Wednesday, February 06, 2008


Correction and apology: Robin Mathews

The Supreme Courts in Ontario and British Columbia: crumbling before our eyes

Dear Mary:

Please remove the story altogether immediately. And please place the following note on the site.

Please place this note on the Supreme Courts story without delay. An immediate correction and apology is in order regarding the reference to Christie Clark and Mark Marissen in the story. I have before me the "vetted information" of the Search Warrant documents referred to in the story. The names of Christie Clark and Mark Marissen are listed as "persons" who "have been identified during part of the Project "Everywhichway" investigation, and are referred to in this Information to Obtain a Search Warrant". Elsewhere in the document they are described as persons "not at the present time subjects of this investigation." I deeply regret the mistaken information and have asked it to be withdrawn immediately.

For the record, Thursday February 7, 2008:

Dear Mary. I have e-mailed vivelecanada several times, and I have telephoned to the voice mail, requesting the article be removed. So far, I cannot make contact with people there. Before I read your note, I e-mailed again. I will keep trying until I make contact. Thanks for sending on the comment. best, R. [Robin Mathews]

Friday, February 8, 2008 9:16 MST

Supreme Courts story removed from vivelecanada and Robin's apology (as shown here, with correction) has been posted.

BC Mary


Who requested that the story be removed?

Erik Bornmann is very clearly an associate of Mark Marissen and unfortunately for him, he will have to wait until the star witness gives his much anticipated testimony.

Mark seems rather sensitive.
The chap who wrote the article, Robin asked to have it removed and the blog owner removed it. Less chance of getting sued.As it has been mentioned Clarke and Marrissen are listed as " not at the present time sunjects of this investigation. Better safe than sorry.
We must all be careful about we put on a blog. The purpose of haning blogs is to reasonabl to expect people read them.

If Robin Mattews is so concerned, why does the article still appear on the Vive Le Canada site?
I don't know the answer, Anonymous 8:50.

Maybe you should ask Vive le Canada. All I know is that Robin asked them (just as he asked BC Mary) on February 5 to remove it.

Perhaps they saw things differently. I don't know. But tell us if you find out, ok?

I understood that the defence raised the issue of the Marissen and the RCMP behaviour in court already?

Maybe I was wrong...we will find out more about this in the coming weeks
I seem to recall that at the time (oh so long ago) that the RCMP searched Mr. Marrisen's home office, but without having to serve a warrant - by invitation/request, if you please!

Early on the story was out that the warrants included his office, then this was an early "retraction" or rephrasing. Whatever, Mark and Christy seem at least tangentially involved in something and eager to ride herd on the message very closely. This alone speaks volumes to me.

Information tends to take whatever shape it wants in a situation where there is a void of genuine information. It all makes me think that the truth must not be too beneficial to certain interests or the easiest thing would be to let the truth out to fill the vacuum.
I read Robins article yesterday and he reminded us of all the delays and going ons at the courthouse. I would like to bring up the behind the scenes delays with the F.O.I. process and privacy issues regarding complaints closely connected to this trial. The delays have been extremely long and one has to wonder how independent the privacy commission is to the government. I have to wonder how long it will take to get the detailed report on Paul Taylors first email. The summary report was quite a read. Many witness's who took part in this investigation have not been contacted regarding third party privacy concerns months after.

Yesterday the governments special committee to review the Personal Information Protection Act had one interesting complaint from the United Automotive Trades Association regarding ICBC collecting personal sensitive financial information from collision and auto glass shops(WITHOUT THE INSUREDS PERMISSION) during audits to see if every customer is paying thier deductibles. The Trial Lawyers Association believe ICBC may be financially profiling the insured. Scary! This complaint has been going on for close to three years with no end in sight. See Hansard B.C.-Parliamentary Committee-Current Committees-Special Committee To Review The Personal Information Protection Act-Blues Wednesday February 6,2008. HTML

Sign me off as concerned.

I read the deleted Mathews story and it really is a shame that it is not up for all to read.The paragragh about defence lawyer Michael Bolton seeking to get vital information of importance through the governments FOI process and having to produce "substantial sums of money" to get that information reinforces that maybe our privacy commission is not all that independent from the government.

Seaching through the privacy issues in the Vancouver Sun the last few years and you realize that the average complaint to the privacy commissioner takes two to three reseachers and lists,ICBC and customers personal financial info taken from body and glass shops and the pawn shop and consignment stores customer information.

I understand that the privacy commissioner closed the file on ICBC's collection of customers financial info,then reopened it after the United Automotive Trades Association cried fowl and enlisted the help of the Trial Lawyers Association of B.C. and any one else who would listen. The pawn shop problem only went away after the pawn shop took their case to the courts and won. The medical researchers issue is still going on close to three years later.

I think I will phone Keith Baldrey and see if he will look into these important issues. They do fall under the legislature reporter folder. Keith just has to look up HANSARD S-P-E-C-I-A-L C-O-M-M-I-T-T-E-E TO REVIEW THE PERSONAL INFORMATION PROTECTION ACT or just walk down the hall. Please excuse me for my lack of sentence structure and spelling mistakes. I have been busy looking up "Special Crown Prosecutor", "abuse of process" and "immunity from prosecution" in the law for dummies and concerned citizens handbook.
I am clearly missing something here & need some hand holding:

Why, specifically, did Robin ask for his excellent post to be removed?

BTW, just as a footnote, I read somewhere that Virk used to be Christy's 'driver' - is this correct?

Isn't it rather strange that CKNW would hire Christy at this sensitive time with the trial approaching?

Doesn't it make it just a tad difficult to discuss & report on all the various strings that that connect Christy & her former political bed fellows to this trial???

On the other hand, maybe she didn't agree with what was coming down & jumped ship.

Maybe that is another topic that Keith would like to discuss on Billy Goode's show . . . or would that be a no, no?
To all who have asked: I really appreciate your concern for the specific item which Robin felt was in need of correction ... and I wish I could answer properly ... but I have no information beyond what Robin asked me to post ... and I did.

Knowing Robin's professionalism, I expect to see his story back for posting with the corrections made but I must admit, I have no guarantee of that.

Even when I look at the comment he mentions, I can't quite see the problem. But then IANAL, as Koot would say. So we'll have to WAS.

(Just kidding. I hate these acronyms as much as you do.)

I Am Not A Lawyer ... and so we'll have to Wait And See.

If I was on a civil jury, I would uphold any reporter's right to go-with-what-you-know, in face of stonewalling. Suppressive law suits threaten freedom of conscience.
I beleive one of Robins' statements in his artical allude to some people being named in a search warrant. When in fact they were not named in the warrant as he found out when he got hold of the original warrant. Had he left his comments as they were, and given what is going on with the Tyee and Mair, he (probably rightly) thought he may be open to some type of lawsuit. The best thing to do is retract and apologize. Although again given what is happening to Mair and The Tyee it may not be enough. Another conspiracy theory for Baldrey. They are out to silence everyone they can.
Express Collision Shop Said,

Mary, we need this article by Robin. The article is very informative.

Regarding the "substantial sums of money" for FOI requests is very alarming.

The next paragragh says "Both of those last matters-put in fair context-might be said to reveal that a possible wrong-doer(the Gordon Campbell cabinet) is hiding some information by claiming"privilege" and is trying to hide other information, literally,by offering it for sale at a prohibitive price to Defence."

I have a problem with Robins choice of the word offering, I see it more like the government is fighting desperately to keep this information away from the defence and possibly breaking privacy laws in doing so. So much for open and transparent. The government has a right to charge for time and photocopying for this info and the defence has a right to ask for the fees to be waived in the interests of the voters(PUBLIC) of B.C. or a fair trial for their clients. It would be interesting to know how much and how long the defence is taking to get FOI's from the government and are these delays helping the defences future abuse of process motion.

I hope Mr. Bolton informs us further on these FOI issues in coming months. One last question-Is it true that the Public Affairs Bureau is five times larger than the Office of the Privacy Commissioner?
Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home