Friday, September 04, 2009
A System in Decay. Two trials in one court. The BC Rail Scandal
.
A Day in the B.C. Supreme Court (Sept. 2, 2009).
By Robin Mathews
The BC Rail Scandal court action began, ostensibly, with search warrant “raids” on B.C. legislature offices, December 28, 2003. A full year of further investigation ended with 14 charges against two highly placed Gordon Campbell cabinet aides and one information officer. The charges were, variously, for fraud, breach of trust, and money laundering. They were laid in December of 2004.
A statement was made very soon after the raids that no elected official was being (or, apparently would be) investigated.
The men are alleged - being under oath of confidentiality - to have traded information for benefit in relation to a part of the “negotiations” that were going on in what is now generally agreed to have been the corrupt sale of BC Rail by the Gordon Campbell forces to CN Rail.
(By now a full-scale, wide-open Public Inquiry should have been launched into the allegedly astonishingly tainted goings-on and to their relation to other, on-going alleged breaches of trust by the Gordon Campbell government. But since government controls such an undertaken, an Inquiry has not occurred.)
As a number of people have (wishfully?) remarked: “the essence of the case is whether a few highly-placed cabinet aides, possessing confidential information, traded that information for benefit. Did they or did they not? Why can’t the trial begin?”
They go on to say: “What is the Defence doing? Are they placing application after application after application for disclosure of materials that ‘may be relevant’ to the defence of their clients simply to delay and to exhaust the court which will be forced, eventually, to enter a ‘stay of proceedings’ and end the whole thing (in mid-air) because of mistrial?”
That question cannot be answered resoundingly, of course. But the more than three years of pre-trial hearings have resulted in applications for disclosure – and resulting disclosure which has – more and more – led observers to believe that whatever wrong-doing the three accused may have been engaged in, the story of BC Rail Scandal corruption is gigantically larger than the three men charged.
Many observers have been led to believe the gigantic difference is shaped by what seems to have been a concerted, carefully constructed set of inter-agency manipulations to mislead the British Columbia people and to create unreal (and, perhaps, essentially fraudulent) arguments for the off-loading of BC Rail.
Evidence has grown, in addition, to reinforce the argument that the Gordon Campbell government intended - before any “open competition” for the purchase of BC Rail began - to hand it to CN Rail whatever other bids came in.
The result for people who have closely observed the pre-trial hearings has been strange. They have lived in a world, in fact, where TWO TRIALS have been underway (though, formally, only pre-trial hearings are underway in relation to the charges against the three men).
One “trial” is of Basi, Virk, and Basi, the cabinet aide-appointees charged.
The second “trial” is the increasingly intense trial of the Gordon Campbell government as more and more information piles up to suggest the three men accused were very small potatoes indeed in relation to the gigantic magnitude of the alleged breach of trust planned and executed by major actors, in highest positions of trust, in the Gordon Campbell group.
The Defence, in fact, from the beginning has alleged that the three men ARE small potatoes in the matter and were the “fall guys” for people who gave them “orders” – whether in fact or as a character of their employment – to do wrong. Defence calls for disclosure of a wide range of activities in relation to the (corrupt) “sale” of BC Rail because every indication that the “sale” was the result of planning and execution by people in high places is a further indication (Defence would allege I believe) that the actions of the accused in the matter were part of the texture woven by their superiors.
The extraordinary thing about the process is that the legally instituted “trial” becomes less and less significant as the enormity of the “shadow trial” of the Gordon Campbell forces becomes more and more evident.
That situation affects the courtroom atmosphere in strange ways.
The judge focuses on the legally instituted trial, pretending the other one is not happening.
The Crown prosecution acts as if the applications for disclosure of - say – cabinet and MLA e-mails as well as the documents in the possession of Patrick Kinsella who was connected in many (clear and unclear) ways with the sale of BC Rail are almost vexatious, almost without basis and/or serious relevance.
Observers in the courtroom are more and more (almost unconsciously) focussed upon the information revealed – little by little – to support allegations that the apparent competitive bidding for BC Rail was a huge, manufactured sham.
Because she has refused to face the enormity of the implications of the pre-trial hearings (or, perhaps, because she finally has) Madam Justice Elizabeth Bennett is moving out, leaving in mid-proceeding, handing over the trial to another judge. I have already written that I think her doing so is irresponsible.
I have, moreover, repeatedly upbraided Justice Bennett for failing to assure that the openness of the “open” pre-trial hearings is as full as she can make it. Try the following for a bizarre story. This “open” court should have, I insist, provided printed transcripts of each day of “open” hearing before public observers. It has not done so.
At Wednesday’s hearing, Defence asked Madam Justice Elizabeth Bennett to require counsel for Patrick Kinsella to tell whether he has revealed the contents of transcripts received to anyone (with particular reference to Kinsella, whom Defence has made clear it will be calling as a witness when the trial takes place).
What transcripts, I asked outside of court? The printed transcripts Kinsella’s counsel ordered (without telling Defence) and apparently received of some days of the hearing, I was told.
Witnesses who will be called to testify at trial are not supposed to be able to attend hearings or to review transcripts of proceedings.
Did Kinsella read the transcripts his counsel sought and received?
That is information Defence formally seeks in court.
Two laws obviously operate in the B.C. Supreme Court on the matter of transcripts – one for the chosen few, the other for ordinary British Columbians. Some time ago I sought to know exactly what had happened on one of the days of hearing I missed, and I asked Madam Justice Elizabeth Bennett for a copy of that day’s proceeding.
I was sent to Criminal Registry. I repeated my request (maybe showing a note from staff, I forget). I waited while I was told the storing place in Victoria was contacted. From there, electronically, the day’s proceedings were sent to the Vancouver Court House. Then the technician burned a disc. I was placed in a private place and allowed to listen and take notes – but I could not have a printed transcript. When I was through, the technician took the disc back to destroy the material on it. He was kind and attentive – an employee doing what he was told to do.
He didn’t know he was participating in a discriminatory process in no way envisaged by the founders – over centuries – who shaped our precious idea of “open courts”. In such places the trial processes of alleged criminals are open to the public so that justice may be done and nothing may be undertaken in secret in such a way as to defraud the public or unfairly harm the accused.
I didn’t know at the time that if I was lawyer for Patrick Kinsella, I could order and receive printed transcripts of days of hearing probably without having to go near the courthouse. “A law for the rich and a law for the poor”, to which – I maintain – Madam Justice Elizabeth Bennett has given her consent throughout the BC Rail Scandal court proceedings.
The irony of this “clubhouse” arrangement is that I am much, much less likely to hand printed transcripts to a named witness than a lawyer for a named witness is. But club members get special privileges denied to the people for whom the courts have been established.
Because two trials are in fact going on in the pre-trial hearings leading to the trial of the three men accused in the BC Rail Scandal, every strange occurrence, every anomaly is open to suspicion. Has Madam Justice Elizabeth Bennett kept information on the public record from the public to protect powerful people? When cabinet counsel George Copley reported years of e-mail records have been erased – when the pre-trial hearings pointed to the need to preserve those records – was the erasure an intentional act to defeat the fair pursuit of justice? Why did Madam Justice Elizabeth Bennett refuse Defence counsel the right – almost immediately – to cross examine all those involved in the erasure of records, including Gordon Campbell? Why did she not ask the RCMP to undertake a criminal investigation?
Those are very, very serious questions. They exist in the astounding situation in which three men are charged with crimes in a context where more and more evidence points to possible greater crimes by people of significantly greater power – who have not even been formally investigated let alone charged with wrong-doing.
The Alice In Wonderland situation of (in fact) two trials going on in one courtroom boggles the mind. But the situation leaves little doubt that – whatever else - we are watching a system in very serious decay.
For vivelecanada.ca
""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
A Day in the B.C. Supreme Court (Sept. 2, 2009).
By Robin Mathews
The BC Rail Scandal court action began, ostensibly, with search warrant “raids” on B.C. legislature offices, December 28, 2003. A full year of further investigation ended with 14 charges against two highly placed Gordon Campbell cabinet aides and one information officer. The charges were, variously, for fraud, breach of trust, and money laundering. They were laid in December of 2004.
A statement was made very soon after the raids that no elected official was being (or, apparently would be) investigated.
The men are alleged - being under oath of confidentiality - to have traded information for benefit in relation to a part of the “negotiations” that were going on in what is now generally agreed to have been the corrupt sale of BC Rail by the Gordon Campbell forces to CN Rail.
(By now a full-scale, wide-open Public Inquiry should have been launched into the allegedly astonishingly tainted goings-on and to their relation to other, on-going alleged breaches of trust by the Gordon Campbell government. But since government controls such an undertaken, an Inquiry has not occurred.)
As a number of people have (wishfully?) remarked: “the essence of the case is whether a few highly-placed cabinet aides, possessing confidential information, traded that information for benefit. Did they or did they not? Why can’t the trial begin?”
They go on to say: “What is the Defence doing? Are they placing application after application after application for disclosure of materials that ‘may be relevant’ to the defence of their clients simply to delay and to exhaust the court which will be forced, eventually, to enter a ‘stay of proceedings’ and end the whole thing (in mid-air) because of mistrial?”
That question cannot be answered resoundingly, of course. But the more than three years of pre-trial hearings have resulted in applications for disclosure – and resulting disclosure which has – more and more – led observers to believe that whatever wrong-doing the three accused may have been engaged in, the story of BC Rail Scandal corruption is gigantically larger than the three men charged.
Many observers have been led to believe the gigantic difference is shaped by what seems to have been a concerted, carefully constructed set of inter-agency manipulations to mislead the British Columbia people and to create unreal (and, perhaps, essentially fraudulent) arguments for the off-loading of BC Rail.
Evidence has grown, in addition, to reinforce the argument that the Gordon Campbell government intended - before any “open competition” for the purchase of BC Rail began - to hand it to CN Rail whatever other bids came in.
The result for people who have closely observed the pre-trial hearings has been strange. They have lived in a world, in fact, where TWO TRIALS have been underway (though, formally, only pre-trial hearings are underway in relation to the charges against the three men).
One “trial” is of Basi, Virk, and Basi, the cabinet aide-appointees charged.
The second “trial” is the increasingly intense trial of the Gordon Campbell government as more and more information piles up to suggest the three men accused were very small potatoes indeed in relation to the gigantic magnitude of the alleged breach of trust planned and executed by major actors, in highest positions of trust, in the Gordon Campbell group.
The Defence, in fact, from the beginning has alleged that the three men ARE small potatoes in the matter and were the “fall guys” for people who gave them “orders” – whether in fact or as a character of their employment – to do wrong. Defence calls for disclosure of a wide range of activities in relation to the (corrupt) “sale” of BC Rail because every indication that the “sale” was the result of planning and execution by people in high places is a further indication (Defence would allege I believe) that the actions of the accused in the matter were part of the texture woven by their superiors.
The extraordinary thing about the process is that the legally instituted “trial” becomes less and less significant as the enormity of the “shadow trial” of the Gordon Campbell forces becomes more and more evident.
That situation affects the courtroom atmosphere in strange ways.
The judge focuses on the legally instituted trial, pretending the other one is not happening.
The Crown prosecution acts as if the applications for disclosure of - say – cabinet and MLA e-mails as well as the documents in the possession of Patrick Kinsella who was connected in many (clear and unclear) ways with the sale of BC Rail are almost vexatious, almost without basis and/or serious relevance.
Observers in the courtroom are more and more (almost unconsciously) focussed upon the information revealed – little by little – to support allegations that the apparent competitive bidding for BC Rail was a huge, manufactured sham.
Because she has refused to face the enormity of the implications of the pre-trial hearings (or, perhaps, because she finally has) Madam Justice Elizabeth Bennett is moving out, leaving in mid-proceeding, handing over the trial to another judge. I have already written that I think her doing so is irresponsible.
I have, moreover, repeatedly upbraided Justice Bennett for failing to assure that the openness of the “open” pre-trial hearings is as full as she can make it. Try the following for a bizarre story. This “open” court should have, I insist, provided printed transcripts of each day of “open” hearing before public observers. It has not done so.
At Wednesday’s hearing, Defence asked Madam Justice Elizabeth Bennett to require counsel for Patrick Kinsella to tell whether he has revealed the contents of transcripts received to anyone (with particular reference to Kinsella, whom Defence has made clear it will be calling as a witness when the trial takes place).
What transcripts, I asked outside of court? The printed transcripts Kinsella’s counsel ordered (without telling Defence) and apparently received of some days of the hearing, I was told.
Witnesses who will be called to testify at trial are not supposed to be able to attend hearings or to review transcripts of proceedings.
Did Kinsella read the transcripts his counsel sought and received?
That is information Defence formally seeks in court.
Two laws obviously operate in the B.C. Supreme Court on the matter of transcripts – one for the chosen few, the other for ordinary British Columbians. Some time ago I sought to know exactly what had happened on one of the days of hearing I missed, and I asked Madam Justice Elizabeth Bennett for a copy of that day’s proceeding.
I was sent to Criminal Registry. I repeated my request (maybe showing a note from staff, I forget). I waited while I was told the storing place in Victoria was contacted. From there, electronically, the day’s proceedings were sent to the Vancouver Court House. Then the technician burned a disc. I was placed in a private place and allowed to listen and take notes – but I could not have a printed transcript. When I was through, the technician took the disc back to destroy the material on it. He was kind and attentive – an employee doing what he was told to do.
He didn’t know he was participating in a discriminatory process in no way envisaged by the founders – over centuries – who shaped our precious idea of “open courts”. In such places the trial processes of alleged criminals are open to the public so that justice may be done and nothing may be undertaken in secret in such a way as to defraud the public or unfairly harm the accused.
I didn’t know at the time that if I was lawyer for Patrick Kinsella, I could order and receive printed transcripts of days of hearing probably without having to go near the courthouse. “A law for the rich and a law for the poor”, to which – I maintain – Madam Justice Elizabeth Bennett has given her consent throughout the BC Rail Scandal court proceedings.
The irony of this “clubhouse” arrangement is that I am much, much less likely to hand printed transcripts to a named witness than a lawyer for a named witness is. But club members get special privileges denied to the people for whom the courts have been established.
Because two trials are in fact going on in the pre-trial hearings leading to the trial of the three men accused in the BC Rail Scandal, every strange occurrence, every anomaly is open to suspicion. Has Madam Justice Elizabeth Bennett kept information on the public record from the public to protect powerful people? When cabinet counsel George Copley reported years of e-mail records have been erased – when the pre-trial hearings pointed to the need to preserve those records – was the erasure an intentional act to defeat the fair pursuit of justice? Why did Madam Justice Elizabeth Bennett refuse Defence counsel the right – almost immediately – to cross examine all those involved in the erasure of records, including Gordon Campbell? Why did she not ask the RCMP to undertake a criminal investigation?
Those are very, very serious questions. They exist in the astounding situation in which three men are charged with crimes in a context where more and more evidence points to possible greater crimes by people of significantly greater power – who have not even been formally investigated let alone charged with wrong-doing.
The Alice In Wonderland situation of (in fact) two trials going on in one courtroom boggles the mind. But the situation leaves little doubt that – whatever else - we are watching a system in very serious decay.
For vivelecanada.ca
""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
Comments:
<< Home
“The Alice In Wonderland situation of (in fact) two trials going on in one courtroom boggles the mind. But the situation leaves little doubt that – whatever else - we are watching a system in very serious decay.” Robin Mathews
A valid observation, I suppose, when the general public has little, if any, experience with the courts but not surprising at all for those who have been before the courts due to their chosen professions.
There is, for the general public, a romantic notion somehow the courts are sacrosanct when the lesser known reality is the protectors: the Church, have themselves a rather colourful history of manipulations.
Justice and Jesus heave been inexorably intertwined to give the illusion good will always overcome evil. I am not so easily moved to that conclusion.
nb. My latest comment on part two of Robin’s reports, if accepted for print also speaks to the little known realities of so-called justice
A valid observation, I suppose, when the general public has little, if any, experience with the courts but not surprising at all for those who have been before the courts due to their chosen professions.
There is, for the general public, a romantic notion somehow the courts are sacrosanct when the lesser known reality is the protectors: the Church, have themselves a rather colourful history of manipulations.
Justice and Jesus heave been inexorably intertwined to give the illusion good will always overcome evil. I am not so easily moved to that conclusion.
nb. My latest comment on part two of Robin’s reports, if accepted for print also speaks to the little known realities of so-called justice
# posted by 
: September 4, 2009 at 12:58 p.m.
: September 4, 2009 at 12:58 p.m.
.
Great thanks is owed to Professor Mathews for daring to state the truth clearly ... there are two trials in progress here.
We even saw the two trials in open court ... the day Associate Chief Justice flounced into Madam Justice's pre-trial hearing.
Two judges ... one actually providing the solid reasons why she would continue to preside in the BC Rail Trial ...
and one informing the public that HE would decide ... and that HE already had SOMEBODY ELSE in mind to replace Elizabeth Bennett.
And so it came to pass that Madam Justice Bennett soon "decided" she had better step down ... and accept the promotion to the BC Court of Appeal.
And, just like ACJ Dohm said, a new judge was announced ... a new judge with virtually no criminal trial experience, who had no 3-1/2-year warm-up on the complex BC Rail Trial, and who has had less than half the courtroom experience of Judge Bennett, is scheduled to preside over the Basi Virk Basi trial if ever it comes to trial.
Further delays, and the possible errors of a new judge, could render all past proceedings moot ... the trial could be over, dismissed, a done deal, even before the Olympic Torch is seen reflected in the eyes of our be-spectacled leader.
.
Great thanks is owed to Professor Mathews for daring to state the truth clearly ... there are two trials in progress here.
We even saw the two trials in open court ... the day Associate Chief Justice flounced into Madam Justice's pre-trial hearing.
Two judges ... one actually providing the solid reasons why she would continue to preside in the BC Rail Trial ...
and one informing the public that HE would decide ... and that HE already had SOMEBODY ELSE in mind to replace Elizabeth Bennett.
And so it came to pass that Madam Justice Bennett soon "decided" she had better step down ... and accept the promotion to the BC Court of Appeal.
And, just like ACJ Dohm said, a new judge was announced ... a new judge with virtually no criminal trial experience, who had no 3-1/2-year warm-up on the complex BC Rail Trial, and who has had less than half the courtroom experience of Judge Bennett, is scheduled to preside over the Basi Virk Basi trial if ever it comes to trial.
Further delays, and the possible errors of a new judge, could render all past proceedings moot ... the trial could be over, dismissed, a done deal, even before the Olympic Torch is seen reflected in the eyes of our be-spectacled leader.
.
Mary, I've just returned from town. While there I saw two brand new maintenance rigs with CN logos on the doors.
What really took me by surprise was that instead of white trucks with the logos they were dark green. A little darker than the old BC Rail color.
My thought was , is this a mind bending thing to get us to turn our minds from CN Rail?
What really took me by surprise was that instead of white trucks with the logos they were dark green. A little darker than the old BC Rail color.
My thought was , is this a mind bending thing to get us to turn our minds from CN Rail?
.
Gary:
When I read your report, my foolish heart leapt for joy as my first thought was "They're getting ready to give BC Rail back to us!"
Sigh. Naw ... that'd be too easy. But it is very interesting. Like you say, perhaps they're just giving the impression that they are still BC Rail. To make us happy ... !!! I kinda like that idea.
.
Gary:
When I read your report, my foolish heart leapt for joy as my first thought was "They're getting ready to give BC Rail back to us!"
Sigh. Naw ... that'd be too easy. But it is very interesting. Like you say, perhaps they're just giving the impression that they are still BC Rail. To make us happy ... !!! I kinda like that idea.
.
i agree with almost all of this, espectially the part about the defence delaying this with application after application, ie read fishing expedition, which I fully expect WILL result in a mistrial or stay of proceedings.
however, this observer doesnt believe that whatever wrong-doing the three accused may have been engaged in ever included their handlers consent to take inducements. But from evidence posted on the NDP site, that is what appears to have happened.
But that is only my guess based on reading what has been disclosed. Only when the wire tap evidence is played to the Court and all the evidence is presented will we know what was really going on in respect of those charged.
As for the allegation that bc rail was predetermiend to go to CN, and that OmniTrax was an unwitting player, teased along to make BC'ers thing the Govt was getting market value, sure. Could be. Sounds very very likely and I betcha its true.
But so what?
What does one thing have to do with another? Does 2 wrongs make a right?
For instance, if I were to steal liquor from the back of a parked delivert van, or steal electricity for my grow-op by bypassing the meter, get charged, is it reasonable that I would get off if only becuase I can argue that that other people connected or not to the theft, ie the delviery driver's boss, brother in law, cousin, or the electrical utitlity's CEO was up to no good too?
I fail to see the connection. I am sorry.
I know BC rail is important becuase I hear that shouted daily. But my life hasnt nor will not change as a result of it being turned over to CN, peter pan or whomever.
I suggest I am not alone. I suggest that MOST, ie 51% + of BCers dont know or could careless why the govt wants out of the rail business. They may say differently if asked, but deep down they dont understand the issue or care to. I have evidence to back this up.
If they did care, they wouldnt have vote campbell back into office.
But then who can blame them when faced with the alternative, ie Carole James and the NDP.
Count me in as one of those who just didnt bother voting at all. For a vote for the James I dont know would, imho, be far far WORSE than the Campbell I do know.
however, this observer doesnt believe that whatever wrong-doing the three accused may have been engaged in ever included their handlers consent to take inducements. But from evidence posted on the NDP site, that is what appears to have happened.
But that is only my guess based on reading what has been disclosed. Only when the wire tap evidence is played to the Court and all the evidence is presented will we know what was really going on in respect of those charged.
As for the allegation that bc rail was predetermiend to go to CN, and that OmniTrax was an unwitting player, teased along to make BC'ers thing the Govt was getting market value, sure. Could be. Sounds very very likely and I betcha its true.
But so what?
What does one thing have to do with another? Does 2 wrongs make a right?
For instance, if I were to steal liquor from the back of a parked delivert van, or steal electricity for my grow-op by bypassing the meter, get charged, is it reasonable that I would get off if only becuase I can argue that that other people connected or not to the theft, ie the delviery driver's boss, brother in law, cousin, or the electrical utitlity's CEO was up to no good too?
I fail to see the connection. I am sorry.
I know BC rail is important becuase I hear that shouted daily. But my life hasnt nor will not change as a result of it being turned over to CN, peter pan or whomever.
I suggest I am not alone. I suggest that MOST, ie 51% + of BCers dont know or could careless why the govt wants out of the rail business. They may say differently if asked, but deep down they dont understand the issue or care to. I have evidence to back this up.
If they did care, they wouldnt have vote campbell back into office.
But then who can blame them when faced with the alternative, ie Carole James and the NDP.
Count me in as one of those who just didnt bother voting at all. For a vote for the James I dont know would, imho, be far far WORSE than the Campbell I do know.
# posted by : September 4, 2009 at 2:01 p.m.
: September 4, 2009 at 2:01 p.m.
.
Anonymous 2:01,
Responding to your thoughts about it being OK to pre-determine the outcome of the "sale" of BC Rail ... you haven't taken bid-rigging into account. Look it up and you'll find that it isn't done legally.
Plus: it's not the Defence which is delaying the proceedings ... it's the Defence asking for documents which the government seems unwilling to provide.
Perhps if you lived in one of the small towns who relied on BC Rail to ship out their products, you'd feel differently ... but right now, many of them are wondering if their rail service will be abandoned. Say what you will, but a publicly-owned asset serves a longterm function, not an immediate show of profit. W.A.C. Bennett saw it as a public service.
I'm not electioneering so I won't be trying to explain Gordon Campbell (or Carole James) to you, except to say that I think the people of B.C. deserve better ... and to get to those better days, we must dig for the truth and be unafraid to face it.
But I don't really understand the logic of your position that NOT VOTING is a vote for Gordon Campbell. Or is it that "not caring" is a vote for Gordon Campbell?
Anonymous 2:01,
Responding to your thoughts about it being OK to pre-determine the outcome of the "sale" of BC Rail ... you haven't taken bid-rigging into account. Look it up and you'll find that it isn't done legally.
Plus: it's not the Defence which is delaying the proceedings ... it's the Defence asking for documents which the government seems unwilling to provide.
Perhps if you lived in one of the small towns who relied on BC Rail to ship out their products, you'd feel differently ... but right now, many of them are wondering if their rail service will be abandoned. Say what you will, but a publicly-owned asset serves a longterm function, not an immediate show of profit. W.A.C. Bennett saw it as a public service.
I'm not electioneering so I won't be trying to explain Gordon Campbell (or Carole James) to you, except to say that I think the people of B.C. deserve better ... and to get to those better days, we must dig for the truth and be unafraid to face it.
But I don't really understand the logic of your position that NOT VOTING is a vote for Gordon Campbell. Or is it that "not caring" is a vote for Gordon Campbell?
Anon 2:01...if you can vote for, or defend Campbell KNOWING what he has done, and plans to do...you're absolutely not one whit different than he is to my way of thinking. There is no way to defend the indefensible. No way.
# posted by : September 4, 2009 at 2:27 p.m.
: September 4, 2009 at 2:27 p.m.
Small towns should be better served as selling to CN reduces costs by way of elinating tariffs.
I would also like to see the end of commercial fishin licence leases. If you dont fish em, you lose em. No leasing of licenced, which only adds to the cost and does nothing else but put a resourse that belongs to veryone into private owners hands. What has happened here with BC RAil, is the reverse of that. Therefore I am in agreeance with it on principal.
i will carify that I do not like
Gordon Campbell and the Liberals but I dislike him less than I do Carole James & the NDP.
I would never vote for either of their parties.
I was delighted that (Stone)Wally Opal was ousted. Maybe there is a glimmer of hope?
I would also like to see the end of commercial fishin licence leases. If you dont fish em, you lose em. No leasing of licenced, which only adds to the cost and does nothing else but put a resourse that belongs to veryone into private owners hands. What has happened here with BC RAil, is the reverse of that. Therefore I am in agreeance with it on principal.
i will carify that I do not like
Gordon Campbell and the Liberals but I dislike him less than I do Carole James & the NDP.
I would never vote for either of their parties.
I was delighted that (Stone)Wally Opal was ousted. Maybe there is a glimmer of hope?
# posted by : September 4, 2009 at 2:38 p.m.
: September 4, 2009 at 2:38 p.m.
Annon 2:27
Please read my post of 2:01 right at the end I said i didnt vote. nor have i defended campbell. i dont like campbell. but i believe he is less damaging to bc than would james be.
I beleive the export of raw logs a far greater tragedy than the sale of rail business. i consider the sinking and deaths 2 people on the queen of the north without anyone held accountable a greater tragedy. I consider that the govt hasnt offered all day kindergarten expect for aboriginal studesnts, frech kindergarten and at need students, a greater tragedy. The day care progam in the province is a JOKE! Once a licence is given its near impossible to take it back. The needle exchange operations are a joke. That criminals get 2 for 1 time is a joke. Organised crime is out of control. The drug trade is out of control. The list goes on. Rail BC? Not a priority in respect of the other tragedies that affect BC as far as I am concerned. It is however amusing.
Please read my post of 2:01 right at the end I said i didnt vote. nor have i defended campbell. i dont like campbell. but i believe he is less damaging to bc than would james be.
I beleive the export of raw logs a far greater tragedy than the sale of rail business. i consider the sinking and deaths 2 people on the queen of the north without anyone held accountable a greater tragedy. I consider that the govt hasnt offered all day kindergarten expect for aboriginal studesnts, frech kindergarten and at need students, a greater tragedy. The day care progam in the province is a JOKE! Once a licence is given its near impossible to take it back. The needle exchange operations are a joke. That criminals get 2 for 1 time is a joke. Organised crime is out of control. The drug trade is out of control. The list goes on. Rail BC? Not a priority in respect of the other tragedies that affect BC as far as I am concerned. It is however amusing.
# posted by : September 4, 2009 at 2:50 p.m.
: September 4, 2009 at 2:50 p.m.
.
Hi again, Anon 2:38.
I think we can safely put you in the "Seriously Conflicted" column along with a lot of others.
The fishing industry (and we who depend upon it for food) is facing the prospect of having the wild salmon wiped out -- for lack of proper government supervision of the farmed salmon pens. The private-for-profit enterprises don't give a damn about the longterm.
It's no good, if you ask me, to decide Profits for today=Good, Caring for the future=Bad. CN can actually abandon rail lines, leaving regions high and dry.
It's not so very different from selling fishing licences ... if a public railway is sold to CN which wants profits for its shareholders like Bill Gates and Warren Buffett. BC citizens in those small towns and villages on the old BCRail line must somehow foot the bill for that "privatization".
Are you really in favour of that? I'm not. And many others aren't.
Please don't let yourself be fooled into thinking that "people don't care about BC Rail" ... before you have a look at the enormous propaganda machine at work trying to convince you that it doesn't matter. It's called the Public Affairs Bureau ... biggest newsroom in Canada ... functioning as part of the Campbell government.
You may be surprised to know that they will be reading what you and I have written here, almost as soon as we finish writing it.
But don't give up. There's work for citizens to do.
.
Hi again, Anon 2:38.
I think we can safely put you in the "Seriously Conflicted" column along with a lot of others.
The fishing industry (and we who depend upon it for food) is facing the prospect of having the wild salmon wiped out -- for lack of proper government supervision of the farmed salmon pens. The private-for-profit enterprises don't give a damn about the longterm.
It's no good, if you ask me, to decide Profits for today=Good, Caring for the future=Bad. CN can actually abandon rail lines, leaving regions high and dry.
It's not so very different from selling fishing licences ... if a public railway is sold to CN which wants profits for its shareholders like Bill Gates and Warren Buffett. BC citizens in those small towns and villages on the old BCRail line must somehow foot the bill for that "privatization".
Are you really in favour of that? I'm not. And many others aren't.
Please don't let yourself be fooled into thinking that "people don't care about BC Rail" ... before you have a look at the enormous propaganda machine at work trying to convince you that it doesn't matter. It's called the Public Affairs Bureau ... biggest newsroom in Canada ... functioning as part of the Campbell government.
You may be surprised to know that they will be reading what you and I have written here, almost as soon as we finish writing it.
But don't give up. There's work for citizens to do.
.
2:01 PM said, “But so what?”
Ok, So this~
There are maxims of Law and codes of conduct you are seemingly not in harmony with, for example:
http://www.lawfulpath.com/ref/bouvier/maxims.shtml
Qui tacet consentire videtur. He who is silent appears to consent. Jenk. Cent. 32.
Qui parcit nocentibus, innocentibus punit. He who spares the guilty, punishes the innocent.
Qui non obstat quod obstare potest facere videtur. He who does not prevent what he can, seems to commit the thing. 2 Co. Inst. 146 BC Born says “Herein resides culpability”
More to the point
The believability factor has naught to do with existance. Whether one believes or dis0believes
Ok, So this~
There are maxims of Law and codes of conduct you are seemingly not in harmony with, for example:
http://www.lawfulpath.com/ref/bouvier/maxims.shtml
Qui tacet consentire videtur. He who is silent appears to consent. Jenk. Cent. 32.
Qui parcit nocentibus, innocentibus punit. He who spares the guilty, punishes the innocent.
Qui non obstat quod obstare potest facere videtur. He who does not prevent what he can, seems to commit the thing. 2 Co. Inst. 146 BC Born says “Herein resides culpability”
More to the point
The believability factor has naught to do with existance. Whether one believes or dis0believes
# posted by : September 4, 2009 at 3:08 p.m.
: September 4, 2009 at 3:08 p.m.
BC Born, so lets get on with the trial already!
FYI, I am not sharing culpability for those killed when the Queen of the North sank. I suspect blame should have been placed on the captain, and those in the wheelhouse. But no blame was ever determined, was it? I then blame the union for protecting such nonesense, the TSB for coming up with jack, and for lashing out at a reporter when asked for details, and yes, I blame the NDP for not forcing the govt to get to the bottom of this, which is why i wont vote for them. Instead, the victims families had to take a settelment because they couldnt afford the legal fees. yet basi virk and basi have all the help, an unlimited legal fee budget if you will, and that just doesnt seem right to me. Correct me if I am wrong.
Nor do I consider myself at fault for allowing private individuals to own fishing rights. Or raw log exports. I blame the Liberals for that, which is why I would never vote for them. I further blame the NDP for not holding them accountable for the very reasons you have pointed out. Correct me if I am wrong.
I blame the NDP for the Rail BC as much as I do the Liberals, for the very reasons you have posted, and also becuase they are just too incompetant to know how to deal with the issues or connect with BCers. Correct me if I am wrong.
I blame the NDP for not being able to capitalise on the electin campaign and all of the screw ups and land mines the liberals had left for them to play with.
Instead, james argues for higher minimum wages while the party locks out some of its best and brightest by way of gendre profiling candidates. Correct me if I am wrong.
Correct me if I am wrong, but you have the gall to BLAME ME for not voting for either of these parties?
FYI, I am not sharing culpability for those killed when the Queen of the North sank. I suspect blame should have been placed on the captain, and those in the wheelhouse. But no blame was ever determined, was it? I then blame the union for protecting such nonesense, the TSB for coming up with jack, and for lashing out at a reporter when asked for details, and yes, I blame the NDP for not forcing the govt to get to the bottom of this, which is why i wont vote for them. Instead, the victims families had to take a settelment because they couldnt afford the legal fees. yet basi virk and basi have all the help, an unlimited legal fee budget if you will, and that just doesnt seem right to me. Correct me if I am wrong.
Nor do I consider myself at fault for allowing private individuals to own fishing rights. Or raw log exports. I blame the Liberals for that, which is why I would never vote for them. I further blame the NDP for not holding them accountable for the very reasons you have pointed out. Correct me if I am wrong.
I blame the NDP for the Rail BC as much as I do the Liberals, for the very reasons you have posted, and also becuase they are just too incompetant to know how to deal with the issues or connect with BCers. Correct me if I am wrong.
I blame the NDP for not being able to capitalise on the electin campaign and all of the screw ups and land mines the liberals had left for them to play with.
Instead, james argues for higher minimum wages while the party locks out some of its best and brightest by way of gendre profiling candidates. Correct me if I am wrong.
Correct me if I am wrong, but you have the gall to BLAME ME for not voting for either of these parties?
# posted by : September 4, 2009 at 3:31 p.m.
: September 4, 2009 at 3:31 p.m.
BC Mary you could very well be right. I do think this is a tragedy, but only one of many. Lets just get this thing to trial and get on with it becuase if it doesnt, it will end up as the letter writter suspects, stayed (forever) or mistrialed. Once this get to trial, the defence can call whomever they like. correct me if i am wrong.
# posted by : September 4, 2009 at 3:33 p.m.
: September 4, 2009 at 3:33 p.m.
class action law suit the people of BC,against the liberal government of BC! I'm in!
# posted by : September 4, 2009 at 3:38 p.m.
: September 4, 2009 at 3:38 p.m.
Unhappily, long delays and unwillingness of the justice industry to scrutinize those with political influence is widespread in Canada. It was even noticed by London's The Economist some time ago and I blogged about it in May.
Our problems go much beyond Basi/Virk/BCR.
http://northerninsights.blogspot.com/2009/05/economist-news-magazine-published-in.html
Our problems go much beyond Basi/Virk/BCR.
http://northerninsights.blogspot.com/2009/05/economist-news-magazine-published-in.html
.
But Norman ... this blog is all about BC Rail.
Yes, there are other things to worry about, but this blog is about BC Rail.
I do agree: let's get this Basi Virk / BC Rail issue to trial. Suggestions are welcome.
.
But Norman ... this blog is all about BC Rail.
Yes, there are other things to worry about, but this blog is about BC Rail.
I do agree: let's get this Basi Virk / BC Rail issue to trial. Suggestions are welcome.
.
BC Mary, I agree. What we need is for this thing to go to TRIAL! That would restore some much needed respect for the BC government, becuase everyone has to be thinking that they are interferring with the process, ie unlimited funding for the defence, promoting bennett at this time, etc and so on. perhaps optics, perhaps more. Lets find out.
# posted by : September 4, 2009 at 5:18 p.m.
: September 4, 2009 at 5:18 p.m.
This is a Supreme Court of Canada statement about the role of the prosecutor:
". . . Counsel have a duty to see that all available legal proof of the facts is presented: it should be done firmly and pressed to its legitimate strength but it must also be done fairly. The role of prosecutor excludes any notion of winning or losing . . . "
Robin Mathews reports that the prosecutors resist disclosure of information that might reveal truth. That would seem contrary to the need to present "all available legal proof of the facts."
If we as citizens believe the prosecutors in this case are not working according their duties, we can complain on the record to the BC Bar Association. That would best be done by the most constant direct observers. Might also be a key question to put to the NDP Attorney General Critic.
". . . Counsel have a duty to see that all available legal proof of the facts is presented: it should be done firmly and pressed to its legitimate strength but it must also be done fairly. The role of prosecutor excludes any notion of winning or losing . . . "
Robin Mathews reports that the prosecutors resist disclosure of information that might reveal truth. That would seem contrary to the need to present "all available legal proof of the facts."
If we as citizens believe the prosecutors in this case are not working according their duties, we can complain on the record to the BC Bar Association. That would best be done by the most constant direct observers. Might also be a key question to put to the NDP Attorney General Critic.
With al due respect, 3:31 PM
You have stated your position to, I assume, the best of you abilities. That said my overall point is that as much as government is responsible for its action it is we, the voters who placed them in positions of authority, is it not?
I do not see some of your reasoning as wrong; the “but” though is what can be done about it?
I an not a big fan of law, be-that-as-may, law hols sway over us until we change law, which is our right to do. Non-participation in the system only give permission to the system.
Others here have pointed to the possibility of some sort of complicity by the parties within the system, and that may indeed be the case. Again I ask “What’s to be done about it?”
On one point I will correct you exactly where you are wrong, and that is on the point of your seeing gall where you rightly ought to see that by your nonparticipation id the system you have given the “Dark Side” (my nickname for them) permission to run roughshod over us all. Thanks for that.
I do not post here to merely debate issues. I post here in the hopes of sparking a revolution in thinking resulting in government for us, not for the corporations.
BC Mary has done an incredible job by her unflagging dedication to launch a Right Action response from us
Don’t let her and yourself down by dropping out.
BC Born
You have stated your position to, I assume, the best of you abilities. That said my overall point is that as much as government is responsible for its action it is we, the voters who placed them in positions of authority, is it not?
I do not see some of your reasoning as wrong; the “but” though is what can be done about it?
I an not a big fan of law, be-that-as-may, law hols sway over us until we change law, which is our right to do. Non-participation in the system only give permission to the system.
Others here have pointed to the possibility of some sort of complicity by the parties within the system, and that may indeed be the case. Again I ask “What’s to be done about it?”
On one point I will correct you exactly where you are wrong, and that is on the point of your seeing gall where you rightly ought to see that by your nonparticipation id the system you have given the “Dark Side” (my nickname for them) permission to run roughshod over us all. Thanks for that.
I do not post here to merely debate issues. I post here in the hopes of sparking a revolution in thinking resulting in government for us, not for the corporations.
BC Mary has done an incredible job by her unflagging dedication to launch a Right Action response from us
Don’t let her and yourself down by dropping out.
BC Born
# posted by : September 4, 2009 at 6:18 p.m.
: September 4, 2009 at 6:18 p.m.
.
Norman ...
An excellent idea! Will you prepare a complaint for the BC Bar Association? Or should we ask Robin (as a most constant, direct observer)?
It wouldn't hurt to cc Leonard Krog, I suppose, but there's not much hope of action there.
I think that you've come up with a great idea which should be done immediately, as an emergency.
.
Norman ...
An excellent idea! Will you prepare a complaint for the BC Bar Association? Or should we ask Robin (as a most constant, direct observer)?
It wouldn't hurt to cc Leonard Krog, I suppose, but there's not much hope of action there.
I think that you've come up with a great idea which should be done immediately, as an emergency.
.
There is absolutely NO doubt that the bidding for BC Rail was rigged from the start. It was rigged at least 5 years before the sale ever came to light.
(from TLR archives)
"At the time of the BC Rail Scandal the Canadian Poster Boy for Privatization was Paul Tellier, CEO of CNR. It was a time when the corporate wonder-boys were merging and leveraging and privatizing and generally preparing for the Crash we are presently in. Tellier was Brian Mulroney's Clerk of Privy Council, present during the Free Trade deal. He became CEO of CNR in 1992 and in 1995 extracted it from Canadian ownership, privatized it, sold shares and delivered it to a majority of U.S. shareholders and to a real headquarters in Texas."
He was following the plan to create one single national railway, BC Rail was the last link in his chain. That being the case it appears to me that we may also have federal government involvement/interference in the BC Rail sale. Perhaps we need to have Mr. Tellier put on the stand as well - might even be a good idea to look for emails with his name on them?
People in British Columbia might be a little more interested in this "sale" if they realized that CN is no longer "Canadian National", nor are we allowed to refer to it as such. CN is another American corporation digging into the soft underbelly of the Province. The majority of folks I've spoken with regarding this sale had NO idea that CN is no longer Canadian!
It's well past time we stood up to both our provincial government and our judiciary and put them on notice: If the provincial government is not made to answer for their obstruction of justice, and contempt of court - if the TRUTH is not clear as a result of this trial...we the people are prepared to do whatever is takes legally to see JUSTICE is done. Not Law. Justice.
(from TLR archives)
"At the time of the BC Rail Scandal the Canadian Poster Boy for Privatization was Paul Tellier, CEO of CNR. It was a time when the corporate wonder-boys were merging and leveraging and privatizing and generally preparing for the Crash we are presently in. Tellier was Brian Mulroney's Clerk of Privy Council, present during the Free Trade deal. He became CEO of CNR in 1992 and in 1995 extracted it from Canadian ownership, privatized it, sold shares and delivered it to a majority of U.S. shareholders and to a real headquarters in Texas."
He was following the plan to create one single national railway, BC Rail was the last link in his chain. That being the case it appears to me that we may also have federal government involvement/interference in the BC Rail sale. Perhaps we need to have Mr. Tellier put on the stand as well - might even be a good idea to look for emails with his name on them?
People in British Columbia might be a little more interested in this "sale" if they realized that CN is no longer "Canadian National", nor are we allowed to refer to it as such. CN is another American corporation digging into the soft underbelly of the Province. The majority of folks I've spoken with regarding this sale had NO idea that CN is no longer Canadian!
It's well past time we stood up to both our provincial government and our judiciary and put them on notice: If the provincial government is not made to answer for their obstruction of justice, and contempt of court - if the TRUTH is not clear as a result of this trial...we the people are prepared to do whatever is takes legally to see JUSTICE is done. Not Law. Justice.
# posted by : September 4, 2009 at 8:27 p.m.
: September 4, 2009 at 8:27 p.m.
I'll make inquiries and do a bit of research for statements that expand on the duties of prosecutors. Another interesting statement from the SCOC is:
"The Attorney General and the Attorney General's prosecutors are the guardians of the public interest . . . "
Others are certainly welcome to assist in examining the possibility of using professional bodies to seek accountability. It is happening in the USA. When the dust settles the ex Attorney General and numerous lawyers involved with the Republican administration will seeking new careers after disbarment.
"The Attorney General and the Attorney General's prosecutors are the guardians of the public interest . . . "
Others are certainly welcome to assist in examining the possibility of using professional bodies to seek accountability. It is happening in the USA. When the dust settles the ex Attorney General and numerous lawyers involved with the Republican administration will seeking new careers after disbarment.
A little more ammunition for you Norman:
http://www.icclr.law.ubc.ca/Publications/Reports/Roles_and_Resp_Outline%20Aug05_En.pdf
The purpose of Canadian Prosecutors, known as Crown Counsel or Crown Attorneys, is to contribute to the protection of society by preparing and conducting prosecutions diligently, objectively and fairly. Prosecutors represent the interests of society as a whole, not just the interests of specific individuals.
There is a general acceptance that decisions with respect to who should, or should not be prosecuted, should be made without reference to the political affiliation of the accused person or to the political agenda of the government of the day and hence, with very few exceptions, the Attorney General is not involved in decision making regarding individual cases.
Prosecutorial independence is a requirement in Canadian Society.
http://www.icclr.law.ubc.ca/Publications/Reports/Roles_and_Resp_Outline%20Aug05_En.pdf
The purpose of Canadian Prosecutors, known as Crown Counsel or Crown Attorneys, is to contribute to the protection of society by preparing and conducting prosecutions diligently, objectively and fairly. Prosecutors represent the interests of society as a whole, not just the interests of specific individuals.
There is a general acceptance that decisions with respect to who should, or should not be prosecuted, should be made without reference to the political affiliation of the accused person or to the political agenda of the government of the day and hence, with very few exceptions, the Attorney General is not involved in decision making regarding individual cases.
Prosecutorial independence is a requirement in Canadian Society.
# posted by : September 4, 2009 at 10:20 p.m.
: September 4, 2009 at 10:20 p.m.
Norman Farrel:
You are quoting from the "Boucher" case of 1955. Unfortunately, elites use smear of scrutineers and critics, to enforce co-dependency relationsahips among themselves.
Witness media smears of Darcy Shepperd, who was killed after being dragged along a Toronto street by Michael Bryant, former AG of Ontario. You are hearing how a vicious, wanted criminal grabbed Bryant with homicidal intent, forcing him to use his vehicle to save his life. But, take a look at this video of the initial encounter, which clearly confirms witness accounts that Bryant engaged Sheppard in a shouting match and then rammed him with his car, and sped away at up to 90 MPH, on the wrong side of the road, and with Sheppard on his hood.
http://www.cbc.ca/clips/mov/roumeliotis-cyclist-090902.mov
Bryant struck Sheppard from behind in a curb lane, in which the biker had right of way. The cyclist then left his bike and spoke to Bryant. You then see Sheppard step in front of the car, making a legal arrest, to which Bryant accelerates causing Sheppard to land on the hood; later Bryant rammed the man into a tree as he held on to the windshield, and then knocked him off his car by forcing him into a mailbox. As the man lay dying, Bryant then drove over him and drove another block before calling police. Construction workers heard Bryant shout at the man, as he hung on for dear life. Sheppard didn't touch Bryant.
What does this have to do with B-V-B? Canadian elites make facts fit elite centrist fictions. The less than 1% of Canadians who are either politicians or court officers, do NOT subject their own to the rule of law. The Bryant case and Basi-Virk-Basi, will go where the Walls-Millard and Larry O'Brien cases went: Nowhere!
The 1% will NOT be bound by law until we NINETY-NINE percenters force legislators to declare a state of apphrehended insurrection, and bring case-fixers to the justice that they deny the rest of us.
You are quoting from the "Boucher" case of 1955. Unfortunately, elites use smear of scrutineers and critics, to enforce co-dependency relationsahips among themselves.
Witness media smears of Darcy Shepperd, who was killed after being dragged along a Toronto street by Michael Bryant, former AG of Ontario. You are hearing how a vicious, wanted criminal grabbed Bryant with homicidal intent, forcing him to use his vehicle to save his life. But, take a look at this video of the initial encounter, which clearly confirms witness accounts that Bryant engaged Sheppard in a shouting match and then rammed him with his car, and sped away at up to 90 MPH, on the wrong side of the road, and with Sheppard on his hood.
http://www.cbc.ca/clips/mov/roumeliotis-cyclist-090902.mov
Bryant struck Sheppard from behind in a curb lane, in which the biker had right of way. The cyclist then left his bike and spoke to Bryant. You then see Sheppard step in front of the car, making a legal arrest, to which Bryant accelerates causing Sheppard to land on the hood; later Bryant rammed the man into a tree as he held on to the windshield, and then knocked him off his car by forcing him into a mailbox. As the man lay dying, Bryant then drove over him and drove another block before calling police. Construction workers heard Bryant shout at the man, as he hung on for dear life. Sheppard didn't touch Bryant.
What does this have to do with B-V-B? Canadian elites make facts fit elite centrist fictions. The less than 1% of Canadians who are either politicians or court officers, do NOT subject their own to the rule of law. The Bryant case and Basi-Virk-Basi, will go where the Walls-Millard and Larry O'Brien cases went: Nowhere!
The 1% will NOT be bound by law until we NINETY-NINE percenters force legislators to declare a state of apphrehended insurrection, and bring case-fixers to the justice that they deny the rest of us.
# posted by : September 5, 2009 at 4:42 a.m.
: September 5, 2009 at 4:42 a.m.
This SCC judgement (Date: 20090730)
is another excellent read,as best explained here
http://www.thecourt.ca/2009/08/09/adjournment-the-only-remedy-available-for-late-disclosure-as-provided-in-r-v-bjelland/#more-1631
The Court Blog
August 9th, 2009
by Sona Dhawan
The accused’s right to make a full answer and defence as well as the right to full disclosure has been brushed aside by the SCC in its recent ruling in R. v. Bjelland, 2009 SCC 38. In a close 4:3 decision, the SCC supported the final view that the only real remedy available for late disclosure is adjournment. The SCC concluded that evidence could only be excluded in the “clearest of cases”. This ambiguous standard has been retained from its conception in R. v. O’Connor, (1995) 4 S.C.R. 411, without changes or updates.
In this decision, the SCC has given the prosecution unstated leeway in their timing for disclosure of information. The prosecution has the opportunity to introduce new evidence a few days before trial with the only remedy available to the accused being adjournment.
THE JUDGEMENT
Put simply, disclosure is a means to an end. Full prosecution disclosure is to ensure that the accused receives a fair trial, that the accused has an adequate opportunity to respond to the prosecution case and that in the result the verdict is a reliable one.
21] However, the Crown’s failure to disclose evidence does not, in and of itself, constitute a violation of s. 7. Rather, an accused must generally show “actual prejudice to [his or her] ability to make full answer and defence” (R. v. O’Connor, [1995] 4 S.C.R. 411, at para. 74) in order to be entitled to a remedy under s. 24(1).
[At base, a fair trial is a trial that appears fair, both from the perspective of the accused and the perspective of the community. A fair trial must not be confused with the most advantageous trial possible from the accused’s point of view: R. v. Lyons, [1987] 2 S.C.R. 309, at p. 362, per La Forest J. Nor must it be conflated with the perfect trial; in the real world, perfection is seldom attained. A fair trial is one which satisfies the public interest in getting at the truth, while preserving basic procedural fairness for the accused. [Emphasis added.]
The policy of the law in this regard was well put by Samuel Freedman, then Chief Justice of Manitoba, in this well-known passage:
The objective of a criminal trial is justice. Is the quest of justice synonymous with the search for truth? In most cases, yes. Truth and justice will emerge in a happy coincidence. But not always. Nor should it be thought that the judicial process has necessarily failed if justice and truth do not end up in perfect harmony. . . . [T]he law makes its choice between competing values and declares it is better to close the case without all the available evidence being put on the record. We place a ceiling price on truth. It is glorious to possess, but not at unlimited cost. “Truth, like all other good things, may be loved unwisely — may be pursued too keenly — may cost too much
(scary)
http://scc.lexum.umontreal.ca/en/2009/2009scc38/2009scc38.html
EM
is another excellent read,as best explained here
http://www.thecourt.ca/2009/08/09/adjournment-the-only-remedy-available-for-late-disclosure-as-provided-in-r-v-bjelland/#more-1631
The Court Blog
August 9th, 2009
by Sona Dhawan
The accused’s right to make a full answer and defence as well as the right to full disclosure has been brushed aside by the SCC in its recent ruling in R. v. Bjelland, 2009 SCC 38. In a close 4:3 decision, the SCC supported the final view that the only real remedy available for late disclosure is adjournment. The SCC concluded that evidence could only be excluded in the “clearest of cases”. This ambiguous standard has been retained from its conception in R. v. O’Connor, (1995) 4 S.C.R. 411, without changes or updates.
In this decision, the SCC has given the prosecution unstated leeway in their timing for disclosure of information. The prosecution has the opportunity to introduce new evidence a few days before trial with the only remedy available to the accused being adjournment.
THE JUDGEMENT
Put simply, disclosure is a means to an end. Full prosecution disclosure is to ensure that the accused receives a fair trial, that the accused has an adequate opportunity to respond to the prosecution case and that in the result the verdict is a reliable one.
21] However, the Crown’s failure to disclose evidence does not, in and of itself, constitute a violation of s. 7. Rather, an accused must generally show “actual prejudice to [his or her] ability to make full answer and defence” (R. v. O’Connor, [1995] 4 S.C.R. 411, at para. 74) in order to be entitled to a remedy under s. 24(1).
[At base, a fair trial is a trial that appears fair, both from the perspective of the accused and the perspective of the community. A fair trial must not be confused with the most advantageous trial possible from the accused’s point of view: R. v. Lyons, [1987] 2 S.C.R. 309, at p. 362, per La Forest J. Nor must it be conflated with the perfect trial; in the real world, perfection is seldom attained. A fair trial is one which satisfies the public interest in getting at the truth, while preserving basic procedural fairness for the accused. [Emphasis added.]
The policy of the law in this regard was well put by Samuel Freedman, then Chief Justice of Manitoba, in this well-known passage:
The objective of a criminal trial is justice. Is the quest of justice synonymous with the search for truth? In most cases, yes. Truth and justice will emerge in a happy coincidence. But not always. Nor should it be thought that the judicial process has necessarily failed if justice and truth do not end up in perfect harmony. . . . [T]he law makes its choice between competing values and declares it is better to close the case without all the available evidence being put on the record. We place a ceiling price on truth. It is glorious to possess, but not at unlimited cost. “Truth, like all other good things, may be loved unwisely — may be pursued too keenly — may cost too much
(scary)
http://scc.lexum.umontreal.ca/en/2009/2009scc38/2009scc38.html
EM
# posted by : September 5, 2009 at 4:43 a.m.
: September 5, 2009 at 4:43 a.m.
Leah 8:27 says CN is no longer a Canadian Company.
You raise a very good point something that is lost to most if not substantially all of us.
What concerns are there over foreign companies owning Canadian. infrastructure, critial infrastructure if you will (lets leave Tim Hortons aside)?
In Mexico, no foriegner can own ocean front. This isnt the case in Canada. To allow a company, lets say, owned by Afganistan, Saudi or North Korean Nationals to buy up waterfront in Vancouver harbour would imo be a bad thing, not to mention damager US/Canadian relations.
SO in additiont to exporting raw logs, allowing private ownership of fish stocks (ie licences to fish, which are rented out), is all part of the chaos and insanity that WE the people have let our government scew up for us.
The forests were suppose to be renewable!! WHAT happened???!! The Govt let it all be logged and sent south, thats what!
You raise a very good point something that is lost to most if not substantially all of us.
What concerns are there over foreign companies owning Canadian. infrastructure, critial infrastructure if you will (lets leave Tim Hortons aside)?
In Mexico, no foriegner can own ocean front. This isnt the case in Canada. To allow a company, lets say, owned by Afganistan, Saudi or North Korean Nationals to buy up waterfront in Vancouver harbour would imo be a bad thing, not to mention damager US/Canadian relations.
SO in additiont to exporting raw logs, allowing private ownership of fish stocks (ie licences to fish, which are rented out), is all part of the chaos and insanity that WE the people have let our government scew up for us.
The forests were suppose to be renewable!! WHAT happened???!! The Govt let it all be logged and sent south, thats what!
# posted by : September 5, 2009 at 8:46 a.m.
: September 5, 2009 at 8:46 a.m.
Someone suggested we look at the Hansard record of Vicki Huntington's first speech as an Independent MLA. I did, and I think it's well worth looking up.
As you read it, ask yourself if Vicki Huntington is the ideal candidate to lead a new, non-partisan, independent group into the BC Legislature, with herself as premier? Is she The One?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Hansard Page 251:
http://www.leg.bc.ca/hansard/39th1st/H90903a.htm
.
As you read it, ask yourself if Vicki Huntington is the ideal candidate to lead a new, non-partisan, independent group into the BC Legislature, with herself as premier? Is she The One?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Hansard Page 251:
http://www.leg.bc.ca/hansard/39th1st/H90903a.htm
.
Anonymous 8:46,
My point has always been that the BC Rail affair was the template, the pattern, the modus operendi ... for the other bad deals did relentlessly come into force during the Wild West atmosphere of Gordo's governments.
And that's what happened, beginning with BC Hydro ...
My point has always been that the people of BC must seize the BCRail issue again and wrestle it to the ground. The resistance to accountability is at the heart of these failures to disclose, in my view.
If, as Gordo says, the BCR deal was such a good deal, why is it still secret? Why?
.
My point has always been that the BC Rail affair was the template, the pattern, the modus operendi ... for the other bad deals did relentlessly come into force during the Wild West atmosphere of Gordo's governments.
And that's what happened, beginning with BC Hydro ...
My point has always been that the people of BC must seize the BCRail issue again and wrestle it to the ground. The resistance to accountability is at the heart of these failures to disclose, in my view.
If, as Gordo says, the BCR deal was such a good deal, why is it still secret? Why?
.
I'm not sure if that Hansard link is working. Here it is again, copied and pasted:
http://www.leg.bc.ca/hansard/39th1st/H90903a.htm
but if it doesn't work, look up BC Hansard for September 3, 2009 (morning sitting), and go to Page 251.
Gotta tell you: one of my most passionate rightwing friends has just told me how much he enjoyed Huntington's statement, adding "I hate the BC Liberals and don't trust the NDP."
Another passionate Leftie friend says "It's a wow of a speech ... Huntington hit every nail square on the head."
How's that for the beginning of a whole new era??
Because I think partisan, adversarial, Me=good, You=bad politics is a cruel prank played upon the electorate to keep citizens distracted fighting one another instead of tackling the issues facing us all. Huntington seems to realize that we ALL face the current problems.
.
http://www.leg.bc.ca/hansard/39th1st/H90903a.htm
but if it doesn't work, look up BC Hansard for September 3, 2009 (morning sitting), and go to Page 251.
Gotta tell you: one of my most passionate rightwing friends has just told me how much he enjoyed Huntington's statement, adding "I hate the BC Liberals and don't trust the NDP."
Another passionate Leftie friend says "It's a wow of a speech ... Huntington hit every nail square on the head."
How's that for the beginning of a whole new era??
Because I think partisan, adversarial, Me=good, You=bad politics is a cruel prank played upon the electorate to keep citizens distracted fighting one another instead of tackling the issues facing us all. Huntington seems to realize that we ALL face the current problems.
.
Anon 8:46, thank you for seeing one of the points in my comment.
One only needs to allow open thought to process the stupidity of "it's all about me now!" the current governments are working under, and the void future generations of Canadians will face when we allow either level of government to sell our critical infrastructures and resources to foreign countries. Or allow them by any means to control them as they do now. We are now a destitute third world country now IF we were truly willing to take a look at what no longer belongs to us - IN OUR OWN COUNTRY!
Truly, as far as I'm concerned every politician who gave their consent, as well as those who actively worked toward giving control to another country, should be charged with treason and spend the rest of their natural lives in prison. I'm willing to show them the same mercy they've given the citizens of this province/country. None.
One only needs to allow open thought to process the stupidity of "it's all about me now!" the current governments are working under, and the void future generations of Canadians will face when we allow either level of government to sell our critical infrastructures and resources to foreign countries. Or allow them by any means to control them as they do now. We are now a destitute third world country now IF we were truly willing to take a look at what no longer belongs to us - IN OUR OWN COUNTRY!
Truly, as far as I'm concerned every politician who gave their consent, as well as those who actively worked toward giving control to another country, should be charged with treason and spend the rest of their natural lives in prison. I'm willing to show them the same mercy they've given the citizens of this province/country. None.
# posted by : September 5, 2009 at 12:52 p.m.
: September 5, 2009 at 12:52 p.m.
Mary, after re-reading what Vicki had to say a couple of times...double WOW!
Her words were well crafted and arrow straight with no ambiguity whatsoever. I think we really need to write her a letter and let her know how refreshing it is to see someone speak the Truth in that chamber. God only knows it's been a LONG time since that was done!!
I hope everyone reads it, and sees the quality of woman behind the words. Then I think we really need to encourage her to retain her integrity when we all know much will be done to have her vacate her principles as the others have done.
We need to let her know she's being watched by all of us out here, and supported in her endeavors to return the Ledge to a state of sanity and equilibrium. Maybe we have reason to hope??
Her words were well crafted and arrow straight with no ambiguity whatsoever. I think we really need to write her a letter and let her know how refreshing it is to see someone speak the Truth in that chamber. God only knows it's been a LONG time since that was done!!
I hope everyone reads it, and sees the quality of woman behind the words. Then I think we really need to encourage her to retain her integrity when we all know much will be done to have her vacate her principles as the others have done.
We need to let her know she's being watched by all of us out here, and supported in her endeavors to return the Ledge to a state of sanity and equilibrium. Maybe we have reason to hope??
# posted by : September 5, 2009 at 12:59 p.m.
: September 5, 2009 at 12:59 p.m.
Leah,
My letter to Vicki Huntington has already been sent to her.
I certainly agree with you, and hope others will give her a few words of appreciation too.
.
My letter to Vicki Huntington has already been sent to her.
I certainly agree with you, and hope others will give her a few words of appreciation too.
.
Maybe Paul Nettleton should join this new party ,Robert Gregorson,Corky Evans I'm sure we could think of a few more and a name ,nominations are now officially open!We could truly work for an open system for and by the people for a whole new era of truly open and transparent government!
# posted by : September 5, 2009 at 2:42 p.m.
: September 5, 2009 at 2:42 p.m.
The right to full answer in defence is absolute and inherent. Judicial powers are derivative, and statutory. Canadians must think of robed savages as the hired help, and not a super-constitutional power.
Our robed junta suppressed exercise of full defence, until the "Stinchcombe" case, in 1991. That followed the US Supreme Court's lift of prosecutorial usurpation, in the "Brady" case in 1962. Canadian judges are partial to the prosecution. In fact, most Bench hirees are former members of Crown Counsel, govt. attornies or from connected firms.
Judicial abridgement of due consideration of inculpatory/exculpatory evidence in order to favour one side is an act of Sedition. Yet to our robed savages, Sedition is like breathing. While the media loves to point to low sentencing in BC courts, as an aspect of judicial lenience, that is practiced to encourage guilty pleas. Increasingly, persons who face charges in BC courts are targets rather than suspects.
Again, the Basi-Virk-Basi case would not have reached even the investigation stage, had a rivalry not existed between Victoria Police and the RCMP. Otherwise, only targets useful to propping the fiction of justice, are processed in BC courts.
Judges are not at liberty; Canadians can be, once we recognize that we are being oppressed under an insurrection as yet unapphrended. Civil governance is being overthrown piecemeal in Canada.
Our robed junta suppressed exercise of full defence, until the "Stinchcombe" case, in 1991. That followed the US Supreme Court's lift of prosecutorial usurpation, in the "Brady" case in 1962. Canadian judges are partial to the prosecution. In fact, most Bench hirees are former members of Crown Counsel, govt. attornies or from connected firms.
Judicial abridgement of due consideration of inculpatory/exculpatory evidence in order to favour one side is an act of Sedition. Yet to our robed savages, Sedition is like breathing. While the media loves to point to low sentencing in BC courts, as an aspect of judicial lenience, that is practiced to encourage guilty pleas. Increasingly, persons who face charges in BC courts are targets rather than suspects.
Again, the Basi-Virk-Basi case would not have reached even the investigation stage, had a rivalry not existed between Victoria Police and the RCMP. Otherwise, only targets useful to propping the fiction of justice, are processed in BC courts.
Judges are not at liberty; Canadians can be, once we recognize that we are being oppressed under an insurrection as yet unapphrended. Civil governance is being overthrown piecemeal in Canada.
# posted by : September 5, 2009 at 3:39 p.m.
: September 5, 2009 at 3:39 p.m.
Anonymous 3:39,
Please talk more about this part of your message:
Again, the Basi-Virk-Basi case would not have reached even the investigation stage, had a rivalry not existed between Victoria Police and the RCMP.
I have always wondered how things got to the point that a historic raid upon a legislature was contemplated.
But since both forces (RCMP and Victoria Police) undertook the raids of Dec. 28, 2003 ... can you say more about that?
.
Please talk more about this part of your message:
Again, the Basi-Virk-Basi case would not have reached even the investigation stage, had a rivalry not existed between Victoria Police and the RCMP.
I have always wondered how things got to the point that a historic raid upon a legislature was contemplated.
But since both forces (RCMP and Victoria Police) undertook the raids of Dec. 28, 2003 ... can you say more about that?
.
anon 3:39, the fiction of justice? Its called the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Oh where would we be had it not been enacted?
Free of a lot of crooks, as they would all be in jail, perhaps.
Free of a lot of crooks, as they would all be in jail, perhaps.
# posted by : September 5, 2009 at 7:24 p.m.
: September 5, 2009 at 7:24 p.m.
The CEO of BCRC explained that at the start of the process, it was not known who the eventual winner of the bid would be. It could have stayed a provincially regulated entity if a class 1 national railway had not won the bidding process. -
Source: http://www.llbc.leg.bc.ca/public/PubDocs/bcdocs/436257/Rpt-PAC-38-3-AnnualSumActiviites-3rdRpt-2008-MAR-11.pdf at page 38 of 51 Annual Summary of Activities February 2008
Does this then mean that after the start of the process, the eventual winner was known, and it was at this point that CN Rail was tagged as being it?
Source: http://www.llbc.leg.bc.ca/public/PubDocs/bcdocs/436257/Rpt-PAC-38-3-AnnualSumActiviites-3rdRpt-2008-MAR-11.pdf at page 38 of 51 Annual Summary of Activities February 2008
Does this then mean that after the start of the process, the eventual winner was known, and it was at this point that CN Rail was tagged as being it?
North Van Grumps. Good catch. Seems that the CEO knew or thought he knew who was going to win right from the start. So then why didnt OmniTrax? Why did they bother? What were they told? What did they think that meant?
Why did they give an inducement to a political aid? Were they asked to do so, or did they offer it up? What info did they get in exchange?
Only when the court case starts can these questions be answered. Lets get on with it.
Why did they give an inducement to a political aid? Were they asked to do so, or did they offer it up? What info did they get in exchange?
Only when the court case starts can these questions be answered. Lets get on with it.
# posted by : September 6, 2009 at 7:21 a.m.
: September 6, 2009 at 7:21 a.m.
The question rages on as to whether or not the BC Liberal government has EVER asked for the public's participation in their decision making on such issues as the sale of BC Rail to CN Rail; going-for-a-gold-HST medal alone; or the reasoning behind their having to amend their gold plated salaries and legislation on balanced budgets.
Yes they did, and it was November of 2008, in response to the Auditor General of British Columbia report ..... on this very subject and for good measure the Auditor threw in some Principle as well:
"Response from Government
Auditor Ggeneral of British Columbia | 2008/2009 Report 11:
Public Participation: Principles and Best Practices for British Columbia 13
The Government appreciates the thought-provoking and interesting report provided by the Office of the Auditor General. Public engagement is a timely topic and one that this Government strongly believes is critical to effectively make decisions.
We agree with the characterization of public engagement as being on a continuum, starting from informing the public through to collaboratively identifying solutions to significant public policy issues. Whether it is informing the public of government decisions through publicly available reports, such as B.C.’s Water Plan or the Climate Action Plan, or collaboratively determining the direction of health care through the Conversation on Health, we have and continue to engage the public across a broad range of decisions and policy issues along the continuum.
[NOTE: continuum defined: ... a continuous nonspatial whole or extent or succession in which no part or portion is distinct or distinguishable from adjacent parts]....[still having problems with small "c" continuum, then think of Star Trek's Q Continuum, the public readily accepted that theory over a three hour serial in three parts, including commercials]
The common principles of public participation outlined in the report are ones that the Government endorses when engaging the public prior to a decision being made. Additionally, the seven steps provide a useful framework for designing a public engagement process. Government will take this guidance into consideration when determining where and how the public will be engaged.
Government agrees that a consistent approach to engagement across all agencies is advisable, but believes that this approach is appropriate only in certain circumstances. For example, where government engages as a result of a regulatory or legal requirement, consistency should be the rule.
However, as government engages on a wide variety of issues and across the public engagement continuum, flexibility is key to ensure that the engagement design and methods can fit the appropriate circumstances. It is also key for government to be able to determine where public engagement would be most beneficial and cost‑-effective.
In conclusion, Government believes that the Auditor General’s report provides useful guidance on how to engage the public. This guidance will be distributed to all ministries as information to consider when designing public engagement process.
We thank the Office of the Auditor General for its work."
Source: http://www.bcauditor.com/files/publications/2008/report11/report/public-participation-principles-and-best-practices-british-columbia.pdf
************************
Further reading, which goes to currently define exactly:
"What is Meant by “Public Participation” and Why Does it Warrant Attention?"
And surprise, surprise its SIG (Special Interest Group) that are the sole benafactors.....not the general public, for we know not what they (politicians) do on our behalf for their friends.
Source: http://www.bcauditor.com/files/publications/2008/report11/files/public-participationprintspreads.pdf
Yes they did, and it was November of 2008, in response to the Auditor General of British Columbia report ..... on this very subject and for good measure the Auditor threw in some Principle as well:
"Response from Government
Auditor Ggeneral of British Columbia | 2008/2009 Report 11:
Public Participation: Principles and Best Practices for British Columbia 13
The Government appreciates the thought-provoking and interesting report provided by the Office of the Auditor General. Public engagement is a timely topic and one that this Government strongly believes is critical to effectively make decisions.
We agree with the characterization of public engagement as being on a continuum, starting from informing the public through to collaboratively identifying solutions to significant public policy issues. Whether it is informing the public of government decisions through publicly available reports, such as B.C.’s Water Plan or the Climate Action Plan, or collaboratively determining the direction of health care through the Conversation on Health, we have and continue to engage the public across a broad range of decisions and policy issues along the continuum.
[NOTE: continuum defined: ... a continuous nonspatial whole or extent or succession in which no part or portion is distinct or distinguishable from adjacent parts]....[still having problems with small "c" continuum, then think of Star Trek's Q Continuum, the public readily accepted that theory over a three hour serial in three parts, including commercials]
The common principles of public participation outlined in the report are ones that the Government endorses when engaging the public prior to a decision being made. Additionally, the seven steps provide a useful framework for designing a public engagement process. Government will take this guidance into consideration when determining where and how the public will be engaged.
Government agrees that a consistent approach to engagement across all agencies is advisable, but believes that this approach is appropriate only in certain circumstances. For example, where government engages as a result of a regulatory or legal requirement, consistency should be the rule.
However, as government engages on a wide variety of issues and across the public engagement continuum, flexibility is key to ensure that the engagement design and methods can fit the appropriate circumstances. It is also key for government to be able to determine where public engagement would be most beneficial and cost‑-effective.
In conclusion, Government believes that the Auditor General’s report provides useful guidance on how to engage the public. This guidance will be distributed to all ministries as information to consider when designing public engagement process.
We thank the Office of the Auditor General for its work."
Source: http://www.bcauditor.com/files/publications/2008/report11/report/public-participation-principles-and-best-practices-british-columbia.pdf
************************
Further reading, which goes to currently define exactly:
"What is Meant by “Public Participation” and Why Does it Warrant Attention?"
And surprise, surprise its SIG (Special Interest Group) that are the sole benafactors.....not the general public, for we know not what they (politicians) do on our behalf for their friends.
Source: http://www.bcauditor.com/files/publications/2008/report11/files/public-participationprintspreads.pdf
Gary E and paint:
"What really took me by surprise was that instead of white trucks with the logos they were dark green. A little darker than the old BC Rail color.
My thought was, is this a mind bending thing to get us to turn our minds from CN Rail?"
Hi Gary, My thought is that they are saving money (and, coincidentally, the environment!) by not trying to cover green with white. Even with their powerful industrial painting abilities, it would require CN to apply several expensive coats of paint to cover green with white.
"What really took me by surprise was that instead of white trucks with the logos they were dark green. A little darker than the old BC Rail color.
My thought was, is this a mind bending thing to get us to turn our minds from CN Rail?"
Hi Gary, My thought is that they are saving money (and, coincidentally, the environment!) by not trying to cover green with white. Even with their powerful industrial painting abilities, it would require CN to apply several expensive coats of paint to cover green with white.
# posted by : September 6, 2009 at 9:51 a.m.
: September 6, 2009 at 9:51 a.m.
Beginning here:
Source: http://www.llbc.leg.bc.ca/public/PubDocs/bcdocs/436257/Rpt-PAC-38-3-AnnualSumActiviites-3rdRpt-2008-MAR-11.pdf at page 38 of 51 Annual Summary of Activities February 2008
North Van's Grumps said...
“Does this then mean that after the start of the process, the eventual winner was known, and it was at this point that CN Rail was tagged as being it?”
September 5, 2009 7:58 PM
In dissecting political mumbo jumbo one is advised to see through the lens of fiction and Pynchon sets up the viewfinder superbly with his line from Gravity’s Rainbow.
"If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don't have to worry about the answers."
— Thomas Pynchon (Gravity's Rainbow)
NVG’s question rightly might read, “ Does this mean that before the start of the process the winner was already determined, as CN is now an American held corporation most likely in possession of the upcoming sale far in advance of that sale becoming common knowledge.?’
Any assumptions of what may have taken place in the structuring of said ‘sale’ are theoretical at best. Unrelenting public pressure on the courts, and I state this advisably, might bring full disclosure of all the contributing factors involved.
On, or in the question of “…the as to whether or not the BC Liberal government has EVER asked for the public's participation in their decision making on such issues as the sale of BC Rail to CN Rail.” the governments response to the Auditor General’s report is cleverly crafted so as to give a false impression government is being transparent in its business practices when in fact the response of the government has, in layman’s terms, covered its Butt.
The business of the People is far too important to be trusted carte blanche’ to politicians.
It is said all power resides with the people. I say the People are in flagrant violation of their responsibilities and duties in an ordered society. The politicians depend on our lack of vigilance. Have we the guts to call a halt to their dependencies? Or will the jury be forever out?
Source: http://www.llbc.leg.bc.ca/public/PubDocs/bcdocs/436257/Rpt-PAC-38-3-AnnualSumActiviites-3rdRpt-2008-MAR-11.pdf at page 38 of 51 Annual Summary of Activities February 2008
North Van's Grumps said...
“Does this then mean that after the start of the process, the eventual winner was known, and it was at this point that CN Rail was tagged as being it?”
September 5, 2009 7:58 PM
In dissecting political mumbo jumbo one is advised to see through the lens of fiction and Pynchon sets up the viewfinder superbly with his line from Gravity’s Rainbow.
"If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don't have to worry about the answers."
— Thomas Pynchon (Gravity's Rainbow)
NVG’s question rightly might read, “ Does this mean that before the start of the process the winner was already determined, as CN is now an American held corporation most likely in possession of the upcoming sale far in advance of that sale becoming common knowledge.?’
Any assumptions of what may have taken place in the structuring of said ‘sale’ are theoretical at best. Unrelenting public pressure on the courts, and I state this advisably, might bring full disclosure of all the contributing factors involved.
On, or in the question of “…the as to whether or not the BC Liberal government has EVER asked for the public's participation in their decision making on such issues as the sale of BC Rail to CN Rail.” the governments response to the Auditor General’s report is cleverly crafted so as to give a false impression government is being transparent in its business practices when in fact the response of the government has, in layman’s terms, covered its Butt.
The business of the People is far too important to be trusted carte blanche’ to politicians.
It is said all power resides with the people. I say the People are in flagrant violation of their responsibilities and duties in an ordered society. The politicians depend on our lack of vigilance. Have we the guts to call a halt to their dependencies? Or will the jury be forever out?
# posted by : September 6, 2009 at 11:21 a.m.
: September 6, 2009 at 11:21 a.m.
Re Mary's quering of Anonymous 3:29:
Political and corporate corruption gets "outed" more often in the US party because of inter-agency rivalry and competition. Between the FBI, state police, county sheriff/city police, US Marshals etc an of course the fact that District Attorneys/prosecution departments are not beholden to the Governor's Office, or to the Courts, and are independent also of the Legislatures....
In much the same way that press outlets compete for "scoops", investigation of cases has a competitive edge in the US. If your agency doesn't get there first, some one else will take the credit; and make your agency look bad for negligence or sloppiness, even implicate it in the wrongdoing by complicity or conspiracy or just good ol' sleaze.....
All that in a country where people are trained to care, unlike Canada where they're trained to be cynical and shrug off official irresponsibility and police inaction/misdeed and wilfully myopic courts.....
As for Anon's refrain of "let's get on with it", I wish what Anon would get on with is stop just providing innunendo without explanation and stop using the "elet's get on with it" refrain as a way to say "this conversation is unimportant, let's just try this one case and be damned with it".
And pointing to the Charter as a way to say that we have a justice system is laughably weak as an argument. If the Charter were any good, what's going on in the SCBC right now wouldn't be possible. We don't have any real protection of our rights ;only what Trudeau and the First Ministers of the day would allow us; it's not like the Bill of Rights or the constitutional guarantees in the Declaration of Independence and the US constitution. If anything the Charter would be used to protect corrupt officials and a corrupt system from inquiry, just as "precedent" has been used to rescue Patrick Kinsella from having to discuss his dealings with the public's business (legal particularism is the bane of justice in this country....)
And of course there's the notwithstanding clause, the shit-coloured parachute the politicians wrote into the Charter to give themselves a way out....but this isn't even a Charter case, Anonymous, so why did you even bring it up?? Equivocation? Obfuscation? Posturing????
You seem far more interested in Basi-Virk than you do in the crimes agains hte public that we already know about, that there's enough evidence staring us in the face already to "get on with it" and charge the politicians and their other high-hangers-on Or maybe you just don't understand the bigger picture.
"Only when the court case starts can these questions be answered. Lets get on with it."
It shouldn't have to have taken a court case to get us this far. And a lot of qeustions can be answered now if only the assholes who have the answers should come clean and, where applicable, resign for their inquities.
There's enough petty bureaucrats and political aides (and police) out there who know what went down, and their silence is maybe the biggest elephant in the room. Shame on all of them. And shame on you for pretending that "only" if this case proceeds will we have any answers. If this government's so concerned about penny-pinching, they should fess up and take the heat, instead of racking up the public's legal tab on both sides of this case. The answers shouldn't have to cost us this much money. Neither should the inevitable resignations of the real wrongdoers.
Myself, I think you've just joined the chorus to try to change its tune.
Political and corporate corruption gets "outed" more often in the US party because of inter-agency rivalry and competition. Between the FBI, state police, county sheriff/city police, US Marshals etc an of course the fact that District Attorneys/prosecution departments are not beholden to the Governor's Office, or to the Courts, and are independent also of the Legislatures....
In much the same way that press outlets compete for "scoops", investigation of cases has a competitive edge in the US. If your agency doesn't get there first, some one else will take the credit; and make your agency look bad for negligence or sloppiness, even implicate it in the wrongdoing by complicity or conspiracy or just good ol' sleaze.....
All that in a country where people are trained to care, unlike Canada where they're trained to be cynical and shrug off official irresponsibility and police inaction/misdeed and wilfully myopic courts.....
As for Anon's refrain of "let's get on with it", I wish what Anon would get on with is stop just providing innunendo without explanation and stop using the "elet's get on with it" refrain as a way to say "this conversation is unimportant, let's just try this one case and be damned with it".
And pointing to the Charter as a way to say that we have a justice system is laughably weak as an argument. If the Charter were any good, what's going on in the SCBC right now wouldn't be possible. We don't have any real protection of our rights ;only what Trudeau and the First Ministers of the day would allow us; it's not like the Bill of Rights or the constitutional guarantees in the Declaration of Independence and the US constitution. If anything the Charter would be used to protect corrupt officials and a corrupt system from inquiry, just as "precedent" has been used to rescue Patrick Kinsella from having to discuss his dealings with the public's business (legal particularism is the bane of justice in this country....)
And of course there's the notwithstanding clause, the shit-coloured parachute the politicians wrote into the Charter to give themselves a way out....but this isn't even a Charter case, Anonymous, so why did you even bring it up?? Equivocation? Obfuscation? Posturing????
You seem far more interested in Basi-Virk than you do in the crimes agains hte public that we already know about, that there's enough evidence staring us in the face already to "get on with it" and charge the politicians and their other high-hangers-on Or maybe you just don't understand the bigger picture.
"Only when the court case starts can these questions be answered. Lets get on with it."
It shouldn't have to have taken a court case to get us this far. And a lot of qeustions can be answered now if only the assholes who have the answers should come clean and, where applicable, resign for their inquities.
There's enough petty bureaucrats and political aides (and police) out there who know what went down, and their silence is maybe the biggest elephant in the room. Shame on all of them. And shame on you for pretending that "only" if this case proceeds will we have any answers. If this government's so concerned about penny-pinching, they should fess up and take the heat, instead of racking up the public's legal tab on both sides of this case. The answers shouldn't have to cost us this much money. Neither should the inevitable resignations of the real wrongdoers.
Myself, I think you've just joined the chorus to try to change its tune.
This is quite an interesting editorial that reveals who BC Rail is now
holding hands with in Squamish (a slice of what is probably happening
all over BC):
http://www.squamishchief.com/article/20081107/SQUAMISH0302/311079842/1059/the-job-dilemma
And if you click on this link it gives you a whole page of the "land
development" angle of BC Rail:
http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&source=hp&q=%22bc+rail%22+%22westmana%22&btnG=Google+Search&meta=&aq=f&oq=
L.
holding hands with in Squamish (a slice of what is probably happening
all over BC):
http://www.squamishchief.com/article/20081107/SQUAMISH0302/311079842/1059/the-job-dilemma
And if you click on this link it gives you a whole page of the "land
development" angle of BC Rail:
http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&source=hp&q=%22bc+rail%22+%22westmana%22&btnG=Google+Search&meta=&aq=f&oq=
L.
# posted by : September 6, 2009 at 4:27 p.m.
: September 6, 2009 at 4:27 p.m.
Your right Skookum. Lets not bother with a trial. There are far many bigger fish to fry than an little corruption case. Lets allow the defence to launch what appears to be a public criminal investigation of private indivuals, conducted under the guise of a defence in respect of pretrial court proceedings.
Okay, enough crazy talk. I was being facetious. Thank you for the lecture. Now for mine:
Your allegations of wrong doers are just that, allegations. Until this thing gets to trial, and all the evidence is heard, only then will a decision be made. You dont seem to want that though, do you. But I do. This thing has gone on too long. Get it inside a court house and lets get on with it. Let the accused say their piece and let prosecution do the same. The Judge will decide. It isnt that complicated. PLEASE!!
Okay, enough crazy talk. I was being facetious. Thank you for the lecture. Now for mine:
Your allegations of wrong doers are just that, allegations. Until this thing gets to trial, and all the evidence is heard, only then will a decision be made. You dont seem to want that though, do you. But I do. This thing has gone on too long. Get it inside a court house and lets get on with it. Let the accused say their piece and let prosecution do the same. The Judge will decide. It isnt that complicated. PLEASE!!
# posted by : September 6, 2009 at 4:35 p.m.
: September 6, 2009 at 4:35 p.m.
To Anon 4:35,
I doubt that there's a living, breathing soul in British Columbia who would disagree with you for wanting the trial to begin.
How do we get the trial going?
Seems to me that the Prosecutor is the stumbling block. Please tell us, if you have ANY ideas on how we could get it across to Bill Berardino that it's in everybody's best interest to get the Basi Virk Basi trial moving forward?
Seriously. How do we do that?
.
I doubt that there's a living, breathing soul in British Columbia who would disagree with you for wanting the trial to begin.
How do we get the trial going?
Seems to me that the Prosecutor is the stumbling block. Please tell us, if you have ANY ideas on how we could get it across to Bill Berardino that it's in everybody's best interest to get the Basi Virk Basi trial moving forward?
Seriously. How do we do that?
.
I am sorry Mary, but I thought it was the defence that was holding the show up with numerous and sundy applications, the most recent targeting the correspondence of Kinsella, which was quashed on account of it being a fishing expedition. Correct me if I am wrong.
I agree that ALL documents should have been disclosed to the defence, that their relevance can only be determined by the defence.
But what if, horrors, the accused are guilty as charged, and what if none of what they are applying for is relevant but a well crafted ploy to raise doubt where none should exists?
Is justice served when the defence is allowed to drag things out forever in their amnition to find something, anything than can raise doubt, if only becuase they are so expert, seasoned and highly paid. which inevitably will end in a stay?
Lets get BVB case heard THIS YEAR. Enough is enough.
I agree that ALL documents should have been disclosed to the defence, that their relevance can only be determined by the defence.
But what if, horrors, the accused are guilty as charged, and what if none of what they are applying for is relevant but a well crafted ploy to raise doubt where none should exists?
Is justice served when the defence is allowed to drag things out forever in their amnition to find something, anything than can raise doubt, if only becuase they are so expert, seasoned and highly paid. which inevitably will end in a stay?
Lets get BVB case heard THIS YEAR. Enough is enough.
# posted by : September 6, 2009 at 5:17 p.m.
: September 6, 2009 at 5:17 p.m.
BC Mary, sorry, I forgot to answer your question:
I dont know.
I dont know.
# posted by : September 6, 2009 at 5:18 p.m.
: September 6, 2009 at 5:18 p.m.
Indeed, Anon 5:17, I will correct you because you are wrong.
Defence has asked ... but the government (didn't you hear?) seems to have "lost" the e.mails requested.
As a guess, I'd say that Basi and Virk have a very clear idea of which e.mails they need ...
and I imagine Gordo's Gang has a clear idea of pages which could incriminate them, too.
The onus is on the Crown Prosecutor to insist, persuade, demand, and obtain all those items.
If you know how to activate Bill Berardino, please do so ... and tell us how, too.
Seriously. How do we get Berardino to do his job?
.
Defence has asked ... but the government (didn't you hear?) seems to have "lost" the e.mails requested.
As a guess, I'd say that Basi and Virk have a very clear idea of which e.mails they need ...
and I imagine Gordo's Gang has a clear idea of pages which could incriminate them, too.
The onus is on the Crown Prosecutor to insist, persuade, demand, and obtain all those items.
If you know how to activate Bill Berardino, please do so ... and tell us how, too.
Seriously. How do we get Berardino to do his job?
.
Anon 4:27's Editorial comment is from The Chief, and is dated November 7, 2008
However in the 2008 Annual report from BCRC there is no mention whatsoever of their participating in a partnership with Westmana and Squamish Oceanfront Development Corporation (SODC).
"BCRC’s primary mandate is to support and facilitate the British Columbia Ports Strategy (“BC Ports Strategy”) and Pacific Gateway Strategy, by providing consulting advice, acquiring and holding railway corridor and strategic port lands, and making related infrastructure investments for the Province."
Source: http://www.bcrco.com/2008report.pdf
"All significant decisions, events and identified risks, as of December 31, 2008, have been considered in preparing the report." - John McLernon, Chair
However in the 2008 Annual report from BCRC there is no mention whatsoever of their participating in a partnership with Westmana and Squamish Oceanfront Development Corporation (SODC).
"BCRC’s primary mandate is to support and facilitate the British Columbia Ports Strategy (“BC Ports Strategy”) and Pacific Gateway Strategy, by providing consulting advice, acquiring and holding railway corridor and strategic port lands, and making related infrastructure investments for the Province."
Source: http://www.bcrco.com/2008report.pdf
"All significant decisions, events and identified risks, as of December 31, 2008, have been considered in preparing the report." - John McLernon, Chair
Glad you found Vicki's speech.
Coincidence re: B/V/B Stan Lowe moved from Chief Prosecutor to head the Police Complaints Commission. A reward?
see http://www/straight.com/article-207371
(dated March 21/09)
Sol. Gen Kash Heed had 2 complaints
filed against him when he was West Van Chief and Gordo recruited him
to get rid of Waffling Wally. When Heed was with the VPD he led the gang squad at some point. Just look at how gangs have flourished.
The mind boggles. A coincidence? Or what?
The other address I sent you concerns the findings of the Transportation Safety Board and 2 accidents caused by CN.
Coincidence re: B/V/B Stan Lowe moved from Chief Prosecutor to head the Police Complaints Commission. A reward?
see http://www/straight.com/article-207371
(dated March 21/09)
Sol. Gen Kash Heed had 2 complaints
filed against him when he was West Van Chief and Gordo recruited him
to get rid of Waffling Wally. When Heed was with the VPD he led the gang squad at some point. Just look at how gangs have flourished.
The mind boggles. A coincidence? Or what?
The other address I sent you concerns the findings of the Transportation Safety Board and 2 accidents caused by CN.
# posted by : September 6, 2009 at 6:06 p.m.
: September 6, 2009 at 6:06 p.m.
Thanks, N.V.G.,
so there you have it: the historian's nightmare of trying to weigh things which aren't even mentioned.
And I bet if anyone asked Chairperson McLernon about the Squamish omission, he would say "Ooops!" and carry on as usual.
So an extra thank-you to "L", contributor of the Squamish story.
.
so there you have it: the historian's nightmare of trying to weigh things which aren't even mentioned.
And I bet if anyone asked Chairperson McLernon about the Squamish omission, he would say "Ooops!" and carry on as usual.
So an extra thank-you to "L", contributor of the Squamish story.
.
Anon 6:06,
Yes, thanks again for alerting us to Vicki Huntington's first speech in the BC Legislature.
I tried to look up the next URL you sent but it opens up to a web offer ... can you check it? Would like to see the CN news you've found.
.
Yes, thanks again for alerting us to Vicki Huntington's first speech in the BC Legislature.
I tried to look up the next URL you sent but it opens up to a web offer ... can you check it? Would like to see the CN news you've found.
.
BC Mary. I would be very surprised if any emails existed that suggested it was okay to accept inducements. I also am very suspect that there are any relevent emails, if there were, why would it take the defence this late in the game to make applicaiton for them?
Everyone in Govt would know that their emails are subjcet to FOI requests.
So I doubt anyone except the neophyte and sloppy would be so dimwitted as to say much of anything in an email. That is what cell phones are for, and that is why I cannot wait for this trial to get underway so the wire tap evidence and all other evidence can be made a matter of public record.
I dont know how we can get Bernardido to do his job and get this thing inside a court room. Why cant it get underway this October? Why does this need to drag on? The talent hired are not neophytes. They are productive and efficient. Why do we need another year of BS? Answers please!!
Everyone in Govt would know that their emails are subjcet to FOI requests.
So I doubt anyone except the neophyte and sloppy would be so dimwitted as to say much of anything in an email. That is what cell phones are for, and that is why I cannot wait for this trial to get underway so the wire tap evidence and all other evidence can be made a matter of public record.
I dont know how we can get Bernardido to do his job and get this thing inside a court room. Why cant it get underway this October? Why does this need to drag on? The talent hired are not neophytes. They are productive and efficient. Why do we need another year of BS? Answers please!!
# posted by : September 6, 2009 at 6:23 p.m.
: September 6, 2009 at 6:23 p.m.
Anon 6:23,
You must be new here. Right?
So you'd get answers to most of your questions by scrolling down, down, down on this site. I've gathered up all the answers here ... all you have to do is look for them.
As for Berardino, there's no point in repeating How? Why? When? as if we're preventing you from finding out how, why and when the trial begins.
But if you know of a way in which the public can persuade the Crown Prosecutor to insist on delivering those missing documents to the court, you'd be a hero.
Just please stop yelling at us, OK?
.
You must be new here. Right?
So you'd get answers to most of your questions by scrolling down, down, down on this site. I've gathered up all the answers here ... all you have to do is look for them.
As for Berardino, there's no point in repeating How? Why? When? as if we're preventing you from finding out how, why and when the trial begins.
But if you know of a way in which the public can persuade the Crown Prosecutor to insist on delivering those missing documents to the court, you'd be a hero.
Just please stop yelling at us, OK?
.
"Scroll down, down, down", but its much simpler to just say we are currently waiting for the Supreme Court of Canada's decsion:
http://bctrialofbasi-virk.blogspot.com/2008/11/supreme-court-of-canada-to-hear-special.html
http://bctrialofbasi-virk.blogspot.com/2008/11/supreme-court-of-canada-to-hear-special.html
# posted by : September 6, 2009 at 8:00 p.m.
: September 6, 2009 at 8:00 p.m.
I went "fishing" just now for the key words "BC Rail partnership" without the quotes of course, at Google because of what "The Chief" newspaper wrote in their editorial in November of 2008.
I came across this item in a pre-trial court case, in Nova Scotia, involving BC Rail Partnership and a rail car manufacturer because of a fatality to one of BC Rail's employees due to a rail car going off the tracks.
Source:
http://www.canlii.org/eliisa/search.do?language=en&searchTitle=Nova+Scotia&sortOrder=relevance&searchPage=eliisa%2FjurisdictionSearch.vm&jurisdiction=ns&text=%22bc+rail+partnership%22&id=&startDate=&endDate=&legislation=legislation&caselaw=courts&boardTribunal=tribunals
[10] In Nova Scotia the number of interrogatories is only to be limited if the Court concludes it is necessary to protect a party or person from annoyance, expense, embarrassment or oppression. For instance, in /Sherman v. Dalhousie College and University /1996 CanLII 5409 (NS S.C.) , (1996), 153 N.S.R. (2d) 334 (S.C.), Goodfellow J. concluded, at paragraphs 18-19, that the plaintiff was attempting to conduct “an oral examination for discovery by written interrogatories.” In the circumstances, it was appropriate to limit the number of interrogatories on the basis that the Court was satisfied on a balance of probabilities that a party needed to be protected from annoyance, expense, embarrassment or oppression. He noted that interrogatories are one of a number of pre-trial procedures, and normally interrogatories have specific goals in mind, and usually precede oral discovery.
Source of both the trial and pre-trial are here: http://www.canlii.org/eliisa/highlight.do?text=bc+rail+partnership&language=en&searchTitle=Nova+Scotia&path=/en/ns/nssc/doc/2007/2007nssc280/2007nssc280.html
The above court case is well worth a full reading of it, especially when you get to [8] and then think about how the defense for Basi/Virk/Basi has been proceeding.
Here we are, the public, almost siding with the defendants, and yet....... just who are the parties who should be on trial, either right now, or will be in the future.
I came across this item in a pre-trial court case, in Nova Scotia, involving BC Rail Partnership and a rail car manufacturer because of a fatality to one of BC Rail's employees due to a rail car going off the tracks.
Source:
http://www.canlii.org/eliisa/search.do?language=en&searchTitle=Nova+Scotia&sortOrder=relevance&searchPage=eliisa%2FjurisdictionSearch.vm&jurisdiction=ns&text=%22bc+rail+partnership%22&id=&startDate=&endDate=&legislation=legislation&caselaw=courts&boardTribunal=tribunals
[10] In Nova Scotia the number of interrogatories is only to be limited if the Court concludes it is necessary to protect a party or person from annoyance, expense, embarrassment or oppression. For instance, in /Sherman v. Dalhousie College and University /1996 CanLII 5409 (NS S.C.) , (1996), 153 N.S.R. (2d) 334 (S.C.), Goodfellow J. concluded, at paragraphs 18-19, that the plaintiff was attempting to conduct “an oral examination for discovery by written interrogatories.” In the circumstances, it was appropriate to limit the number of interrogatories on the basis that the Court was satisfied on a balance of probabilities that a party needed to be protected from annoyance, expense, embarrassment or oppression. He noted that interrogatories are one of a number of pre-trial procedures, and normally interrogatories have specific goals in mind, and usually precede oral discovery.
Source of both the trial and pre-trial are here: http://www.canlii.org/eliisa/highlight.do?text=bc+rail+partnership&language=en&searchTitle=Nova+Scotia&path=/en/ns/nssc/doc/2007/2007nssc280/2007nssc280.html
The above court case is well worth a full reading of it, especially when you get to [8] and then think about how the defense for Basi/Virk/Basi has been proceeding.
Here we are, the public, almost siding with the defendants, and yet....... just who are the parties who should be on trial, either right now, or will be in the future.
According to a Sean Holman post back on November 17, 2004 over at Public Eye, he wrote that Greg Lyle and Jess Ketchum were "beavering away" along with Patrick Kinsella in 2005. Source: http://www.publiceyeonline.com/archives/000384.html#more
Sean Holman had this to say in his column as well: "Mr. Ketchum has also been a consultant to Great Canadian Railtour Co. and is friends with the company's chief executive officer Peter Armstrong.
In September 2004, Canadian National Railway Co. announced Great Canadian had been selected to operate tourist trains on its newly-acquired British Columbia Rail routes. Mr. Ketchum does not sit on the company's board of directors nor is he an executive officer." Bold print not by Mr. Holman.
Not sure why its important to note that Mr. Ketchum didn't sit on the company's board of directors nor that he wasn't an executive officer either, however, according to Elections BC.....they have a different story to tell.
As of March 9th, 2005 Jess Ketchum found himself on board because Elections BC record keepers have him listed as Principal #2 (President) with Peter Armstrong being Principal #1 (Executive Chairman & Chief Executive Officer) over at the Great Canadian Railtour Company.
Between the two rail companies that Mr. Armstrong owns, Election BC's PCS program has the BC Liberals receiving $181,316.00 altogether in donations with Canadian Railtours share being $148,026.00.
Source: http://contributions.electionsbc.gov.bc.ca/pcs/SA1SearchResults.aspx?FilerSK=%28ALL%29&EDSK=0&FilerTypeSK=0&Contributor=peter%20armstrong&PartySK=0&ED=%28ALL%29&FilerType=%28ALL%29&Filer=%28ALL%29&Party=%28ALL%29&DateTo=&DateFrom=&DFYear=&DFMonth=&DFDay=&DTYear=&DTMonth=&DTDay=
As to Greg Lyle, he left as silently as he arrived ..... before the election in 2005
"The Man who Wasn't there"
Source: http://www.publiceyeonline.com/archives/000547.html
Sean Holman had this to say in his column as well: "Mr. Ketchum has also been a consultant to Great Canadian Railtour Co. and is friends with the company's chief executive officer Peter Armstrong.
In September 2004, Canadian National Railway Co. announced Great Canadian had been selected to operate tourist trains on its newly-acquired British Columbia Rail routes. Mr. Ketchum does not sit on the company's board of directors nor is he an executive officer." Bold print not by Mr. Holman.
Not sure why its important to note that Mr. Ketchum didn't sit on the company's board of directors nor that he wasn't an executive officer either, however, according to Elections BC.....they have a different story to tell.
As of March 9th, 2005 Jess Ketchum found himself on board because Elections BC record keepers have him listed as Principal #2 (President) with Peter Armstrong being Principal #1 (Executive Chairman & Chief Executive Officer) over at the Great Canadian Railtour Company.
Between the two rail companies that Mr. Armstrong owns, Election BC's PCS program has the BC Liberals receiving $181,316.00 altogether in donations with Canadian Railtours share being $148,026.00.
Source: http://contributions.electionsbc.gov.bc.ca/pcs/SA1SearchResults.aspx?FilerSK=%28ALL%29&EDSK=0&FilerTypeSK=0&Contributor=peter%20armstrong&PartySK=0&ED=%28ALL%29&FilerType=%28ALL%29&Filer=%28ALL%29&Party=%28ALL%29&DateTo=&DateFrom=&DFYear=&DFMonth=&DFDay=&DTYear=&DTMonth=&DTDay=
As to Greg Lyle, he left as silently as he arrived ..... before the election in 2005
"The Man who Wasn't there"
Source: http://www.publiceyeonline.com/archives/000547.html
North Van Grumps. I am not siding with the defendants. Nor do I think the missing documents will make any difference. I think this is a big game made to create doubt were none exists. why do i think that?
Becuase, senior govt officials would know such information would be subject to FOI requests. Perhaps only the defendands would be so sloppy as to not know that. So in that regard, if there were any such documents, they would be coming from the defendants, and no one else. Thats what I think.
The real damning info and the info that caused charges to be laid was the wire tap envidence. Correct me if I am wrong. And that is the evidence I want to hear. Remember, the wire tappin all stemmed from a drug unvestigation, for which Jas Bains, Dave Basi's cousin, is now serving 9 yrs for.
Becuase, senior govt officials would know such information would be subject to FOI requests. Perhaps only the defendands would be so sloppy as to not know that. So in that regard, if there were any such documents, they would be coming from the defendants, and no one else. Thats what I think.
The real damning info and the info that caused charges to be laid was the wire tap envidence. Correct me if I am wrong. And that is the evidence I want to hear. Remember, the wire tappin all stemmed from a drug unvestigation, for which Jas Bains, Dave Basi's cousin, is now serving 9 yrs for.
# posted by : September 7, 2009 at 9:30 a.m.
: September 7, 2009 at 9:30 a.m.
This is a really interesting excerpt to read from an article on Glen Clark's trial, especially in light of how the BC Rail case is proceeding...or not proceeding. It was written by Neal Hall in November, 2001.
Interesting info on Montague and Dohm...and how Dohm wanted to be "seized" of the file. Sounds familiar.
Another interesting part is Judge Elizabeth Bennett complaining that they are a "whole month behind schedule." The horror of it - a whole month! We sure didn't hear her complaining much about the years and years behind schedule this case has fallen.
" In 2001, Police went to Palm Springs, where judge was on vacation."
The wiretap authorization involving former B.C. premier Glen Clark was
illegal because it was approved by a vacationing judge in California who had
no jurisdiction to convene court outside of Canada, Clark's lawyer told a
pre-trial hearing Monday.
"It's unthinkable, almost, that this court can sit wherever it wants to,"
David Gibbons argued before B.C. Supreme Court Justice Elizabeth Bennett.
The defence lawyer pointed out that three police investigators, a special
prosecutor and an agent acting for the attorney-general of B.C. flew on an
RCMP jet to visit B.C. Supreme Court Associate Chief Justice Patrick Dohm
while he was vacationing in Palm Springs.
Dohm authorized police on Feb. 14, 1999, to secretly listen to the phone
calls of Dimitrios Pilarinos and others.
Gibbons argued Monday that the investigators, special prosecutor and
attorney- general's representative were illegally working in Palm Springs
without "green cards."
"None of them had any special authorization to work there," he told the
court.
Outside court, Gibbons told reporters the wiretap evidence ought to be
excluded because it was illegally obtained.
***********
He said he has never heard of a Canadian
court proceeding being held outside Canada without the permission of foreign
authorities.
"I mean, I wouldn't mind having my trials right now in southern California
either. It would be great. I'd love it. Fiji would be even nicer," Gibbons
said."
*************
"Gibbons was also critical of the police investigators not keeping any notes
or recordings of private conversations with the judge vacationing in Palm
Springs.
"It is my own view that all discussions in regard to this matter should be
kept as part of the record so they can be reviewed by citizens later on. And
this case is a good case of an example of why that's necessary."
********
"As well as challenging Dohm's jurisdiction to conduct hearings outside
Canada, the defence lawyers claim police did not provide the judge with full
disclosure of the investigation before he approved the wiretap.
He also pointed out that the special prosecutor, Martin Taylor, was a former
B.C. Court of Appeal judge who selected Dohm as the judge to authorize the
wiretap.
Police continued using Dohm to authorize warrants after he went on vacation,
said Gibbons, who suggested police could have requested any of the 60-plus
other judges of the B.C. Supreme Court to hear further applications after
Dohm went on vacation.
Gibbons noted that Vancouver RCMP commercial crime Staff Sergeant Peter
Montague had private phone conversations with Dohm. Montague even sent the
judge a cellular phone so police could reach him while he was driving back
from Palm Springs.
The court was earlier told by special prosecutor Bill Smart that Dohm had ap
proved, in early February 1999, the first warrant in the investigation
involving Clark and Pilarinos.
The judge, before going on vacation, had said that he wanted to be "seized"
of the file -- meaning he wanted to handle any future court
applications --because of the politically sensitive nature of the probe
involving the premier.
..... The two-month criminal trial is expected to start later this month.
The pre-trial defence motions have taken longer than expected,
"We're a month behind schedule already," the trial judge observed Monday."
Interesting info on Montague and Dohm...and how Dohm wanted to be "seized" of the file. Sounds familiar.
Another interesting part is Judge Elizabeth Bennett complaining that they are a "whole month behind schedule." The horror of it - a whole month! We sure didn't hear her complaining much about the years and years behind schedule this case has fallen.
" In 2001, Police went to Palm Springs, where judge was on vacation."
The wiretap authorization involving former B.C. premier Glen Clark was
illegal because it was approved by a vacationing judge in California who had
no jurisdiction to convene court outside of Canada, Clark's lawyer told a
pre-trial hearing Monday.
"It's unthinkable, almost, that this court can sit wherever it wants to,"
David Gibbons argued before B.C. Supreme Court Justice Elizabeth Bennett.
The defence lawyer pointed out that three police investigators, a special
prosecutor and an agent acting for the attorney-general of B.C. flew on an
RCMP jet to visit B.C. Supreme Court Associate Chief Justice Patrick Dohm
while he was vacationing in Palm Springs.
Dohm authorized police on Feb. 14, 1999, to secretly listen to the phone
calls of Dimitrios Pilarinos and others.
Gibbons argued Monday that the investigators, special prosecutor and
attorney- general's representative were illegally working in Palm Springs
without "green cards."
"None of them had any special authorization to work there," he told the
court.
Outside court, Gibbons told reporters the wiretap evidence ought to be
excluded because it was illegally obtained.
***********
He said he has never heard of a Canadian
court proceeding being held outside Canada without the permission of foreign
authorities.
"I mean, I wouldn't mind having my trials right now in southern California
either. It would be great. I'd love it. Fiji would be even nicer," Gibbons
said."
*************
"Gibbons was also critical of the police investigators not keeping any notes
or recordings of private conversations with the judge vacationing in Palm
Springs.
"It is my own view that all discussions in regard to this matter should be
kept as part of the record so they can be reviewed by citizens later on. And
this case is a good case of an example of why that's necessary."
********
"As well as challenging Dohm's jurisdiction to conduct hearings outside
Canada, the defence lawyers claim police did not provide the judge with full
disclosure of the investigation before he approved the wiretap.
He also pointed out that the special prosecutor, Martin Taylor, was a former
B.C. Court of Appeal judge who selected Dohm as the judge to authorize the
wiretap.
Police continued using Dohm to authorize warrants after he went on vacation,
said Gibbons, who suggested police could have requested any of the 60-plus
other judges of the B.C. Supreme Court to hear further applications after
Dohm went on vacation.
Gibbons noted that Vancouver RCMP commercial crime Staff Sergeant Peter
Montague had private phone conversations with Dohm. Montague even sent the
judge a cellular phone so police could reach him while he was driving back
from Palm Springs.
The court was earlier told by special prosecutor Bill Smart that Dohm had ap
proved, in early February 1999, the first warrant in the investigation
involving Clark and Pilarinos.
The judge, before going on vacation, had said that he wanted to be "seized"
of the file -- meaning he wanted to handle any future court
applications --because of the politically sensitive nature of the probe
involving the premier.
..... The two-month criminal trial is expected to start later this month.
The pre-trial defence motions have taken longer than expected,
"We're a month behind schedule already," the trial judge observed Monday."
# posted by : September 7, 2009 at 1:39 p.m.
: September 7, 2009 at 1:39 p.m.
I've got an idea,why don't the courts use Mary's site for discovery
to look up all this shit the lieberal party of BC has put it's citizens through,because I don't consider them our government, because they just don't have our best interest at heart ,they are not in the best interest of the people of BC all you have to do is look around and you tell me if they are!!!!!THEY CALL IT TREASON!!!!!!
to look up all this shit the lieberal party of BC has put it's citizens through,because I don't consider them our government, because they just don't have our best interest at heart ,they are not in the best interest of the people of BC all you have to do is look around and you tell me if they are!!!!!THEY CALL IT TREASON!!!!!!
# posted by : September 7, 2009 at 5:03 p.m.
: September 7, 2009 at 5:03 p.m.
My, my. Seems as His Honour Judge Dohm has a very political side to him from way back, and I don't believe it's the side of and in the interests of all British Columbians.
Curt
Curt
# posted by : September 7, 2009 at 7:34 p.m.
: September 7, 2009 at 7:34 p.m.
BC Mary: sorry I didn't see your request for info on the inter-cop rivalry that led to the B-V-B investigation, and the course it took. In my recollection, the Times-Colonist reported that police were reluctant to react until complaints were made to 2 forces, and they didn't want to appear in collusion, in face of the sweetheart relations BC police had with the then (and now) ex-cop, Solicitor-General, Rich Coleman.
Keep this in mind: cops need a reason to serve other than the fact that there is evidence of a crime. The average Vancouver cop writes one Report to Crown Counsel every 18 days, even as they take at least 3 complaints per 10 hour shift. Generally, quota considerations force rate-making and prohibit rate-busting, which means that cases are investigated based primarily on career needs of cops. Service refusal in face of substantiable crime complaints is routine in BC. In this province, 100% of negligence law suits against cops fail, notwithstanding their "to serve and protect" slogans. In each of my suits against 5 police services, Statements of Defence denied that they owed a "duty of care" to the public. Yet, we owe wages to those slugs.
So how does a criminal complaint against a politician or bureaucrat get registered? It requires MAJOR leveraging. Ottawa Mayor O'Brien was charged ONLY after labour unrest was threatened, after the thoroughly UNDISCREDITED accusations were tossed against him by Kilrea. Police services initially REFUSED service, as did they refuse service in the BC Rail dispute. They served only when they knew that embarassment would be the result.
http://www.nupge.ca/news_2007/n11de07b.htm
Of course, during the CANWEST-COUP against Glen Clark, due consideration of the former Premier's barter-defence to his exchanges with Piniaros was abridged, intentionally, by stooges of the Law Society in prosecutorial garb. Later, when the AG refused to give a blank cheque to prosecutors in a wage dispute, their association accused him of "misfeasance" in court documents. Quid pro quo? You decide. But, do NOT assume that the Law Society has a shred of public purpose.
Keep this in mind: cops need a reason to serve other than the fact that there is evidence of a crime. The average Vancouver cop writes one Report to Crown Counsel every 18 days, even as they take at least 3 complaints per 10 hour shift. Generally, quota considerations force rate-making and prohibit rate-busting, which means that cases are investigated based primarily on career needs of cops. Service refusal in face of substantiable crime complaints is routine in BC. In this province, 100% of negligence law suits against cops fail, notwithstanding their "to serve and protect" slogans. In each of my suits against 5 police services, Statements of Defence denied that they owed a "duty of care" to the public. Yet, we owe wages to those slugs.
So how does a criminal complaint against a politician or bureaucrat get registered? It requires MAJOR leveraging. Ottawa Mayor O'Brien was charged ONLY after labour unrest was threatened, after the thoroughly UNDISCREDITED accusations were tossed against him by Kilrea. Police services initially REFUSED service, as did they refuse service in the BC Rail dispute. They served only when they knew that embarassment would be the result.
http://www.nupge.ca/news_2007/n11de07b.htm
Of course, during the CANWEST-COUP against Glen Clark, due consideration of the former Premier's barter-defence to his exchanges with Piniaros was abridged, intentionally, by stooges of the Law Society in prosecutorial garb. Later, when the AG refused to give a blank cheque to prosecutors in a wage dispute, their association accused him of "misfeasance" in court documents. Quid pro quo? You decide. But, do NOT assume that the Law Society has a shred of public purpose.
# posted by : September 8, 2009 at 1:35 a.m.
: September 8, 2009 at 1:35 a.m.
"The Judge will decide."
The judge decide a lot of things, not all of them just or good....
Why should only a single judge - one with no political experience or corporate crime experience (only family law) - have the right to decide what's evidence and what's not in a case involving illegal activities by the province's ruling political machine? Why should public figures claiming that their role in the public interest is a private matter??
"Get on with it", indeed. Why don't you stop blustering about getting on with this sham of a trial, Anonymous, and start asking the BIG questions about what other trials are needed? And what reforms are needed to our political and judicial system to prevent the kind of abuses that are in-your-face throughout the history of this case??
Throwing the weight of the public interest into a single neophyte justice, who has been parachuted into the position by an Assistant Chief Justice with suspect set of connections to the history of this case and the previous persecution of Glen Clark - that's just nonsense and you know it.
What needs to be gotten on with is an investigation of the illegal sale of BC Rail and the laying of charges against those responsible, and who took part. What needs to be gotten on with is an investigation of the RCMP's role in covering up everything and in illegal actions such as flying to Pal mSprings to get a warrant signed, or concealing information so as to get warrants/ or of concealing all kinds of things.....what needs "getting on with" is a proper inquiry into the overall role of untendered contracts in the privatization of government services, agencies and Crown Corporations. And of the role of unregistered lobbyists with "inside" connections to the Executive Council, lobbyists who even brag about such political connections in their promotional literature.
But you jsut want only this trial to proceed, as if it weren't a monkey show with a puppet judge. Or, more like, a Punch and Judy Show between BVB's lawyers and the government's hip-pocket Crown Prosecutors.
I actually think Gordon Campbell and his cadre are themselves just puppets in this whole affair/ I'd be curious to know who's at the top of the whole set of strings.......
"Get on with it", Anonymous. Stop pretending that justice will proceed normally and justly. It hasn't so far.
The judge decide a lot of things, not all of them just or good....
Why should only a single judge - one with no political experience or corporate crime experience (only family law) - have the right to decide what's evidence and what's not in a case involving illegal activities by the province's ruling political machine? Why should public figures claiming that their role in the public interest is a private matter??
"Get on with it", indeed. Why don't you stop blustering about getting on with this sham of a trial, Anonymous, and start asking the BIG questions about what other trials are needed? And what reforms are needed to our political and judicial system to prevent the kind of abuses that are in-your-face throughout the history of this case??
Throwing the weight of the public interest into a single neophyte justice, who has been parachuted into the position by an Assistant Chief Justice with suspect set of connections to the history of this case and the previous persecution of Glen Clark - that's just nonsense and you know it.
What needs to be gotten on with is an investigation of the illegal sale of BC Rail and the laying of charges against those responsible, and who took part. What needs to be gotten on with is an investigation of the RCMP's role in covering up everything and in illegal actions such as flying to Pal mSprings to get a warrant signed, or concealing information so as to get warrants/ or of concealing all kinds of things.....what needs "getting on with" is a proper inquiry into the overall role of untendered contracts in the privatization of government services, agencies and Crown Corporations. And of the role of unregistered lobbyists with "inside" connections to the Executive Council, lobbyists who even brag about such political connections in their promotional literature.
But you jsut want only this trial to proceed, as if it weren't a monkey show with a puppet judge. Or, more like, a Punch and Judy Show between BVB's lawyers and the government's hip-pocket Crown Prosecutors.
I actually think Gordon Campbell and his cadre are themselves just puppets in this whole affair/ I'd be curious to know who's at the top of the whole set of strings.......
"Get on with it", Anonymous. Stop pretending that justice will proceed normally and justly. It hasn't so far.
Does anyone know why GC has gone to New York on more than a couple of occasions since taking office? Do they know who he met with while he was there? Has he met with government types from Canada or the USA, whilst on his annual vacations in Hawaii?
I find it quite amazing that he's had meetings with Cheney, yet we know nothing of the agenda. Has Justice Dohm met with either one of them outside of Canada? There's a whole lot more to what's going on in BC than we have a clue about - BC Rail will turn out to be the tip of the iceberg. Follow the money. Follow the power and control. Topple the house of cards.
I find it quite amazing that he's had meetings with Cheney, yet we know nothing of the agenda. Has Justice Dohm met with either one of them outside of Canada? There's a whole lot more to what's going on in BC than we have a clue about - BC Rail will turn out to be the tip of the iceberg. Follow the money. Follow the power and control. Topple the house of cards.
# posted by : September 9, 2009 at 8:56 a.m.
: September 9, 2009 at 8:56 a.m.
Anonymous 8:56 am....
Well, there's innuendo and then there's innuendo....when was the meeting with Cheney?
And who Justice Dohm might play cards and/or golf with in Palm Springs is genuinely intriguing...California is an old redoubt of BC politicians; many early Premiers and other high official retired there (including J.F. McCreight, the 1st Premier, and A.C. Elliott, the 4th; the 2nd, Amor de Cosmos, though Nova Scotian, had of course lived there for a decade before coming north to become Izzy Asper v.1)
There have been several neoconservative conferences that Campbell has spoken at, and been invited to speak at...those speeches should be dug up, and also who he was seated with at those events....
What doesn't fit in this is, given the obvious Republicanite intrigue of much that's gone on in BC, why it is that Lara Dauphinee "follows" Barack Obama on Twitter.....
Well, there's innuendo and then there's innuendo....when was the meeting with Cheney?
And who Justice Dohm might play cards and/or golf with in Palm Springs is genuinely intriguing...California is an old redoubt of BC politicians; many early Premiers and other high official retired there (including J.F. McCreight, the 1st Premier, and A.C. Elliott, the 4th; the 2nd, Amor de Cosmos, though Nova Scotian, had of course lived there for a decade before coming north to become Izzy Asper v.1)
There have been several neoconservative conferences that Campbell has spoken at, and been invited to speak at...those speeches should be dug up, and also who he was seated with at those events....
What doesn't fit in this is, given the obvious Republicanite intrigue of much that's gone on in BC, why it is that Lara Dauphinee "follows" Barack Obama on Twitter.....
There has been more than one meeting with Cheney - one in Washington, another in Alberta for sure. The Alberta meeting was by "invitation only"...being issued by the esteemed Mr. Walker (tongue is in my cheek!) of the Fraser Institute. No one but the invitees know what was on the agenda, what was agreed to, or what they have planned for the future. You can bet it isn't anything good for anyone but themselves...as is evidenced by the crap that GC is pulling. There are probably more than a few involved in his destruction of the Province - he ain't that powerful on his own. Opportunistic - yes. Obedient - absolutely. Manipulative - The Master Of. Strong? No.
Post a Comment
# posted by : September 10, 2009 at 9:16 a.m.
: September 10, 2009 at 9:16 a.m. << Home
