Tuesday, May 06, 2008
Some things you can say ... some things take longer
.
There are, they say, two sides to every story.
In the matter of the cancelled pre-trial Basi-Virk / BC Rail hearing which we had expected on May 2nd, our best information had come from several sources (on-the-spot Citizen Journalist, unidentified Supreme Court Sheriff, big-name journalists) and I published them all.
I did not have any information from the Crown Prosecutor to publish. Now we do.
He, we were told in good faith (and I told you), had been the one who revised the schedule "to avoid the public". Well ... that appears not to be true.
By a roundabout and quite marvelous route (which is not my story to tell), BC Mary has learned the Crown Prosecutor's side of what we had begun to call the "Bait and Switch Plan".
It seems that the pre-trial conference was changed from May 2, 2008 at 9:00 to May 1, 2008 at 4:00 at the request of defence counsel, not by the Special Prosecutor's office at all.
When the pre-trial conference was initially scheduled at the last court appearance, the May 2 date was tentative, we were told. The Honourable Madam Justice Bennett had advised that the May 2 date was subject to cancellation or a date change if required.
On Tuesday, April 29, 2008, Bobby Virk's lawyer, Kevin McCullough advised the Special Prosecutor that defence counsel wanted to change the date of the pre-trial to May 1, 2008.
Apparently Case #23299 appeared in the Supreme Court Listings on Thursday May 1 but I missed seeing it. I don't know of anybody who saw it.
In terms of the proposed cross-examination, and whether that was dealt with on May 1, we are told that it was addressed only with respect to scheduling of the motion continuation. That motion is now scheduled to continue at the end of June after the completion of some document vetting motions.
The issue of whether certain individuals (the premier's name may leap to mind) will be cross-examined will be addressed at that time. We Citizen Journalists were told that no person has advised that they do not want to be cross-examined in court-- and that the issue at this stage is whether there is a more efficient way to provide defence counsel with the information they are seeking.
Also, there is currently no filed motion to cross-examine anyone.
The next court appearance is on June 2 for discussion of the vetting motions and the procedure for those motions.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
My invaluable source will be providing a fuller explanation. At that time, I'll be able to display the name of that person to whom I'd like to express the fullest appreciation and congratulations for good investigative journalism. - BC Mary.
"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
There are, they say, two sides to every story.
In the matter of the cancelled pre-trial Basi-Virk / BC Rail hearing which we had expected on May 2nd, our best information had come from several sources (on-the-spot Citizen Journalist, unidentified Supreme Court Sheriff, big-name journalists) and I published them all.
I did not have any information from the Crown Prosecutor to publish. Now we do.
He, we were told in good faith (and I told you), had been the one who revised the schedule "to avoid the public". Well ... that appears not to be true.
By a roundabout and quite marvelous route (which is not my story to tell), BC Mary has learned the Crown Prosecutor's side of what we had begun to call the "Bait and Switch Plan".
It seems that the pre-trial conference was changed from May 2, 2008 at 9:00 to May 1, 2008 at 4:00 at the request of defence counsel, not by the Special Prosecutor's office at all.
When the pre-trial conference was initially scheduled at the last court appearance, the May 2 date was tentative, we were told. The Honourable Madam Justice Bennett had advised that the May 2 date was subject to cancellation or a date change if required.
On Tuesday, April 29, 2008, Bobby Virk's lawyer, Kevin McCullough advised the Special Prosecutor that defence counsel wanted to change the date of the pre-trial to May 1, 2008.
Apparently Case #23299 appeared in the Supreme Court Listings on Thursday May 1 but I missed seeing it. I don't know of anybody who saw it.
In terms of the proposed cross-examination, and whether that was dealt with on May 1, we are told that it was addressed only with respect to scheduling of the motion continuation. That motion is now scheduled to continue at the end of June after the completion of some document vetting motions.
The issue of whether certain individuals (the premier's name may leap to mind) will be cross-examined will be addressed at that time. We Citizen Journalists were told that no person has advised that they do not want to be cross-examined in court-- and that the issue at this stage is whether there is a more efficient way to provide defence counsel with the information they are seeking.
Also, there is currently no filed motion to cross-examine anyone.
The next court appearance is on June 2 for discussion of the vetting motions and the procedure for those motions.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
My invaluable source will be providing a fuller explanation. At that time, I'll be able to display the name of that person to whom I'd like to express the fullest appreciation and congratulations for good investigative journalism. - BC Mary.
"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
Comments:
<< Home
Frankly, I'm appalled. Why is it that the paid media that have the professional responsibility to be on top of this stuff are completely ignorant of these developments?
Some of these guys and gals have 'relationships' with the various counsels in this case - on both sides of the aisle. Not to mention with the judiciary who, in this case at least, seems to be well aware of what goes on the papers when it comes to this particular case.
We've been told repeatedly that that public interest is important.
What does that actually MEAN anymore?
Apparently, the only way the public can find out what the judicial system (not to mention the government) is up to is to make the necessary enquiries itself.
Some of these guys and gals have 'relationships' with the various counsels in this case - on both sides of the aisle. Not to mention with the judiciary who, in this case at least, seems to be well aware of what goes on the papers when it comes to this particular case.
We've been told repeatedly that that public interest is important.
What does that actually MEAN anymore?
Apparently, the only way the public can find out what the judicial system (not to mention the government) is up to is to make the necessary enquiries itself.
Express Collision Shop Said,
WERE ALL IN THE DARK
Hey! What the heck is happening here? I thought that anon and Baldrey said the switch was made by the special prosecuter. I sure did not see anything about the switch on the court website. Hats off to K Baldrey for trying to help out. We do need more of the press helping out. Pretty bush league how the court info is so messed up.
On the ICBC mess, rumours have it that a major investigative television show has been asking questions in Vancouver regarding our insurance company. The Competition Bureau has recieved complaints regarding alleged interference with complaints being made to the Competition Bureau. There was some comments a while ago regarding ICBC and past problems with the Competition Bureau. The anon missed another problem ICBC had with this agency in 1999 regarding serious concerns about collision shops and ICBC's new programs. More on this later. ICBC seems to have full time officers very busy at the Competition Bureau.
WERE ALL IN THE DARK
Hey! What the heck is happening here? I thought that anon and Baldrey said the switch was made by the special prosecuter. I sure did not see anything about the switch on the court website. Hats off to K Baldrey for trying to help out. We do need more of the press helping out. Pretty bush league how the court info is so messed up.
On the ICBC mess, rumours have it that a major investigative television show has been asking questions in Vancouver regarding our insurance company. The Competition Bureau has recieved complaints regarding alleged interference with complaints being made to the Competition Bureau. There was some comments a while ago regarding ICBC and past problems with the Competition Bureau. The anon missed another problem ICBC had with this agency in 1999 regarding serious concerns about collision shops and ICBC's new programs. More on this later. ICBC seems to have full time officers very busy at the Competition Bureau.
# posted by 
: May 6, 2008 at 11:18 a.m.
: May 6, 2008 at 11:18 a.m.
"When the pre-trial conference was initially scheduled at the last court appearance, the May 2 date was tentative, we were told."
To say that any scheduled hearing in this case is "tentative" is the height of redundancy. I still believe that the very idea that a trial will ever actually happen and ANYONE of any importance will actually ever testify under oath (and take the oath seriously)is way below "tentative" on the scale of probability.
The MSM will continue their distraction and ignoring of the issue campaigns and those who should be in the docket facing charges will continue to obfuscate. Meanwhile BC will continue to be given away and sold cheap from beneath our feet.
To say that any scheduled hearing in this case is "tentative" is the height of redundancy. I still believe that the very idea that a trial will ever actually happen and ANYONE of any importance will actually ever testify under oath (and take the oath seriously)is way below "tentative" on the scale of probability.
The MSM will continue their distraction and ignoring of the issue campaigns and those who should be in the docket facing charges will continue to obfuscate. Meanwhile BC will continue to be given away and sold cheap from beneath our feet.
Okay - we have two versions kind of a he said/she said.
Which one can we believe? These dates must be agreed to by all parties, otherwise you can't have a date change.
I look forward to your "source" sharing their story.
Which one can we believe? These dates must be agreed to by all parties, otherwise you can't have a date change.
I look forward to your "source" sharing their story.
# posted by : May 6, 2008 at 12:09 p.m.
: May 6, 2008 at 12:09 p.m.
Bill Tieleman has a run down on what's happening including the appeals Court date. You all lnow where Bill's blog is. Go check it out. My cold is so bad i don't have the energy to enlarge.
# posted by : May 6, 2008 at 4:14 p.m.
: May 6, 2008 at 4:14 p.m.
Dockets are part of the courthouse culture and game that is alive and well.
Maybe that is not the case here but keep your eye on the wall and ask the clerk...forget the security person, they already know the list is a best guess, LOL!
...off to Tieleman...
Post a Comment
Maybe that is not the case here but keep your eye on the wall and ask the clerk...forget the security person, they already know the list is a best guess, LOL!
...off to Tieleman...
# posted by : May 6, 2008 at 5:57 p.m.
: May 6, 2008 at 5:57 p.m. << Home
