Friday, May 02, 2008

 

What? What?? You say June 2nd ???


.
Anonymous has left a new comment :

MARY,

I HAVE JUST RETURNED FROM COURT WHERE I WAS INFORMED THAT TODAY'S HEARING WAS MOVED UP A DAY EARLY.

THERE ARE MORE DELAYS FROM SPECIAL PROSECUTOR BILL BERARDINO.

A SHERRIF TOLD ME THAT THE HEARING WAS MOVED BY THE SPECIAL PROSECUTOR TO AVOID THE PUBLIC!!!


"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
Thanks, Anonymous. But holy smoke, what kind of run-around is this?

Does this mean that this particular pre-trial hearing took place yesterday, May 1st?? They call this "accountability" (see below)???

Back soon, when I find out more ...

- BC Mary.

"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
I have checked all 58 pages of Vancouver Law Courts
Public Access Completed - Supreme Court List (Adult)
For Files Appearing on April 30, 2008 and on May 1, 2008
(Best place to find the URL is the home page: House of Infamy)

And, sure enough, it's listed ... not as Her Majesty the Queen vs Udhe Singh Basi, Bobby Singh Virk, or Aneal Basi ... but only as Case #23299, as follows:

Case #23299-5 - 28 April 2008. Application for records in the possession of the Province of British Columbia. Next appearance: 4:00 PM in Courtroom 65.

And on May 1, 2008 this is repeated, with next appearance - May 5, 2008 at 9:00 AM.


At this point, I'd like to add this comment from "Gary E" ...

Gary E said...

Is McCullough the lawyer for Basi?

As I reported here earlier in the comments and on Bill T's blog, there was some discussion at the end of the last April hearing, which I attended,about a letter to the premier and others. McCullough wanted the premier to answer some written questions without any help from lawyers or others. Copeley's answer was a simple "no".

It was finally agreed that if McCullough did not get a satisfactory answer they would appear again in court today, May 2 2008.

By this scheduling I assume that nothing satisfactory to defense was worked out. Of course at this writing they (the government)still has about 15 mins. to change their mind. Thus wasting more taxpayers money.

Question: What is the government so afraid of, that they don't want 4 people including the premier to answer simple questions on their own?

May 2, 2008 8:59 AM

""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
Very big THANK YOU to Gary E., who is doing yeoman service in the BCRail Case. He has also launched his own blog now at http://howbadistherecord.blogspot.com/

Without Citizen Journalism like this, we might never have known that there's a letter involving Premier Gordon Campbell which could possibly be the cause for these diversionary actions in Supreme Court. The cause. No, I didn't say it excuses the diversionary actions; no damn way. That was our railway. It's our right to know every detail, sooner rather than 4, 5, 6 years later. - BC Mary.

""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
How do they say in h'English: I 'ave it on the 'ighest authority that ...

it was indeed the special prosecutor who requested the change in date. At the hearing (which was essentially an update on disclosure progress for the judge) the special prosecutor said there was still more disclosure to come.

As a result, a tentatively scheduled May hearing has been or will be rescheduled to June (I would bet it would be after the June 9th-11th court of appeal hearing on the special prosecutor’s attempt to have a secret witness testify without defence lawyers being present).

So it looks like everything is on hold until after that appeal hearing (indeed, either side may appeal THAT ruling all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada. If so, that could delay the trial many more months, as I speculated in December).

As for a Basi name not being on the registry or docket, I wouldn’t read too much into that. Those public postings are routinely full of errors for all kinds of proceedings.

Hope this helps.

Baldrey, Keith (Global BC)

""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
A big "Thank you!" to Keith Baldrey, who searched out this information for us. And yes, it does help.

Also thanks to Bill Tieleman who is searching out clues on this, too. The help is much appreciated by all of us.

- BC Mary.

"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
AND THE GRAND FINALE: BY BILL TIELEMAN!
You just couldn't make this stuff up!

Hi Mary - had some trouble tracking down what happened and is happening - thanks to Keith Baldrey for his update - here's what I heard back from one of my informed but unofficial sources:

"They canceled yesterday morning's sitting. Instead, they said the court decided to meet a day earlier - at 4 pm briefly on Thursday (second time they've done it now, as you will recall).

"And the next date isn't until
June 2nd. Trial scheduling characterized June 2 as "the next pre-trial conference". So basically, no May 5th at this point either.

"All of it was quite strange as Friday morning's court list indicated a 9:30 start but I [was told] they were looking into rescheduling."

So - as near as I can tell - no court session Monday morning, probably a court session on June 2, but don't be surprised by yet another change!

""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
Thanks very much, Bill. Very good of you to take the trouble to find all this out for us.

So I guess that's it ... nuthin' to see here, folks ... just keep movin' along until June 2, 2008. No, no, ain't nuthin' to worry about ... everything's just fine ... if you will just keep movin' along ...

- BC Mary.

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


Comments:
Express Collision Shop Said,

I think maybe Chief Judge Hugh Stansfield should answer some questions regarding this bait and switch(loose def.) tactic and misinformation. I would love to know if this is legal? Maybe Kieth Baldrey can answer that one.
 
So, is the May 5th court date still on?
 
.
Anon 11:05,

I copied it exactly as given on the Completed Supreme Court list:

"Next appearance: 5 May 2008 at 9:00 AM." OK?

The May 5th date is also shown in the masthead.

But if you're asking me to guarantee that the Basi-Virk hearing will actually happen on May 5th, puh-leeze, I am not a magician.

Would if I could, though.

.
 
I am trying to sort out what is going on and whether there is a BC Supreme Court session on Monday May 5 or not. That was my understanding but there was confusion about that date too.

I believe the May 1 session was a trial management meeting and may, repeat, may, not have been in court.

I will update you and my blog as soon as I find out, hopefully shortly - and it's 1:20 p.m. Friday BC time now.
 
Hi Mary

Tried at the address you had and got this:

Blog not found
Sorry, the blog you were looking for does not exist. However, the name howbadistherecord is available to register!

DWT
Not as a published comment, just to let you know that the blog is not up yet.
 
Hi, 5:36:

Gotta admit, I've had trouble getting onto Gary E's blog by using that address in the usual way, too. Thought it was my fault because his blog is definitely up and running.

What I do is, I go to House of Infamy or to Pacific Gazette, each of which has a listing in their margin for "howbadistherecord".

By clicking onto THEIR listing, I get into Gary E's blog.

Another little mystery, eh?

Thanks for trying, I don't know what the longterm answer is. Maybe Gary E knows.

.
 
Sorry for the confusion on my blog.

The name is "How Bad is the Record?"
but when I typed in the URL I left out the "is". consequently it is http://howbadtherecord.blogspot.com

Again, sorry for the confusion.
 
.
Hi Gary E,

I noticed the two varieties and (just so you know) I tried them both (with "is" and without "is") without success.

You can probably get back into the settings and correct it.

.
 
Gary e Blog on the BC rail raid on legislature
 
Express Collision Shop Said,

Interesting article by Mulgrew in todays Sun.

More on whistleblower threats soon.
 
.
Thanks, NVG.

Mystery though it is, that did work.

.
 
Keith Baldrey certainly confirmed the information that was posted on your site FIRST Mary. Quite frankly, why would you post something from Mr. Baldrey when he is in the pocket of CanWest? We all know that Canwest is protecting Campbell and Mr. Berardino doing his best to assist.

The MSM is falling behind Citizen Journalism everyday. As more and more people turn to the internet for news it is no wonder that the papers are better used for bird droppings and litter boxes rather than news.

I wonder if anyone has more details about what all the figures (corrupt lobbyist, senior bureaucrats, former political hacks) behind the scandal are doing?

Where are they now....?????
 
.
Anon 10:00,

I'm glad you asked the question because it's possible that others have also missed two very important points.

1) I asked Keith Baldrey for this information. Why? I asked him, knowing that HE would have access to sources often denied to others. I had no idea whether or not he would even answer, let alone whether he could find the answers I needed;

In asking Keith Baldrey for this, I gave him normal courtesy of explaining why I was asking. I told him about the "bait-and-switch" No-Show-in-Supreme-Court report from a Citizen Journalist. That information is not a secret and should not be.

Although Keith Baldrey didn't say so, I got the impression that he didn't know about the Supreme Court confusion (April 28 - May 2) until I told him.

Soon, his fuller answer came back and I appreciated that -- and his courtesy -- very much. I posted the information immediately on this web-site.

But I wanted to make sure that I did not create a problem for him by publishing his name. CanWest might have thoughts about that, just as you have a bias about that. So I wrote one more time, with sincere thanks, and asked for permission to identify his contribution.

Back came a sad little note: "Sure. Go ahead. My "fans" may be interested," he said. I assured him that my readers would indeed be interested. And pleased.

But not you. You ask: "Quite frankly, why would you post something from Mr. Baldrey when he is in the pocket of CanWest?" Did I answer your question, Anon?

What I take from all this, is that the MSM quite possibly is aware of us in blogworld; that there are some things we can do quicker and better than they can do; and that quite possibly there are occasions when a bit of help from one side or the other, gets more and better news out.

Thank you for saying that the "Bait-and-switch" news appeared FIRST on BC Mary's site. It did, and from TWO different Citizen Journalists.

But I think Keith Baldrey also has taken a very constructive step toward creating better news. He was quick-off-the-mark with help, when I asked. He was courteous, and he went way beyond the call of duty.

In my view, he should be acknowledged for that. Keith Baldrey didn't drag CanWest into the picture; so why would we?

There's a ton more I could say about fairness and truth in journalism, but it's such a rare moment to get an opportunity to celebrate even a small step forward: Let's be happy with this improvement.

.
 
Hi Mary - had some trouble tracking down what happened and is happening - thanks to Keith Baldrey for his update - here's what I heard back from one of my informed but unofficial sources:

"They cancelled yesterday morning's sitting. Instead, they said the court decided to meet a day earlier - at 4 pm briefly on Thursday (second time they've done it now, as you will recall).

And the next date isn't until June 2nd. Trial scheduling characterized June 2 as "the next pre-trial conference". So basically, no May 5th at this point either.

All of it was quite strange as Friday morning's court list indicated a 9:30 start but I [was told] they were looking into rescheduling."

So - as near as I can tell - no court session Monday morning, probably a court session on June 2, but don't be surprised by yet another change!
 
First of all Mary, Thanks for the kind words here. We both know that I am not able to get to the coast often,but when I do I will always make a determined effort to hit the courthouse.

My special thanks to Keith Baldrey as well for his help on this. Bill what can I say. Above and beyond.

As I read your last comment I understood more of what you said in your e-mail.Mary. Thanks
And north van's grumps thanks so much for helping direct others to my blog. North Van, I grew up there. But sorry folks I don't want to go back to live there. Nothing against the stomping grounds. Just the area in general.
 
I almost forgot. Given the state of things in this trial, if anyone is in the area of the courthouse at 800 Smyth in Vancouver on Monday morning May,5,2008 (at 9:00 AM precisely) as Jack Webster used to say if you have a couple of minutes pop in and check the docket. See if this case is being heard. I know there are others who will be there if they can make it. But just in case. Even if all you do is check the docket and let us know one way or the other. I think they post it around 8:00 to 8:20. Better if you can stay for a bit but abything will suffice.
 
Here's the thing.....

Mary has proven, over and over and over and over again, that she has the public's interest at heart.

What's more, when (rarely) she makes a mistake, either in judgment, comment or posting, she corrects it when the error is pointed out.

Now.

Having said all that, I think it the fact that pro-media folks like Mr. Baldrey (and V. Palmer before him) respond to her queries with info she can actually tell us, on the record*, is a truly inspiring (and important) aspect/outcome of the type of impeccable citizen journalism that she practices.

So thanks to Mary for asking and thanks also to Mr. Baldrey for answering.


____
*and, based on my own Email correspondences with Mary, I'm pretty darned sure that she checked with Mr. Baldrey first before putting his correspondence on the record in this way.

.
 
Its no mystery Mary, just take the "is" out of your hotlink to Gary e.

Could you do us a favour an add Gary e to your Links page?
 
.
North van's grumps:

Thanks for the reminder to add Gary E to the links here.

That way, maybe I'll be able to click on my own link and drop in on his blog whenever I like. Your Gary e blog blue thingy worked just fine for me.

But as I said at the top of this thread, I tried accessing Howbadistherecord with "is", and without "is", and no dice either way.

I'm still hopping in via Pacific Gazetteer or House of Infamy.

.
 
"As for a Basi name not being on the registry or docket, I wouldn’t read too much into that. Those public postings are routinely full of errors for all kinds of proceedings."

I'm sorry Keith, but "routinely full of errors" is TOTALLY UNACCEPTABLE! If whoever is responsible for these postings can't handle it, try some one who can. Or would that interfere with the government "dis-infomation" campaign?

Why do I suspect that if there wasn't still so much of British Columbia that hasn't been fenced (in the sense of selling stolen goods) yet, certain individuals would be holed up on Maui or in Paraguay?
 
Mary - I am sure that you will enjoy reading this.

---

Breaking News from The Globe and Mail

N.Z. reverses rail, ferry privatization
The Associated Press


Monday, May 05, 2008

WELLINGTON — The New Zealand government will pay $665-million New Zealand ($522-million U.S.) to buy back railway and sea ferry operations that were privatized in the 1990s.

Finance Minister Michael Cullen said Monday that the purchase from Australia's Toll Holdings Ltd. is the best way to increase investment in the industry.

“The selling of our public rail system in the early 1990s and the running down of the asset afterward has been a painful lesson for New Zealand,” he said in a statement.

The publicly owned national rail network was sold to private sector owners in 1993 for $400-million. Australian transport concern Toll Holdings Ltd. bought a majority stake in 2003, naming the company Toll New Zealand.

“Running a commercially viable business that was able to contribute to the economic and environmental development of New Zealand was proving extremely difficult without government support,” Mr. Cullen said.

He plans to explore options for significant modernization investment in the coming months, he said. Details of the new operating structure remain to be worked out, he said.

Prime Minister Helen Clark said the Labour-led government's plan to modernize the national rail system is a step toward building a sustainable transport network.

“With rising fuel prices and growing awareness about the challenge of global climate change, many nations are looking to rail as a central part of 21st-century economic infrastructure,” Ms. Clark said.

A modern rail system could reduce the emissions of the overall transport network, take pressure off roads, and allow trucking and shipping to operate more efficiently, she added.

Settlement of the purchase is expected on June 30.

In 2001 the government stepped in with nearly $1-billion to rescue privatized national carrier Air New Zealand from bankruptcy. The now profitable airline remains 76 per cent government-owned.


© The Globe and Mail
 
.
Anonymous 11:00,

WooHooo!! New Zealand leads the way.

Many thanks indeed for spotting this item which, believe me, wasn't in any of the West Coast CanWest dailies.

So ... !

Ha!!
 
Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link



<< Home