Wednesday, January 09, 2008
Defence may call Gordon Campbell
.
Did the earth move? It must have moved a bit on December 17, 2007 when defence threatened/promised to put Gordon Campbell on the stand.
But wait. Wouldn't the rational reader imagine that, as an ordinary duty of care, the major news media would have picked up on that idea? Wouldn't they expect that the premier of British Columbia would be grilled, under oath, by an increasingly angry legal team working to defend 3 men who stand accused of things Mr Campbell must know a lot about?
Given that selling BCRail was Gordon Campbell's idea in the first place, wouldn't the astute reader expect him to be one of the first called to the witness stand when the trial begins?
In fact, if Mr Campbell didn't know every detail about the sale of B.C. Rail, is it so hard to imagine that Mr Campbell would be one of the first to complain?? as part of this trial??
Thanks again to our Anonymous Sentinel who watches the pre-trial hearings in B.C. Supreme Court and has been able to let us know what happened on the two days (Dec 17 and 18, 2007) when Bill Tieleman and Robin Mathews were unable to attend. Here's the Sentinel's complete comment for today, 9 Jan '08:
Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "Organizational chart for Paul Martin leadership BC...":
Mary I checked with my source about Monday Jan 7. The whole contingent of lawyers were there including Berardino. There were four other people in the audience who appeared to be friends. One of them was an assistant of NDP MLA Leonard Krog. Another was the only other person in attendance on Monday December 17th. Maybe he works for Krog, or maybe he's Stuart Chase's replacement. He appeared to know Krog's assistant quite well.
My source didn't stick around for the whole day, as Copley is the most difficult to understand speaker of the bunch and Courtroom 54 acoustics are poor to begin with.
Also, in regards to December 17, defence threatened/promised to put Gordon Campbell on the stand.
"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
Did the earth move? It must have moved a bit on December 17, 2007 when defence threatened/promised to put Gordon Campbell on the stand.
But wait. Wouldn't the rational reader imagine that, as an ordinary duty of care, the major news media would have picked up on that idea? Wouldn't they expect that the premier of British Columbia would be grilled, under oath, by an increasingly angry legal team working to defend 3 men who stand accused of things Mr Campbell must know a lot about?
Given that selling BCRail was Gordon Campbell's idea in the first place, wouldn't the astute reader expect him to be one of the first called to the witness stand when the trial begins?
In fact, if Mr Campbell didn't know every detail about the sale of B.C. Rail, is it so hard to imagine that Mr Campbell would be one of the first to complain?? as part of this trial??
Thanks again to our Anonymous Sentinel who watches the pre-trial hearings in B.C. Supreme Court and has been able to let us know what happened on the two days (Dec 17 and 18, 2007) when Bill Tieleman and Robin Mathews were unable to attend. Here's the Sentinel's complete comment for today, 9 Jan '08:
Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "Organizational chart for Paul Martin leadership BC...":
Mary I checked with my source about Monday Jan 7. The whole contingent of lawyers were there including Berardino. There were four other people in the audience who appeared to be friends. One of them was an assistant of NDP MLA Leonard Krog. Another was the only other person in attendance on Monday December 17th. Maybe he works for Krog, or maybe he's Stuart Chase's replacement. He appeared to know Krog's assistant quite well.
My source didn't stick around for the whole day, as Copley is the most difficult to understand speaker of the bunch and Courtroom 54 acoustics are poor to begin with.
Also, in regards to December 17, defence threatened/promised to put Gordon Campbell on the stand.
"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
Comments:
<< Home
To wax mildly Shakespearean, the prospect of seeing Gordon Campbell in the witness box, actually being forced to be as open and accountable as he's been falsely and serially pretending to be, is a consummation devoutly to be wished.
Interesting isn't it that Copley has stumble-mouth?
What a way to end a career - making feeble arguments to excuse one's political masters.
Interesting isn't it that Copley has stumble-mouth?
What a way to end a career - making feeble arguments to excuse one's political masters.
# posted by 
: January 9, 2008 at 12:28 p.m.
: January 9, 2008 at 12:28 p.m.
Is it legally possible for Justice Bennett to order Campbell to appear to answer the Defences' requests for disclosure? Copely can say what he wants but he is taking orders direct from Campbell. Can anyone figure out who Baldrey has in his pocket? Joey
Post a Comment
# posted by : January 9, 2008 at 3:55 p.m.
: January 9, 2008 at 3:55 p.m. << Home
