Saturday, July 18, 2009
BC Rail, the missing computer records and The 7th Search Warrant
.
from hansard, May 19, 2004 afternoon sitting:
J. MacPhail: (Leader of the Opposition) ... No one is going to compromise a police investigation, so I'm not quite sure why the Premier says anything about the politics of it. No one is going to compromise a police investigation.
There was a seventh warrant that wasn't part of the original summary of warrants dealing with the e-correspondence — a raid on the computer files of government that were seized and have yet to be summarized and released. Am I correct in that? There were discussions going on between the government and the police and the courts about cabinet confidentiality in the release of the e-correspondence — the computer files that were seized as well. Am I correct that the summary of that warrant has not been released yet?
Hon. G. Campbell: (Premier) I don't believe it has, Mr. Chair. I don't know the answer, other than I don't believe it has.
J. MacPhail: The government is involved in the discussions about cabinet confidentiality, etc. It's not a question that is unfair to ask the Premier. It is through his government and, I think, cabinet operations that the discussions are ongoing about what can be released or not. Can the Premier update us on those discussions?
Hon. G. Campbell: I understand there is a package of information which is effectively being reviewed by the deputy cabinet secretary, the special prosecutor and the judge. The judge is now reviewing that information and deciding what the judge believes should be released. To my knowledge, nothing yet has been released.
J. MacPhail: Yes. It is on that basis that the RCMP can't and won't make any conclusion that government business, including the B.C. Rail main-line sale, is not involved. They can't reach that conclusion until that warrant is fully executed and the summary released.
Now, let me just read the warrant again — the summary of the search warrants, the first batch of search warrants that have been released. That doesn't
include the seventh warrant dealing with the computer files in government. It says:
"…whether official 1 and official 2 were offered and/or accepted personal benefits…in connection with government business, including B.C. Rail…and whether these officials…passed unauthorized confidential information to persons interested in government business for the purpose of obtaining a benefit."
I think it came as quite a shock to people when the Premier responded to that court summary by saying: "It is clear from the court summary that this is a personal issue; it is not an issue with government; it is not an issue with any elected official in government." Upon what basis did the Premier make that statement?
Hon. G. Campbell: First, Mr. Chair, I think you just have to read the warrants. They speak for themselves. Second, I think it's important to note that…. I'm trying to find the date that this statement was made.
J. MacPhail: March 2.
Hon. G. Campbell: It was a little later than March 2. In the middle of March — I don't see the exact date — it was pointed out by the Minister of Transportation that: "We have no information to suggest that the successful proponent, CN, has come into possession of any information that would undermine the outcome of the B.C. Rail–CN partnership." That statement was approved by the RCMP.
I think it's important to note that, in fact, there has been no suggestion that there was anything to taint the B.C. Rail investment partnership. I think it's also important to note that the fairness commissioner reviewed all of the documentation with regard to the investment partnership and in fact described the arrangement and the agreement that had been come to as utterly fair. British Columbia taxpayers had got fair value. As well, it had been a fair and open process. The two competitors in that have also agreed that, in fact, there was no reason to suggest anything went wrong.
I am confident in it. I think it's clear from the warrants. The warrants, as the member opposite read out earlier, have to do with official 1 and official 2 and if, in fact, there were any personal benefits. That has nothing to do whatsoever with the B.C. Rail investment partnership.
J. MacPhail: My question wasn't involving the B.C. Rail partnership deal. We have already stated that the government itself claims there is no information as of March 10 to say that the B.C. Rail deal — the main-line sale — was involved. Yet the seventh warrant, which involves all of the computer files of government, hasn't even been completely searched yet.
Maybe at that point that's the case, but on March 2 the Premier is claiming that passing unauthorized confidential information to persons interested in government business for the purpose of obtaining a benefit doesn't have anything to do with government. Well, isn't that nice?
Government officials — the Minister of Finance office's main man and the MA for the Minister of Transportation, who sat at confidential meetings of the steering committee responsible for the sale of the main line of B.C. Rail, and the same man shepherding the drafting and approval of the legislation through government that sells B.C. Rail…. Those are the two officials, and somehow it's personal? It's not about government? The warrant itself says it's about government business, and the Premier says this is a personal issue?
Just the day after the Premier made that statement, here's what the Minister of Transportation said. He tells the media on March 3, upon being questioned about the differential treatment between Dave Basi, the Minister of Finance's MA, and Bob Virk, the Minister of Transportation's ministerial assistant, that it was because: "In the one case, they — the Premier's office — felt that there were serious enough allegations being presented by the RCMP to terminate, and the other was much less clear."
Let's be complete here. The next day the same minister stood up and said he was wrong, and he withdrew his comments. When I questioned the minister in estimates about that, his advice about that came from the Minister of Finance, who said: "We don't discuss personnel matters."
What did the Premier's office determine? What did Martyn Brown determine? Over what period of time? What did Martyn Brown determine about the future of Dave Basi and Bob Virk, and over what period of time?
""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
Thanks to "Lynx" for this posting. - BC Mary.
"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
from hansard, May 19, 2004 afternoon sitting:
J. MacPhail: (Leader of the Opposition) ... No one is going to compromise a police investigation, so I'm not quite sure why the Premier says anything about the politics of it. No one is going to compromise a police investigation.
There was a seventh warrant that wasn't part of the original summary of warrants dealing with the e-correspondence — a raid on the computer files of government that were seized and have yet to be summarized and released. Am I correct in that? There were discussions going on between the government and the police and the courts about cabinet confidentiality in the release of the e-correspondence — the computer files that were seized as well. Am I correct that the summary of that warrant has not been released yet?
Hon. G. Campbell: (Premier) I don't believe it has, Mr. Chair. I don't know the answer, other than I don't believe it has.
J. MacPhail: The government is involved in the discussions about cabinet confidentiality, etc. It's not a question that is unfair to ask the Premier. It is through his government and, I think, cabinet operations that the discussions are ongoing about what can be released or not. Can the Premier update us on those discussions?
Hon. G. Campbell: I understand there is a package of information which is effectively being reviewed by the deputy cabinet secretary, the special prosecutor and the judge. The judge is now reviewing that information and deciding what the judge believes should be released. To my knowledge, nothing yet has been released.
J. MacPhail: Yes. It is on that basis that the RCMP can't and won't make any conclusion that government business, including the B.C. Rail main-line sale, is not involved. They can't reach that conclusion until that warrant is fully executed and the summary released.
Now, let me just read the warrant again — the summary of the search warrants, the first batch of search warrants that have been released. That doesn't
include the seventh warrant dealing with the computer files in government. It says:
"…whether official 1 and official 2 were offered and/or accepted personal benefits…in connection with government business, including B.C. Rail…and whether these officials…passed unauthorized confidential information to persons interested in government business for the purpose of obtaining a benefit."
I think it came as quite a shock to people when the Premier responded to that court summary by saying: "It is clear from the court summary that this is a personal issue; it is not an issue with government; it is not an issue with any elected official in government." Upon what basis did the Premier make that statement?
Hon. G. Campbell: First, Mr. Chair, I think you just have to read the warrants. They speak for themselves. Second, I think it's important to note that…. I'm trying to find the date that this statement was made.
J. MacPhail: March 2.
Hon. G. Campbell: It was a little later than March 2. In the middle of March — I don't see the exact date — it was pointed out by the Minister of Transportation that: "We have no information to suggest that the successful proponent, CN, has come into possession of any information that would undermine the outcome of the B.C. Rail–CN partnership." That statement was approved by the RCMP.
I think it's important to note that, in fact, there has been no suggestion that there was anything to taint the B.C. Rail investment partnership. I think it's also important to note that the fairness commissioner reviewed all of the documentation with regard to the investment partnership and in fact described the arrangement and the agreement that had been come to as utterly fair. British Columbia taxpayers had got fair value. As well, it had been a fair and open process. The two competitors in that have also agreed that, in fact, there was no reason to suggest anything went wrong.
I am confident in it. I think it's clear from the warrants. The warrants, as the member opposite read out earlier, have to do with official 1 and official 2 and if, in fact, there were any personal benefits. That has nothing to do whatsoever with the B.C. Rail investment partnership.
J. MacPhail: My question wasn't involving the B.C. Rail partnership deal. We have already stated that the government itself claims there is no information as of March 10 to say that the B.C. Rail deal — the main-line sale — was involved. Yet the seventh warrant, which involves all of the computer files of government, hasn't even been completely searched yet.
Maybe at that point that's the case, but on March 2 the Premier is claiming that passing unauthorized confidential information to persons interested in government business for the purpose of obtaining a benefit doesn't have anything to do with government. Well, isn't that nice?
Government officials — the Minister of Finance office's main man and the MA for the Minister of Transportation, who sat at confidential meetings of the steering committee responsible for the sale of the main line of B.C. Rail, and the same man shepherding the drafting and approval of the legislation through government that sells B.C. Rail…. Those are the two officials, and somehow it's personal? It's not about government? The warrant itself says it's about government business, and the Premier says this is a personal issue?
Just the day after the Premier made that statement, here's what the Minister of Transportation said. He tells the media on March 3, upon being questioned about the differential treatment between Dave Basi, the Minister of Finance's MA, and Bob Virk, the Minister of Transportation's ministerial assistant, that it was because: "In the one case, they — the Premier's office — felt that there were serious enough allegations being presented by the RCMP to terminate, and the other was much less clear."
Let's be complete here. The next day the same minister stood up and said he was wrong, and he withdrew his comments. When I questioned the minister in estimates about that, his advice about that came from the Minister of Finance, who said: "We don't discuss personnel matters."
What did the Premier's office determine? What did Martyn Brown determine? Over what period of time? What did Martyn Brown determine about the future of Dave Basi and Bob Virk, and over what period of time?
""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
Thanks to "Lynx" for this posting. - BC Mary.
"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
Comments:
<< Home
Interesting to me how many names mentioned in that passage of Hansard actually submitted affidavits to the court through the good Mr. Copley regarding the (apparently) missing/destroyed RailGate E-mails.
.
.
interesting how CENSORED this blog has become when ever you mention that this has to do with Basi and the multitude of charges against him.
Has Basi Lawyer cautioned you BC MARY? Has he warned or threatened YOU? Has Campbell?
Has Basi Lawyer cautioned you BC MARY? Has he warned or threatened YOU? Has Campbell?
# posted by 
: July 18, 2009 at 8:59 p.m.
: July 18, 2009 at 8:59 p.m.
That wasnt the question put forward, and which you chose to not answer.
The question was: "Has Basi Lawyer cautioned you BC MARY?"
Obviously I cannot show you a message that has removed, ie censored.
The question was: "Has Basi Lawyer cautioned you BC MARY?"
Obviously I cannot show you a message that has removed, ie censored.
# posted by : July 19, 2009 at 6:46 a.m.
: July 19, 2009 at 6:46 a.m.
Sarabjit Nagra, president of the Victoria Sikh temple, said he was protecting the honour of the Indo-Canadian community when he accused the media of racist coverage of the circumstances surrounding the Dec. 28 raid.
"I'm defending the Indo-Canadian (community) and you guys are referring to Basi Boys, and I'm also saying if it was a white guy you wouldn't have this story in the paper every day," Nagra said.
http://bclobbyist.com/news/tc_200104.pdf
And so they ALL backed off.
"I'm defending the Indo-Canadian (community) and you guys are referring to Basi Boys, and I'm also saying if it was a white guy you wouldn't have this story in the paper every day," Nagra said.
http://bclobbyist.com/news/tc_200104.pdf
And so they ALL backed off.
# posted by : July 19, 2009 at 7:22 a.m.
: July 19, 2009 at 7:22 a.m.
.
Hmmm. OK, 6:46 ... I'll try to answer a question about an event that never happened ... but believe me, I got better things to do.
This blog is about BCRail. The trial of Basi, Virk, and Basi offers British Columbia the best chance of finding out what happened to BC Rail.
And it's important to understand what happened to BC Rail because similar things happened to BC Hydro and other huge, significant publicly-owned British Columbia assets.
A warning from ANYBODY in the Supreme Courtroom would be news, highly relevant to the BVB-BCRail trial. You suggest that I am concealing that news? Good grief, do I look like Gordon Campbell? Huh. Nice compliment, I must say.
Why in the world would I suppress anything related to the BCRail Case?
How about you ask Big Media why they didn't publish anything -- anything at all -- about the trial of Jasmohan Bains? I broke the story; Big Media didn't. Think about that.
Comments to this blog are deleted only when they are completely off-topic or fail in some way to add to our understanding of what happened to BC Rail.
Please note: honestly-held opinions are welcome; but bickering isn't. Nit-picking, fault-finding, bullying aren't welcome either. This is my blog so I can delete anytime it seems appropriate. But "censoring"? Come on ...
To answer your silly question: I'm not in contact with Dave Basi's lawyer -- although I did write a polite letter to each of the 3 defence lawyers asking if they would approve of having a TV camera (non-commercial) in the courtroom during such an important trial, so that British Columbians in all corners of the province can hear the evidence produced. It's been a couple of years and I'm still waiting for a reply. Let me assure you that if I ever receive a reply, I'll post that information on The Legislature Raids. I repeat: why wouldn't I?
So how about you answer that question: What have I ever said about Basi, Virk, or Basi that you think would disturb them or their lawyers?
This blog is about BC Rail.
.
Hmmm. OK, 6:46 ... I'll try to answer a question about an event that never happened ... but believe me, I got better things to do.
This blog is about BCRail. The trial of Basi, Virk, and Basi offers British Columbia the best chance of finding out what happened to BC Rail.
And it's important to understand what happened to BC Rail because similar things happened to BC Hydro and other huge, significant publicly-owned British Columbia assets.
A warning from ANYBODY in the Supreme Courtroom would be news, highly relevant to the BVB-BCRail trial. You suggest that I am concealing that news? Good grief, do I look like Gordon Campbell? Huh. Nice compliment, I must say.
Why in the world would I suppress anything related to the BCRail Case?
How about you ask Big Media why they didn't publish anything -- anything at all -- about the trial of Jasmohan Bains? I broke the story; Big Media didn't. Think about that.
Comments to this blog are deleted only when they are completely off-topic or fail in some way to add to our understanding of what happened to BC Rail.
Please note: honestly-held opinions are welcome; but bickering isn't. Nit-picking, fault-finding, bullying aren't welcome either. This is my blog so I can delete anytime it seems appropriate. But "censoring"? Come on ...
To answer your silly question: I'm not in contact with Dave Basi's lawyer -- although I did write a polite letter to each of the 3 defence lawyers asking if they would approve of having a TV camera (non-commercial) in the courtroom during such an important trial, so that British Columbians in all corners of the province can hear the evidence produced. It's been a couple of years and I'm still waiting for a reply. Let me assure you that if I ever receive a reply, I'll post that information on The Legislature Raids. I repeat: why wouldn't I?
So how about you answer that question: What have I ever said about Basi, Virk, or Basi that you think would disturb them or their lawyers?
This blog is about BC Rail.
.
I apprecaite the coverage in respect of Jas Bains. Huge kudos to you; great pick-up. This goes to the root of suspicion in that Big Media appears absent in respect of coverage of this trial and those connected to it.
Has anyone asked Global or CanWest why their coverage is so pathetic?
If so, what was their response?
TO answer your question of me if you have ever said anything about Basi, Virk, or Basi that I think would disturb them or their lawyers, I dont know. Only you would be privy to that sort of information, not I.
If there was such a message that Basi's lawyers were offended by, you would have, ostensibly, deleted it, or not.
With all due respect, I didnt ask you if you were in contact with Basi's lawyer. You have provided an answer to a question not asked.
I did ask twice and will ask again if Basi's Lawyer ever cautioned you in respect of messages contained in your blog.
Have they?
If so, what did they say and what was your response?
Which messages, if any, specifically offended them, or was the import of their concern, if there were any concern, of a general nature?
Have the offending messages, if there were any, been deleted?
Thank you for your anticipated and timely response.
Has anyone asked Global or CanWest why their coverage is so pathetic?
If so, what was their response?
TO answer your question of me if you have ever said anything about Basi, Virk, or Basi that I think would disturb them or their lawyers, I dont know. Only you would be privy to that sort of information, not I.
If there was such a message that Basi's lawyers were offended by, you would have, ostensibly, deleted it, or not.
With all due respect, I didnt ask you if you were in contact with Basi's lawyer. You have provided an answer to a question not asked.
I did ask twice and will ask again if Basi's Lawyer ever cautioned you in respect of messages contained in your blog.
Have they?
If so, what did they say and what was your response?
Which messages, if any, specifically offended them, or was the import of their concern, if there were any concern, of a general nature?
Have the offending messages, if there were any, been deleted?
Thank you for your anticipated and timely response.
# posted by : July 19, 2009 at 9:16 a.m.
: July 19, 2009 at 9:16 a.m.
.
Yes, 9:16, I did answer your silly question.
Pay attention. There are 1,100 posts on this blog which are open and available for you to read.
When you've done that, try again to tell me that I am withholding information about Basi, Virk, or Basi. But don't ask me to spoon-feed you any further nonsense about something which never happened.
Got that? never happened.
.
Yes, 9:16, I did answer your silly question.
Pay attention. There are 1,100 posts on this blog which are open and available for you to read.
When you've done that, try again to tell me that I am withholding information about Basi, Virk, or Basi. But don't ask me to spoon-feed you any further nonsense about something which never happened.
Got that? never happened.
.
I am paying attention while you continue to deflect the question.
I dont doubt there are 1,100 posts on this blog. But what of the ones you have deleted?
Where any of those deleted becuase of a letter received from Basi's lawyer?
Now back to my original quesiton, one which you seem uncomfortable answering, so I will rephrase it so that a yes or no answer will suffice:
HAS BASI'S LAWYER EVER CAUTIONED YOU IN RESPECT OF MESSAGE(S) CONTAINED ON YOUR BLOG?
I dont doubt there are 1,100 posts on this blog. But what of the ones you have deleted?
Where any of those deleted becuase of a letter received from Basi's lawyer?
Now back to my original quesiton, one which you seem uncomfortable answering, so I will rephrase it so that a yes or no answer will suffice:
HAS BASI'S LAWYER EVER CAUTIONED YOU IN RESPECT OF MESSAGE(S) CONTAINED ON YOUR BLOG?
# posted by : July 19, 2009 at 9:38 a.m.
: July 19, 2009 at 9:38 a.m.
.
NO, you silly goof.
Jeez, you look at 1,100 posts and you can still fixate on a figment of your own imagination -- a "letter received from Basi's lawyer" -- why? If you know something we don't know, tell us honestly, straight out.
You are coming across like a bully, you know that, don't you?
I refrain from asking you a similar, time-honoured question: have you stopped beating your wife?
Why refrain? Because I don't care much, about what you may answer. So far, you are off-topic, adding nothing to our understanding of the BC Rail Case, and I'd frankly prefer to hear no more from you, if this is the best you can do.
On the other hand, I'm curious as to why you think BC Mary owes you(Mr Anonymous) a duty of care ... how come?
.
NO, you silly goof.
Jeez, you look at 1,100 posts and you can still fixate on a figment of your own imagination -- a "letter received from Basi's lawyer" -- why? If you know something we don't know, tell us honestly, straight out.
You are coming across like a bully, you know that, don't you?
I refrain from asking you a similar, time-honoured question: have you stopped beating your wife?
Why refrain? Because I don't care much, about what you may answer. So far, you are off-topic, adding nothing to our understanding of the BC Rail Case, and I'd frankly prefer to hear no more from you, if this is the best you can do.
On the other hand, I'm curious as to why you think BC Mary owes you(Mr Anonymous) a duty of care ... how come?
.
Not my intention to come across as a bully. I appologize for hurting your feelings if you feel that way.
Have I stopped beating my wife?
You presume I am a man. Nevertheless, that question does not deserve a response.
In respect of your other question, since BC Mary professes to be careful in what is posted on her blog, I have to conclude that in her mind she owes a duty of care, niot just to myself, but the pub.ic.
But all that aside, I simply asked you a clear and unambigous question that you apparently had difficulty answering.
I thank you for finally responding with a proper answer.
Have I stopped beating my wife?
You presume I am a man. Nevertheless, that question does not deserve a response.
In respect of your other question, since BC Mary professes to be careful in what is posted on her blog, I have to conclude that in her mind she owes a duty of care, niot just to myself, but the pub.ic.
But all that aside, I simply asked you a clear and unambigous question that you apparently had difficulty answering.
I thank you for finally responding with a proper answer.
# posted by : July 19, 2009 at 10:18 a.m.
: July 19, 2009 at 10:18 a.m.
.
10:18,
Omg ... "hurting my feelings" ... you know, don't you, that this is what men say to women? It's an old-fashioned, underhanded way of saying that a woman is emotional, incapable of an intelligent discourse, is subject to "hurt feelings" ... Jeez.
Get with the times. You don't know for sure that BC Mary is a woman, of course, but BC Mary can resent very keenly the little game you've just played with a serious topic.
BC Mary can profoundly resent that you manage to put the blame upon BC Mary "for feeling that way" and none for yourself(Anonymous) for coming back again and again with a spurious question about my integrity. Your question had no substance whatever and you know it.
Now, how about it: do you have information about BC Rail ... or, for that matter, about Basi, Virk, or Basi, that we should know?
If not, what was this snarky little game all about?
.
10:18,
Omg ... "hurting my feelings" ... you know, don't you, that this is what men say to women? It's an old-fashioned, underhanded way of saying that a woman is emotional, incapable of an intelligent discourse, is subject to "hurt feelings" ... Jeez.
Get with the times. You don't know for sure that BC Mary is a woman, of course, but BC Mary can resent very keenly the little game you've just played with a serious topic.
BC Mary can profoundly resent that you manage to put the blame upon BC Mary "for feeling that way" and none for yourself(Anonymous) for coming back again and again with a spurious question about my integrity. Your question had no substance whatever and you know it.
Now, how about it: do you have information about BC Rail ... or, for that matter, about Basi, Virk, or Basi, that we should know?
If not, what was this snarky little game all about?
.
Does the apparently retarded anonomouse repeatedly chasing his own tail have an agenda, or it he/she/it just confused?
I think Mary answered your "question" almost immediately, but I guess you can't read. SHE SAID THAT SHE WROTE TO EACH DEFENDANT'S LAWYER AND NEVER HEARD FROM THEM IN about TWO YEARS.
I feel like I need to go to double CAPS w/BOLD & ITALIC just to help you comprehend!
Mary doesn't owe you any care, and frankly I'm surprised she even published your wacko and Off Topic comments, but she does try to exercise impartiality, fairness and a bias towards the TRUTH and the interests of the typical citizen of BC.
I think Mary answered your "question" almost immediately, but I guess you can't read. SHE SAID THAT SHE WROTE TO EACH DEFENDANT'S LAWYER AND NEVER HEARD FROM THEM IN about TWO YEARS.
I feel like I need to go to double CAPS w/BOLD & ITALIC just to help you comprehend!
Mary doesn't owe you any care, and frankly I'm surprised she even published your wacko and Off Topic comments, but she does try to exercise impartiality, fairness and a bias towards the TRUTH and the interests of the typical citizen of BC.
Responding to Anonymous 7:22 (scroll up, up) ...
Mary,
I think it's a ridiculous comment.
This isn't about the 'brown' guys! It's about a white guy with white hair who may very well have ordered the brown guys to do what may well be illegal and is certainly unethical.
The commenter hasn't been paying attention, it's the brown guys' lawyers who're using that argument AGAINST the establishment white guys in suits.
The brown guys WANT this information - without it THEY CAN"T defend themselves and THEN the WHITE GUYS in suits just win again....
Mary,
I think it's a ridiculous comment.
This isn't about the 'brown' guys! It's about a white guy with white hair who may very well have ordered the brown guys to do what may well be illegal and is certainly unethical.
The commenter hasn't been paying attention, it's the brown guys' lawyers who're using that argument AGAINST the establishment white guys in suits.
The brown guys WANT this information - without it THEY CAN"T defend themselves and THEN the WHITE GUYS in suits just win again....
# posted by : July 19, 2009 at 11:36 a.m.
: July 19, 2009 at 11:36 a.m.
"....Has Basi Lawyer cautioned you BC MARY? Has he warned or threatened YOU? Has Campbell?...."
Anyone who reads The Legislature Raid blog knows that the only person who has sent his lawyer after those who seek the truth on how BC Rail was disposed of, has been Progressive Holdings CEO.
The NDP was censured just before the election writ was issued, which goes a long way to explaining why the BC Liberals sent our historical Executive Council emails to be shredded within the same time frame as the lawyer was strutting his threat of a lawsuit on behalf of his client(s).
If the government/RCMP can't recover those email files then the recipients/initiators of those files should be made accountable to the Courts. LOL of course.
What fool who had paid a mere $1 billion for a railway system that is worth $2.4 billion, that was the third largest in North America, who is now the owner for 900 years of utility/real estate encroachments on active rail lines property, would keep such emails on file unless of course as a means of blackmail....... did I say blackmail. The government has shredded their documents; the partner hasn't?????
Anyone who reads The Legislature Raid blog knows that the only person who has sent his lawyer after those who seek the truth on how BC Rail was disposed of, has been Progressive Holdings CEO.
The NDP was censured just before the election writ was issued, which goes a long way to explaining why the BC Liberals sent our historical Executive Council emails to be shredded within the same time frame as the lawyer was strutting his threat of a lawsuit on behalf of his client(s).
If the government/RCMP can't recover those email files then the recipients/initiators of those files should be made accountable to the Courts. LOL of course.
What fool who had paid a mere $1 billion for a railway system that is worth $2.4 billion, that was the third largest in North America, who is now the owner for 900 years of utility/real estate encroachments on active rail lines property, would keep such emails on file unless of course as a means of blackmail....... did I say blackmail. The government has shredded their documents; the partner hasn't?????
# posted by : July 19, 2009 at 12:18 p.m.
: July 19, 2009 at 12:18 p.m.
I'm still wondering why Anonymous thinks that the Basi's lawyer would really care what is written here, or anywhere else.While I'm sure that many people involved in this case would just love all this chatter and investigation in the blog world to disappear,it hasn't and it won't.
If Basi's lawyer had written a warning to BC Mary,I'm guessing that would be an entire blog post in itself " Anonymous".
If Basi's lawyer had written a warning to BC Mary,I'm guessing that would be an entire blog post in itself " Anonymous".
Laila its simple. It comes down to who is the primary target of a lawsuit.
The first person that says, prints, via any communication device, something that could be construed as defamation, is on the hook for an appointment with the judge.... or settle out of court.
All others who repeat the same statement, are untouchable, because the first person who said it put it out to the "universe", he's put it into the public domain where others might say "Hey! I didn't know he did that." (yet to be proven in court) and I'm going to print why the public court time is being spent on such matters because it will make the newspaper sales take a jump out of the red and into the black.
Remember the Times Colonist editorial cartoonist Bob Bierman portraying provincial politician Bill Vander Zalm pulling wings off of flies? (NOTE: he never did pull wings off of flies) The cartoonist/Canwest lost in court in the first go around, but Bierman responded in an appeal and the judges decided that it was a fair comment and represented the cartoonist's honest opinion. Ever since, Vander Zalm is never seen with fly wings between his finger tips, but a live fly is buzzing around his head.
Does the public remember the live fly or does it act as a subliminal message of the editorial cartoon that portrayed Bill Bennett's Human Resources Minister gleefully picking wings of flies?
Its like my telling you not to think of a white horse....you just did, didn't you!
For more info
The first person that says, prints, via any communication device, something that could be construed as defamation, is on the hook for an appointment with the judge.... or settle out of court.
All others who repeat the same statement, are untouchable, because the first person who said it put it out to the "universe", he's put it into the public domain where others might say "Hey! I didn't know he did that." (yet to be proven in court) and I'm going to print why the public court time is being spent on such matters because it will make the newspaper sales take a jump out of the red and into the black.
Remember the Times Colonist editorial cartoonist Bob Bierman portraying provincial politician Bill Vander Zalm pulling wings off of flies? (NOTE: he never did pull wings off of flies) The cartoonist/Canwest lost in court in the first go around, but Bierman responded in an appeal and the judges decided that it was a fair comment and represented the cartoonist's honest opinion. Ever since, Vander Zalm is never seen with fly wings between his finger tips, but a live fly is buzzing around his head.
Does the public remember the live fly or does it act as a subliminal message of the editorial cartoon that portrayed Bill Bennett's Human Resources Minister gleefully picking wings of flies?
Its like my telling you not to think of a white horse....you just did, didn't you!
For more info
# posted by : July 19, 2009 at 2:17 p.m.
: July 19, 2009 at 2:17 p.m.
Anonymous 11:36 AM, wasnt it the brown govt employees who took 50K from the white developers? or did the white developers just give away their money to the brown goverment employees? and how was anyone else involved at all in that, or were they ordered to engage in foolish risky and probably illegal behavoirs?
when i get fooledd once, shame on you. when i get fooled 2 and 3 and 4 times, shame on me.
just speculating; speculating is fun after all.
when i get fooledd once, shame on you. when i get fooled 2 and 3 and 4 times, shame on me.
just speculating; speculating is fun after all.
# posted by : July 19, 2009 at 3:40 p.m.
: July 19, 2009 at 3:40 p.m.
brown and white???
gee, do we call the former AG who lost his election in Delta a brown mLa and the new AG a whitey..... whatever happened to multicultural canadian citizens being noted of where their ancestory hailed from based on geography and not on the colour of their skin.
gee, do we call the former AG who lost his election in Delta a brown mLa and the new AG a whitey..... whatever happened to multicultural canadian citizens being noted of where their ancestory hailed from based on geography and not on the colour of their skin.
# posted by : July 19, 2009 at 4:53 p.m.
: July 19, 2009 at 4:53 p.m.
http://www.timescolonist.com/Judge+make+ruling+Basi+Virk+case/1807119/story.html
# posted by : July 20, 2009 at 12:55 a.m.
: July 20, 2009 at 12:55 a.m.
Who is Bob and Peter from the seized document in the raid on the legislature....? Page 7 of 17; item 22
http://www.bcndpcaucus.ca/files/BCR05ConsPriDoc/6-Coley0801.pdf
"To Bob from Peter"
Bob is Bob Virk and Peter is ....Peter Pan
http://www.bcndpcaucus.ca/files/BCR05ConsPriDoc/6-Coley0801.pdf
"To Bob from Peter"
Bob is Bob Virk and Peter is ....Peter Pan
# posted by : July 20, 2009 at 7:30 a.m.
: July 20, 2009 at 7:30 a.m.
fool the fly that was getting it's wing's pulled off was representing what vander scam was doing to us wake up!
Post a Comment
# posted by : July 21, 2009 at 7:39 a.m.
: July 21, 2009 at 7:39 a.m. << Home
