Thursday, May 08, 2008

 

Read the Affidavits here ...

.
http://www.bcndpcaucus.ca/en/new_democrats_release_key_bc_rail_corruption_trial_documents
www.bcndpcaucus.ca/en/bcrailcorruptiontrial



MEDIA ADVISORY
May 7, 2008

B.C. RAIL COURT DOCUMENTS OBTAINED BY NDP RAISE SERIOUS QUESTIONS ABOUT THE ROLE OF PREMIER CAMPBELL'S OFFICE

VICTORIA -- Key court documents in the B.C. Rail corruption case obtained through an NDP request to the court are now available online at:

http://www.bcndpcaucus.ca/en/new_democrats_release_key_bc_rail_corruption_trial_documents

Summaries and analyses at: http://bcndpcaucus.ca Here's an example from the leader of the official opposition, May 07, 2008:

Navigating the Affidavits

After petitioning the court, the Official Opposition received copies of the Government affidavits on April 2, the same day they were made available to the public at the court registry. These affidavits are now published on this website [NDP website] in their entirety. Each affidavit can be accessed as it was presented to the court. Additionally, material from the affidavits can be accessed using the subject indexes, which group together similarly themed material from all of the affidavits.

The 6 affidavits made available by Madam Justice Bennett in response to [the NDP] request are:

1) A June 6, 2007 affidavit from Sue Filion , legal secretary with the Legal Services Branch, which sets out correspondence relating to the defence disclosure application. This affidavit also includes correspondence between the RCMP and senior civil servants regarding the raid on the Legislature. Emails from Kevin Begg of the Solicitor General’s office state that his office had avoided producing a paper trail regarding the RCMP investigation in the days leading up to the Legislature raids.

2) An affidavit from Nancy Reimer , assistant to George Copley, dated October 23, 2007. This affidavit sets out the Government’s position on disclosure of a number of documents, including assertions of solicitor-client privilege. Also includes material related to the FOI request made by defence counsel.

3) A second affidavit from Nancy Reimer , introduced in court on December 14, 2007, which includes the 2004 document review protocol that has the Deputy Cabinet Secretary making decisions regarding assertions of privilege. This affidavit also includes material relating to the initial screening of documents by Associate Chief Justice Dohm.

4) A second affidavit from Sue Filion , dated January 7, 2008. This affidavit comprises the contents of a binder of materials from George Copley’s office, and includes email and other correspondence relating to document review, claims of privilege, and disclosure. Materials in this affidavit show the roles of Deputy Attorney General Allan Seckel, Deputy Minister to the Premier Ken Dobell and Deputy Cabinet Secretaries Joy Illington and Elizabeth MacMillan in the document review process.

a) An email of January 12, 2004, from Deputy Attorney General Allan Seckel indicates that Seckel and Premier Gordon Campbell’s key advisor Ken Dobell discussed a process for disclosure prior to submission of the final protocol.

b) An email of November 24, 2004, from George Copley to Ken Dobell, reveals that on at least one occasion Copley received instructions from Dobell on whether to waive or assert privilege over documents seized during the raid on the Legislature.

c) In a January 13, 2006 email from George Copley to Elizabeth MacMillan, it becomes clear Copley expected instruction to come from someone in the ‘Premier’s Office’.

d) It appears that Copley first approached Seckel for instructions on whether or not to continue to assert privilege in a memorandum of August 24, 2007.

5) An affidavit from Government lawyer Maria Coley , dated January 20, 2008, which sets out most of the materials that inventory documents seized during the raid on the Legislature. Included here is the inventory of documents reviewed by Madam Justice Bennett, in which she indicates a document as related to the “consolation prize”.

6) A third affidavit from Sue Filion , filed in court on February 15, 2008. This affidavit sets out the Government position on disclosure of the three emails Madam Justice Bennett ruled as “significantly relevant”, including the email that goes to the “innocence at stake” principle.

Back to BC Rail Corruption Trial main page

"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
Bill Tieleman's blog makes these documents easy to access, too, at: http://billtieleman.blogspot.com/

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

Comments:
watchingfromnextdoor
Mary,the links don't work. Is it just me?
 
.
watchingfromnextdoor:

It's you, me, and a lot of other people.

All I can suggest is that you keep trying ... you'll eventually get through. I did.

But the best platform to launch from is Bill Tieleman's site.

As someone who has drop-kicked the NDP often, the past while, I think they deserve top marks for this coup.

I guess it was Leonard Krog (Opposition justice critic) who obtained the documents but most importantly -- who sorted them out for readability.

.
 
.
Oh ... ! Credit where credit is due ...

Robin Mathews made this happen.

He insisted ... insisted ... and insisted in person at Supreme Court Registry and in writing (as directed) to Madam Justice Bennett ... insisting that the court transcripts actually be made available to the public.

Then he learned that the finished copies would cost us $1. per page but that's a whole other story.

I wonder if the NDP had to pay $1. a page. Doesn't seem very democratic when this trial is about an important public asset.

.
 
" I wonder if the NDP had to pay $1. a page. Doesn't seem very democratic when this trial is about an important public asset."

For the NDP, $1 per page is money well spent. And they deserve kudos for making it so handily available to the public. Now if only the lapdog media would "mention" to the public that it is there, or heaven's to Betsy, even use some of it in between kidnapped Spider Monkey articles.

It isn't like they have to spend a lot of money to produce negative advertising. All they need to do is put footage of Rich Coleman during Question Period on the air, no text or voice over - you can hardly create a more unpleasant picture than that. As long as they can avoid complaints or lawsuits from the Pork Producer's Association, of course.
 
Behind the scenes of ICBC, a new Director was appointed today, one Stacy Shields. The appointment is recorded in "Order in Council and Ministerial Order Resumes (2008)" Vol. 35, No. 12:

ORDER IN COUNCIL 262
Ministry Responsible: PUBLIC SAFETY AND SOLICITOR GENERAL
Statutory Authority: Insurance Corporation, ss. 2 and 3
(a) The following appointments to the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia are made:
(i) Stacy Shields is appointed as a member for a term commencing immediately and ending June 30, 2009

 
Hopefully one Stacy Shields has extensive training and experience at sanitation/sewage engineering! Accounting experience at either Anderson Accounting or Accenture Mega Corp would also be likely to have honed the appropriate shill..oops, skill set.
 
A dollar a page? Is this how the BC Liberal's Rich Coleman intends to save thousands of forestry jobs.

Is there enough pine beetle damaged forests in British Columbia that will create a never ending supply of Pulp-to-paper-to-print so everyone gets a hard copy of what has been leading up to Basi/Virk/BC Rail/Legislature Raid and then down the final stretch of justice being served... in Court?
 
Twisting and turning on the BC Rail deal has even gone so far as to tamper the way in which the affidavits are presented to the public.

I've resolved my lone issue by turning my monitor on its side.

On page 14 of 27 the scanned images have been inserted into the PDF file at 90 degrees (counter clockwise). Has this been done intentionally so that chiropractors visits will skyrocket or is there a method by which each page can be turned, to be viewed in a more typical way?
 
PS

Why have the files been presented without the capability of the "binoculars"..... search for specific words?

Is it because the files are images?

If the files were digitized, would the binoculars work then?
 
Why of all people was Ken Dobell designated to be the one in charge of deciding which documents were to be released to the special prosecutor and the RCMP?

Mr. Dobell, as a long time friend to Gordon Campbell, he was appointed by the Premier to be his Deputy Minister, to be the Cabinet Secretary!!! He was privy to every word spoken, every plan hatched.

Duties of a Cabinet Secretary as contained in one of the affidavits between George and Ken via emails.
 
To Anon-0-mouse @ 8:04AM

"Why have the files been presented without the capability of the "binoculars"..... search for specific words?"

As far as I can tell, the files have been presented in normal .pdf format, complete with binoculars and word search function intact. At least all of mine are so equipped. I would suggest that anyone with this type of problem check their version of Adobe Acrobat Reader or just go to the
Acrobat Reader Download Page
and update their installation. There is no cost to download Acrobat Reader - it's FREE!

As to the Anon at 8:02AM re:

"On page 14 of 27 the scanned images have been inserted into the PDF file at 90 degrees (counter clockwise). Has this been done intentionally so that chiropractors visits will skyrocket or is there a method by which each page can be turned, to be viewed in a more typical way?"

These pages (in package six - A third affidavit from Sue Filion or "suefilionFeb1508affidavit.pdf," pages 14 - 26 are apparently scanned or copied (Xerox) images of heavily redacted documents, inserted into the .pdf file, like a jpeg is inserted into an HTML file to create a webpage. The "binocular" search function will not, of course, find words contained within images, so will find nothing on these scanned or copied pages.


They can easily be viewed right side up by going to 'View' in the menu bar (third menu item - File, Edit, View) and under View select
"rotate view" and choose clockwise or counter clockwise. One will show the page upside down, the other, correctly. Placing the monitor on its side is, I must say, an elegant solution or work around.

The directions above assume one is using a current version (V 7.0 or later) of Adobe Acrobat Reader. To update Acrobat Reader go to Download Page link provided above.
 
I just thought of one more possible cause for the lack of an apparent set of binoculars. This involves checking under "View" again. If you select 'toolbars' you may find some functions UN-checked, and thus not enabled (or visible). Just experiment with checking and un-checking various functions like "rotate view" "find" "basic" and "zoom." Acrobat, like many programs, allows you to customize your toolbars and menus so that you don't waste screen real estate with functions you never use.
 
Acrobat does have a Rotation icon, I just didn't recognize it for what it was. The icon just looks like one page over another, no rotating arrow included.

Thanks for the "heads up" on this, you've saved me the cost of a chiropractor treatment.
 
.
Anon 5:16,

Maybe you've saved the chiroprator's fee but there is a charge! We're looking forward to a fullsome report on what you're reading, OK?

Many thanks, once again, to Koot for resolving another dratted IT issue. It happens more often than you'd imagine.

.
 
BTW, not trying to seem like a know-it-all, just trying to be helpful. If one looks among the menus that start by convention in the upper left corner of almost all programs, one can usually find any and all functions of the program available and labeled WITH WORDS that usually clearly describe what they do. An icon can be handy short-cut, but only if one understands just what in the hell the Icon stands for!

In Adobe Acrobat Reader the menu reads from the left:

File, Edit, View, Document, Tools, Window, Help.

Then there are numerous options on the drop down menu below each - the dimmed out ones not being available at the current time, usually because you aren't at that stage. For example Copy won't be an available option until you have selected (highlighted) some text to possibly copy - though select all (the whole document) will probably be available at this time.
 
Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link



<< Home