Monday, February 18, 2008

 

Basi-Virk Hearings delayed until May 5

... BC government waives cabinet privilege, defence concerned with undisclosed documents

By Bill Tieleman

Another lengthy delay was confirmed today in the case of three former BC government aides facing corruption charges.

BC Supreme Court Justice Elizabeth Bennett was told that pre-trial disclosure hearings scheduled for March will now begin May 5 instead with the agreement of the Crown and defence counsel for David Basi, Bob Virk and Aneal Basi. A short update hearing will be held March 11 however.

And George Copley, a lawyer for the provincial government, told the court ... {Snip} ...

Watch [Bill's] blog for more details as they become available and more on this morning's hearing

____________________________________________________________________________

At 3:45 PM, Bill added: Hi Mary,

I've posted a longer piece now on my blog - unbelievably yet more delays in this interminable case!

Best regards - Bill Tieleman
West Star Communications Tel 604-844-7827
Website: http://billtieleman.blogspot.com/

""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
Bill Tieleman has left a new comment on your post "Basi-Virk Hearings delayed until May 5":

To clarify between Robin's report and my own - there will be a short update hearing on March 11 but the major pre-trial hearings on the BC Rail document "vets" will not take place now until May 5.
"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
Thanks, Bill. I'll add this note to Robin's post as well.

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



Comments:
To clarify between Robin's report and my own - there will be a short update hearing on March 11 but the major pre-trial hearings on the BC Rail document "vets" will not take place now until May 5.
 
Textbook court delays. Last week a PCBC judge acquitted Coquitlam Cop, Russ Hannibal, on a motion. The same judge stayed charges against him in 2005. Hannibal took over $400,000 in unearned wages as he filed repeated delay motions, while the Assault charge floated. Crown says they will appeal, given that judicial conduct was tempered by earlier appeals against her dubious judgment. I smell tit for tat.

http://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcsc/doc/2006/2006bcsc4/2006bcsc4.html

Hannibal is no saint. He inflicted no less than 6 50,000 volt charges against a target. Taser International intervened in the first ersatz trial, and did so largely to defend their product instructions, which Hannibal ignored. Tasers deliver 5 second zaps, during which time muscle - especially the cardial - control is completely lost. The RCMP Intervention Model, ORDERS that targets be immediately delivered to medical personnel.

At least 3 other Coquitlam cops have been convicted of Assault since Hannibal was charged. If the issue was properly case managed, the YVR taser incident would not have occurred.

As Robin says, the system is a mess. And allowing Don Brenner to write elite centrist rules of court, is hardly the solution.

The Frank Paul inquiry is re-opening Tuesday at 9:30 AM, after the illness of a single lawyer caused 2 and one-half weeks of delay. If you attend, you will have to remove your coat and leave all belongings in a closet secured by a guard who regularly leaves his post. Police attendees don't suffer the same treatment. There is no reason for this other than intentional intimidation.
 
.
Anonymous 7:25,

Were you in Supreme Courtroom 65 today?

What did you think of the proceedings?

.
 
No, I don't attend disclosure hearings. I would probably fall asleep. At last account, the levels of cost in Motions court are A: $360; B: $550; C: $840.

However, Brenner orders his Masters to bill a minumum of B. Anything over 30 minutes is billed at C. I once saw Master Donaldson (can't stand him) order a B billing for a substitute service order. It was based on a single page affidavit, and the entire hearing took less than 2 minutes.

BC Media: the Rules of Court drawn up by Don Brenner and Alan Seckel (Deputy AG) are cash-cow fodder. Any trial will follow years of endless motions, costs of which flow to court administration, which the rich party will impose on the poor one. When the latter is bankrupt, they drop the case and end their existence on this earth, in abject poverty. Brenner doesn't care if their cause was just.

Mary: could you pose questions that you want resolved in B-V-B? Frankly, I have almost lost sight of what we want resolved.
 
.
I can pose a basket of questions I'd like resolved, beginning with the process by which BCRail was transferred from public ownership to private pockets, who made the decisions (large and small) along the way, and what were the terms and conditions of the final sale.

I figure we (the people) have this one chance to determine how these things could happen ...

Right from Day One, I have hoped that Basi or Virk would choose to be on the side of the public interest and tell all they know.

But then, that would be called: A TRIAL, wouldn't it?

For the simplest question: I'd like to know why Dave Basi (fired within 24 hours of the police raid on the legislature) didn't sue for wrongful dismissal when the cabinet insisted that they knew nothing about it. So ... on what grounds??

.
 
Mary:
"or the simplest question: I'd like to know why Dave Basi (fired within 24 hours of the police raid on the legislature) didn't sue for wrongful dismissal when the cabinet insisted that they knew nothing about it. So ... on what grounds??"

That was one of the initial red flags to me that things were fishy with this case. Why Basi and Virk were treated so differently in the immediate aftermath of the raids, when nobody (esp. the Soup Nazi - Campbell) knew anything was and still is highly suspicious and unanswered.

It is difficult to not consider behind the scenes inducements to Mr. Basi and Mr. Virk to explain their failure to speak out more vigorously in their own defence. It seems like a total waste of public resources to grind out in such a legalistic kabuki, matters that could be resolved with simple, honest public statements.

If I was charged with crimes (i.e. selling influence that I didn't actually even possess) but the true culprits were in a position to handsomely reward me for obfuscation with the expectation I would also eventually be exonerated, even if only by dismissal due to delay - I would conduct myself exactly as have the accused in this trial to date.

Of course I am only hypothetically speculating about how I would behave in a totally hypothetical situation.
 
Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link



<< Home