Thursday, July 03, 2008


As of today: 70,011 visitors

have dropped in at The Legislature Raids hoping, I am sure, to see when the BCRail Case would come to trial.

We still don't know.

We didn't even know -- until it was over -- that Case #23299 was recalled to BC Supreme Court today or that the topics listed for discussion in Courtroom 75 would cover almost 8 pages. Consequently, no Citizen Journalists were in the public gallery taking notes and preparing to report on the event. Other regular journalists apparently didn't know about this hearing either and were on CKNW's Bill Good Show making ironic remarks about "conspiracy theories". Ironic, in the context of this trial.

That's the way this important trial has gone: on again, off again.

One of the topics in today's court listing is very new and very strange.

Defence is making an application "for an order staying the proceedings until AGBC [the Attorney-General of BC] provides [the] necessary funding for counsel".

Just guessing, of course, but does this mean that the BC Attorney General, Wally Oppal, is expected to pay all or a portion of the legal fees for the defence team? Who decided that? When? What terms?

Next pre-trial hearing for Basi, Virk, Basi Case #23299 is July 14 in Vancouver Supreme Court.

Hahahaha. Good one. When governments play GOTCHA, things are seldom what they seem.

"I won't sell BC Rail" means BCRail is sold.

Next hearing is July 14 means that it happened today, July 4 at 10:00 AM.

Only Aneal Basi and Bobby Virk are listed on today's Public Access Supreme Court Criminal List plus one line of "Limited Access and others" vs HMTQ for full disclosure.

And so we sit, hands folded, bags over heads, sweetly waiting to find out what happens next.

Because we now know that "Open and transparent" means government won't tell us anything because the matter is before the courts. That, we are beginning to realize, has actually worked out rather nicely for the man who doesn't want to tell us why he sold BC Rail.

So why is it that the poor AG is saddled with the new name of StoneWally ... not the man who actually made the decision to sell BCRail but won't release a sliver of info about it? - BC Mary.


Mary I would be careful in jumping to conclusions as the listing clearly does not name the participants. Just the name LIMITED ACCESS vs HMTQ. This may be a typo as these lists do not seem to be accuarate.
Dear Anonymouse 8:41,

I returned to the Supreme Court Listings after your advice and this strange listing about AGBC providing necessary funding for counsel does seem to be part of the Basi-Virk Case.

It carries the same designation (Case #23299 Basi, Virk, Basi)and it appears midway down Page 1, embedded right in the general listing of #23299 charges.

In addition, I'd like to know why it changes from the usual:

HMTQ vs Udhe S. Basi or "Limited Access"

and reverses itself to:

Limited Access vs HMTQ.

There are 3 of these entries altogether, on Page 1, Page 5, Page 7. The Basi Virk Basi list ends on Page 8.

I've asked around ... will let you know what I find out. Meantime, nobody is jumping to any conclusions.

Only a lawyer knows for sure the inner workings of the justice system in British Columbia.

If you want to, you can blow the first free hour with a lawyer from the yellow pages on this very subject, you might be able to squeeze out another hour by saying that you will mention him ony your blog. 70,011 hits, what better proof do you need to sell your case to them.
Talking of lobbyist BC Mary, have you checked out Sean Holman's article today on Meanwhile, on the home front ?
Check Van Court-Direct for today Friday July 4 2008 @10
Check van court direct for today Basi Virk @ 10
BTW - There is action in ole Studio 54 on the case 23299 front again today, if the lists are to be believed.

Sharp eyes Mary, spotting the funding for counsel bit, and I'm with you that it IS ABOUT the BBV litigation. I hate to think that the taxpayers are paying for this life time of stalling defense while Basi and his charming family live in the charming home so glowingly described by our fav Gary Mason!

Let's turn Basi's house into a homeless shelter, and they can have a corner room upstairs, if they need it. Ask not what your government can give to you...yada, yada...... If we are sponsoring the TOP DRAWER LEGAL TEAM, it is the least they can do to show their appreciation.
Smells like a 'young liberal' (or not so young) support, net-working for the next election... This is truly an atrocity!
"legal fees" for Basi/Virk being paid by the government is somewhat putting the cart before the horse.

First, or maybe we should say last (judgement), Basi/Virk would have to be found innocent of the charges, and of course we are all innocent until proven guilty.
Hansard -WEDNESDAY, MAY 19, 2004

J. MacPhail: .... We've discussed the indemnification policy around court actions in this House many times. In fact, the government, when they were in opposition, raised this over and over again. I know, Mr. Chair, because I had to answer the questions when I was in government.

What is the indemnification policy for political staff who may be charged in relation to their government duties? For those that may not be familiar with it, indemnification, as I understand it, means who is indemnified for covering the legal expenses if one is charged in relation to their government duties.


Hon. G. Campbell: I wanted to be sure that this was correct. Indemnities are available for elected officials and for staff, if in fact something takes place that is part of being in the course of their duties. If it is something that is outside of the course of their duties, there is no indemnity that's in place.

J. MacPhail: Is there anything in the legal arrangements of the severance of Mr. Basi, David Basi, that would prevent him from asking the government to pay legal fees if he is charged pursuant to his government activity as ministerial assistant to the Minister of Finance?

Hon. G. Campbell: Again, we're getting close to a hypothetical question here. Mr. Basi has not been charged, and neither has Mr. Virk been charged. In terms of people that are involved in the public service, if there is a legal action taken as a result of them exercising their public duties, then there would be some indemnification. If they are charged outside of their duties, there would be no indemnification. That's the simplest answer, Mr. Chair.

J. MacPhail: Isn't that interesting? Taxpayers may be on the hook for legal fees for both Mr. Virk and Mr. Basi, because of course the warrants that we know about so far are to do with them in their official capacity relating to government business. The Premier can't in any way tell me that his government, in severing Mr. Basi, dealt with that issue so that the taxpayer wouldn't be on the hook. That's just another great piece of news for the taxpayer around the whole B.C. Rail fiasco.


Back to the matter of selling BC Rail property to CN Rail within five years... same Hansard page....

J. MacPhail: Well, call me stupid; I don't understand a word of what the Premier has just said. I have no idea why five million to six million bucks had to be charged to register leases, register the title of land that B.C. Rail already owned, unless it was to prepare for the transfer of that title to CN. Is that the case?

Hon. G. Campbell: The short answer to the member's question is no, that is not the case. We consolidated it all so that we could have it in public ownership, as we said we would — the right-of-way, the railbed and the rails. It is now consolidated. Since we are entering into a long-term lease, over 30 years, we will now register the lease on that consolidated property.

J. MacPhail: Well, we know that after five years CN can purchase the Crown land on discontinued lines for a buck. For a buck they can do that. So it seems to me that the government has done all the nice little legal work, paid for it for itself to make sure the titles are all nice and clear — for the land that CN can purchase for a buck after five years.


Question to BC Mary: Has CN Rail intentionally discontinued lines so that they can buy the property for a buck?

Question to BC Mary: The consolidated land that BC (Rail) Properties is selling to Metro Vancouver to build a new sewage treatment plant on the North shore, for $15 million bucks, is it being taken out of the consolidation in the same fashion as that of lines on Agricultural Land Commission properties being moved for the benefits of developers and insiders (Chilliwack and Sooke)?
The likelihood is that the legal fees have been paid by the taxpayer all along, and that this is simply a fight over further funding.
Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home