them independently guilty, and to scapegoat them (however innocent or guilty) in an ocean teeming with sharks, as if the three men are the only sharks present?
An even worse question. Is it possible that having stumbled into a situation in which it is impossible to separate "underlings" from "superiors", major people and major institutions have set to work to stall, delay, obstruct, pervert, and frustrate all legal processes until a mistrial, a stay of proceedings, or some other device may be called for in effect to terminate any significant examination of a large number of gravely serious criminal actions undertaken at the highest level of government activity in British Columbia? And if that is the case, who are the actors involved in the work to stall, delay, obstruct, pervert, and frustrate all legal processes?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Thank you, Robin.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
.
Sunday, March 04, 2007
Part III - Notice of Application for Disclosure
.
Third Report on the Notice of Application for Disclosure
By Anonymous
Another day and a few more paragraphs to wade through.
Before we get started, I'd like to raise a point I touched on yesterday. This is a defence document and, if I've left out some of the emphasis the defence is placing on the admissibility of evidence obtained through wiretaps that may have infringed the doctrine of Parliamentary privilege, it was not my intent to do so.
The privileges enjoyed by the House of Commons in the London (and which we have inherited here in Canada) came about as a result of threats from both the King and the House of Lords. Historically, as that 'physical threat' diminished the general tendency has been to more carefully define the rights and immunities of elected members much more narrowly; this is a consequence of the fact that the privilege comes from the electorate itself. Such conventions make it possible for Parliament to work and for individual elected members of the House to exercise and fulfill 'the functions for which they were elected.'
Needless to say, that does not include the freedom to exercise functions that are criminal in intent and/or execution.
Parliamentary privilege exists - when speaking in the Legislature members are more or less free to say whatever they like without restraint or hindrance. As to the ability of 'anyone' employed in a legislative precinct to behave in an illegal and criminal matter and then hide behind that same doctrine - well, that's a concept which is open to interpretation and judicial judgment. As I said, I'm not a lawyer and I'm not in any way privy to anything but the words of this document - I think I can say with little fear of contradiction that there will be persuasive submissions from the other side on this.
This question is not one that doesn't have echoes in British Columbia: Echoes that go back to the years of Bennett the elder, Robert Sommers and Bob Bonner. Political ethics and criminality are often opposite sides of the same coin. In any case, it would be wise to withhold any final judgment on this, or any of these questions, until the other shoe has dropped.
Now, let's move on to the documentary evidence.
We stopped at ¶ 29 yesterday and, because of the nature of the material in the next 12 paragraphs, I think it is a good idea to transcribe these verbatim. They are mostly descriptive; as already mentioned they are part of the defence version of events and personalities. I don't want to be accused of being unfair to the persons named, and I can see little need to comment - other than saying that I wish the writer who created these materials could have found an abbreviation for the phrase “learned through a series of intercepted communications.”
¶ 30. Mr. Bornmann was heavily involved in Federal Liberal politics as the Director of Communications for the Paul Martin Leadership Campaign at this time.
¶ 31. Mr. Elmhirst was an active member of the B. C. Federal Liberal Party at this time.
¶ 32. Through intercepted communications, the RCMP learned that Mr. Basi was making representations on behalf of Minister Collins to dissuade OmniTRAX from dropping out of the BC Rail bidding process.
¶ 33. Through a series of intercepted communications in November 2003, the RCMP learned that OmniTrax was seeking a “consolation prize” from the Government to stay in the BC Rail bidding process, if in fact they were not the successful bidder.
¶ 34. At this time, the British Columbia Government was not only selling B.C.Rail, but also separately putting out to bid Robert's Bank. The Request for Proposals for Robert's Bank was put out for bid on November 6, 2003.
¶ 35. In early November 2003, OmniTRAX was considering whether they would drop out of the bidding process, and wanted to meet personally with Minister Collins.
¶ 36. The RCMP became aware through intercepted communications that Bobby Singh Virk (hereinafter “Mr. Virk”) was also a Ministerial Assistant who was working with Mr. Basi on the sale of B.C.Rail.
¶ 37. Through intercepted communications, the RCMP learned that Mr. Virk had spoken to Minister Collins regarding the problems with unhappy bidders and unhappy Liberal Government MLAs, the effect this would have on the bidding process, and how the sale of B.C.Rail would be viewed both politically and publicly.
¶ 38. On November 17, 2003, the RCMP learned through a series of intercepted communications that Mr. Basi advised OmniTRAX that Minister Collins had authorized a consolation prize for OmniTRAX in exchange for them staying in the bidding process (hereinafter the “Consolation Prize”).
¶ 39. Critically, on November 17, 2003, the RCMP learned through an intercepted call between Mr. Basi and Mr. Virk, that Mr. Basi told Mr. Virk that Minister Collins had approved the Consolation Prize.
¶ 40. At that time, the RCMP were aware that Mr. Virk was dealing directly with both Mr. Basi and Minister Collins on the sale of B.C. Rail.
¶ 41. On November 25, 2003, the government announced that CN Rail was the winning bidder in respect of B.C. Rail.
I think that's enough for today, after all, it's a Sunday.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Thank you, Anonymouse.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
.
Third Report on the Notice of Application for Disclosure
By Anonymous
Another day and a few more paragraphs to wade through.
Before we get started, I'd like to raise a point I touched on yesterday. This is a defence document and, if I've left out some of the emphasis the defence is placing on the admissibility of evidence obtained through wiretaps that may have infringed the doctrine of Parliamentary privilege, it was not my intent to do so.
The privileges enjoyed by the House of Commons in the London (and which we have inherited here in Canada) came about as a result of threats from both the King and the House of Lords. Historically, as that 'physical threat' diminished the general tendency has been to more carefully define the rights and immunities of elected members much more narrowly; this is a consequence of the fact that the privilege comes from the electorate itself. Such conventions make it possible for Parliament to work and for individual elected members of the House to exercise and fulfill 'the functions for which they were elected.'
Needless to say, that does not include the freedom to exercise functions that are criminal in intent and/or execution.
Parliamentary privilege exists - when speaking in the Legislature members are more or less free to say whatever they like without restraint or hindrance. As to the ability of 'anyone' employed in a legislative precinct to behave in an illegal and criminal matter and then hide behind that same doctrine - well, that's a concept which is open to interpretation and judicial judgment. As I said, I'm not a lawyer and I'm not in any way privy to anything but the words of this document - I think I can say with little fear of contradiction that there will be persuasive submissions from the other side on this.
This question is not one that doesn't have echoes in British Columbia: Echoes that go back to the years of Bennett the elder, Robert Sommers and Bob Bonner. Political ethics and criminality are often opposite sides of the same coin. In any case, it would be wise to withhold any final judgment on this, or any of these questions, until the other shoe has dropped.
Now, let's move on to the documentary evidence.
We stopped at ¶ 29 yesterday and, because of the nature of the material in the next 12 paragraphs, I think it is a good idea to transcribe these verbatim. They are mostly descriptive; as already mentioned they are part of the defence version of events and personalities. I don't want to be accused of being unfair to the persons named, and I can see little need to comment - other than saying that I wish the writer who created these materials could have found an abbreviation for the phrase “learned through a series of intercepted communications.”
¶ 30. Mr. Bornmann was heavily involved in Federal Liberal politics as the Director of Communications for the Paul Martin Leadership Campaign at this time.
¶ 31. Mr. Elmhirst was an active member of the B. C. Federal Liberal Party at this time.
¶ 32. Through intercepted communications, the RCMP learned that Mr. Basi was making representations on behalf of Minister Collins to dissuade OmniTRAX from dropping out of the BC Rail bidding process.
¶ 33. Through a series of intercepted communications in November 2003, the RCMP learned that OmniTrax was seeking a “consolation prize” from the Government to stay in the BC Rail bidding process, if in fact they were not the successful bidder.
¶ 34. At this time, the British Columbia Government was not only selling B.C.Rail, but also separately putting out to bid Robert's Bank. The Request for Proposals for Robert's Bank was put out for bid on November 6, 2003.
¶ 35. In early November 2003, OmniTRAX was considering whether they would drop out of the bidding process, and wanted to meet personally with Minister Collins.
¶ 36. The RCMP became aware through intercepted communications that Bobby Singh Virk (hereinafter “Mr. Virk”) was also a Ministerial Assistant who was working with Mr. Basi on the sale of B.C.Rail.
¶ 37. Through intercepted communications, the RCMP learned that Mr. Virk had spoken to Minister Collins regarding the problems with unhappy bidders and unhappy Liberal Government MLAs, the effect this would have on the bidding process, and how the sale of B.C.Rail would be viewed both politically and publicly.
¶ 38. On November 17, 2003, the RCMP learned through a series of intercepted communications that Mr. Basi advised OmniTRAX that Minister Collins had authorized a consolation prize for OmniTRAX in exchange for them staying in the bidding process (hereinafter the “Consolation Prize”).
¶ 39. Critically, on November 17, 2003, the RCMP learned through an intercepted call between Mr. Basi and Mr. Virk, that Mr. Basi told Mr. Virk that Minister Collins had approved the Consolation Prize.
¶ 40. At that time, the RCMP were aware that Mr. Virk was dealing directly with both Mr. Basi and Minister Collins on the sale of B.C. Rail.
¶ 41. On November 25, 2003, the government announced that CN Rail was the winning bidder in respect of B.C. Rail.
I think that's enough for today, after all, it's a Sunday.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Thank you, Anonymouse.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
.
Saturday, March 03, 2007
Part II on Notice of Application for Disclosure
.
Second Report on the Notice of Application for Disclosure
By Anonymous
As promised, I’m back with some more explication of that 32-page opus that landed on Judge Bennett’s table ( I guess that’s how they do these things) and, through the agency of defence counsels’ generosity got into the hands of the working media in Vancouver last Monday. How do ordinary mortals like members of the public manage to get their hands on such things? Well, that’s a long story and I think I’ll leave it for Robin to tell that one. We have enough to do right here to deconstruct those pages without worrying about where they came from – or at least how ONE member of the public got his hands on a public document.
Part I – the Introduction. “Project Everywhichway”
As I mentioned earlier, this is the real meat of the document from the public’s point of view. Here, laid out in precise detail, step-by-step, is the way this case started – accelerated into the major climax of the actual raid on the legislature and has, since that time, been echoing, in a variety of ways, through the legal, political and media hallways of the province. Some of this was undoubtedly part of the material withheld by Mr. Justice Patrick Dohm and some of it, no question, is going to come up again before this story reaches a conclusion.
First of all, a caution. This is the defence version of the libretto and it’s undoubtedly the one Gary Mason’s been singing from. As Mary’s posted below – thanks again to Bill, there will be an opportunity for the other side – the prosecution, to weigh in on all these issues. I’m not going to try and point this out at every step of this narrative, but it’s a good idea to keep the notion in the back of your mind; after all, a place like the rockpile in James Bay does have a street address that’s hardly a secret. But, we’ll let the RCMP, the Crown and Gary Mason argue about that.
Let’s get started.
As I mentioned in the first installment, the RCMP called their investigation “Project Everywhichway” and their focus, from the start, was Dave Basi. The same Dave Basi who was, if you’ve forgotten, the Ministerial Assistant to the Minister of Finance and Government House Leader, Mr Gary Collins. (¶ 2).
As part of the investigation the RCMP decided to obtain court authorization for a DNR (Digital Number Recorder) warrant(s) for Mr. Basi’s cell phone(s). (There is some confusion in the text about whether or not the singular or plural is correct.)
Her Honour Judge Ehrcke is reported to have rejected the initial requests for a DNR warrant on the basis of possible ‘Parliamentary privilege’. This happened, apparently, at least twice in the period from August to September 2003.(¶ 3 - ¶ 8).
Before a third DNR warrant application was presented, this time to a Justice of the British Columbia Supreme Court, the police changed gears and brought application before Mr. Justice Patrick Dohm for a Part VI Authorization to Intercept Private Communications, “P.67” – for two DNR warrants – which were approved. (¶ 9 - ¶ 10)
Defence makes much of the fact that the Police may not have given appropriate notice to the authorizing judge, although, as a lawyer friend commented, it may well not have been required. Another curious fact hides in ¶ 11 where we’re told that the RCMP did not heed legal advice from their own lawyer, one Les Rose. Again, my lawyer friend commented, ‘That’s curious, how did the defence get that information? It would normally be covered by solicitor-client privilege.” Which I thought was a very good question.
But, despite this foreplay, the P.67 Authorization was signed by Mr. Justice Dohm on October 10, 2003 and the Mounties started monitoring both the Cell phone and the Office phone of Dave Basi on October 13, 2003. (The initial authority covered the period until December 11, 2003)
From ¶ 24 onwards, the document begins to deal with the actual results of the RCMP’s surveillance of Mr. Basi’s Ministerial Office and Cell phone conversations. Paragraphs 24 – 29 contain some of the information about which the public, and those of you who’ve been reading Mary’s blog regularly, have been wondering about ever since December 28, 2003.
I think they may be worth transcribing in full – again, keeping in mind that this is the defence version of this little drama.
¶ 24. As a result of listening to Mr. Basi’s intercepted private communications, the RCMP were aware that Mr. Basi was working on the sale of the BC Rail asset for Minister Collins.
¶ 25. As a result of significant information gathering, the RCMP knew that the sale of BC Rail was a highly political matter in which the Government was seen to be breaking a key election promise.
¶ 26. There were originally five (5) bids tendered in the BC Rail bidding process. In the final analysis, only three bids were competitive; those were CN Rail, CP Rail, and OmniTrax.
¶ 27. Through the interception of communications, the RCMP learned that one of the final bidders, CP Rail, was dropping out of the bidding process because of their belief that the process was flawed and that it had been predetermined that CN Rail would be the successful bidder.
¶ 28. In early November 2003, as a result of listening to intercepted communications on the Ministerial Cell Phone, the RCMP learned that OmniTRAX was considering dropping out of the process for precisely the same reasons cited by CP Rail.
¶ 29. Through intercepted communications, the RCMP learned that OmniTRAX had retained the services of Pilothouse Public Affairs Group (hereinafter “Pilothouse”), a British Columbia based lobbying company, to assist them in their bid for the BC Rail asset. Pilothouse at the time was made up of three principal partners, Brian Kieran (hereinafter “Mr. Kieran”), Erik Bornmann (hereinafter “Mr. Bornmann”) and Jamie Elmhirst (hereinafter “Mr. Elmhirst”).
I hope you agree that’s enough for this installment. We’ll take this up right here, tomorrow. I think everyone, especially considering the safety audit that was finally made public yesterday, might want to have a few hours to think about what's happened to the “BC Rail Asset” since the time when the events we’re looking back on actually took place.
___________________________________________________
Many, many thanks for this, Anonymouse. - BC Mary.
___________________________________________________
.
Second Report on the Notice of Application for Disclosure
By Anonymous
As promised, I’m back with some more explication of that 32-page opus that landed on Judge Bennett’s table ( I guess that’s how they do these things) and, through the agency of defence counsels’ generosity got into the hands of the working media in Vancouver last Monday. How do ordinary mortals like members of the public manage to get their hands on such things? Well, that’s a long story and I think I’ll leave it for Robin to tell that one. We have enough to do right here to deconstruct those pages without worrying about where they came from – or at least how ONE member of the public got his hands on a public document.
Part I – the Introduction. “Project Everywhichway”
As I mentioned earlier, this is the real meat of the document from the public’s point of view. Here, laid out in precise detail, step-by-step, is the way this case started – accelerated into the major climax of the actual raid on the legislature and has, since that time, been echoing, in a variety of ways, through the legal, political and media hallways of the province. Some of this was undoubtedly part of the material withheld by Mr. Justice Patrick Dohm and some of it, no question, is going to come up again before this story reaches a conclusion.
First of all, a caution. This is the defence version of the libretto and it’s undoubtedly the one Gary Mason’s been singing from. As Mary’s posted below – thanks again to Bill, there will be an opportunity for the other side – the prosecution, to weigh in on all these issues. I’m not going to try and point this out at every step of this narrative, but it’s a good idea to keep the notion in the back of your mind; after all, a place like the rockpile in James Bay does have a street address that’s hardly a secret. But, we’ll let the RCMP, the Crown and Gary Mason argue about that.
Let’s get started.
As I mentioned in the first installment, the RCMP called their investigation “Project Everywhichway” and their focus, from the start, was Dave Basi. The same Dave Basi who was, if you’ve forgotten, the Ministerial Assistant to the Minister of Finance and Government House Leader, Mr Gary Collins. (¶ 2).
As part of the investigation the RCMP decided to obtain court authorization for a DNR (Digital Number Recorder) warrant(s) for Mr. Basi’s cell phone(s). (There is some confusion in the text about whether or not the singular or plural is correct.)
Her Honour Judge Ehrcke is reported to have rejected the initial requests for a DNR warrant on the basis of possible ‘Parliamentary privilege’. This happened, apparently, at least twice in the period from August to September 2003.(¶ 3 - ¶ 8).
Before a third DNR warrant application was presented, this time to a Justice of the British Columbia Supreme Court, the police changed gears and brought application before Mr. Justice Patrick Dohm for a Part VI Authorization to Intercept Private Communications, “P.67” – for two DNR warrants – which were approved. (¶ 9 - ¶ 10)
Defence makes much of the fact that the Police may not have given appropriate notice to the authorizing judge, although, as a lawyer friend commented, it may well not have been required. Another curious fact hides in ¶ 11 where we’re told that the RCMP did not heed legal advice from their own lawyer, one Les Rose. Again, my lawyer friend commented, ‘That’s curious, how did the defence get that information? It would normally be covered by solicitor-client privilege.” Which I thought was a very good question.
But, despite this foreplay, the P.67 Authorization was signed by Mr. Justice Dohm on October 10, 2003 and the Mounties started monitoring both the Cell phone and the Office phone of Dave Basi on October 13, 2003. (The initial authority covered the period until December 11, 2003)
From ¶ 24 onwards, the document begins to deal with the actual results of the RCMP’s surveillance of Mr. Basi’s Ministerial Office and Cell phone conversations. Paragraphs 24 – 29 contain some of the information about which the public, and those of you who’ve been reading Mary’s blog regularly, have been wondering about ever since December 28, 2003.
I think they may be worth transcribing in full – again, keeping in mind that this is the defence version of this little drama.
¶ 24. As a result of listening to Mr. Basi’s intercepted private communications, the RCMP were aware that Mr. Basi was working on the sale of the BC Rail asset for Minister Collins.
¶ 25. As a result of significant information gathering, the RCMP knew that the sale of BC Rail was a highly political matter in which the Government was seen to be breaking a key election promise.
¶ 26. There were originally five (5) bids tendered in the BC Rail bidding process. In the final analysis, only three bids were competitive; those were CN Rail, CP Rail, and OmniTrax.
¶ 27. Through the interception of communications, the RCMP learned that one of the final bidders, CP Rail, was dropping out of the bidding process because of their belief that the process was flawed and that it had been predetermined that CN Rail would be the successful bidder.
¶ 28. In early November 2003, as a result of listening to intercepted communications on the Ministerial Cell Phone, the RCMP learned that OmniTRAX was considering dropping out of the process for precisely the same reasons cited by CP Rail.
¶ 29. Through intercepted communications, the RCMP learned that OmniTRAX had retained the services of Pilothouse Public Affairs Group (hereinafter “Pilothouse”), a British Columbia based lobbying company, to assist them in their bid for the BC Rail asset. Pilothouse at the time was made up of three principal partners, Brian Kieran (hereinafter “Mr. Kieran”), Erik Bornmann (hereinafter “Mr. Bornmann”) and Jamie Elmhirst (hereinafter “Mr. Elmhirst”).
I hope you agree that’s enough for this installment. We’ll take this up right here, tomorrow. I think everyone, especially considering the safety audit that was finally made public yesterday, might want to have a few hours to think about what's happened to the “BC Rail Asset” since the time when the events we’re looking back on actually took place.
___________________________________________________
Many, many thanks for this, Anonymouse. - BC Mary.
___________________________________________________
.
On the Notice of Application for Disclosure
.
First Report on the Notice of Application for Disclosure
Contributed By Anonymous
The 32-page document that Robin couldn’t get from Court Registry is a public document with the look of legal seriousness about it. They design these things to fold nicely in three and fit into a lawyer’s pocket conveniently I guess. Of course, the document I have is a copy but, even so, it has the outline of a very official stamp on its cover page from the Vancouver Supreme Court Criminal Registry, dated February 26, 2007.
The very first line of this darn thing says:
TAKE NOTICE that an application for disclosure will be brought before the Trial Judge on behalf of the accused persons, Udhe Sigh (Dave) Basi, Bobby Singh Virk and Aneal Basi (collectively the “Accused”) on April 2, 2007, or as soon as practicable for Orders requiring the Special Prosecutor and the RCMP to provide full disclosure in this matter.
Who knew?
So, be that as it may, and I want to make it clear I am no lawyer, it doesn’t sound to me as if anyone should book their holidays for April and head on down to Vancouver to watch this little bun toss get started.
Still, this is a pretty interesting document. Moreover, since it’s the first real evidence the public has actually gotten to see since the raid on the Legislature in late 2003 and the subsequent laying of charges against the accused it’s worth some special attention.
Let’s just page quickly through it first to familiarize ourselves with the landscape.
First of all, as everyone has been saying and writing, there are 32 pages here and they consist mostly of 200 numbered paragraphs that are in turn divided into 7 sections or divisions labelled with Roman Numerals.
I – Introduction - Paragraphs 1 – 75
From a legal point of view this may well be the ‘introduction’ to the legal business that follows; from the neophyte observer’s point of view these items provide a useful primer to a case that has already been known by a variety of names in the popular imagination. Even the experienced ‘Raids’ aficionado will find things here he or she didn’t know – even someone who has been haunting Mary’s blog since May of 2006 may find things to learn here.
Paragraph 2, for example, tells us that the RCMP launched the investigation that eventually became this case ‘sometime in 2002’ – an operation that they called “Project Everywhichway” and that, by June of 2003 they had already decided that Udhe Singh (Dave) Basi was, in the usual usage of the force, ‘a person of interest in this investigation.’
The press has covered various bits and pieces of this narrative but we’ve never really seen the whole thing laid out like this. It’s quite a story and I wouldn’t be surprised if Mary will publish a lot of it over the next little while. But first, let’s finish our first calm walk through of the whole 32 pages.
Part II is labelled Disclosure Considerations includes paragraphs 76 – 78
These three paragraphs are important stuff – in fact this is the heart of the whole defence case. As such, I think it’s important to quote them whole. These four points will be, it seems pretty clear, the nominal default position for this trial if it ever does get started:
76. The defence intends to seek Charter relief in respect of: (a) the intercepted private communications pursuant to Part VI Authorizations P.67 and P. 73; (b) the searches of the Legislative offices of Messrs. Basi and Virk, and the residence of Mr. Basi.
77. Additionally, the defence seeks a stay of proceedings on the basis of an undermining of the Accused’s right to a fair trial in respect of: (a) the RCMP investigative conduct which irreparably damaged any ability of Mr. Basi and Mr. VIrk to make full answer and defence; (b) the conduct of the RCMP and Special Prosecutor in respect of the dealings with Erik Bornmann; (c) the conduct of the RCMP and Special Prosecutor in respect of the media releases; (d) the continued inability of the Special Prosecutor to provide full disclosure; (e) consenting to a re-election from a jury trial before full disclosure was complete; and, (f) the delay to bringing this matter to trial which is fully attributable to the Crown.
78. The defence takes the position that at no time did Mr. Basi or Mr. Virk act in a fraudulent, deceitful or criminal manner, but rather acted at all times under the direction of their superiors in the highly political circumstance of their Offices. Certain of the disclosure requests are crucial to determining whether Messrs. Basi and Virk had consent to act as they did. These issues in turn affect Aneal Basi. (all emphases are mine)
Part III comprises paragraphs 79 – 138 and is headed Disclosure Issues Arising From the Project Room Review.
There are several sub-headings in this section but you could really call these paragraphs the prima facie case for the defence attorneys’ strong suggestion that the crown – by that I mean the special prosecutor and the police – have not been playing ball. Of course, the prosecution will no doubt take issue with what the defence alleges but, based on this material, it’s hard to come to any conclusion other than that there’s been a lot of foot-dragging going on.
Part IV is called Outstanding Disclosure Requests. It includes paragraphs 139 – 169.
Let’s sum up for now with a simple observation: This is not trivial. A lot of explaining needed.
Part V includes Documents The Special Prosecutor Has Not Fully Disclosed Or Asserted A Privilege Over (The Vetting Application) and comprises just a few assertions from the defence in Paragraphs 170 – 178.
Among which are between 3 ? and 4 pages of columns of 8-digit reference numbers. I haven’t bothered to count them; suffice to say that these numbers represent a fair amount of material that the defence claims it hasn’t had a chance to even look at yet or material that has been partially redacted or withheld from them by the prosecution. This too is not trivial.
Part VI furthers the essential argument of the defence on behalf of their clients. It’s
titled the Position of the Applicants. Essentially it is a plea to the judge to acknowledge the non-performance of the prosecution and leads up nicely to the conclusion.
In Part VII, headed The Relief Sought, are the final remarks of the applicants in paragraphs 182 – 200.
I’ll come back to this outline to fill in some blanks and hopefully answer a few more questions in my next installment.
___________________________________________________
Many, many thanks to this Anonymouse. I'm looking forward to the next instalment. Meantime, I'm wondering if members of the public would be able to access this significant document at their Public Library? Perhaps Anonymouse will tell us, next time. - BC Mary.
___________________________________________________
.
First Report on the Notice of Application for Disclosure
Contributed By Anonymous
The 32-page document that Robin couldn’t get from Court Registry is a public document with the look of legal seriousness about it. They design these things to fold nicely in three and fit into a lawyer’s pocket conveniently I guess. Of course, the document I have is a copy but, even so, it has the outline of a very official stamp on its cover page from the Vancouver Supreme Court Criminal Registry, dated February 26, 2007.
The very first line of this darn thing says:
TAKE NOTICE that an application for disclosure will be brought before the Trial Judge on behalf of the accused persons, Udhe Sigh (Dave) Basi, Bobby Singh Virk and Aneal Basi (collectively the “Accused”) on April 2, 2007, or as soon as practicable for Orders requiring the Special Prosecutor and the RCMP to provide full disclosure in this matter.
Who knew?
So, be that as it may, and I want to make it clear I am no lawyer, it doesn’t sound to me as if anyone should book their holidays for April and head on down to Vancouver to watch this little bun toss get started.
Still, this is a pretty interesting document. Moreover, since it’s the first real evidence the public has actually gotten to see since the raid on the Legislature in late 2003 and the subsequent laying of charges against the accused it’s worth some special attention.
Let’s just page quickly through it first to familiarize ourselves with the landscape.
First of all, as everyone has been saying and writing, there are 32 pages here and they consist mostly of 200 numbered paragraphs that are in turn divided into 7 sections or divisions labelled with Roman Numerals.
I – Introduction - Paragraphs 1 – 75
From a legal point of view this may well be the ‘introduction’ to the legal business that follows; from the neophyte observer’s point of view these items provide a useful primer to a case that has already been known by a variety of names in the popular imagination. Even the experienced ‘Raids’ aficionado will find things here he or she didn’t know – even someone who has been haunting Mary’s blog since May of 2006 may find things to learn here.
Paragraph 2, for example, tells us that the RCMP launched the investigation that eventually became this case ‘sometime in 2002’ – an operation that they called “Project Everywhichway” and that, by June of 2003 they had already decided that Udhe Singh (Dave) Basi was, in the usual usage of the force, ‘a person of interest in this investigation.’
The press has covered various bits and pieces of this narrative but we’ve never really seen the whole thing laid out like this. It’s quite a story and I wouldn’t be surprised if Mary will publish a lot of it over the next little while. But first, let’s finish our first calm walk through of the whole 32 pages.
Part II is labelled Disclosure Considerations includes paragraphs 76 – 78
These three paragraphs are important stuff – in fact this is the heart of the whole defence case. As such, I think it’s important to quote them whole. These four points will be, it seems pretty clear, the nominal default position for this trial if it ever does get started:
76. The defence intends to seek Charter relief in respect of: (a) the intercepted private communications pursuant to Part VI Authorizations P.67 and P. 73; (b) the searches of the Legislative offices of Messrs. Basi and Virk, and the residence of Mr. Basi.
77. Additionally, the defence seeks a stay of proceedings on the basis of an undermining of the Accused’s right to a fair trial in respect of: (a) the RCMP investigative conduct which irreparably damaged any ability of Mr. Basi and Mr. VIrk to make full answer and defence; (b) the conduct of the RCMP and Special Prosecutor in respect of the dealings with Erik Bornmann; (c) the conduct of the RCMP and Special Prosecutor in respect of the media releases; (d) the continued inability of the Special Prosecutor to provide full disclosure; (e) consenting to a re-election from a jury trial before full disclosure was complete; and, (f) the delay to bringing this matter to trial which is fully attributable to the Crown.
78. The defence takes the position that at no time did Mr. Basi or Mr. Virk act in a fraudulent, deceitful or criminal manner, but rather acted at all times under the direction of their superiors in the highly political circumstance of their Offices. Certain of the disclosure requests are crucial to determining whether Messrs. Basi and Virk had consent to act as they did. These issues in turn affect Aneal Basi. (all emphases are mine)
Part III comprises paragraphs 79 – 138 and is headed Disclosure Issues Arising From the Project Room Review.
There are several sub-headings in this section but you could really call these paragraphs the prima facie case for the defence attorneys’ strong suggestion that the crown – by that I mean the special prosecutor and the police – have not been playing ball. Of course, the prosecution will no doubt take issue with what the defence alleges but, based on this material, it’s hard to come to any conclusion other than that there’s been a lot of foot-dragging going on.
Part IV is called Outstanding Disclosure Requests. It includes paragraphs 139 – 169.
Let’s sum up for now with a simple observation: This is not trivial. A lot of explaining needed.
Part V includes Documents The Special Prosecutor Has Not Fully Disclosed Or Asserted A Privilege Over (The Vetting Application) and comprises just a few assertions from the defence in Paragraphs 170 – 178.
Among which are between 3 ? and 4 pages of columns of 8-digit reference numbers. I haven’t bothered to count them; suffice to say that these numbers represent a fair amount of material that the defence claims it hasn’t had a chance to even look at yet or material that has been partially redacted or withheld from them by the prosecution. This too is not trivial.
Part VI furthers the essential argument of the defence on behalf of their clients. It’s
titled the Position of the Applicants. Essentially it is a plea to the judge to acknowledge the non-performance of the prosecution and leads up nicely to the conclusion.
In Part VII, headed The Relief Sought, are the final remarks of the applicants in paragraphs 182 – 200.
I’ll come back to this outline to fill in some blanks and hopefully answer a few more questions in my next installment.
___________________________________________________
Many, many thanks to this Anonymouse. I'm looking forward to the next instalment. Meantime, I'm wondering if members of the public would be able to access this significant document at their Public Library? Perhaps Anonymouse will tell us, next time. - BC Mary.
___________________________________________________
.
Bill Tieleman sorts out the Court schedule
The Basi & Virk Case - Supreme Court Schedule - Questions Clarified
By Bill Tieleman
There has been some understandable confusion amongst media and interested members of the public about the scheduling of BC Supreme Court appearances and filing of applications by the defence and Crown in recent days regarding the trial of former provincial ministerial aides David Basi and Bob Virk and government aide Aneal Basi.
In particular, there was an unscheduled teleconference with Justice Elizabeth Bennett, defence and Crown this past week. There was not, however, anything filed with BC Supreme Court on Friday March 2 or Thursday March 1, contrary to rumours.
Here is the best schedule possible based on current information I have:
February 26 - the defence filed a lengthy application for disclosure - some of the contents have been widely reported. See my article on this blog: http://billtieleman.blogspot.com/
March 7 - BC Supreme Court - Pre-trial conference scheduled to begin at 9 a.m. but may start at 9:30 a.m. This conference will address trial scheduling and other issues. This is the only BC Supreme Court appearance by the defence and Crown prior to the trial start on April 2.
March 14 - Filing only - the Crown responds to the defence disclosure application of February 26 by filing with the Registry of the BC Supreme Court.
March 21 - Filing only - two documents - 1) the defence files a Charter of Rights application related to aspect of the case and 2) the defence responds to the Crown's reply to the disclosure application of February 26. NOTE: The Charter application was originally scheduled for March 5 but was put over to this date.
April 2 - BC Supreme Court - trial begins.
Please note that this is not an official version, but a reasonably accurate summary based on information I have obtained from those close to the trial.
___________________________________________________
Many thanks, Bill, for sending this information along.
What would we do without you?? - BC Mary.
___________________________________________________
.
By Bill Tieleman
There has been some understandable confusion amongst media and interested members of the public about the scheduling of BC Supreme Court appearances and filing of applications by the defence and Crown in recent days regarding the trial of former provincial ministerial aides David Basi and Bob Virk and government aide Aneal Basi.
In particular, there was an unscheduled teleconference with Justice Elizabeth Bennett, defence and Crown this past week. There was not, however, anything filed with BC Supreme Court on Friday March 2 or Thursday March 1, contrary to rumours.
Here is the best schedule possible based on current information I have:
February 26 - the defence filed a lengthy application for disclosure - some of the contents have been widely reported. See my article on this blog: http://billtieleman.blogspot.com/
March 7 - BC Supreme Court - Pre-trial conference scheduled to begin at 9 a.m. but may start at 9:30 a.m. This conference will address trial scheduling and other issues. This is the only BC Supreme Court appearance by the defence and Crown prior to the trial start on April 2.
March 14 - Filing only - the Crown responds to the defence disclosure application of February 26 by filing with the Registry of the BC Supreme Court.
March 21 - Filing only - two documents - 1) the defence files a Charter of Rights application related to aspect of the case and 2) the defence responds to the Crown's reply to the disclosure application of February 26. NOTE: The Charter application was originally scheduled for March 5 but was put over to this date.
April 2 - BC Supreme Court - trial begins.
Please note that this is not an official version, but a reasonably accurate summary based on information I have obtained from those close to the trial.
___________________________________________________
Many thanks, Bill, for sending this information along.
What would we do without you?? - BC Mary.
___________________________________________________
.
It's a joke, right? The B.C. Rail case is all a joke. See how to blame the NDP ...
.
Gleeful New Democrats get in on the party their political targets enjoyed
Vaughn Palmer, Vancouver Sun
March 03, 2007
It must have been a heck of a party, as one of the New Democratic Party MLAs noted.
June 23, 2005, and Larry Blain, chief of Partnerships B.C., was hosting a dinner at an Italian restaurant in Vancouver.
"The invited guests included board members and senior staff and other honchos from the public-private partnerships world," NDP MLA Bruce Ralston advised the legislature this week.
Partnerships is the lead agency for developing those controversial P3s. Blain is a prominent B.C. Liberal appointee. Ready targets for the Opposition, and in this case they made it easy.
For the New Democrats had obtained the taxpayer-funded bill of fare for the evening (from freelance journalist Russ Francis, who wrote about it in the Georgia Straight) and they made the most of the liquor consumption.
"Those in Mr. Blain's party drank their way through 13 bottles of wine," said Ralston, proceeding with all the enthusiasm of a headwaiter proud of his wine list.
[ This is a joke, right? The whole BCRail affair, the trial, it's all a joke. To see how it's all the NDP's fault, read more at:
http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/story.html?id=56ddad67-60a6-475f-bc18-16275c819f22&p=2 ]
________________________________________________
.
Gleeful New Democrats get in on the party their political targets enjoyed
Vaughn Palmer, Vancouver Sun
March 03, 2007
It must have been a heck of a party, as one of the New Democratic Party MLAs noted.
June 23, 2005, and Larry Blain, chief of Partnerships B.C., was hosting a dinner at an Italian restaurant in Vancouver.
"The invited guests included board members and senior staff and other honchos from the public-private partnerships world," NDP MLA Bruce Ralston advised the legislature this week.
Partnerships is the lead agency for developing those controversial P3s. Blain is a prominent B.C. Liberal appointee. Ready targets for the Opposition, and in this case they made it easy.
For the New Democrats had obtained the taxpayer-funded bill of fare for the evening (from freelance journalist Russ Francis, who wrote about it in the Georgia Straight) and they made the most of the liquor consumption.
"Those in Mr. Blain's party drank their way through 13 bottles of wine," said Ralston, proceeding with all the enthusiasm of a headwaiter proud of his wine list.
[ This is a joke, right? The whole BCRail affair, the trial, it's all a joke. To see how it's all the NDP's fault, read more at:
http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/story.html?id=56ddad67-60a6-475f-bc18-16275c819f22&p=2 ]
________________________________________________
.
This, in part, was once B.C. Rail
.
Flawed safety inspections among criticisms of CN
Railway has already complied with many recommendations from federal audits, company official says
Jeff Lee, Vancouver Sun
Published: Saturday, March 03, 2007
Transport Canada has cited a number of serious safety concerns at Canadian National, including a large number of defects among rolling stock and flawed safety inspections on its railways as a result of two audits it conducted in 2005 and 2006 in the wake of high-profile derailments in B.C. and Alberta.
On Friday the department released two audits that it used last year to back up an extraordinary ministerial order by Transport Minister Lawrence Cannon forcing the railway to improve its operations.
The reports, which Cannon had refused last year to make public, were released as a result of an Access to Information request by the CBC. To read more, go to:
http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/story.html?id=70745339-e60a-40ec-bc03-cc3089a580ab
__________________________________________________
This is what the former B.C. Rail trainmen were saying. Thanks to CBC whose Freedom of Information request brought these facts out into the open.
- BC Mary.
__________________________________________________
.
Flawed safety inspections among criticisms of CN
Railway has already complied with many recommendations from federal audits, company official says
Jeff Lee, Vancouver Sun
Published: Saturday, March 03, 2007
Transport Canada has cited a number of serious safety concerns at Canadian National, including a large number of defects among rolling stock and flawed safety inspections on its railways as a result of two audits it conducted in 2005 and 2006 in the wake of high-profile derailments in B.C. and Alberta.
On Friday the department released two audits that it used last year to back up an extraordinary ministerial order by Transport Minister Lawrence Cannon forcing the railway to improve its operations.
The reports, which Cannon had refused last year to make public, were released as a result of an Access to Information request by the CBC. To read more, go to:
http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/story.html?id=70745339-e60a-40ec-bc03-cc3089a580ab
__________________________________________________
This is what the former B.C. Rail trainmen were saying. Thanks to CBC whose Freedom of Information request brought these facts out into the open.
- BC Mary.
__________________________________________________
.
Friday, March 02, 2007
Members of the Press: your cue cards are ready!
.
It's true, there have been fumbles and stumbles on The Legislature Raids web-site recently, as BC Mary tries to sort out one thing or another, such as whether or not a court appearance was made by all lawyers for the Crown and the Defence for Basi, Virk, and Basi on the appointed date of 26 February.
It did happen -- not a pre-trial conference but "a filing" -- only we never found out where it happened until a day too late.
We found out as well, that a 32-page document titled "Notice of Application for Disclosure" was filed with Justice Bennett of the B.C. Supreme Court by the defence on that day. More about that later.
Next consider how surprising it was, to discover that an appearance was made either in Vancouver or Victoria (we can't figure out which, as yet) by the Defence team for Basi, Virk and Basi on 1 March. What's this all about? Who knew it was happening?
The March 1 appearance apparently was listed in the publicly accessible Court Services OnLine but removed early. Besides, who knew to even check there, on a day never mentioned as a possible court appearance? The date mentioned to the public was March 7.
There's always been a sense of chaos and confusion about the B.C. Rail case because so little has been in the news. So it caught everyone off-guard when journalism virtually exploded on 27 February 2007 -- the day after that hefty document was distributed to all and sundry except Robin Mathews.
I mean, consider the long painful 3-year media silence where nothing much was published about the B.C. Rail affair, no journalist was following it the way Kim Bolan followed Air India. Nothing. Not even when these weird little pre-trial conferences took place. As the Times Colonist Editor-in-Chief had clearly told us, "When there is news, we plan to publish it." You'd think the BC Rail fiasco had never happened.
So it's against that background of official indifference that we should consider the almost explosive event when that 32-page document was not only filed with Justice Bennett of B.C. Supreme Court but was distributed by the armful to all and sundry ... that is, if you knew where to show up, and who to ask for it. For all others, a lock-out. How very unusual was that!
Next: consider that BC Mary actually didn't believe the first report that came in from Feb. 26 in Supreme Court, so colourful it was, so laden with names, dates, places and crimes that it was actionable if not true. So I held it back, awaiting confirmation.
Well ... that first report was convincingly validated by the deluge of reports from all the old hands who had been silent for so long. A miracle!
Or was it.
How come it took the defence team for Basi, Virk and Basi to write up the story for them?
How come the story was only now coming forth about the alleged and dastardly failings of the RCMP, of Justice Ehrcke, Justice Dohm, of Bornmann, Kieran, Elmhirst, the B.C. and Federal Liberal parties, of Gary Collins as to "problems regarding unhappy bidders and unhappy Liberal Government MLAs ... [re] how the sale of B.C. Rail would be viewed both politically and publicly", and much, much more.
You have to see this document to believe that it was written by lawyers for courtroom purposes and not as the outline for major stories for the 6:00 o'clock news, for TV or the silver screen. What's going on here?
This 32-page Notice of Application for Disclosure is too much like that pot-boiler in The Globe and Mail on Christmas Eve titled "There is nothing to these charges" by Gary Mason. The thing I called "a paid political announcement."
If the issue of the tainted sale of a valuable resource like B.C. Rail is going to be tossed into the garbage can, as far too many powerful characters seem to want, it's cold comfort to know that we've watched the moves -- one after another -- moving inexorably in that direction.
British Columbians must not lose this last chance to salvage something from that tainted sale. Something doesn't feel right. Something doesn't smell right. Something doesn't even look right.
___________________________________________________
.
It's true, there have been fumbles and stumbles on The Legislature Raids web-site recently, as BC Mary tries to sort out one thing or another, such as whether or not a court appearance was made by all lawyers for the Crown and the Defence for Basi, Virk, and Basi on the appointed date of 26 February.
It did happen -- not a pre-trial conference but "a filing" -- only we never found out where it happened until a day too late.
We found out as well, that a 32-page document titled "Notice of Application for Disclosure" was filed with Justice Bennett of the B.C. Supreme Court by the defence on that day. More about that later.
Next consider how surprising it was, to discover that an appearance was made either in Vancouver or Victoria (we can't figure out which, as yet) by the Defence team for Basi, Virk and Basi on 1 March. What's this all about? Who knew it was happening?
The March 1 appearance apparently was listed in the publicly accessible Court Services OnLine but removed early. Besides, who knew to even check there, on a day never mentioned as a possible court appearance? The date mentioned to the public was March 7.
There's always been a sense of chaos and confusion about the B.C. Rail case because so little has been in the news. So it caught everyone off-guard when journalism virtually exploded on 27 February 2007 -- the day after that hefty document was distributed to all and sundry except Robin Mathews.
I mean, consider the long painful 3-year media silence where nothing much was published about the B.C. Rail affair, no journalist was following it the way Kim Bolan followed Air India. Nothing. Not even when these weird little pre-trial conferences took place. As the Times Colonist Editor-in-Chief had clearly told us, "When there is news, we plan to publish it." You'd think the BC Rail fiasco had never happened.
So it's against that background of official indifference that we should consider the almost explosive event when that 32-page document was not only filed with Justice Bennett of B.C. Supreme Court but was distributed by the armful to all and sundry ... that is, if you knew where to show up, and who to ask for it. For all others, a lock-out. How very unusual was that!
Next: consider that BC Mary actually didn't believe the first report that came in from Feb. 26 in Supreme Court, so colourful it was, so laden with names, dates, places and crimes that it was actionable if not true. So I held it back, awaiting confirmation.
Well ... that first report was convincingly validated by the deluge of reports from all the old hands who had been silent for so long. A miracle!
Or was it.
How come it took the defence team for Basi, Virk and Basi to write up the story for them?
How come the story was only now coming forth about the alleged and dastardly failings of the RCMP, of Justice Ehrcke, Justice Dohm, of Bornmann, Kieran, Elmhirst, the B.C. and Federal Liberal parties, of Gary Collins as to "problems regarding unhappy bidders and unhappy Liberal Government MLAs ... [re] how the sale of B.C. Rail would be viewed both politically and publicly", and much, much more.
You have to see this document to believe that it was written by lawyers for courtroom purposes and not as the outline for major stories for the 6:00 o'clock news, for TV or the silver screen. What's going on here?
This 32-page Notice of Application for Disclosure is too much like that pot-boiler in The Globe and Mail on Christmas Eve titled "There is nothing to these charges" by Gary Mason. The thing I called "a paid political announcement."
If the issue of the tainted sale of a valuable resource like B.C. Rail is going to be tossed into the garbage can, as far too many powerful characters seem to want, it's cold comfort to know that we've watched the moves -- one after another -- moving inexorably in that direction.
British Columbians must not lose this last chance to salvage something from that tainted sale. Something doesn't feel right. Something doesn't smell right. Something doesn't even look right.
___________________________________________________
.
See for yourself: Vancouver, Victoria, same page
.
Some day, all this will become clear to us. But right now, copied below, is part of the March 1 Supreme Court listings which (although headed up as Vancouver Law Courts) also includes Victoria Law Courts when it came to Basi, Virk, Basi.
Today Kootcoot [http://houseofinfamy.blogspot.com/] will have more on this. Big thanks to Koot for the full copy of this March 1 court listing (the full page format went all crazy when I tried to paste it below); Koot is also helping with the ongoing blogger problems here at The Legislature Raids. - BC Mary.
___________________________________________________
Vancouver Law Courts
Public Access Supreme Court Criminal List
Justice Case No. Time Rm Rsn Main Charge / Application Location of Offence Name
Page: 1 of
Report Date: 01-MAR-2007 08:30 PM Report Id: JCSR0049
Lesser
Cnt
135164-2
23299-1
23810-2
23913-2
Victoria Law
Courts
HMTQ vs QUIRING, Deanna L.
HMTQ vs BASI, Aneal
HMTQ vs BASI, Udhe S. (.
HMTQ vs VIRK, Bobby S.
etc.
___________________________________________________
.
Some day, all this will become clear to us. But right now, copied below, is part of the March 1 Supreme Court listings which (although headed up as Vancouver Law Courts) also includes Victoria Law Courts when it came to Basi, Virk, Basi.
Today Kootcoot [http://houseofinfamy.blogspot.com/] will have more on this. Big thanks to Koot for the full copy of this March 1 court listing (the full page format went all crazy when I tried to paste it below); Koot is also helping with the ongoing blogger problems here at The Legislature Raids. - BC Mary.
___________________________________________________
Vancouver Law Courts
Public Access Supreme Court Criminal List
Justice Case No. Time Rm Rsn Main Charge / Application Location of Offence Name
Page: 1 of
Report Date: 01-MAR-2007 08:30 PM Report Id: JCSR0049
Lesser
Cnt
135164-2
23299-1
23810-2
23913-2
Victoria Law
Courts
HMTQ vs QUIRING, Deanna L.
HMTQ vs BASI, Aneal
HMTQ vs BASI, Udhe S. (.
HMTQ vs VIRK, Bobby S.
etc.
___________________________________________________
.
Thursday, March 01, 2007
Were the Basi, Virk lawyers in court today??
.
Two commentors have told us that lawyers for Basi, Virk and Basi were on the March 1 listing of B.C. Supreme Court cases in Vancouver. I found it almost impossible to believe. So I went to that free public service: Court Services OnLine. It clearly states: "Court Lists for the current day will be displayed after 6:00 AM PST". The current day.
It was 8:00 PM on March 1 when I checked. According to their own terms, if Basi, Virk, Basi were listed, they would be on the current Court Lists. That's today. They weren't.
Why not? Well, perhaps because today's Court List had already been changed to March 2nd, a good 10 hours ahead of schedule.
Why was that? Well, it could have been a simple clerical error. BC Mary will try to find out.
Meantime, I have obtained a copy of the 32 page Notice of Application for Disclosure. More about that later.
__________________________________________________
.
Two commentors have told us that lawyers for Basi, Virk and Basi were on the March 1 listing of B.C. Supreme Court cases in Vancouver. I found it almost impossible to believe. So I went to that free public service: Court Services OnLine. It clearly states: "Court Lists for the current day will be displayed after 6:00 AM PST". The current day.
It was 8:00 PM on March 1 when I checked. According to their own terms, if Basi, Virk, Basi were listed, they would be on the current Court Lists. That's today. They weren't.
Why not? Well, perhaps because today's Court List had already been changed to March 2nd, a good 10 hours ahead of schedule.
Why was that? Well, it could have been a simple clerical error. BC Mary will try to find out.
Meantime, I have obtained a copy of the 32 page Notice of Application for Disclosure. More about that later.
__________________________________________________
.
Justice delayed means damage is done, says TC
.
Editorial
Victoria Times Colonist
1 March 2007
The damage done by justice delayed
...Th[is] case is a reminder of the damage done by delays in the justice system.
More than three years have passed since the legislature searches seeking information on drugs and influence-peddling. It has been more than two years since former political aides Dave Basi and Bob Virk were charged.
Only now do the parties appear to be close to trial, with proceedings scheduled to start in April. {snip}
A range of allegations and questions hang over politicians, lobbyists and party workers. None are proven; many are simply speculation. The long delay adds to the damage done. {snip}
In most cases, each side blames the other for delays. Defence lawyers complain the Crown is slow to fulfil its obligation to disclose evidence. Prosecutors accuse defence lawyers of delaying tactics.
The real problems are structural. While progress has been made in reforming the legal process in civil matters, criminal cases are still handled much as they were 50 years ago. {snip}
But this case is a reminder that the current delay-plagued system is doing its own damage, to the accused and a great many others.
Read the full editorial at:
http://www.canada.com/victoriatimescolonist/news/comment/story.html?id=1e5526e9-874a-435e-a6a0-6f59303a9fed
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Is our great ship of state (for which big media is the engine) beginning to alter course toward a port called Dismissal? I hope not. The public interest must be considered first and foremost. And there are many things the public needs to know. The words "Mistrial" or "Stay of Proceedings" or de Cosmos forbid "Dismissal" just aren't words which B.C.'s voting, taxpaying, responsible citizens want to hear after waiting 3 years for the facts of this case.
- BC Mary.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
.
Editorial
Victoria Times Colonist
1 March 2007
The damage done by justice delayed
...Th[is] case is a reminder of the damage done by delays in the justice system.
More than three years have passed since the legislature searches seeking information on drugs and influence-peddling. It has been more than two years since former political aides Dave Basi and Bob Virk were charged.
Only now do the parties appear to be close to trial, with proceedings scheduled to start in April. {snip}
A range of allegations and questions hang over politicians, lobbyists and party workers. None are proven; many are simply speculation. The long delay adds to the damage done. {snip}
In most cases, each side blames the other for delays. Defence lawyers complain the Crown is slow to fulfil its obligation to disclose evidence. Prosecutors accuse defence lawyers of delaying tactics.
The real problems are structural. While progress has been made in reforming the legal process in civil matters, criminal cases are still handled much as they were 50 years ago. {snip}
But this case is a reminder that the current delay-plagued system is doing its own damage, to the accused and a great many others.
Read the full editorial at:
http://www.canada.com/victoriatimescolonist/news/comment/story.html?id=1e5526e9-874a-435e-a6a0-6f59303a9fed
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Is our great ship of state (for which big media is the engine) beginning to alter course toward a port called Dismissal? I hope not. The public interest must be considered first and foremost. And there are many things the public needs to know. The words "Mistrial" or "Stay of Proceedings" or de Cosmos forbid "Dismissal" just aren't words which B.C.'s voting, taxpaying, responsible citizens want to hear after waiting 3 years for the facts of this case.
- BC Mary.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
.
RCMP allegedly seized Liberal Party donor lists in March 2005
.
Senior Tory wants answers on Basi/Virk
By BILL TIELEMAN,
24 HOURS - 1 March 2007
Why did the RCMP allegedly seize the donor lists of the Liberal Party of Canada B.C. branch in March 2005 in connection with the investigation of breach-of-trust charges against former provincial government aides David Basi and Bob Virk?
That's what senior federal Conservative John Reynolds is asking after Basi and Virk's lawyers filed a disclosure application Monday in B.C. Supreme Court claiming that RCMP "attended the federal Liberal Party's B.C. office in March 2005 and seized donor lists."
Reynolds, 2006 Conservative election campaign co-chair, said if the RCMP seized donor lists the reasons should be made public.
"I don't know what the RCMP were looking for, but we should be able to know why they seized the Liberal donor lists," Reynolds told 24 hours. "There's no question that there's been a lot of things happening that there are no answers to and the public wants answers."
When 24 hours asked last October if RCMP had visited LPC B.C. headquarters, executive director Mark Grant declined to comment. Grant did not return phone and e-mail messages yesterday. RCMP media relations did not respond to phone messages by press time.
Many thanks to Bill Tieleman for sharing his scoop. He's always on-line at http://billtieleman.blogspot.com/
_________________________________________
.
Senior Tory wants answers on Basi/Virk
By BILL TIELEMAN,
24 HOURS - 1 March 2007
Why did the RCMP allegedly seize the donor lists of the Liberal Party of Canada B.C. branch in March 2005 in connection with the investigation of breach-of-trust charges against former provincial government aides David Basi and Bob Virk?
That's what senior federal Conservative John Reynolds is asking after Basi and Virk's lawyers filed a disclosure application Monday in B.C. Supreme Court claiming that RCMP "attended the federal Liberal Party's B.C. office in March 2005 and seized donor lists."
Reynolds, 2006 Conservative election campaign co-chair, said if the RCMP seized donor lists the reasons should be made public.
"I don't know what the RCMP were looking for, but we should be able to know why they seized the Liberal donor lists," Reynolds told 24 hours. "There's no question that there's been a lot of things happening that there are no answers to and the public wants answers."
When 24 hours asked last October if RCMP had visited LPC B.C. headquarters, executive director Mark Grant declined to comment. Grant did not return phone and e-mail messages yesterday. RCMP media relations did not respond to phone messages by press time.
Many thanks to Bill Tieleman for sharing his scoop. He's always on-line at http://billtieleman.blogspot.com/
_________________________________________
.
