Tuesday, January 06, 2009
The old Google Alert caper
.
For those who are interested, here's how the Globe and Mail article came into my possession today (January 6, 2009) although the story was dated May 15, 2007. I had asked Google to inform me when something is published on RCMP Sgt. Kevin DeBruyckere and a number of other topics, and so this was sent. My guess is that The Globe and Mail's name or address was corrected or touched in some way today, which may have resulted in it popping up as if new. Or maybe Camille Bains tossed it into the catalogue as being too good to discard. Google Alerts are very useful research tools.
Google Web Alert for: Rcmp, kevin DeBruyckere,
globeandmail.com: Top B.C. Liberal didn't want aide charged: lawyer
RCMP Insp. Kevin Debruyckere disclosed the relationship in a March 1, 2004, memo but that was three months after the raid on the legislature. ...
This as-it-happens Google Alert is brought to you by Google.
Remove this alert.
Create another alert.
Manage your alerts.
......................................................................................................................................
OK? And within 10 minutes of posting the story, the Google Alert service kicked into action and informed me of my own post. This is how Google Alerts are supposed to behave, not to wait 17 months. But note that the origins of my story, by contrast, are very clear. - BC Mary
Google Blogs Alert for: Rcmp, kevin DeBruyckere,
The Legislature Raids: RCMP, along with the special prosecutor, is ...
By BC Mary
RCMP Insp. Kevin Debruyckere disclosed the relationship in a March 1, 2004, memo but that was three months after the raid on the legislature. However, in a later affidavit, Mr. Debruyckere stated that he verbally told two Mounties about ...
The Legislature Raids - http://bctrialofbasi-virk.blogspot.com/
This as-it-happens Google Alert is brought to you by Google.
Remove this alert.
Create another alert.
Manage your alerts.
"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
For those who are interested, here's how the Globe and Mail article came into my possession today (January 6, 2009) although the story was dated May 15, 2007. I had asked Google to inform me when something is published on RCMP Sgt. Kevin DeBruyckere and a number of other topics, and so this was sent. My guess is that The Globe and Mail's name or address was corrected or touched in some way today, which may have resulted in it popping up as if new. Or maybe Camille Bains tossed it into the catalogue as being too good to discard. Google Alerts are very useful research tools.
Google Web Alert for: Rcmp, kevin DeBruyckere,
globeandmail.com: Top B.C. Liberal didn't want aide charged: lawyer
RCMP Insp. Kevin Debruyckere disclosed the relationship in a March 1, 2004, memo but that was three months after the raid on the legislature. ...
This as-it-happens Google Alert is brought to you by Google.
Remove this alert.
Create another alert.
Manage your alerts.
......................................................................................................................................
OK? And within 10 minutes of posting the story, the Google Alert service kicked into action and informed me of my own post. This is how Google Alerts are supposed to behave, not to wait 17 months. But note that the origins of my story, by contrast, are very clear. - BC Mary
Google Blogs Alert for: Rcmp, kevin DeBruyckere,
The Legislature Raids: RCMP, along with the special prosecutor, is ...
By BC Mary
RCMP Insp. Kevin Debruyckere disclosed the relationship in a March 1, 2004, memo but that was three months after the raid on the legislature. However, in a later affidavit, Mr. Debruyckere stated that he verbally told two Mounties about ...
The Legislature Raids - http://bctrialofbasi-virk.blogspot.com/
This as-it-happens Google Alert is brought to you by Google.
Remove this alert.
Create another alert.
Manage your alerts.
"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
Comments:
<< Home
globe and mail probably moved the article to a different page (for archiving purposes) and it registered a ping on googles spider
# posted by 
: January 6, 2009 at 6:29 p.m.
: January 6, 2009 at 6:29 p.m.
Happy New Year, Mary . . . just thought you'd be interested to know that I got the same pings on my pong as you did today re: the Google Alerts . . . hmmmm.
Something shifted. If you Google Camille on the Globe search she has over hundred articles. Funny that this article pinged right now as the time line approaches to the May election and the trial disclosure of docs continuing, isn't it?
Didn't I read that Camille is former Min. Gary Collins former wife and is not reporting on the Raid on the Leg case any more?
The plot thickens . . .
Something shifted. If you Google Camille on the Globe search she has over hundred articles. Funny that this article pinged right now as the time line approaches to the May election and the trial disclosure of docs continuing, isn't it?
Didn't I read that Camille is former Min. Gary Collins former wife and is not reporting on the Raid on the Leg case any more?
The plot thickens . . .
# posted by : January 6, 2009 at 9:39 p.m.
: January 6, 2009 at 9:39 p.m.
P.S. I stand to be corrected: I found out from someone whose brain is in gear that Gary's former wife is Wendy Cox NOT Camille. Sorry to both ladies!
# posted by : January 7, 2009 at 12:15 a.m.
: January 7, 2009 at 12:15 a.m.
second look--
Your second message is absolutely correct.
It is worth noting, however, that CP staffer Ms. Bains has, apparently, been reassigned and not replaced.
No word on whether Ms. Cox played any role in either decision.
However, given that she is CP's British Columbia bureau chief, it would it would not be unreasonable to consider the possibility that Ms. Cox might have been.
Involved, I mean.
.
Your second message is absolutely correct.
It is worth noting, however, that CP staffer Ms. Bains has, apparently, been reassigned and not replaced.
No word on whether Ms. Cox played any role in either decision.
However, given that she is CP's British Columbia bureau chief, it would it would not be unreasonable to consider the possibility that Ms. Cox might have been.
Involved, I mean.
.
BILL BERARDINO IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE DECISION TO TELEVISE HIS APPEAL TO THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA
Transparency should be in the public interest for Berardino
Mary,
You may recall my earlier posting regarding the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) televising court appearances. I have now received confirmation of the rules governing televising hearings at the SCC.
Under the rules established by the Supreme Court of Canada, most courtroom proceedings are televised by the Canadian Parliamentary Affairs Channel (CPAC). CPAC posts its schedule at its site: http://www.cpac.ca. The SCC courtroom is fully equipped with television cameras and equipment that are required to allow for quality productions. It is similar to the Hansard television broadcast in the BC Legislature and the House of Commons broadcasting services.
In this particluar case, Bill Berardino acts as the Appellant and must declare in writing to the SCC should he request NOT to allow the proceedings on April 22, 2009 to be televised. He must write to the SCC no less than two weeks prior to the April 22nd date, which would be April 2, 2009 (business days).
Contrary to those people who feel that there is absolutely no chance that this case can receive a televised hearing, they are simply wrong or misinformed. The rules of the SCC are clear and the public should be availed the opportunity to hear directly about the issues surrounding the secret witness. Televising this hearing is all in the name of a transparent prosecution that our justice system cries out for.
I hardly believe that the defence would offer any opinion on the televised hearing. Quite frankly, why would the defence even be concerned about a televised hearing as they are not the party that initiated this appeal? It is Berardino's decision, pure and simple.
The other compelling argument in favour of a televised hearing is that the public were allowed to attend the BC Court of Appeal which denied Bill Berardino's appeal of Justice Bennett's decision allowing the defence lawyers to be present during a hearing regarding the secret witness, under strict rules. This resulted in the Globe and Mail story that Berardino had stated he would not resile from protecting informer privielge even if that means dropping the case.
The BC Supreme Court hearing from December 2007 that began this series of appeals from Berardino, was closed to the public but once the facts of the secret witness were disclosed, the court decision was released publicly. The BC Court of Appeal heard arguments on the secret witness issue in June of 2008 and was open to the public. Therefore, if the BC Court of Appeal can hear this case in public, why can't the SCC televise this case to the people of BC? Who can afford to attend the hearing in Ottawa, aside from the taxpayer funded lawyers of course.
(Mary if this appeal by Berardino does get televised, you do realize that this would set a precedent in this case for other television opportunities.)
The bottom line is that the SCC hearings are open to the public. Anyone who simply does some basic research can find this out. The public may attend the Court’s hearings and can check the Court’s list of scheduled hearings under "Information on Cases". Hearings normally begin at 9:30 a.m.
So I guess we will wait to see if Bill Berardino writes to the SCC and requests that the hearing NOT be televised.
So Mr. Berardino, if the BC Court of Appeal can hear this case in public, what are you afraid of?
PG
Transparency should be in the public interest for Berardino
Mary,
You may recall my earlier posting regarding the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) televising court appearances. I have now received confirmation of the rules governing televising hearings at the SCC.
Under the rules established by the Supreme Court of Canada, most courtroom proceedings are televised by the Canadian Parliamentary Affairs Channel (CPAC). CPAC posts its schedule at its site: http://www.cpac.ca. The SCC courtroom is fully equipped with television cameras and equipment that are required to allow for quality productions. It is similar to the Hansard television broadcast in the BC Legislature and the House of Commons broadcasting services.
In this particluar case, Bill Berardino acts as the Appellant and must declare in writing to the SCC should he request NOT to allow the proceedings on April 22, 2009 to be televised. He must write to the SCC no less than two weeks prior to the April 22nd date, which would be April 2, 2009 (business days).
Contrary to those people who feel that there is absolutely no chance that this case can receive a televised hearing, they are simply wrong or misinformed. The rules of the SCC are clear and the public should be availed the opportunity to hear directly about the issues surrounding the secret witness. Televising this hearing is all in the name of a transparent prosecution that our justice system cries out for.
I hardly believe that the defence would offer any opinion on the televised hearing. Quite frankly, why would the defence even be concerned about a televised hearing as they are not the party that initiated this appeal? It is Berardino's decision, pure and simple.
The other compelling argument in favour of a televised hearing is that the public were allowed to attend the BC Court of Appeal which denied Bill Berardino's appeal of Justice Bennett's decision allowing the defence lawyers to be present during a hearing regarding the secret witness, under strict rules. This resulted in the Globe and Mail story that Berardino had stated he would not resile from protecting informer privielge even if that means dropping the case.
The BC Supreme Court hearing from December 2007 that began this series of appeals from Berardino, was closed to the public but once the facts of the secret witness were disclosed, the court decision was released publicly. The BC Court of Appeal heard arguments on the secret witness issue in June of 2008 and was open to the public. Therefore, if the BC Court of Appeal can hear this case in public, why can't the SCC televise this case to the people of BC? Who can afford to attend the hearing in Ottawa, aside from the taxpayer funded lawyers of course.
(Mary if this appeal by Berardino does get televised, you do realize that this would set a precedent in this case for other television opportunities.)
The bottom line is that the SCC hearings are open to the public. Anyone who simply does some basic research can find this out. The public may attend the Court’s hearings and can check the Court’s list of scheduled hearings under "Information on Cases". Hearings normally begin at 9:30 a.m.
So I guess we will wait to see if Bill Berardino writes to the SCC and requests that the hearing NOT be televised.
So Mr. Berardino, if the BC Court of Appeal can hear this case in public, what are you afraid of?
PG
# posted by : January 7, 2009 at 9:43 p.m.
: January 7, 2009 at 9:43 p.m.
April is the month that holds,
'National Victims Week' usually around April 20th...
April 22'09, A SCC hearing that pertains to the 'secert witness'!
April 27th 2009, conferrence at The Crowne Plaza Hotel, OTTAWA!!!
One has to be a registered victim (police file number), to qualify for compensation.
April 2004, BC, RCMP seized over 10 million $$$ from an unusual form of raising funds!???
'National Victims Week' usually around April 20th...
April 22'09, A SCC hearing that pertains to the 'secert witness'!
April 27th 2009, conferrence at The Crowne Plaza Hotel, OTTAWA!!!
One has to be a registered victim (police file number), to qualify for compensation.
April 2004, BC, RCMP seized over 10 million $$$ from an unusual form of raising funds!???
# posted by : January 8, 2009 at 9:36 a.m.
: January 8, 2009 at 9:36 a.m.
Mary I almost missed this important development!
I hope that Berardino does not oppose the televised hearing!
Great work - another reason to thank those citizen researchers!
Mary you should post this on your site so that no one can miss this important issue.
I hope that Berardino does not oppose the televised hearing!
Great work - another reason to thank those citizen researchers!
Mary you should post this on your site so that no one can miss this important issue.
# posted by : January 8, 2009 at 12:09 p.m.
: January 8, 2009 at 12:09 p.m.
Gazetteer, your comment above not only provided clarification, but was even more illuminating re: Wendy Cox and her interesting hmmmmm 'role' - in that she was Gary Collins former wife and is in the handy dandy position of being "CP's British Columbia bureau chief" . . .
You couldn't possibly be suggesting that Gary's former wife had some direct influence in yanking the journalist, Camille B. off the story line of the file that her former hubby is in the thick of. . . would you???
Such political screening just never, ever happens in our mainstream media where journalistic ethics and investigative reporting are priorities above any political/personal vested interests - right?
(Pause for rolling of eyes and fits of pained laughter . . . )
So it seems like Camille's reporting was a little too illuminating for certain say political interests perhaps?
. . . and the incestuous saga of the circle continues . . .
You couldn't possibly be suggesting that Gary's former wife had some direct influence in yanking the journalist, Camille B. off the story line of the file that her former hubby is in the thick of. . . would you???
Such political screening just never, ever happens in our mainstream media where journalistic ethics and investigative reporting are priorities above any political/personal vested interests - right?
(Pause for rolling of eyes and fits of pained laughter . . . )
So it seems like Camille's reporting was a little too illuminating for certain say political interests perhaps?
. . . and the incestuous saga of the circle continues . . .
# posted by : January 8, 2009 at 9:38 p.m.
: January 8, 2009 at 9:38 p.m.
". . . and the incestuous saga of the circle continues . . ."
I'm fine and dandy with the circle f***ing themselves and each other. I just wish they would quit screwing the rest of us!!!!!
Post a Comment
I'm fine and dandy with the circle f***ing themselves and each other. I just wish they would quit screwing the rest of us!!!!!
<< Home
