Thursday, July 10, 2008

 

BC Court of Appeals agrees with Basi Virk defence lawyers. Does this mean another delay, this time fatal, for the BCRail case?

.
Many thanks to our Citizen Journalists who reported in first: ...

Anonymous has left a new comment:

BREAKING NEWS BCTV AND KEITH BALDREY:THE APPEAL COURT IS AGREEING WITH THE DEFENCE. SPECIAL PROSECUTOR HAS LOST HIS APPEAL.THIS MEANS MORE DELAY. BERARDINO MAY DROP THE CASE TO PROTECT SECRET WITNESS.VERY BIG DEVELOPMENT.

Posted by Anonymous to The Legislature Raids at July 10, 2008 12:22 PM



Another Anonymous has left a new comment on your post:

Hi Mary,I just watched the noon news and Keith baldrey has announced that the court of appeals has just sided with the defence, that they (the defence) should be allowed to hear evidence of the secret witness which lead to speculation the special prosecutor will move on to the supreme court of Canada and delay the start of the trial for months and even until after the next election.


And Bill Tieleman has the story at http://billtieleman.blogspot.com/

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

Comments:
Hi Mary,

Bill T. has more.
 
Delay is certainly possible - Berardino wouldn't dare drop the case at this stage...his next move is to ask for leave to appeal to the supremes
 
Another day, more of Berardino's delay.

Put this trial off until after the next election.

Come on Bill Berardino - get on with it!
 
Just thinking about your p of v, g - west . . . however, with all due respect isn't there a a saying:

Desperate people do desperate things",

and the BC Govt and all of their 'agents' must be pretty darned "Desperate". . . right?

As you say, though if he Appeals to the SC of Canada, it would delay the truth surfacing before the next election as damage control, would it not?

Not only would the public be deprived of all of the smorgasbord of corruption to be able to weight their vote, but the major political stringholders would be saved from the carpet; probably indefinitely.

Further, if there are too many months of delay on top of the years of justice delays already, wouldn't that be a basis for the Defense to ask for the case to be dismissed?

If there is a 'dismissal', doesn't this effectively protect all of the bad guys, and do anything BUT protect the best interests of British Columbians for a long time to come?

And the result: business as usual led by the rules of the Campbell 'Club', unchecked.
 
secondlook,

I agree. From Campbell's point of view (notice I didn't say the 'Crown') there's no doubt that delay is the order of the day, and there has been speculation from almost the beginning of this thing that there was an agenda here which would be more than happy to have the case stayed or dismissed. In actual fact, I think the argument from the ‘Named Person’ case was weak when applied to these facts…

In some sense, it is the justice system and the rule of law on trial too...I just can't imagine that the special prosecutor would be the instigator of a move to dismiss on these grounds.

But, let's assume Berardino does appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada, there is also a possibility that leave to appeal may not be granted...in which case the trial would go ahead - despite the Premier's evident discomfiture at that outcome.

The strange thing here is why Basi and Virk haven't been more active in pressing the case for dismissal - even though the Government is likely covering all their bills, you'd think they might have had enough of this by now.

I keep wondering if there isn't another narrative going on behind the scenes. These guys were loyal lieutenants in the Campbell army...maybe they feel they were left to take the blame for doing little more than what they were told - the Boyz may have a little agenda of their own here.

Don't you think.
 
I need a little help here.

When they seek leave to appeal to the SCC do they seek it from the SCC or the Appeal Court in BC?

And I agree with G West Quote"I just can't imagine that the special prosecutor would be the instigator of a move to dismiss on these grounds." I think it would be folly. So if the application for dismissal were made, who would pressure for it.

Can the defence ask the SCC to fast track this if it is agreed to be heard in that court? Using the grounds of an accused right to a fair and timely trial.

And from what I have read so far these Boyz were "hung out to dry" and if that had happened to me you could bet your sweet bippy that I would use any means possible to expose those who had done this to me.
I realize they (or this rail sale) were exposed because of another matter but all the back room dealings, all the political interference, all of the non-disclosure, man that would be maddening.
 
g west wrote: "I keep wondering if there isn't another narrative going on behind the scenes. These guys were loyal lieutenants in the Campbell army...maybe they feel they were left to take the blame for doing little more than what they were told - the Boyz may have a little agenda of their own here."

Yes, g west I DO think you are right on all counts.

". . . if that had happened to me you could bet your sweet bippy that I would use any means possible to expose those who had done this to me." gary e - you got that right!

You were asking about 'dismissal' and WHO could get it: as g west was pondering: it IS puzzling that the Defense are not pushing for this 'exit stage left' - scratch head now!

. . . just maybe as again, g west states: "the Boyz may have a little agenda of their own" . .. . . perhaps not requesting a 'dismissal because of the "narrative" behind closed doors. . .
. . . just maybe using the continuation of the trial proceedings as big time, leverage in some negotiations to solidify their best interests,too.

After all, all sorts of information will pour forth in a trial and do either the Campbell puppeteers in the Govt. or the Defense really want ANY of it on display???

Yes, g west - I think you are right on the money, so to speak!

Again, g west you raise another brilliant angle: the Supreme Court may not accept the Appeal if SP Bill chooses this route - perhaps with a big 'delay' tactic in mind. Following along your path of reason, that's when the "narrative" & negotiations between the two sides might get red hot options to delay simply run dry - right - like there is a train coming down the track at both sides of the equation.

Isn't it true that very few cases are accepted from BC at the S Court of Canada and less now with new legislation on the books? - perhaps it is all about WHO one meets for coffee - that makes all the difference. . but as you say, if rejected, then the trial proceeds. You get 5 stars.

gary e, this may or may not answer your question about the SC of C; the legal beagles around can confirm this.
 
How many eons will it take for the SCC to decide whether or not to hear Wild Bill's whining, if indeed he chooses to pursue this to the end of forever.

Lawyers are supposed to have ethics and if the attorneys for Basi-Virk are allowed to know the identity of the super secret witnesses they are also OBLIGATED to protect the confidentiality, as long as the confidentiality/privilege is considered appropriate. I think the whole issue is B.S. and just an elaborate stalling tactic, but then who am I, I'm not a part of the "circle."

It's becoming increasingly clear that justice is a quaint and extinct notion dating from before the rise of the neo-con privateers on both sides of the 49th.
 
Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link



<< Home