Monday, November 30, 2009
Basi-Virk wire tap alleges ex-Minister of Finance involved ...
.
Bill Tieleman, May 4, 2007:
RCMP: failure to communicate?
The RCMP's role in the Basi-Virk investigation also took a beating from the defence in the past few days.
{Big snip removed from an excellent 2007 column .. recommended reading} ...
... Erik Bornmann was partners with Brian Kieran and former LPC (Liberal Party of Canada) BC president Jamie Elmhirst at Pilothouse Public Affairs.
Pilothouse was retained by BC Rail privatization bidder OmniTRAX to conduct government relations on its behalf and according to court documents, OmniTRAX spent nearly $300,000 on Pilothouse's services.
But when the final results of the BC Rail privatization were announced, OmniTRAX had lost out to CN Rail.
When the police executed search warrants on the B.C. legislature, they also searched the Pilothouse office and Bornmann's Vancouver home-office looking for evidence.
Soon afterwards the RCMP and the Special Prosecutor cut an immunity deal with Bornmann to testify against his former friends Basi and Virk, who had all worked together on the Paul Martin leadership campaign, McCullough outlined.
And it was that deal with Bornmann and the fact that the defence says it does not have any of the details about it, that troubles McCullough.
McCullough alleged that Bornmann and partner Kieran were both allowed to continue their lucrative lobbying business despite allegedly admitting to "bribing public officials" because of the deal.
He further alleged that Bornmann was also allowed to complete law school and begin articling at prestigious Toronto law firm McCarthy Tétrault despite his involvement in the BC Rail charges because of the special deal.
'Unfathomable'
McCullough said it was "unfathomable" that a lengthy statement Bornmann gave investigators in February 2005 was not disclosed to the defence.
"The Bornmann statement deals exclusively with Mr. Virk and Mr. Basi and Aneal Basi. It is to do with BC Rail and it is to do with the payments," McCullough said.
"Bornmann was not a bit player but the key player, a witness whose credibility was sullied from the get go and we don't get a statement from him," McCullough complained.
McCullough continued by alleging Bornmann was an unreliable witness who made false accusations against another likely Crown witness, Bruce Clark, brother of Christy Clark and an executive member of the Liberal Party of Canada BC.
"Bornmann provided statements regarding another potential witness. Mr. Bornmann alleged Mr. Clark bribed Mr. Basi," McCullough alleged. "A purported payment to Basi from Clark regarding Pacific Western Brewery -- Erik Bornmann stated Clark paid Basi for the information."
"Mr. Bornmann may have made one too many statements," McCullough continued. "Now the defence can rebut that statement. We understand that the allegation is not only untrue but it unfortunately compromised the good name of another. There's an indication he's making it up as he goes along."
"How did the police follow that up? Whether Mr. Bornmann was simply making false allegations in respect to Mr. Clark and Mr. Basi?" McCullough asked.
[Bruce Clark has previously told the Globe and Mail that he has already been investigated and cleared by police in that matter.]
Allegations and accusations
And so it goes in courtroom 54 as the allegations and accusations pile up.
What's sometimes stunning to remember given the number of revelations is that this is merely the preliminary defence disclosure application.
The defence will make a Charter of Rights application once this stage is complete and then, unless Justice Bennett halts the case altogether, the trial itself will begin and run for at least six months.
That means many if not all of the allegations to date will return to the courtroom but this time with witnesses called, cross-examination and evidence entered -- evidence that can be examined by journalists and the public.
During the current disclosure application stage, no evidence has been presented for the media or spectators in the public gallery to review.
But that hasn't stopped the defence from using the B.C. legislature raid case to give British Columbians its angle of view on the machinations of political power and the intersection of money, influence and government, even if only through allegations unproven in court.
""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
Bill Tieleman, May 4, 2007:
RCMP: failure to communicate?
The RCMP's role in the Basi-Virk investigation also took a beating from the defence in the past few days.
{Big snip removed from an excellent 2007 column .. recommended reading} ...
... Erik Bornmann was partners with Brian Kieran and former LPC (Liberal Party of Canada) BC president Jamie Elmhirst at Pilothouse Public Affairs.
Pilothouse was retained by BC Rail privatization bidder OmniTRAX to conduct government relations on its behalf and according to court documents, OmniTRAX spent nearly $300,000 on Pilothouse's services.
But when the final results of the BC Rail privatization were announced, OmniTRAX had lost out to CN Rail.
When the police executed search warrants on the B.C. legislature, they also searched the Pilothouse office and Bornmann's Vancouver home-office looking for evidence.
Soon afterwards the RCMP and the Special Prosecutor cut an immunity deal with Bornmann to testify against his former friends Basi and Virk, who had all worked together on the Paul Martin leadership campaign, McCullough outlined.
And it was that deal with Bornmann and the fact that the defence says it does not have any of the details about it, that troubles McCullough.
McCullough alleged that Bornmann and partner Kieran were both allowed to continue their lucrative lobbying business despite allegedly admitting to "bribing public officials" because of the deal.
He further alleged that Bornmann was also allowed to complete law school and begin articling at prestigious Toronto law firm McCarthy Tétrault despite his involvement in the BC Rail charges because of the special deal.
'Unfathomable'
McCullough said it was "unfathomable" that a lengthy statement Bornmann gave investigators in February 2005 was not disclosed to the defence.
"The Bornmann statement deals exclusively with Mr. Virk and Mr. Basi and Aneal Basi. It is to do with BC Rail and it is to do with the payments," McCullough said.
"Bornmann was not a bit player but the key player, a witness whose credibility was sullied from the get go and we don't get a statement from him," McCullough complained.
McCullough continued by alleging Bornmann was an unreliable witness who made false accusations against another likely Crown witness, Bruce Clark, brother of Christy Clark and an executive member of the Liberal Party of Canada BC.
"Bornmann provided statements regarding another potential witness. Mr. Bornmann alleged Mr. Clark bribed Mr. Basi," McCullough alleged. "A purported payment to Basi from Clark regarding Pacific Western Brewery -- Erik Bornmann stated Clark paid Basi for the information."
"Mr. Bornmann may have made one too many statements," McCullough continued. "Now the defence can rebut that statement. We understand that the allegation is not only untrue but it unfortunately compromised the good name of another. There's an indication he's making it up as he goes along."
"How did the police follow that up? Whether Mr. Bornmann was simply making false allegations in respect to Mr. Clark and Mr. Basi?" McCullough asked.
[Bruce Clark has previously told the Globe and Mail that he has already been investigated and cleared by police in that matter.]
Allegations and accusations
And so it goes in courtroom 54 as the allegations and accusations pile up.
What's sometimes stunning to remember given the number of revelations is that this is merely the preliminary defence disclosure application.
The defence will make a Charter of Rights application once this stage is complete and then, unless Justice Bennett halts the case altogether, the trial itself will begin and run for at least six months.
That means many if not all of the allegations to date will return to the courtroom but this time with witnesses called, cross-examination and evidence entered -- evidence that can be examined by journalists and the public.
During the current disclosure application stage, no evidence has been presented for the media or spectators in the public gallery to review.
But that hasn't stopped the defence from using the B.C. legislature raid case to give British Columbians its angle of view on the machinations of political power and the intersection of money, influence and government, even if only through allegations unproven in court.
""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
Saturday, November 28, 2009
CROWN COUNSEL POLICY MANUAL and Justice MacKenzie's ruling in Basi Virk
.
Was there -- or was there not -- an immunity granted to Erik Bornmann, the star witness for the Prosecution in the Basi Virk trial, who allegedly paid bribe money to one of the Accused?
If there was an authorized immunity, what are its terms?
Should the immunity terms be fully revealed before the trial? -- or after the trial?
The CROWN COUNSEL POLICY MANUAL proves the point beyond any doubt (as understood by those who were in court last week) that the Basi Virk Defence has been arguing strictly on the law and protocol as written. The Basi Virk defence was seeking assurance that, as the CROWN COUNSEL POLICY MANUAL stipulates: an immunity agreement must be understood, written down, and signed before trial.
Furthermore, Defence was adamant that total immunity should be granted before the trial so that Bornmann could answer without trimming his words to avoid unforeseen charges against himself. As I see it, with total immunity Bornmann could fully answer every question we need to ask.
Special Prosecutor Berardino, on the other hand, at first denied that there was an immunity agreement; then was said to have torn up Bornmann's immunity agreement; and currently appears to be offering Bornmann immunity conditional upon Crown's approval of his testimony when completed.
After reading the CROWN COUNSEL POLICY MANUAL, Immunity from Prosecution - Witnesses & Informants (see below), it is easy to see the necessity of providing the Star witness with total immunity which is written, signed and understood by all concerned (including the people of British Columbia).
But this places Madam Justice MacKenzie in error when she made an oral ruling last week choosing the Berardino option ... meaning that (a) we won't know if Erik Bornmann told us the truth, or (b) whether he told us everything he could have said, to help restore the wrongs that were allegedly done. We'll have the judge's Reasons for Judgment next week, she said.
I leave it to others to explain for themselves why two professional journalists presented that story as if it was all about what Bornmann may or may not be going to say when he takes the witness stand. It wasn't. It was about the law and about whether the fair-minded Crown Counsel Policy was being followed. MSM journalists corrected their news reports later .
But here's the thing: if such a misunderstanding could occur in the courtroom, over the objections of the Basi Virk defence team, and be taken up by the judge as well as the media, it's obviously time to review the crystal-clear rules governing a matter so important. It comes down to obtaining credible testimony in return for granting a precious immunity.
- BC Mary.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
BC Criminal Justice Branch,
Ministry of Attorney General
CROWN COUNSEL POLICY MANUAL
Effective date: November 18, 2005
Immunity from Prosecution - Witnesses & Informants
POLICY
The granting of immunity from prosecution is an extraordinary exercise of prosecutorial discretion by Crown Counsel. Immunity may be granted to an informant in return for providing information to assist an investigation by the police or to a witness in return for giving evidence at trial.
"Immunity" includes all forms of prosecutorial consideration that can be granted in return for information or testimony, including the reduction or staying of charges, an agreement by Crown Counsel to a less severe sentence or an agreement concerning judicial interim release.
The decision to grant immunity should be made by Regional or Deputy Regional Crown Counsel, and the Assistant Deputy Attorney General should be advised.
Immunity should be granted only where:
1. the evidence or information is crucial to the prosecution of a serious charge and the overriding public interest requires it;
2. there is no other viable means to obtain the information or evidence, or it is not practicable, because of a significant risk to public safety, for the police to simply continue their investigation
3. the value of the information or evidence outweighs any risk to public safety or lessening of public confidence in the administration of justice which may result from the granting of immunity; and
4. the evidence or information offered by the informant or witness relates to criminal involvement of the accused that is more serious than or, in exceptional cases, is at least as serious as, the criminal involvement of the informant or witness.
Crown Counsel should avoid granting complete immunity from criminal responsibility to an informer or witness unless it is absolutely necessary to obtain the required information or evidence. The granting of a limited form of immunity is generally preferred (an example of limited immunity is where Crown Counsel recommends a less severe sentence than might otherwise be appropriate in return for the cooperation of the informant or witness).
Since immunity is granted in one case for the purpose of advancing another, it should not be granted unless:
1. a senior member of the police department or detachment concerned requests it in writing, including an explanation of why the information or evidence is necessary and why the value of that information or evidence outweighs any risk to public safety or lessening of public confidence in the administration of justice which may result;
2. Crown Counsel receives from the police full disclosure of the offences from which immunity is sought and of all other known or suspected criminal activity in which the informant or witness is involved; and
3. in the case where charges against the informant or witness arise from other jurisdictions, Crown Counsel and the other police agencies responsible for those charges have been consulted by the police investigators requesting immunity and have provided their written consent to it.
All grants of immunity, and any other benefits conferred in return for testimony or information, should be clearly defined and documented.
DISCUSSION
Under the Crown Counsel Act, Crown Counsel have the sole responsibility to make all prosecutorial decisions, including whether to grant immunity in order to secure information or evidence.
Crown Counsel should bear in mind the potential effect that a grant of immunity may have on the weight to be given to a witness' evidence.
Where Crown wishes to assess the reliability of the information or evidence offered, Crown Counsel may consider the factors described in the policy on in-custody informers (INC 1).
PROCEDURE
Informer Witness Registry
When Crown Counsel first learns of an offer of information or evidence by an informant or witness, Crown Counsel should provide pertinent information to the Informer Witness Registry (see the Practice Bulletin entitled Informer Witness Registry).
At the same time, Crown Counsel may ascertain whether the registry contains any relevant history concerning the informant.
Negotiating with a Prospective Witness with Respect to a Grant of Immunity
When a witness is to give evidence for the Crown in return for a grant of immunity, he or she must enter into a written immunity agreement with Crown Counsel. Crown Counsel should make every effort to ensure that the witness has the assistance of counsel before entering into any agreement. Crown Counsel should avoid negotiating directly with the witness. It is preferable that the negotiation should be handled by a Crown Counsel other than the Crown Counsel who has conduct of the preliminary inquiry or trial.
Documenting the Agreement
Conditions of a grant of immunity should be in writing and signed by the informant and Regional or Deputy Regional Crown Counsel.
Crown Counsel should not agree to immunity in exchange for testimony unless the witness signs a written statement or will-say of the witness' evidence. Recommended conditions in any agreement involving testimony include that the informant:
a) confirm the substantial truth of the will-say provided
b) shall tell the entire truth to the police, Crown Counsel and the court
c) shall testify at all proceedings in relation to any matter arising from the information which they provided
d) shall testify truthfully at all times
e) shall not withhold evidence of his or her involvement in any matters referred to in his or her evidence or statements
f) shall expect no further benefits than those documented in the agreement.
If the witness testifies, the immunity agreement must be disclosed to defence, and it should be entered in court as an exhibit.
Tracking the Informant
After completing an agreement with a witness, Crown Counsel should ask the police handling the case to keep Crown Counsel advised of the status of the witness, payments made, and agreements to relocate, so that Crown Counsel can make appropriate disclosure to defense counsel before trial (see policy DIS 1).
___________________________________________________________________
Those of us following the BC Rail Case closely, will have to reconcile what is written above, in law ... as compared to what the Crown Prosecutors have been saying in the pre-trial hearings of Basi, Virk, and Basi.
Basi Virk defence hammers at secret Erik Bornmann immunity deal
By Bill Tieleman - April 27, 2007
Click HERE for this, in full.
Excerpt:
The defence in the trial of former BC Liberal government ministerial aides David Basi and Bob Virk today alleged the Crown has deliberately refused to disclose details of a secret immunity agreement with key Crown witness Erik Bornmann.
And Kevin McCullough, lawyer for Virk, alleged in BC Supreme Court that Special Prosecutor Bill Berardino actually cancelled an immunity deal with Bornmann after the former provincial lobbyist implicated in the BC Rail deal told media he had been cleared of any wrongdoing by the RCMP and Special Prosecutor.
But McCullough says that ultimately the deal was not terminated and alleged that both the RCMP and the Special Prosecutor allowed Bornmann to falsely claim he had been exonerated in order to continue his highly-paid business lobbying the Gordon Campbell government for corporate clients.
These are defence allegations only, unproven in court and the Crown has not yet responded to them. The defence is arguing a disclosure application before Justice Elizabeth Bennett.
McCullough alleged that Bornmann's statement to media that he had been exonerated was false.
"Mr. Bornmann had bribed public officials, had made submissions that he had committed criminal offences," McCullough alleged.
McCullough also alleged that the Special Prosecutor had been "stonewalling" all defence requests for details about the deal, why it was apparently cancelled in a phone message to Bornmann's lawyer and why despite knowing Bornmann had not been cleared neither the RCMP nor Berardino corrected the record.
"When the Special Prosecutor chose to cut the immunity deal with Mr. Bornmann they were obligated to disclose the details," McCullough said. "It's an absolute stonewall to providing that information."
On Tuesday in court Janet Winteringham, Berardino's associate, had objected to McCullough's characterization of Berardino's conduct in the case, saying it amounted to an allegation of "prosecutorial misconduct."
McCullough also said it was strange that the RCMP had never requested the financial or tax records of Erik Bornmann in their investigation.
McCullough said that Aneal Basi, a former government communications aide alleged to have laundered payments by Bornmann to David Basi for confidential government information on the BC Rail deal, was actually issued a T-5 income tax receipt by Bornmann but that was never sought by RCMP.
____________________________________________________________________________
No written immunity deal for Bornmann, Crown claims in Basi-Virk trial - to defence disbelief; case adjourns till Tuesday
Crown opposes defence request for Special Prosecutor statement on what happened with Bornmann immunity deal in Basi-Virk case
Click HERE to see Bill Tieleman's report dated May 18, 2007:
Key Crown witness Erik Bornmann has no written immunity from prosecution agreement in the B.C. Legislature raid case, a special prosecutor told B.C. Supreme Court Thursday.
That provoked an exasperated response from defence lawyers, who are demanding that senior Special Prosecutor Bill Berardino make a statement on what they still call a Crown immunity deal.
Justice Elizabeth Bennett got the surprise answer from Special Prosecutor Janet Winteringham, who has handled most Crown duties during Berardino’s unexplained absence from the proceedings.
“The only question I had – was there an immunity agreement as outlined in Crown policy and the answer is there was not. But there’s no written agreement signed by Mr. Bornmann?” Bennett asked.
“No, there’s not, “Winteringham replied.
Michael Bolton, representing David Basi, the ex-ministerial aide charged with breach of trust and fraud for alleging giving lobbyist Bornmann secret government documents in the $1 billion B.C. Rail sale, said there is a deal.
“There’s got to be full disclosure of the deal between Mr. Bornmann and Mr. Berardino on immunity,” Bolton said. "What were the inducements in this deal to Mr. Bornmann to change his statement and give the statements he gave in April implicating my client? I need that in order to properly defend my client."
But Winteringham said no to the request for Berardino to hold forth.
“Just so it’s clear, the Crown opposes an order to have Mr. Berardino make a statement on this issue,” Winteringham said. "I’ve spoken to Mr. Berardino, since he can’t be here, and that is his position."
Columns re-posted in full by generous permission of Bill Tieleman.
"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
Was there -- or was there not -- an immunity granted to Erik Bornmann, the star witness for the Prosecution in the Basi Virk trial, who allegedly paid bribe money to one of the Accused?
If there was an authorized immunity, what are its terms?
Should the immunity terms be fully revealed before the trial? -- or after the trial?
The CROWN COUNSEL POLICY MANUAL proves the point beyond any doubt (as understood by those who were in court last week) that the Basi Virk Defence has been arguing strictly on the law and protocol as written. The Basi Virk defence was seeking assurance that, as the CROWN COUNSEL POLICY MANUAL stipulates: an immunity agreement must be understood, written down, and signed before trial.
Furthermore, Defence was adamant that total immunity should be granted before the trial so that Bornmann could answer without trimming his words to avoid unforeseen charges against himself. As I see it, with total immunity Bornmann could fully answer every question we need to ask.
Special Prosecutor Berardino, on the other hand, at first denied that there was an immunity agreement; then was said to have torn up Bornmann's immunity agreement; and currently appears to be offering Bornmann immunity conditional upon Crown's approval of his testimony when completed.
After reading the CROWN COUNSEL POLICY MANUAL, Immunity from Prosecution - Witnesses & Informants (see below), it is easy to see the necessity of providing the Star witness with total immunity which is written, signed and understood by all concerned (including the people of British Columbia).
But this places Madam Justice MacKenzie in error when she made an oral ruling last week choosing the Berardino option ... meaning that (a) we won't know if Erik Bornmann told us the truth, or (b) whether he told us everything he could have said, to help restore the wrongs that were allegedly done. We'll have the judge's Reasons for Judgment next week, she said.
I leave it to others to explain for themselves why two professional journalists presented that story as if it was all about what Bornmann may or may not be going to say when he takes the witness stand. It wasn't. It was about the law and about whether the fair-minded Crown Counsel Policy was being followed. MSM journalists corrected their news reports later .
But here's the thing: if such a misunderstanding could occur in the courtroom, over the objections of the Basi Virk defence team, and be taken up by the judge as well as the media, it's obviously time to review the crystal-clear rules governing a matter so important. It comes down to obtaining credible testimony in return for granting a precious immunity.
- BC Mary.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
BC Criminal Justice Branch,
Ministry of Attorney General
CROWN COUNSEL POLICY MANUAL
Effective date: November 18, 2005
Immunity from Prosecution - Witnesses & Informants
POLICY
The granting of immunity from prosecution is an extraordinary exercise of prosecutorial discretion by Crown Counsel. Immunity may be granted to an informant in return for providing information to assist an investigation by the police or to a witness in return for giving evidence at trial.
"Immunity" includes all forms of prosecutorial consideration that can be granted in return for information or testimony, including the reduction or staying of charges, an agreement by Crown Counsel to a less severe sentence or an agreement concerning judicial interim release.
The decision to grant immunity should be made by Regional or Deputy Regional Crown Counsel, and the Assistant Deputy Attorney General should be advised.
Immunity should be granted only where:
1. the evidence or information is crucial to the prosecution of a serious charge and the overriding public interest requires it;
2. there is no other viable means to obtain the information or evidence, or it is not practicable, because of a significant risk to public safety, for the police to simply continue their investigation
3. the value of the information or evidence outweighs any risk to public safety or lessening of public confidence in the administration of justice which may result from the granting of immunity; and
4. the evidence or information offered by the informant or witness relates to criminal involvement of the accused that is more serious than or, in exceptional cases, is at least as serious as, the criminal involvement of the informant or witness.
Crown Counsel should avoid granting complete immunity from criminal responsibility to an informer or witness unless it is absolutely necessary to obtain the required information or evidence. The granting of a limited form of immunity is generally preferred (an example of limited immunity is where Crown Counsel recommends a less severe sentence than might otherwise be appropriate in return for the cooperation of the informant or witness).
Since immunity is granted in one case for the purpose of advancing another, it should not be granted unless:
1. a senior member of the police department or detachment concerned requests it in writing, including an explanation of why the information or evidence is necessary and why the value of that information or evidence outweighs any risk to public safety or lessening of public confidence in the administration of justice which may result;
2. Crown Counsel receives from the police full disclosure of the offences from which immunity is sought and of all other known or suspected criminal activity in which the informant or witness is involved; and
3. in the case where charges against the informant or witness arise from other jurisdictions, Crown Counsel and the other police agencies responsible for those charges have been consulted by the police investigators requesting immunity and have provided their written consent to it.
All grants of immunity, and any other benefits conferred in return for testimony or information, should be clearly defined and documented.
DISCUSSION
Under the Crown Counsel Act, Crown Counsel have the sole responsibility to make all prosecutorial decisions, including whether to grant immunity in order to secure information or evidence.
Crown Counsel should bear in mind the potential effect that a grant of immunity may have on the weight to be given to a witness' evidence.
Where Crown wishes to assess the reliability of the information or evidence offered, Crown Counsel may consider the factors described in the policy on in-custody informers (INC 1).
PROCEDURE
Informer Witness Registry
When Crown Counsel first learns of an offer of information or evidence by an informant or witness, Crown Counsel should provide pertinent information to the Informer Witness Registry (see the Practice Bulletin entitled Informer Witness Registry).
At the same time, Crown Counsel may ascertain whether the registry contains any relevant history concerning the informant.
Negotiating with a Prospective Witness with Respect to a Grant of Immunity
When a witness is to give evidence for the Crown in return for a grant of immunity, he or she must enter into a written immunity agreement with Crown Counsel. Crown Counsel should make every effort to ensure that the witness has the assistance of counsel before entering into any agreement. Crown Counsel should avoid negotiating directly with the witness. It is preferable that the negotiation should be handled by a Crown Counsel other than the Crown Counsel who has conduct of the preliminary inquiry or trial.
Documenting the Agreement
Conditions of a grant of immunity should be in writing and signed by the informant and Regional or Deputy Regional Crown Counsel.
Crown Counsel should not agree to immunity in exchange for testimony unless the witness signs a written statement or will-say of the witness' evidence. Recommended conditions in any agreement involving testimony include that the informant:
a) confirm the substantial truth of the will-say provided
b) shall tell the entire truth to the police, Crown Counsel and the court
c) shall testify at all proceedings in relation to any matter arising from the information which they provided
d) shall testify truthfully at all times
e) shall not withhold evidence of his or her involvement in any matters referred to in his or her evidence or statements
f) shall expect no further benefits than those documented in the agreement.
If the witness testifies, the immunity agreement must be disclosed to defence, and it should be entered in court as an exhibit.
Tracking the Informant
After completing an agreement with a witness, Crown Counsel should ask the police handling the case to keep Crown Counsel advised of the status of the witness, payments made, and agreements to relocate, so that Crown Counsel can make appropriate disclosure to defense counsel before trial (see policy DIS 1).
___________________________________________________________________
Those of us following the BC Rail Case closely, will have to reconcile what is written above, in law ... as compared to what the Crown Prosecutors have been saying in the pre-trial hearings of Basi, Virk, and Basi.
Basi Virk defence hammers at secret Erik Bornmann immunity deal
By Bill Tieleman - April 27, 2007
Click HERE for this, in full.
Excerpt:
The defence in the trial of former BC Liberal government ministerial aides David Basi and Bob Virk today alleged the Crown has deliberately refused to disclose details of a secret immunity agreement with key Crown witness Erik Bornmann.
And Kevin McCullough, lawyer for Virk, alleged in BC Supreme Court that Special Prosecutor Bill Berardino actually cancelled an immunity deal with Bornmann after the former provincial lobbyist implicated in the BC Rail deal told media he had been cleared of any wrongdoing by the RCMP and Special Prosecutor.
But McCullough says that ultimately the deal was not terminated and alleged that both the RCMP and the Special Prosecutor allowed Bornmann to falsely claim he had been exonerated in order to continue his highly-paid business lobbying the Gordon Campbell government for corporate clients.
These are defence allegations only, unproven in court and the Crown has not yet responded to them. The defence is arguing a disclosure application before Justice Elizabeth Bennett.
McCullough alleged that Bornmann's statement to media that he had been exonerated was false.
"Mr. Bornmann had bribed public officials, had made submissions that he had committed criminal offences," McCullough alleged.
McCullough also alleged that the Special Prosecutor had been "stonewalling" all defence requests for details about the deal, why it was apparently cancelled in a phone message to Bornmann's lawyer and why despite knowing Bornmann had not been cleared neither the RCMP nor Berardino corrected the record.
"When the Special Prosecutor chose to cut the immunity deal with Mr. Bornmann they were obligated to disclose the details," McCullough said. "It's an absolute stonewall to providing that information."
On Tuesday in court Janet Winteringham, Berardino's associate, had objected to McCullough's characterization of Berardino's conduct in the case, saying it amounted to an allegation of "prosecutorial misconduct."
McCullough also said it was strange that the RCMP had never requested the financial or tax records of Erik Bornmann in their investigation.
McCullough said that Aneal Basi, a former government communications aide alleged to have laundered payments by Bornmann to David Basi for confidential government information on the BC Rail deal, was actually issued a T-5 income tax receipt by Bornmann but that was never sought by RCMP.
____________________________________________________________________________
No written immunity deal for Bornmann, Crown claims in Basi-Virk trial - to defence disbelief; case adjourns till Tuesday
Crown opposes defence request for Special Prosecutor statement on what happened with Bornmann immunity deal in Basi-Virk case
Click HERE to see Bill Tieleman's report dated May 18, 2007:
Key Crown witness Erik Bornmann has no written immunity from prosecution agreement in the B.C. Legislature raid case, a special prosecutor told B.C. Supreme Court Thursday.
That provoked an exasperated response from defence lawyers, who are demanding that senior Special Prosecutor Bill Berardino make a statement on what they still call a Crown immunity deal.
Justice Elizabeth Bennett got the surprise answer from Special Prosecutor Janet Winteringham, who has handled most Crown duties during Berardino’s unexplained absence from the proceedings.
“The only question I had – was there an immunity agreement as outlined in Crown policy and the answer is there was not. But there’s no written agreement signed by Mr. Bornmann?” Bennett asked.
“No, there’s not, “Winteringham replied.
Michael Bolton, representing David Basi, the ex-ministerial aide charged with breach of trust and fraud for alleging giving lobbyist Bornmann secret government documents in the $1 billion B.C. Rail sale, said there is a deal.
“There’s got to be full disclosure of the deal between Mr. Bornmann and Mr. Berardino on immunity,” Bolton said. "What were the inducements in this deal to Mr. Bornmann to change his statement and give the statements he gave in April implicating my client? I need that in order to properly defend my client."
But Winteringham said no to the request for Berardino to hold forth.
“Just so it’s clear, the Crown opposes an order to have Mr. Berardino make a statement on this issue,” Winteringham said. "I’ve spoken to Mr. Berardino, since he can’t be here, and that is his position."
Columns re-posted in full by generous permission of Bill Tieleman.
"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
Citizen Journalists: here's an opportunity!
While reading Michael Smyth's column in The Province today (topic: the former Solicitor-General, John Les has waited 2-1/2 years for his A.L.R. lands case to be resolved), I saw an unusual Editor's note attached to a comment. It's especially surprising on the topic of alleged corruption in governing circles. I've never seen a CanWest editor step in, like this, with an open-door invitation ...
I mention it here, as a possible outlet for some of the great ideas my readers come up with. Why not? - BC Mary.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
steve wrote:
November 27, 2009
On the subject of John Les than honest, I have a juicy story to send you.
Editor's Note: Hi Steve. E-mail your story to us at tabtips@theprovince.com.
"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
I mention it here, as a possible outlet for some of the great ideas my readers come up with. Why not? - BC Mary.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
steve wrote:
November 27, 2009
On the subject of John Les than honest, I have a juicy story to send you.
Editor's Note: Hi Steve. E-mail your story to us at tabtips@theprovince.com.
"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
Friday, November 27, 2009
Robin Mathews - Gary Bass unabridged
.
From Robin Mathews, at
XXX Salsbury Drive,
Vancouver, B.C., V5L XXX,
November 20, 2009
To:
Deputy Commissioner - Pacific Region &
Commanding Officer, “E” Division, Gary Bass,
657 West 37th Avenue,
Vancouver, B.C. V5Z 1K6
Copies to others
listed at the end of the letter.
Copies of your letters attached.
Dear Deputy Commissioner Bass:
I have received your letters to me – an email of October 22, 2009, and a letter of October 20, 2009. I acknowledged the email and said I looked forward to the postal mail letter. Thank you for them both. Since receiving them I have thought long and hard about their substance.
They do not, I regret, answer the concerns of greatest gravity I raised – concerns I share with many British Columbians. I will be very frank with you because the tenor of your letter suggests to me you believe that you are deeply concerned with the integrity of the Force you command and with the maintenance of the rule of law in the Pacific Region.
Let me reiterate, formally, at the start of this letter that I believe Gordon Campbell and his associates in the BC Rail Scandal events – the corrupt ‘sale’ of BC Rail – must undergo searching and complete investigation to determine if criminal liability lies, and that investigation must be undertaken without further delay.
Because the matter is of such enormous seriousness to the life of British Columbians and to the integrity of the rule of law here – and because I am asking you to act – I will (A) explain a very little necessary background, and (B) suggest evidential directions since you want “information capable of being viewed as credible evidence of criminal wrongdoing by anyone in the Government….”
I believe I have already pointed to the location of that evidence, and I believe that you may be stalling in your replies. But I will write this letter treating your statements as having been made in purest good faith.
The background statement (A) is brief. In my first letter to you I said that Gordon Campbell and cabinet are operating a “Political Ponzi Scheme”. I mean that. They are, in brief, declaring they are working for the security and well-being of British Columbians, and that they are securing the provincial wealth and potential wealth in the name of the people. In fact, they are alienating those things to private sources of enrichment – mostly outside Canada – and they are doing so in ways that call into question their fiduciary duty and the legality of their actions.
The castration of BC Hydro as a Crown Corporation has been, I insist, an enormity, destructive of the security of all British Columbians. The recent awarding of Handy Dart services to a private U.S. for-profit corporation has carried sadistic humiliation of the workers, the handicapped, the vulnerable, and the poor to lengths that suggest psychopathology. At the same time, Gordon Campbell’s U.S. appointee as CEO of the debased BC Ferries service pays himself one million dollars a year. He began a few short years ago at an inflated salary of three hundred thousand dollars per year.
You may say that those matters are “political”, that Gordon Campbell has a “mandate” to do what he is doing. We both know, I am sure, that fairly consulted, the people of British Columbia would not have approved of any of those developments. Still, you may say, they are matters of politics – and so the remedy (if “remedy” is required) is political.
The BC Hydro story – in its own right – requires, I believe, the fullest and most careful public review, and, possibly, charges of criminal breach of trust. But my direct concern here is with the BC Rail portion of the Gordon Campbell cabinet Political Ponzi Scheme. In that portion of Campbell government “politics” Campbell and his associates, I allege, have moved into areas, into actions, into policies which reasonable men and women may believe are violations of the trust placed in them and – probably – violations of a criminal nature. Only full and complete RCMP criminal investigation can make the matter clear.
That is my first point. The political actions of Campbell and his associates may well have passed into criminal actions – as a way of forcing the outcomes that the group has sought.
Remember. (B) The basis of Defence conduct in the Basi, Virk, and Basi case arising out of the corrupt ‘sale” of BC Rail by the Gordon Campbell group is plain and simple – as stated repeatedly by Defence counsel. They allege that their clients are innocent and did not engage in the actions of which they are accused. Defence goes on to argue that their clients were servants following given or tacit orders of their cabinet (and perhaps other) masters in an overall policy that involved the purposeful misrepresentation (to British Columbians) of BC Rail efficiency, profit-making capacity, and value; and that “the fix was in” (to use Defence counsel language) to transfer BC Rail to CN Rail well before the “bidding” and “sale” of BC Rail were announced as program (not to sell it fairly in a genuine, open competition); that the open public auction of BC Rail was a calculated sham to mislead British Columbians; and that most of the activities of the so-called open, public auction were fraudulent.
Those arguments are made by seasoned professionals who have spent (literally) hundreds of hours pouring over materials secured through applications for disclosure – materials that often had to be sought and argued for and which have only in the smallest way been made available to the public. Those arguments and that huge mass of evidentiary material must be considered as a basis to seek for what you describe as “information capable of being viewed as credible evidence of criminal wrongdoing by anyone in the Government….”
You must remember that CP Rail withdrew from the “bidding” declaring publicly a tainted process. Burlingtron Northern and Santa Fe Railway wrote angrily to CIBC World Markets Inc. (acting for the Gordon Campbell cabinet), saying BNSF was “extremely dismayed”; complaining of “lack of fairness”, a “breach”, “apparent favouritism” and saying “serious questions of ethics and fairness” were involved. BNSF didn’t submit a bid but supported OmniTRAX and would have engaged with that corporation if….
BNSF also argued that its confidential information was supplied to others and that CIBC failed to follow the process that CIBC and the government said would be followed.
Marcella Szel, vice president of Strategy and Law for CPR, wrote to Ken Dobell, deputy minister to Gordon Campbell and cabinet secretary recording “ a clear breach of general process fairness and a violation of the intent of the specific process established and communicated by the Evaluation Committee “[of the Gordon Campbell government].
Defence counsel has brought to light material that I believe confirms the huge misrepresentation and, in fact, fraud perpetrated by the Gordon Campbell group. The evidence is there, gathered, organized, and in the keeping of the court.
Documents that I have been able to examine (strictly and unfairly limited by the presiding judge, I insist) and court argument reveal many, many dubious things. Look at one “stream” of evidence only. In 2001 Paul Tellier, CEO of CN Rail “calls for greater North American Integration”. In the next months he speaks in Vancouver (June 26, 2002). He, other CN representatives, meet Gordon Campbell people. In Vancouver he recommends BC Rail privatize as he has led CN Rail to do. All that before any signal is given to the public that the Gordon Campbell promise not to sell BC Rail will be broken and before there is any suspicion on the part of “legitimate bidders” that transfer of BC Rail to CN Rail has been predetermined – or as Defence counsel puts it - before they knew “the fix was in”.
Who released confidential information that destroyed any pretence of real competitive bidding by CPR and anyone else for the major prize – the Freight Division of BC Rail? BNSF points at CIBC World Markets. CPR infers a process much larger than could have been orchestrated by Basi, Virk, and Basi.
Generally the world agrees the almost (ridiculously) timeless lease of BC Rail to CN Rail is in real terms a transfer of ownership. Nonetheless, on November 25, 2003, Gordon Campbell called it “ a new BC Rail Investment Partnership”. On June 8, 2004, Kevin Falcon wrote in a letter of “B.C.’s partnership with CN Rail”. On June 6, 2003 – to the village of Pemberton – Gordon Campbell called it “a new partnership”. On September 3, 3003, Campbell wrote to Canadian Ferroequus Railway Company of B.C.’s “investment partnership with CN”. The world agrees the transfer of BC Rail to CN Rail is NOT an investment partnership. Was the attempt to convey that unreality to British Columbians a planned and executed falsehood to cover a fraud?
As I wrote to you in my first letter - through all of the time, over years, the Gordon Campbell group was using large amounts of taxpayer money to organize, amplify, and communicate a series of falsehoods so that the de facto ownership of BC Rail could be transferred to CN Rail.
The note in the Criminal Code (Section 122) to Breach of Trust by Public Officer offers the explanation that “the accused acted with the intention to use his or her public office for a purpose other then the public good, for example, for a dishonest, partial, corrupt, or oppressive purpose.”
In addition: “This section” (Section 122) “makes clear that it specifically imposes broader liability upon public officials than that which would apply to private persons who were involved in the same activities”.
I could go on and on, Deputy Commissioner Bass, doing (in effect) your work for you. I give you here, simply a taste of the overwhelming, costly, breach of trust and breach of fiduciary duty undertaken by Gordon Campbell and his associates.
Unfortunately, I must also address in this letter matters that you raise in your October 20 letter to me, though I cannot cover all the baseless claims you make there. Indeed, you write to me as if I am without experience – as if I’m a starry-eyed youth who has only seen Mounties in Red Coats surrounding the Queen.
I write a little later of your attitude of hauteur in relation to the present state of the RCMP, and I do so in relation to deeply painful experiences I have had with what I conclude are calculated actions on the part of the RCMP to obstruct the rule of law. They follow. Unfortunately, in that regard – with relation to your attitude of hauteur – you force me to address your own relation to the rule of law. I have, for instance, sat many, many hours in the courtroom observing the transactions concerning the BC Rail Scandal/Basi, Virk, and Basi matters.
I have never been satisfied that the RCMP – in that matter – has worked conscionably to assist the court in matters of disclosure. At times, in fact, the opposite has been the case. Was that attitude adopted at your instancing? No one in British Columbia has been able to explain how an officer, not more than 48 hours after the search warrant ‘raids’ on legislature offices on December 28, 2003, was able to announce that no elected official was under investigation. Apart from the fact that Gary Collins (finance minister) had very, very recently been under investigation which was summarily dropped without, apparently (according to Defence) any paper record, the statement is plainly alarming. RCMP could not have examined the seized material in the short time before that extraordinary announcement.
Who ordered that investigation in the BC Rail Scandal was to go around elected officials involved in the corrupt ‘sale’ of BC Rail?
That may have happened before your appointment to the role of Deputy Commissioner. But in the years I have witnessed what I take to be recalcitrance on the part of the RCMP in the Basi,Virk, and Basi matter, you have been ‘top man’.
I pointed to your recorded e-mail to William Elliott, RCMP Commissioner, expressing delight that he (with stunning bad taste) telephoned the RCMP actors in the Dziekanski tragedy to express his solidarity – though knowing they may have been involved in what might be determined was a criminal offense.
I do not wish to protract this focus on your role. But I have to record that you were invisible – showing no leadership as far as I could detect – in the ugly and tragic deaths of Ian Bush, Kevin St. Arnaud, and Robert Dziekanski, to name only three of many, many examples of RCMP actions about which the public have been highly critical. You have not – to my knowledge – given the slightest hint that you intend to see training, discipline, and procedures placed under the closest scrutiny in B.C. Nor have you had the simple guts to admit that Taser use has been a disaster and must be ended.
My own experience of the RCMP has led me to believe the Force often cannot be depended upon to do the work the Canadian community has given it to do, in trust. Example one. You perhaps know that the criminal accusations against Glen Clark, former premier of B.C., were first given voice from the constituency office of Gordon Campbell. After a trial of 136 days the “evidence” – combed and brushed and cleaned by Division E officers over months – was declared insufficient for anything but a declaration of Glen Clark’s innocence.
Clark’s lawyer asked more than once that the trial be stopped for lack of evidence. Madam Justice Elizabeth Bennett refused, pursuing the action that destroyed Clark’s political career.
You perhaps know that one of the chief investigating officers of the Glen Clark matter in E Division had been asked – it is recorded – at least twice to run for provincial political office by Gordon Campbell under his banner. The conduct of Peter Montague throughout the Glen Clark affair was unsettling. Do you believe that Montague, at least twice solicited by Gordon Campbell to run for election with him, should have been a key investigator in the Glen Clark matter? Peter Montague, incidentally, on a film – intended as an RCMP training film – remarks that the RCMP are experts in smear and disinformation.
You perhaps don’t know that – alarmed at rumours of dubious investigation, etc. by the RCMP in the Clark case, I did what you suggest in your letter – I complained to the Commission for Public Complaints Against the RCMP (hereafter CPC) which you falsely call “a totally independent investigative agency”.
The RCMP investigates itself. The CPC checks the RCMP investigation. The CPC usually cannot undertake an investigation of RCMP activity independently. The CPC can take no disciplinary action whatever. Its Reports go to the top RCMP figures for what is, in fact, approval. The RCMP can, and usually does, ignore any serious recommendation of the CPC.
By calling the CPC “a totally independent investigative organization” you cast everything else you state as fact in your letter into serious doubt. [See "Mountie Watchdog Won't Be Invited Back"]
After my complaint concerning the nature of the investigation of Glen Clark, RCMP E Division sent me little reports without any information, simply saying they were investigating. Then they wrote to say they were ending the investigation because they had amassed 28 volumes of evidentiary material to begin the Glen Clark trial. They gave me no information about the investigation I had asked for and which they, purportedly, had been pursuing.
I protested to the Commission for Public Complaints Against the RCMP (the CPC). Nothing whatever happened for THREE YEARS. Then I received a “Final Report” from the CPC. It had been submitted, of course, to top RCMP who said (as they almost always say) training of officers might be improved. The Report to me from the CPC recorded that the investigation I had called for was IMPROPERLY TERMINATED by two experienced E Division RCMP officers. The “totally independent investigative agency” left to the discretion of the RCMP whether the investigation would be reopened and pursued. The discretionary choice of E Division was that it wouldn’t be reopened.
Since the investigation was (even by CPC judgement) improperly terminated, I am free to believe E Division was working with Gordon Campbell to destroy Glen Clark and that full and fair investigation would have revealed that fact – and so E Division wrecked the investigation. You may throw up your hands in horror and say you don’t think that is what happened – but you cannot categorically say what brought about the termination of the investigation and what the investigation might have revealed. The investigation was terminated “improperly” and when E Division was informed of the “improper” termination, it chose not to reopen the investigation, happy with the situation, uninvestigated. Why?
Example Two. I have involved myself in what is known as “the Kelly Marie Richard Calgary Dental Malpractice Case” (now approaching the Supreme Court of Canada). In short, Ms. Richard, a single mother, and her two sons, allege serious dental malpractice. She and her sons have been under attack for about seven years by antagonistic parties using the courts to reverse direction so that she and her sons have become, in my judgement, the victims of the insurance company, the litigating corporation, professional dental organizations, and judges, AND THE RCMP. The evidence of dental malpractice in such a case is professional and scientific. I have studied the evidence carefully; it is completely convincing. After seven years of fighting and becoming destitute, socially damaged, and bereft of support from the legal system, Ms. Richard has not been able to have the key evidence of malpractice examined by a court.
At a point in her travails she discovered, she alleges, that the litigating company had entered her confidential Alberta government health records and changed them. She sought investigation of the alleged criminal offence by Calgary RCMP Commercial Crime Section. She alleges that Section almost immediately reported to the litigating forces what she had claimed (despite their confidentiality policy), and RCMP (from my reading of documents) falsely informed her that the matter was a civil not a criminal one. RCMP obstructed rather than furthered investigation. She sought help from The Commission for Public Complaints Against the RCMP, was approached (for CPC) by a belligerent officer from the Commercial Crime section who so frightened Ms. Richard that she withdrew her complaint.
I undertook to have the RCMP investigate what it had done in the matter. I will tell you what happened in detail when convenient for you – over coffee sometime if you like. For now, in brief, I was able to have an “investigation” undertaken by the RCMP of its involvement. It began with an insulting and arrogant letter from an officer in the Surrey detachment (B.C.), trying to cut me off and prevent me from lodging a complaint (your jurisdiction). It continued with a very junior fellow in Lethbridge being placed in charge of the “investigation”. William Elliott, RCMP Commissioner was informed. R.R. Knecht, Deputy Commissioner for the Northwest Region, informed me the investigation was being pursued and I would receive a Report from a superintendent in Regina.
The “investigation” was a complete and embarrassing sham. When I pointed that out to R.R. Knecht and asked for it to be reopened, he ceased all correspondence with me.
The people in Commercial Crime Calgary were chatted to by the investigator, producing no notes and not being asked to make written reports. They – surprisingly – reported they had done nothing wrong. Two of the key people involved were reported to have left the RCMP and no attempt was made to question them. Kelly Marie Richard – the principal in the “investigation” was in no way consulted. Nor was I, except to be asked what my relation is to Kelly Marie Richard. Documents were not sought – like the important document a copy of which is in my possession, written by a responsible officer to Ms. Richard misinforming her that breaking into confidential government files and tampering with them is a civil not a criminal offense; no cross-examination happened. The passing of confidential information from Commercial Crime to the insurer’s litigator was not properly addressed, nor was the threatening and aggressive behaviour of the so-called CPC investigator. Ms. Richard had taped oppressive telephone material from the CPC investigator. Obviously no investigating agent was interested in reviewing that material. After some time, the Report came from the superintendent in Regina. Based upon an investigation without a shred of integrity, he informed me that the complaint was baseless.
Please take careful note: the investigation I asked for which became an incompetent sham was “participated in” by William Elliot, Commissioner in Ottawa; R.R. Knecht, Deputy Commissioner, in Edmonton; a superintendant in Regina; RCMP officers in Calgary; an investigating RCMP officer from Lethbridge; an RCMP officer in Surrey, British Columbia – E Division. RCMP officers were involved in six different Canadian cities across four provinces – to produce what I have to believe was a co-ordinated construction of a total sham (incidentally, supporting the large corporations allegedly working to destroy Kelly Marie Richard’s case before it could be heard in trial.)
And so – following the kind of advice you give – I registered a complaint with the Commission for Public Complaints Against the RCMP. I enumerated seven parts to the complaint. After some time I received a final and complete Report from the CPC. The Report addressed two of the seven parts of my complaint, completely ignored the rest as if they weren’t there, and [Surprise!] gave its stamp of approval to the ridiculous, incompetent RCMP investigation of itself.
I regret having to tell you of those two cases in which I had direct and wholly disenchanting experience with RCMP and CPC. I tell you so that you will never again write me the kind of letter you did on October 20, expressing hurt and displeasure that I would even dare to think the Force is not everywhere and always devoted to the rule of law in Canada.
Since you are cocooned in an unreal world called E Division, the RCMP, let me draw your attention to a few institutional parallels. When Catholic priests molest children in their care, Catholic bishops frequently protect the priests – because they can usually close doors and “investigate” themselves. No layman is present in the sham operation.
When RCMP officers commit crimes, top RCMP – the bishops of the RCMP – close doors, “investigate” themselves and frequently protect the offending officers. No lay civilians are present in the sham operation.
When judges default, sometimes criminally, complaint is made to the Canadian Judicial Council – which closes doors, investigates themselves (no non-judge present in the sham operation) and frequently protect the judicial wrongdoer.
To make that last matter worse, the titular head of the Canadian Judicial Council is the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada. She is a mask and a disguise, refusing to hear any complaint against the CJC. So she is placed in the position to give credibility to what in my experience of seeking response from CJC is a rotting organization.
Your protestations of the purity of the system do not move me.
Moreover, you reply to me about OTHER requests to you for action in the BC Rail Scandal matter. I did not ask you what the RCMP is doing in relation to what some/or any others have reported or requested for investigation. I present you here – and have presented to you previously – a request for investigation on very real, available, sound evidence.
I do not accept your reply. I do not allege anything baseless. I cannot believe the note of hauteur in your letter, as if the RCMP is anywhere else presently than in a dank swamp of public disapproval which it thoroughly deserves. Again and again I have had, myself, to deal with officer after officer who has been, I insist, a disgrace to the rule of law.
My deepest concern in this aspect of the matter is for the good men and women of the RCMP whose names and lives are blemished by the, alas, deserved bad reputation that has fallen on the Force. The men and women (to use your words) “who dedicate their careers and often their lives to uphold the rights of Canadians and the laws of Canada” are the victims of two evils. The one is made up of officers in the Force who blemish its good name, and are permitted by senior officers (like you) to do so. The other evil is made up of senior officers, like yourself, who claim the whole Force is made up of heroes at a time when, daily, the very opposite is paraded before the eyes of the Canadian population.
But even that subject stands in the way of the purpose of this and my preceding letter.
I do not accept your suggestion that you are keeping all matters secret concerning the demand for criminal investigation of Gordon Campbell and his associates in the BC Rail Scandal, for the Public Good. Various kinds of secrecy have been at the root of almost all of the injustices I have been witness to in dealing with the RCMP. Secrecy is a way of hiding improper action and affiliation. I ask for open, public action on behalf of the Public Good. Announce and proceed with a full investigation of Gordon Campbell and his BC Rail Scandal associates (in and out of the legislature) on suspicion of criminal wrongdoing in the conduct of the business of the people of British Columbia.
Respectfully
Robin Mathews
Copies to: Madam Justice Anne MacKenzie, Madam Justice Elizabeth Bennett, William Berardino QC and Andrea MacKay; Janet Winteringham QC; Michael Bolton QC and Claire Hatcher; Kevin McCullough; Joseph Doyle, Robert J.C. Deane, George Copley, Mel Hurtig, Paul Palango, Paul Nettleton, Margaret Fulton, Michael Byers, John Calvert, BC Civil Liberties, Leah Herman, June Ross.
vivelecanada, the legislature raids site (BC Mary), Charles Boylan CFRO; K. Lapointe, Vancouver Sun; Bill Tieleman, West Star Communications; Mark Hume, Globe and Mail; Gary Mason, Globe and Mail; Lawrence Martin, Globe and Mail; Canadian Press, Dialogue Magazine; CKNW; Neal Hall, Vancouver Sun; CBC As It Happens; CBC The Current; CBC The Fifth Estate; chinook62@gmail.com; kootcoot@hotmail.com; pacificgazette@yahoo.ca; record@cablerocket.com; Victoria Times Colonist.
100 Mile House Advisor, 100 Mile House Free Press, Abbotsford News, Abbotsford Times, Agassiz-Harrison Observer, Aldergrove Star, Ashcroft Cache Creek Journal, Boundary Creek Times Mountaineer, Burnaby/New West News Leader, Lakes District News, Campbell River Courier-Islander, Castlegar News, Chilliwack Progress, Chilliwack Times, Columbia Valley Pioneer, Coquitlam Now, The Tri-City News, Courtenay/Comox Valley Record, Creston Valley Advance, Dawson Creek News, Delta Optimist, Duncan Cowichan News Leader, Fernie Free Press, Fort Nelson News, Fort St James Caledonia Courier, Golden Star, Goldstream News Gazette, Grand Forks Gazette, Hope Standard, Houston Today, Kamloops Daily News, Kelowna Capital News, Kermeos The Review, Kitimat Northern Sentinel, Ladysmith Chemainus Chronicle, The North Valley Echo, Lake Cowichan Gazette, Lakeshore News, Langley Advance, Langley Times, Lillooet Bridge River News, Maple Ridge Pitt Meadows News, Maple Ridge Pitt Meadows Times, Merritt Herald, Merritt News, Mission City Record, Nakusp Arrow Lakes News, Nanaimo Bulletin, Nanaimo Daily News, Nanaimo Harbour City Star, Nelson Daily News, Nelson Kootenay Weekly Express, North Shore News, North Shore Outlook, Oak Bay News, Oliver Chronicle, Parksville/Qualicum Beach News, Penticton Western News, Port Hardy North Island Gazette, Powell River Peak, Prince George Citizen, Prince George Free Press, Prince Rupert Daily News, The Similkameen Spotlight, Queen Charlotte Islands Observer, Quesnel Advisor, Quesnel Cariboo Observer, Gulf Island Driftwood, Sechelt/Gibsons Coast Reporter, Eagle Valley News, Pensinsula News Review, Smithers Interior News, The Local, The Coast Reporter, Sooke News Mirror, South Delta Leader, Squamish Chief, Summerland Review, North Delta Leader, Terrace Standard, Trail Daily Times, Trail Rossland News, Timber Ridge News,
Vancouver Courier, Whistler Question, Peace Arch News, Yukon News, Williams Lake Cariboo Advisor, Winfield Lake Country Calendar, Westender, Kelowna Daily Courier.
Others….
Letters received from RCMP Deputy Commissioner Gary Bass.
(First received. Email October 22, 2009.) “Good day Mr. Mathews. I responded to your letter earlier this week. Hopefully you will receive it within a few days. I have to say that your classification of the Government of BC in this latest e-mail, as a ‘Criminal Gang’ is disturbing to me as the head of the Provincial Force and does a serious disservice to the many men and women who have devoted their lives to public service. [Deputy Commissioner Bass is in error in the statement.]
Should you come into information capable of being viewed as credible evidence of criminal wrongdoing by anyone in the Government, I would give it the attention it deserved. Regards, Gary Bass, Commanding officer, “E” Division RCMP’.
(Second received. Sent October 20, 2009.) Dear Mr. Mathews:
This correspondence will acknowledge receipt of your e-mail dated October 6th, 2009.
I am very concerned and disturbed by some of the comments and conclusions you made in the e-mail. I unequivocally support the Charter right of every resident of British Columbia and Canada to freedom of expression. Further, as a public organization accountable to the people of Canada, the RCMP is, and quite rightly so, subject to the rigorous scrutiny of the media and general public. I welcome and accept such scrutiny as part of a healthy and positive relationship between the RCMP and the communities we serve across Canada.
However, I categorically reject the unsupported and egregious suggestion that racism motivated the investigation and prosecution of the accused in the Basi, Virk matter. As you are well aware, the RCMP has numerous internal policies and procedures to ensure that our investigations comport with the Charter, statutory and common law rights of all persons. The Canadian legal system also provides for objective checks and balances on the powers of police by virtue of review by Criminal Justice Branch or the Public Prosecution Service of Canada. Finally, the Canadian courts and its officers act as final arbiters of fact. To suggest that any or all of these institutions and organizations somehow colluded to subvert justice and/or the rights of the accused is beyond the pale.
With respect to your suggestion that my professional relationship with the Premier of British Columbia is somehow inappropriate and indicative of the inability or unwillingness of the RCMP to investigate allegations of wrongdoing by the Premier or any other person in British Columbia is similarly offensive and based solely on personal belief and perception. If there is any objective evidence to support these allegations, I would encourage you to forward such information to the Commission for Public Complaints Against the RCMP which is a totally independent investigative agency.
You enumerated your reasons to believe that Premier Campbell and/or persons unknown have committed a variety of criminal offenses in relation to the sale of BC Rail. I can inform you that the RCMP has received very similar information from other public sources and I have reviewed our handling of those complaints. I am satisfied that appropriate actions are being taken with respect to such information. I am prevented by the Privacy Act and RCMP policy, as well as an over arching concern to protect the rights of the accused and other persons and to maintain the integrity of the investigative and judicial process from disclosing exact details of the steps the RCMP has taken in response to that information. Therefore, I cannot and will not publicly comment on the RCMP’s actions.
I recognize that this reply may do little to assuage your concerns. However, I will not compromise the principles of Canadian justice nor will I accept baseless allegations of wrongdoing on the part of members of the RCMP who dedicate their careers and often their lives to uphold the rights of Canadians and the laws of Canada.
Yours truly,
Gary D. Bass, O.O.M.
Deputy Commissioner – Pacific Region &
Commanding Officer, “E” Division
657 West 37th Avenue
Vancouver, BC V5Z 1K6
"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
Anonymous has left a new comment on "Robin Mathews - Gary Bass unabridged":
In 50 years, the next generation will be able to look back and wonder how on earth it was possible that all our crown assets were given away to others to profit from. This man will be one of the reasons.
To make it perfectly clear. The citizens of BC are the victims of theft under the premiership of Gordon Campbell and we want you, Gary Bass, to do something about it.
""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
From Robin Mathews, at
XXX Salsbury Drive,
Vancouver, B.C., V5L XXX,
November 20, 2009
To:
Deputy Commissioner - Pacific Region &
Commanding Officer, “E” Division, Gary Bass,
657 West 37th Avenue,
Vancouver, B.C. V5Z 1K6
Copies to others
listed at the end of the letter.
Copies of your letters attached.
Dear Deputy Commissioner Bass:
I have received your letters to me – an email of October 22, 2009, and a letter of October 20, 2009. I acknowledged the email and said I looked forward to the postal mail letter. Thank you for them both. Since receiving them I have thought long and hard about their substance.
They do not, I regret, answer the concerns of greatest gravity I raised – concerns I share with many British Columbians. I will be very frank with you because the tenor of your letter suggests to me you believe that you are deeply concerned with the integrity of the Force you command and with the maintenance of the rule of law in the Pacific Region.
Let me reiterate, formally, at the start of this letter that I believe Gordon Campbell and his associates in the BC Rail Scandal events – the corrupt ‘sale’ of BC Rail – must undergo searching and complete investigation to determine if criminal liability lies, and that investigation must be undertaken without further delay.
Because the matter is of such enormous seriousness to the life of British Columbians and to the integrity of the rule of law here – and because I am asking you to act – I will (A) explain a very little necessary background, and (B) suggest evidential directions since you want “information capable of being viewed as credible evidence of criminal wrongdoing by anyone in the Government….”
I believe I have already pointed to the location of that evidence, and I believe that you may be stalling in your replies. But I will write this letter treating your statements as having been made in purest good faith.
The background statement (A) is brief. In my first letter to you I said that Gordon Campbell and cabinet are operating a “Political Ponzi Scheme”. I mean that. They are, in brief, declaring they are working for the security and well-being of British Columbians, and that they are securing the provincial wealth and potential wealth in the name of the people. In fact, they are alienating those things to private sources of enrichment – mostly outside Canada – and they are doing so in ways that call into question their fiduciary duty and the legality of their actions.
The castration of BC Hydro as a Crown Corporation has been, I insist, an enormity, destructive of the security of all British Columbians. The recent awarding of Handy Dart services to a private U.S. for-profit corporation has carried sadistic humiliation of the workers, the handicapped, the vulnerable, and the poor to lengths that suggest psychopathology. At the same time, Gordon Campbell’s U.S. appointee as CEO of the debased BC Ferries service pays himself one million dollars a year. He began a few short years ago at an inflated salary of three hundred thousand dollars per year.
You may say that those matters are “political”, that Gordon Campbell has a “mandate” to do what he is doing. We both know, I am sure, that fairly consulted, the people of British Columbia would not have approved of any of those developments. Still, you may say, they are matters of politics – and so the remedy (if “remedy” is required) is political.
The BC Hydro story – in its own right – requires, I believe, the fullest and most careful public review, and, possibly, charges of criminal breach of trust. But my direct concern here is with the BC Rail portion of the Gordon Campbell cabinet Political Ponzi Scheme. In that portion of Campbell government “politics” Campbell and his associates, I allege, have moved into areas, into actions, into policies which reasonable men and women may believe are violations of the trust placed in them and – probably – violations of a criminal nature. Only full and complete RCMP criminal investigation can make the matter clear.
That is my first point. The political actions of Campbell and his associates may well have passed into criminal actions – as a way of forcing the outcomes that the group has sought.
Remember. (B) The basis of Defence conduct in the Basi, Virk, and Basi case arising out of the corrupt ‘sale” of BC Rail by the Gordon Campbell group is plain and simple – as stated repeatedly by Defence counsel. They allege that their clients are innocent and did not engage in the actions of which they are accused. Defence goes on to argue that their clients were servants following given or tacit orders of their cabinet (and perhaps other) masters in an overall policy that involved the purposeful misrepresentation (to British Columbians) of BC Rail efficiency, profit-making capacity, and value; and that “the fix was in” (to use Defence counsel language) to transfer BC Rail to CN Rail well before the “bidding” and “sale” of BC Rail were announced as program (not to sell it fairly in a genuine, open competition); that the open public auction of BC Rail was a calculated sham to mislead British Columbians; and that most of the activities of the so-called open, public auction were fraudulent.
Those arguments are made by seasoned professionals who have spent (literally) hundreds of hours pouring over materials secured through applications for disclosure – materials that often had to be sought and argued for and which have only in the smallest way been made available to the public. Those arguments and that huge mass of evidentiary material must be considered as a basis to seek for what you describe as “information capable of being viewed as credible evidence of criminal wrongdoing by anyone in the Government….”
You must remember that CP Rail withdrew from the “bidding” declaring publicly a tainted process. Burlingtron Northern and Santa Fe Railway wrote angrily to CIBC World Markets Inc. (acting for the Gordon Campbell cabinet), saying BNSF was “extremely dismayed”; complaining of “lack of fairness”, a “breach”, “apparent favouritism” and saying “serious questions of ethics and fairness” were involved. BNSF didn’t submit a bid but supported OmniTRAX and would have engaged with that corporation if….
BNSF also argued that its confidential information was supplied to others and that CIBC failed to follow the process that CIBC and the government said would be followed.
Marcella Szel, vice president of Strategy and Law for CPR, wrote to Ken Dobell, deputy minister to Gordon Campbell and cabinet secretary recording “ a clear breach of general process fairness and a violation of the intent of the specific process established and communicated by the Evaluation Committee “[of the Gordon Campbell government].
Defence counsel has brought to light material that I believe confirms the huge misrepresentation and, in fact, fraud perpetrated by the Gordon Campbell group. The evidence is there, gathered, organized, and in the keeping of the court.
Documents that I have been able to examine (strictly and unfairly limited by the presiding judge, I insist) and court argument reveal many, many dubious things. Look at one “stream” of evidence only. In 2001 Paul Tellier, CEO of CN Rail “calls for greater North American Integration”. In the next months he speaks in Vancouver (June 26, 2002). He, other CN representatives, meet Gordon Campbell people. In Vancouver he recommends BC Rail privatize as he has led CN Rail to do. All that before any signal is given to the public that the Gordon Campbell promise not to sell BC Rail will be broken and before there is any suspicion on the part of “legitimate bidders” that transfer of BC Rail to CN Rail has been predetermined – or as Defence counsel puts it - before they knew “the fix was in”.
Who released confidential information that destroyed any pretence of real competitive bidding by CPR and anyone else for the major prize – the Freight Division of BC Rail? BNSF points at CIBC World Markets. CPR infers a process much larger than could have been orchestrated by Basi, Virk, and Basi.
Generally the world agrees the almost (ridiculously) timeless lease of BC Rail to CN Rail is in real terms a transfer of ownership. Nonetheless, on November 25, 2003, Gordon Campbell called it “ a new BC Rail Investment Partnership”. On June 8, 2004, Kevin Falcon wrote in a letter of “B.C.’s partnership with CN Rail”. On June 6, 2003 – to the village of Pemberton – Gordon Campbell called it “a new partnership”. On September 3, 3003, Campbell wrote to Canadian Ferroequus Railway Company of B.C.’s “investment partnership with CN”. The world agrees the transfer of BC Rail to CN Rail is NOT an investment partnership. Was the attempt to convey that unreality to British Columbians a planned and executed falsehood to cover a fraud?
As I wrote to you in my first letter - through all of the time, over years, the Gordon Campbell group was using large amounts of taxpayer money to organize, amplify, and communicate a series of falsehoods so that the de facto ownership of BC Rail could be transferred to CN Rail.
The note in the Criminal Code (Section 122) to Breach of Trust by Public Officer offers the explanation that “the accused acted with the intention to use his or her public office for a purpose other then the public good, for example, for a dishonest, partial, corrupt, or oppressive purpose.”
In addition: “This section” (Section 122) “makes clear that it specifically imposes broader liability upon public officials than that which would apply to private persons who were involved in the same activities”.
I could go on and on, Deputy Commissioner Bass, doing (in effect) your work for you. I give you here, simply a taste of the overwhelming, costly, breach of trust and breach of fiduciary duty undertaken by Gordon Campbell and his associates.
Unfortunately, I must also address in this letter matters that you raise in your October 20 letter to me, though I cannot cover all the baseless claims you make there. Indeed, you write to me as if I am without experience – as if I’m a starry-eyed youth who has only seen Mounties in Red Coats surrounding the Queen.
I write a little later of your attitude of hauteur in relation to the present state of the RCMP, and I do so in relation to deeply painful experiences I have had with what I conclude are calculated actions on the part of the RCMP to obstruct the rule of law. They follow. Unfortunately, in that regard – with relation to your attitude of hauteur – you force me to address your own relation to the rule of law. I have, for instance, sat many, many hours in the courtroom observing the transactions concerning the BC Rail Scandal/Basi, Virk, and Basi matters.
I have never been satisfied that the RCMP – in that matter – has worked conscionably to assist the court in matters of disclosure. At times, in fact, the opposite has been the case. Was that attitude adopted at your instancing? No one in British Columbia has been able to explain how an officer, not more than 48 hours after the search warrant ‘raids’ on legislature offices on December 28, 2003, was able to announce that no elected official was under investigation. Apart from the fact that Gary Collins (finance minister) had very, very recently been under investigation which was summarily dropped without, apparently (according to Defence) any paper record, the statement is plainly alarming. RCMP could not have examined the seized material in the short time before that extraordinary announcement.
Who ordered that investigation in the BC Rail Scandal was to go around elected officials involved in the corrupt ‘sale’ of BC Rail?
That may have happened before your appointment to the role of Deputy Commissioner. But in the years I have witnessed what I take to be recalcitrance on the part of the RCMP in the Basi,Virk, and Basi matter, you have been ‘top man’.
I pointed to your recorded e-mail to William Elliott, RCMP Commissioner, expressing delight that he (with stunning bad taste) telephoned the RCMP actors in the Dziekanski tragedy to express his solidarity – though knowing they may have been involved in what might be determined was a criminal offense.
I do not wish to protract this focus on your role. But I have to record that you were invisible – showing no leadership as far as I could detect – in the ugly and tragic deaths of Ian Bush, Kevin St. Arnaud, and Robert Dziekanski, to name only three of many, many examples of RCMP actions about which the public have been highly critical. You have not – to my knowledge – given the slightest hint that you intend to see training, discipline, and procedures placed under the closest scrutiny in B.C. Nor have you had the simple guts to admit that Taser use has been a disaster and must be ended.
My own experience of the RCMP has led me to believe the Force often cannot be depended upon to do the work the Canadian community has given it to do, in trust. Example one. You perhaps know that the criminal accusations against Glen Clark, former premier of B.C., were first given voice from the constituency office of Gordon Campbell. After a trial of 136 days the “evidence” – combed and brushed and cleaned by Division E officers over months – was declared insufficient for anything but a declaration of Glen Clark’s innocence.
Clark’s lawyer asked more than once that the trial be stopped for lack of evidence. Madam Justice Elizabeth Bennett refused, pursuing the action that destroyed Clark’s political career.
You perhaps know that one of the chief investigating officers of the Glen Clark matter in E Division had been asked – it is recorded – at least twice to run for provincial political office by Gordon Campbell under his banner. The conduct of Peter Montague throughout the Glen Clark affair was unsettling. Do you believe that Montague, at least twice solicited by Gordon Campbell to run for election with him, should have been a key investigator in the Glen Clark matter? Peter Montague, incidentally, on a film – intended as an RCMP training film – remarks that the RCMP are experts in smear and disinformation.
You perhaps don’t know that – alarmed at rumours of dubious investigation, etc. by the RCMP in the Clark case, I did what you suggest in your letter – I complained to the Commission for Public Complaints Against the RCMP (hereafter CPC) which you falsely call “a totally independent investigative agency”.
The RCMP investigates itself. The CPC checks the RCMP investigation. The CPC usually cannot undertake an investigation of RCMP activity independently. The CPC can take no disciplinary action whatever. Its Reports go to the top RCMP figures for what is, in fact, approval. The RCMP can, and usually does, ignore any serious recommendation of the CPC.
By calling the CPC “a totally independent investigative organization” you cast everything else you state as fact in your letter into serious doubt. [See "Mountie Watchdog Won't Be Invited Back"]
After my complaint concerning the nature of the investigation of Glen Clark, RCMP E Division sent me little reports without any information, simply saying they were investigating. Then they wrote to say they were ending the investigation because they had amassed 28 volumes of evidentiary material to begin the Glen Clark trial. They gave me no information about the investigation I had asked for and which they, purportedly, had been pursuing.
I protested to the Commission for Public Complaints Against the RCMP (the CPC). Nothing whatever happened for THREE YEARS. Then I received a “Final Report” from the CPC. It had been submitted, of course, to top RCMP who said (as they almost always say) training of officers might be improved. The Report to me from the CPC recorded that the investigation I had called for was IMPROPERLY TERMINATED by two experienced E Division RCMP officers. The “totally independent investigative agency” left to the discretion of the RCMP whether the investigation would be reopened and pursued. The discretionary choice of E Division was that it wouldn’t be reopened.
Since the investigation was (even by CPC judgement) improperly terminated, I am free to believe E Division was working with Gordon Campbell to destroy Glen Clark and that full and fair investigation would have revealed that fact – and so E Division wrecked the investigation. You may throw up your hands in horror and say you don’t think that is what happened – but you cannot categorically say what brought about the termination of the investigation and what the investigation might have revealed. The investigation was terminated “improperly” and when E Division was informed of the “improper” termination, it chose not to reopen the investigation, happy with the situation, uninvestigated. Why?
Example Two. I have involved myself in what is known as “the Kelly Marie Richard Calgary Dental Malpractice Case” (now approaching the Supreme Court of Canada). In short, Ms. Richard, a single mother, and her two sons, allege serious dental malpractice. She and her sons have been under attack for about seven years by antagonistic parties using the courts to reverse direction so that she and her sons have become, in my judgement, the victims of the insurance company, the litigating corporation, professional dental organizations, and judges, AND THE RCMP. The evidence of dental malpractice in such a case is professional and scientific. I have studied the evidence carefully; it is completely convincing. After seven years of fighting and becoming destitute, socially damaged, and bereft of support from the legal system, Ms. Richard has not been able to have the key evidence of malpractice examined by a court.
At a point in her travails she discovered, she alleges, that the litigating company had entered her confidential Alberta government health records and changed them. She sought investigation of the alleged criminal offence by Calgary RCMP Commercial Crime Section. She alleges that Section almost immediately reported to the litigating forces what she had claimed (despite their confidentiality policy), and RCMP (from my reading of documents) falsely informed her that the matter was a civil not a criminal one. RCMP obstructed rather than furthered investigation. She sought help from The Commission for Public Complaints Against the RCMP, was approached (for CPC) by a belligerent officer from the Commercial Crime section who so frightened Ms. Richard that she withdrew her complaint.
I undertook to have the RCMP investigate what it had done in the matter. I will tell you what happened in detail when convenient for you – over coffee sometime if you like. For now, in brief, I was able to have an “investigation” undertaken by the RCMP of its involvement. It began with an insulting and arrogant letter from an officer in the Surrey detachment (B.C.), trying to cut me off and prevent me from lodging a complaint (your jurisdiction). It continued with a very junior fellow in Lethbridge being placed in charge of the “investigation”. William Elliott, RCMP Commissioner was informed. R.R. Knecht, Deputy Commissioner for the Northwest Region, informed me the investigation was being pursued and I would receive a Report from a superintendent in Regina.
The “investigation” was a complete and embarrassing sham. When I pointed that out to R.R. Knecht and asked for it to be reopened, he ceased all correspondence with me.
The people in Commercial Crime Calgary were chatted to by the investigator, producing no notes and not being asked to make written reports. They – surprisingly – reported they had done nothing wrong. Two of the key people involved were reported to have left the RCMP and no attempt was made to question them. Kelly Marie Richard – the principal in the “investigation” was in no way consulted. Nor was I, except to be asked what my relation is to Kelly Marie Richard. Documents were not sought – like the important document a copy of which is in my possession, written by a responsible officer to Ms. Richard misinforming her that breaking into confidential government files and tampering with them is a civil not a criminal offense; no cross-examination happened. The passing of confidential information from Commercial Crime to the insurer’s litigator was not properly addressed, nor was the threatening and aggressive behaviour of the so-called CPC investigator. Ms. Richard had taped oppressive telephone material from the CPC investigator. Obviously no investigating agent was interested in reviewing that material. After some time, the Report came from the superintendent in Regina. Based upon an investigation without a shred of integrity, he informed me that the complaint was baseless.
Please take careful note: the investigation I asked for which became an incompetent sham was “participated in” by William Elliot, Commissioner in Ottawa; R.R. Knecht, Deputy Commissioner, in Edmonton; a superintendant in Regina; RCMP officers in Calgary; an investigating RCMP officer from Lethbridge; an RCMP officer in Surrey, British Columbia – E Division. RCMP officers were involved in six different Canadian cities across four provinces – to produce what I have to believe was a co-ordinated construction of a total sham (incidentally, supporting the large corporations allegedly working to destroy Kelly Marie Richard’s case before it could be heard in trial.)
And so – following the kind of advice you give – I registered a complaint with the Commission for Public Complaints Against the RCMP. I enumerated seven parts to the complaint. After some time I received a final and complete Report from the CPC. The Report addressed two of the seven parts of my complaint, completely ignored the rest as if they weren’t there, and [Surprise!] gave its stamp of approval to the ridiculous, incompetent RCMP investigation of itself.
I regret having to tell you of those two cases in which I had direct and wholly disenchanting experience with RCMP and CPC. I tell you so that you will never again write me the kind of letter you did on October 20, expressing hurt and displeasure that I would even dare to think the Force is not everywhere and always devoted to the rule of law in Canada.
Since you are cocooned in an unreal world called E Division, the RCMP, let me draw your attention to a few institutional parallels. When Catholic priests molest children in their care, Catholic bishops frequently protect the priests – because they can usually close doors and “investigate” themselves. No layman is present in the sham operation.
When RCMP officers commit crimes, top RCMP – the bishops of the RCMP – close doors, “investigate” themselves and frequently protect the offending officers. No lay civilians are present in the sham operation.
When judges default, sometimes criminally, complaint is made to the Canadian Judicial Council – which closes doors, investigates themselves (no non-judge present in the sham operation) and frequently protect the judicial wrongdoer.
To make that last matter worse, the titular head of the Canadian Judicial Council is the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada. She is a mask and a disguise, refusing to hear any complaint against the CJC. So she is placed in the position to give credibility to what in my experience of seeking response from CJC is a rotting organization.
Your protestations of the purity of the system do not move me.
Moreover, you reply to me about OTHER requests to you for action in the BC Rail Scandal matter. I did not ask you what the RCMP is doing in relation to what some/or any others have reported or requested for investigation. I present you here – and have presented to you previously – a request for investigation on very real, available, sound evidence.
I do not accept your reply. I do not allege anything baseless. I cannot believe the note of hauteur in your letter, as if the RCMP is anywhere else presently than in a dank swamp of public disapproval which it thoroughly deserves. Again and again I have had, myself, to deal with officer after officer who has been, I insist, a disgrace to the rule of law.
My deepest concern in this aspect of the matter is for the good men and women of the RCMP whose names and lives are blemished by the, alas, deserved bad reputation that has fallen on the Force. The men and women (to use your words) “who dedicate their careers and often their lives to uphold the rights of Canadians and the laws of Canada” are the victims of two evils. The one is made up of officers in the Force who blemish its good name, and are permitted by senior officers (like you) to do so. The other evil is made up of senior officers, like yourself, who claim the whole Force is made up of heroes at a time when, daily, the very opposite is paraded before the eyes of the Canadian population.
But even that subject stands in the way of the purpose of this and my preceding letter.
I do not accept your suggestion that you are keeping all matters secret concerning the demand for criminal investigation of Gordon Campbell and his associates in the BC Rail Scandal, for the Public Good. Various kinds of secrecy have been at the root of almost all of the injustices I have been witness to in dealing with the RCMP. Secrecy is a way of hiding improper action and affiliation. I ask for open, public action on behalf of the Public Good. Announce and proceed with a full investigation of Gordon Campbell and his BC Rail Scandal associates (in and out of the legislature) on suspicion of criminal wrongdoing in the conduct of the business of the people of British Columbia.
Respectfully
Robin Mathews
Copies to: Madam Justice Anne MacKenzie, Madam Justice Elizabeth Bennett, William Berardino QC and Andrea MacKay; Janet Winteringham QC; Michael Bolton QC and Claire Hatcher; Kevin McCullough; Joseph Doyle, Robert J.C. Deane, George Copley, Mel Hurtig, Paul Palango, Paul Nettleton, Margaret Fulton, Michael Byers, John Calvert, BC Civil Liberties, Leah Herman, June Ross.
vivelecanada, the legislature raids site (BC Mary), Charles Boylan CFRO; K. Lapointe, Vancouver Sun; Bill Tieleman, West Star Communications; Mark Hume, Globe and Mail; Gary Mason, Globe and Mail; Lawrence Martin, Globe and Mail; Canadian Press, Dialogue Magazine; CKNW; Neal Hall, Vancouver Sun; CBC As It Happens; CBC The Current; CBC The Fifth Estate; chinook62@gmail.com; kootcoot@hotmail.com; pacificgazette@yahoo.ca; record@cablerocket.com; Victoria Times Colonist.
100 Mile House Advisor, 100 Mile House Free Press, Abbotsford News, Abbotsford Times, Agassiz-Harrison Observer, Aldergrove Star, Ashcroft Cache Creek Journal, Boundary Creek Times Mountaineer, Burnaby/New West News Leader, Lakes District News, Campbell River Courier-Islander, Castlegar News, Chilliwack Progress, Chilliwack Times, Columbia Valley Pioneer, Coquitlam Now, The Tri-City News, Courtenay/Comox Valley Record, Creston Valley Advance, Dawson Creek News, Delta Optimist, Duncan Cowichan News Leader, Fernie Free Press, Fort Nelson News, Fort St James Caledonia Courier, Golden Star, Goldstream News Gazette, Grand Forks Gazette, Hope Standard, Houston Today, Kamloops Daily News, Kelowna Capital News, Kermeos The Review, Kitimat Northern Sentinel, Ladysmith Chemainus Chronicle, The North Valley Echo, Lake Cowichan Gazette, Lakeshore News, Langley Advance, Langley Times, Lillooet Bridge River News, Maple Ridge Pitt Meadows News, Maple Ridge Pitt Meadows Times, Merritt Herald, Merritt News, Mission City Record, Nakusp Arrow Lakes News, Nanaimo Bulletin, Nanaimo Daily News, Nanaimo Harbour City Star, Nelson Daily News, Nelson Kootenay Weekly Express, North Shore News, North Shore Outlook, Oak Bay News, Oliver Chronicle, Parksville/Qualicum Beach News, Penticton Western News, Port Hardy North Island Gazette, Powell River Peak, Prince George Citizen, Prince George Free Press, Prince Rupert Daily News, The Similkameen Spotlight, Queen Charlotte Islands Observer, Quesnel Advisor, Quesnel Cariboo Observer, Gulf Island Driftwood, Sechelt/Gibsons Coast Reporter, Eagle Valley News, Pensinsula News Review, Smithers Interior News, The Local, The Coast Reporter, Sooke News Mirror, South Delta Leader, Squamish Chief, Summerland Review, North Delta Leader, Terrace Standard, Trail Daily Times, Trail Rossland News, Timber Ridge News,
Vancouver Courier, Whistler Question, Peace Arch News, Yukon News, Williams Lake Cariboo Advisor, Winfield Lake Country Calendar, Westender, Kelowna Daily Courier.
Others….
Letters received from RCMP Deputy Commissioner Gary Bass.
(First received. Email October 22, 2009.) “Good day Mr. Mathews. I responded to your letter earlier this week. Hopefully you will receive it within a few days. I have to say that your classification of the Government of BC in this latest e-mail, as a ‘Criminal Gang’ is disturbing to me as the head of the Provincial Force and does a serious disservice to the many men and women who have devoted their lives to public service. [Deputy Commissioner Bass is in error in the statement.]
Should you come into information capable of being viewed as credible evidence of criminal wrongdoing by anyone in the Government, I would give it the attention it deserved. Regards, Gary Bass, Commanding officer, “E” Division RCMP’.
(Second received. Sent October 20, 2009.) Dear Mr. Mathews:
This correspondence will acknowledge receipt of your e-mail dated October 6th, 2009.
I am very concerned and disturbed by some of the comments and conclusions you made in the e-mail. I unequivocally support the Charter right of every resident of British Columbia and Canada to freedom of expression. Further, as a public organization accountable to the people of Canada, the RCMP is, and quite rightly so, subject to the rigorous scrutiny of the media and general public. I welcome and accept such scrutiny as part of a healthy and positive relationship between the RCMP and the communities we serve across Canada.
However, I categorically reject the unsupported and egregious suggestion that racism motivated the investigation and prosecution of the accused in the Basi, Virk matter. As you are well aware, the RCMP has numerous internal policies and procedures to ensure that our investigations comport with the Charter, statutory and common law rights of all persons. The Canadian legal system also provides for objective checks and balances on the powers of police by virtue of review by Criminal Justice Branch or the Public Prosecution Service of Canada. Finally, the Canadian courts and its officers act as final arbiters of fact. To suggest that any or all of these institutions and organizations somehow colluded to subvert justice and/or the rights of the accused is beyond the pale.
With respect to your suggestion that my professional relationship with the Premier of British Columbia is somehow inappropriate and indicative of the inability or unwillingness of the RCMP to investigate allegations of wrongdoing by the Premier or any other person in British Columbia is similarly offensive and based solely on personal belief and perception. If there is any objective evidence to support these allegations, I would encourage you to forward such information to the Commission for Public Complaints Against the RCMP which is a totally independent investigative agency.
You enumerated your reasons to believe that Premier Campbell and/or persons unknown have committed a variety of criminal offenses in relation to the sale of BC Rail. I can inform you that the RCMP has received very similar information from other public sources and I have reviewed our handling of those complaints. I am satisfied that appropriate actions are being taken with respect to such information. I am prevented by the Privacy Act and RCMP policy, as well as an over arching concern to protect the rights of the accused and other persons and to maintain the integrity of the investigative and judicial process from disclosing exact details of the steps the RCMP has taken in response to that information. Therefore, I cannot and will not publicly comment on the RCMP’s actions.
I recognize that this reply may do little to assuage your concerns. However, I will not compromise the principles of Canadian justice nor will I accept baseless allegations of wrongdoing on the part of members of the RCMP who dedicate their careers and often their lives to uphold the rights of Canadians and the laws of Canada.
Yours truly,
Gary D. Bass, O.O.M.
Deputy Commissioner – Pacific Region &
Commanding Officer, “E” Division
657 West 37th Avenue
Vancouver, BC V5Z 1K6
"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
Anonymous has left a new comment on "Robin Mathews - Gary Bass unabridged":
In 50 years, the next generation will be able to look back and wonder how on earth it was possible that all our crown assets were given away to others to profit from. This man will be one of the reasons.
To make it perfectly clear. The citizens of BC are the victims of theft under the premiership of Gordon Campbell and we want you, Gary Bass, to do something about it.
""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
Basi-Virk acted to protect [BC] Liberal interests?
.
Vaughn Palmer
Vancouver Sun - November 04, 2006
Re-posted 3 years later: Nov. 27, 2009
VICTORIA - On the day after the police descended on the B.C. legislature in late 2003, an RCMP representative met with the news media to discuss the raid.
"Let me start by saying that illegal drug activity by organized crime in B.C. has reached critical mass," Sgt. John Ward told reporters.
"Organized crime has stretched its way into every corner of B.C. and into most city streets. It is not an exaggeration to say that organized crime is a cancer eating away at the social and moral fabric of B.C. . . . However police are making gains against organized crime where we can."
Illegal drugs. A cancer eating away at the fabric of the province. The tentacles of organized crime reaching inside the provincial parliament ....
...................snip........................
The aides are accused of being involved in the exchange of confidential information regarding the sale [of BC Rail] and of gaining benefits and/or other considerations in return.
But one possible defence would be that they were authorized to pass along information to keep the bidding process alive.
That was a critical consideration for the B.C. Liberals as they moved to privatize BC Rail in the second half of 2003.
The preferred bidder was CN Rail. It had a continent-wide rail network and it was offering the highest price -- $1 billion.
But to preserve the competitive aspect of the process and to keep pressure on CN, the government needed other bidders.
Initially there were three. But one dropped out in the early going and a second exited in the final month, complaining that the process was tainted.
With only one other bidder left, the competitive aspect was hanging by a threat. Not surprisingly, the Liberals wanted to keep that alternative player in the game.
The rival bidder was OmniTRAX, a Colorado-based operator. It did stay in until the announcement Nov. 25, 2003, that CN Rail would takeover BC Rail.
OmniTRAX subsequently got involved in bidding for another BC Rail asset, the spur line serving the Roberts Bank superport.
There was talk that it might prevail in the bidding process as a sort of consolation prize.
But the Roberts Bank sale was cancelled in early 2004. Police had advised the government that confidential information regarding the spur line had ended up in the wrong hands, possibly compromising the bidding process.
The charges in the case imply a tit-for-tat. The aides were allegedly passing confidential information to gain something for themselves.
But what if any passing was inspired by their bosses, the politicians? What if the objective was to keep OmniTrax in the loop and thereby preserve the credibility of the BC Rail sale? ...
vpalmer@direct.ca
_______________________________________________________________________________________________
Is that a Freudian slip or a typo, where Palmer says "the competitive process was hanging by a threat" or did he mean "thread" ... in the Legislature Raids case, who can guess.
_________________________________________________________________________
Reposted thanks to Pacific Gazetteer's reminder. Thank you, RossK. Now, go HERE for a lot more on this. - BC Mary.
""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
Vaughn Palmer
Vancouver Sun - November 04, 2006
Re-posted 3 years later: Nov. 27, 2009
VICTORIA - On the day after the police descended on the B.C. legislature in late 2003, an RCMP representative met with the news media to discuss the raid.
"Let me start by saying that illegal drug activity by organized crime in B.C. has reached critical mass," Sgt. John Ward told reporters.
"Organized crime has stretched its way into every corner of B.C. and into most city streets. It is not an exaggeration to say that organized crime is a cancer eating away at the social and moral fabric of B.C. . . . However police are making gains against organized crime where we can."
Illegal drugs. A cancer eating away at the fabric of the province. The tentacles of organized crime reaching inside the provincial parliament ....
...................snip........................
The aides are accused of being involved in the exchange of confidential information regarding the sale [of BC Rail] and of gaining benefits and/or other considerations in return.
But one possible defence would be that they were authorized to pass along information to keep the bidding process alive.
That was a critical consideration for the B.C. Liberals as they moved to privatize BC Rail in the second half of 2003.
The preferred bidder was CN Rail. It had a continent-wide rail network and it was offering the highest price -- $1 billion.
But to preserve the competitive aspect of the process and to keep pressure on CN, the government needed other bidders.
Initially there were three. But one dropped out in the early going and a second exited in the final month, complaining that the process was tainted.
With only one other bidder left, the competitive aspect was hanging by a threat. Not surprisingly, the Liberals wanted to keep that alternative player in the game.
The rival bidder was OmniTRAX, a Colorado-based operator. It did stay in until the announcement Nov. 25, 2003, that CN Rail would takeover BC Rail.
OmniTRAX subsequently got involved in bidding for another BC Rail asset, the spur line serving the Roberts Bank superport.
There was talk that it might prevail in the bidding process as a sort of consolation prize.
But the Roberts Bank sale was cancelled in early 2004. Police had advised the government that confidential information regarding the spur line had ended up in the wrong hands, possibly compromising the bidding process.
The charges in the case imply a tit-for-tat. The aides were allegedly passing confidential information to gain something for themselves.
But what if any passing was inspired by their bosses, the politicians? What if the objective was to keep OmniTrax in the loop and thereby preserve the credibility of the BC Rail sale? ...
vpalmer@direct.ca
_______________________________________________________________________________________________
Is that a Freudian slip or a typo, where Palmer says "the competitive process was hanging by a threat" or did he mean "thread" ... in the Legislature Raids case, who can guess.
_________________________________________________________________________
Reposted thanks to Pacific Gazetteer's reminder. Thank you, RossK. Now, go HERE for a lot more on this. - BC Mary.
""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
On Nov. 17, 2003 RCMP learned ...
Noted in passing ...
Excerpt from a comment by G West on a Tyee article headlined Basi-Virk Case Tests Citizens' Patience. By Bill Tieleman. 12-03-2007.
¶ 35. In early November 2003, OmniTRAX was considering whether they would drop out of the bidding process, and wanted to meet personally with Minister Collins.
¶ 36. The RCMP became aware through intercepted communications that Bobby Singh Virk (hereinafter “Mr. Virk”) was also a Ministerial Assistant who was working with Mr. Basi on the sale of B.C.Rail.
¶ 37. Through intercepted communications, the RCMP learned that Mr. Virk had spoken to Minister Collins regarding the problems with unhappy bidders and unhappy Liberal Government MLAs, the effect this would have on the bidding process, and how the sale of B.C.Rail would be viewed both politically and publicly.
¶ 38. On November 17, 2003, the RCMP learned through a series of intercepted communications that Mr. Basi advised OmniTRAX that Minister Collins had authorized a consolation prize for OmniTRAX in exchange for them staying in the bidding process (hereinafter the “Consolation Prize”).
¶ 39. Critically, on November 17, 2003, the RCMP learned through an intercepted call between Mr. Basi and Mr. Virk, that Mr. Basi told Mr. Virk that Minister Collins had approved the Consolation Prize.
¶ 40. At that time, the RCMP were aware that Mr. Virk was dealing directly with both Mr. Basi and Minister Collins on the sale of B.C. Rail.
¶ 41. On November 25, 2003, the government announced that CN Rail was the winning bidder in respect of B.C. Rail.
Just to remind everyone, in fairness, this is a defence submission. It is what the lawyers for the 'accused' are submitting to the judge. Exactly as it was submitted.
No changes or deletions. No edits by journalists or editors. Just information the public has a right to know.
""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
Excerpt from a comment by G West on a Tyee article headlined Basi-Virk Case Tests Citizens' Patience. By Bill Tieleman. 12-03-2007.
¶ 35. In early November 2003, OmniTRAX was considering whether they would drop out of the bidding process, and wanted to meet personally with Minister Collins.
¶ 36. The RCMP became aware through intercepted communications that Bobby Singh Virk (hereinafter “Mr. Virk”) was also a Ministerial Assistant who was working with Mr. Basi on the sale of B.C.Rail.
¶ 37. Through intercepted communications, the RCMP learned that Mr. Virk had spoken to Minister Collins regarding the problems with unhappy bidders and unhappy Liberal Government MLAs, the effect this would have on the bidding process, and how the sale of B.C.Rail would be viewed both politically and publicly.
¶ 38. On November 17, 2003, the RCMP learned through a series of intercepted communications that Mr. Basi advised OmniTRAX that Minister Collins had authorized a consolation prize for OmniTRAX in exchange for them staying in the bidding process (hereinafter the “Consolation Prize”).
¶ 39. Critically, on November 17, 2003, the RCMP learned through an intercepted call between Mr. Basi and Mr. Virk, that Mr. Basi told Mr. Virk that Minister Collins had approved the Consolation Prize.
¶ 40. At that time, the RCMP were aware that Mr. Virk was dealing directly with both Mr. Basi and Minister Collins on the sale of B.C. Rail.
¶ 41. On November 25, 2003, the government announced that CN Rail was the winning bidder in respect of B.C. Rail.
Just to remind everyone, in fairness, this is a defence submission. It is what the lawyers for the 'accused' are submitting to the judge. Exactly as it was submitted.
No changes or deletions. No edits by journalists or editors. Just information the public has a right to know.
""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
Thursday, November 26, 2009
More than 6,000 executive branch documents found relevant to Basi Virk Case
VANCOUVER — A judge was told Thursday that about 6,600 documents from the executive branch of the provincial government have been found relevant to the Basi-Virk political corruption trial.
Court-appointed lawyer Lou Webster told B.C. Supreme Court Justice Anne MacKenzie that he has reviewed 16,000 of 24,000 documents and found 6,600 to be relevant and some were highly relevant to the sale of BC Rail.
The documents are from the executive branch, which includes Premier Gordon Cambell, his cabinet minister and staff.
The court was initially told last summer that all of the cabinet e-mails related to the sale had been erased but government workers later found documents on back-up tapes going back only to 2004.
Webster told the court that he still has 30,000 pages of 42,000 pages of MLA documents to review, which he expects the Crown to get to him by next week.
The judge scheduled the matter, which is described as third-party document disclosure, to return to court Jan. 19.
The case will return to court Dec. 11 at 2 p.m. for a case management conference concerning defence applications to challenge wiretaps and search warrants. The case stems from a police probe of the BC Rail bidding process, which led to a raid on the legislature on Dec. 28, 2003. {Snip} ...
Basi Virk judge refuses to delve into immunity deal
[Question: wasn't defense trying to establish the rules of procedure for allowing an immunity deal ... not requesting the judge to "delve into" the Bornmann immunity deal? See Crown Counsel Policy Manual. - BC Mary.]
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Defence lawyers' request for pretrial hearing denied
By Keith Fraser
The Province - November 26, 2009
The judge hearing the Basi-Virk corruption case Wednesday dismissed a defence application to hold a pretrial hearing on an immunity agreement for a key prosecution witness.
Lawyers for three former Liberal government aides argued that it was essential to hear the abuse-of-process application regarding former lobbyist Erik Bornmann before the trial gets under way.
Under the deal, Bornmann receives a pardon, contingent upon an assessment by special prosecutor Bill Berardino following his testimony.
The defence said the deal could be an inducement to give false testimony, but Berardino argued that the deal ensures that the witness will tell the truth in court.
After hearing nearly two days of argument, B.C. Supreme Court Justice Anne MacKenzie rejected the defence motion to hear the application before trial.
"I decline to hear this defence application before trial," said the judge.
"The defence application failed. The defence may have leave to bring the application at the appropriate time, which is at the close of the Crown's case, which is after Mr. Bornmann has testified."
MacKenzie said her reasons for judgment would be given at a later date.
Earlier Wednesday, Berardino told the judge that it was "premature" to decide the issue without hearing Bornmann's evidence.
He said the judge needs to hear a "full and complete" record of the evidence before deciding on any alleged Charter breaches.
"It's absolutely clear, beyond question, that it is premature to determine that issue now," he said.
"You should not be, the court should not be, speculating or engaging in speculation in this kind of application." Bornmann allegedly funnelled more than $24,000 to David Basi, through Basi's cousin, Aneal Basi.
Bornmann signed the immunity deal in April 2004.
The judge is expected to hear from government lawyer George Copley today on a defence application for disclosure of executive government emails related to the case. {Snip} ...
Read Keith Fraser's complete column HERE.
""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Defence lawyers' request for pretrial hearing denied
By Keith Fraser
The Province - November 26, 2009
The judge hearing the Basi-Virk corruption case Wednesday dismissed a defence application to hold a pretrial hearing on an immunity agreement for a key prosecution witness.
Lawyers for three former Liberal government aides argued that it was essential to hear the abuse-of-process application regarding former lobbyist Erik Bornmann before the trial gets under way.
Under the deal, Bornmann receives a pardon, contingent upon an assessment by special prosecutor Bill Berardino following his testimony.
The defence said the deal could be an inducement to give false testimony, but Berardino argued that the deal ensures that the witness will tell the truth in court.
After hearing nearly two days of argument, B.C. Supreme Court Justice Anne MacKenzie rejected the defence motion to hear the application before trial.
"I decline to hear this defence application before trial," said the judge.
"The defence application failed. The defence may have leave to bring the application at the appropriate time, which is at the close of the Crown's case, which is after Mr. Bornmann has testified."
MacKenzie said her reasons for judgment would be given at a later date.
Earlier Wednesday, Berardino told the judge that it was "premature" to decide the issue without hearing Bornmann's evidence.
He said the judge needs to hear a "full and complete" record of the evidence before deciding on any alleged Charter breaches.
"It's absolutely clear, beyond question, that it is premature to determine that issue now," he said.
"You should not be, the court should not be, speculating or engaging in speculation in this kind of application." Bornmann allegedly funnelled more than $24,000 to David Basi, through Basi's cousin, Aneal Basi.
Bornmann signed the immunity deal in April 2004.
The judge is expected to hear from government lawyer George Copley today on a defence application for disclosure of executive government emails related to the case. {Snip} ...
Read Keith Fraser's complete column HERE.
""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
Basi Virk in BC Supreme Court today 10:30 AM
Wednesday, November 25, 2009
Basi Virk today: Is "the fix" in?
.
Is "the fix"in? The day in Courtroom 43.
By Robin Mathews
November 25, 2009.
The day whirled and whirled with argument about an application Defence has made to have actions by the Special Crown Prosecutor, William Berardino, named inappropriate, "abuse of process", and to be remedied by any number of possible rulings. One remedy would be that Erik Bornmann, Prosecution's so-called "Star Witness" could not appear in the trial. Other remedies were available, of course, to the judge.
Draconian stuff!
Erik Bornmann, part of a lobby organization at the time, admits to having paid a bribe concerning the BC Rail Scandal events, and - after - became a key witness for the Crown against the accused, receiving a much discussed and distressed "immunity" guarantee or partial guarantee given to him by the Special Crown Prosecutor, William Berardino.
To ordinary Canadians there is something alarming, almost always, when someone admitting to a criminal act then becomes a protected witness in a court case, sheltered from facing criminal charges for his/her acts. But examples occur, and they often (as in the argument today) provide precedent for cases being fought.
The whole day was engaged in the argument, rich in disagreement and sparkling with references to key precedents.
The arguments boiled down to a few. Defence alleges that William Berardino made a proposal to Erik Bornmann that he will receive immunity from prosecution if he appears in the trial as a Crown witness - against the accused - and tells the truth. Defence argues that Berardino did not offer Bornmann total immunity as (Defence alleges) English, Commonwealth, and Canadian use demands, but offered him immunity if - at the end of the trial - the Crown judges he has told the truth.
Defence called that offer an abuse of process. They called it that for the very simple and obvious reason that standard procedure (they argue) is to give total immunity to such a person who then has no reason to do anything else than tell the truth. With an "if you tell the truth as we judge it, you will get immunity", the witness is likely to try to find what the Crown wants him or her to say and say it as "truth" in order to get the immunity. That suggests a huge danger to the credible operation of the legal system. Defence pointed out that the only credible determinant of truth in a trial is judge and jury or judge in a judge-alone trial. Crown does not and cannot determine truth.
In addition, Defence argued that the application must be heard before trial - for obvious reasons. If there has been abuse of process by the Special Crown Prosecutor, it must be known before trial begins. To bring up the allegation and test it during trial would dizzy the heads of jurers; would be costly; would call for remedy in the middle of trial if proved, etc. etc. And to do it after the whole trial is over would be catastrophic because, in a sense, if upheld - then the whole trial would be in question as an illegitimate action based on an abuse of process.
William Berardino, Special Crown Prosecutor, argued eloquently and well (but off the main issue, Defence claims). He argued, as I understood his position, that Defence was claiming tainted evidence not abuse of process. Because the Defence had used the word tainted to describe the whole presentation of Bornmann and his "evidence" if abuse of process has taken place, Berardino spoke mostly of tainted process. He argued that precedent accepts "immunity" so that justice may be done.
Of key importance, Defence argued that there could not be a choice of when the application will be heard; it must be heard before trial begins. Berardino dissented, preferring, of all, that it be heard after all the evidence is in at the trial.
To the ordinary, unprofessional layman like myself, Defence should carry the day. If the allegation of "abuse of process" (a serious allegation) is baseless, then it should be shown to be baseless at the earliest opportunity and gotten out of the way. Then the trial can be clean and straightforward. If the allegation of "abuse of process" has basis, then remedy may be made BEFORE a trial begins and the trial can be based upon the remedied wrong.
Try as one might to think of a reason why the application should be heard in trial or after trial, one cannot bring a good reason to mind. (This "one", at any rate, certainly can't.)
Madam Justice Anne MacKenzie seemed to me (an observer in the gallery) to hear the Defence with less than complete objectivity. When she declared that Defence was arguing against itself by using both of the terms "abuse of process" and "tainted evidence", Defence acquitted itself reasonably by explaining its (perhaps) unfortunate use of the term "tainted" as describing what the condition would be if the "abuse of process" were allowed to stand. As observer in the gallery, I understood clearly the argument, and the clarification.
Nonetheless, in the closing few minutes of the day, Madam Justice Anne MacKenzie found for the Special Crown Prosecutor - to provide reasons tomorrow (I think she said).
Her ready decision seems to be a part of her wish to move the process along and get to trial. If that is true, and if her action is reasonable, she did well today. But if some other motivation is present, and her action not reasonable, the decision must seem strange.
She wants the argument about "unnecessary delay of process" (which Defence will make) to be heard before Defence thinks suitable; and she wants the argument about "abuse of process" to be delayed far beyond the time Defence believes is warranted. From the extended argument today, it is plain that further allegations of delay could very well surface in the next weeks. To force the application for delay to be heard before all evidence of alleged delay is in seems, simply, somewhat crackpot.
That is why the title of this report reads: "Is 'the fix' in?"
Defence has argued that the Gordon Campbell government pretended an open "sale" of BC Rail while "the fix" was in to sell it to CN Rail and pretend and pretend all the rest about an open, public auction process.
Is the "fix" in for the trial of Basi, Virk, and Basi - to appear to conduct a full and open trial while setting up a process that is predetermined? That is a strong question to ask. The rather strange positions taken by Madam Justice Anne MacKenzie, however, bring the question to my mind. And so I ask the question. An observer who is an ordinary British Columbian must ask all the questions that may be relevant to the preservation of democratic society. They may be painful. But in defence of democracy, they must be asked. And so I ask that question.
""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
Bill Tieleman wasn't in court today but his blog is updated HERE.
Excerpt:
UPDATE - The Vancouver Sun's Neal Hall reports from BC Supreme Court Wednesday that defence lawyers are claiming a deal between the Crown and key witness Erik Bornmann breaches the constitutional rights of the three accused former aides. The Province's Keith Fraser has also filed an online story. I am unable to attend today's hearing but you can find more at the links to Neal and Keith's stories above or at The Legislature Raids.
Hearing continues Wednesday and Thursday in BC Supreme Court, Vancouver.
""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
Is "the fix"in? The day in Courtroom 43.
By Robin Mathews
November 25, 2009.
The day whirled and whirled with argument about an application Defence has made to have actions by the Special Crown Prosecutor, William Berardino, named inappropriate, "abuse of process", and to be remedied by any number of possible rulings. One remedy would be that Erik Bornmann, Prosecution's so-called "Star Witness" could not appear in the trial. Other remedies were available, of course, to the judge.
Draconian stuff!
Erik Bornmann, part of a lobby organization at the time, admits to having paid a bribe concerning the BC Rail Scandal events, and - after - became a key witness for the Crown against the accused, receiving a much discussed and distressed "immunity" guarantee or partial guarantee given to him by the Special Crown Prosecutor, William Berardino.
To ordinary Canadians there is something alarming, almost always, when someone admitting to a criminal act then becomes a protected witness in a court case, sheltered from facing criminal charges for his/her acts. But examples occur, and they often (as in the argument today) provide precedent for cases being fought.
The whole day was engaged in the argument, rich in disagreement and sparkling with references to key precedents.
The arguments boiled down to a few. Defence alleges that William Berardino made a proposal to Erik Bornmann that he will receive immunity from prosecution if he appears in the trial as a Crown witness - against the accused - and tells the truth. Defence argues that Berardino did not offer Bornmann total immunity as (Defence alleges) English, Commonwealth, and Canadian use demands, but offered him immunity if - at the end of the trial - the Crown judges he has told the truth.
Defence called that offer an abuse of process. They called it that for the very simple and obvious reason that standard procedure (they argue) is to give total immunity to such a person who then has no reason to do anything else than tell the truth. With an "if you tell the truth as we judge it, you will get immunity", the witness is likely to try to find what the Crown wants him or her to say and say it as "truth" in order to get the immunity. That suggests a huge danger to the credible operation of the legal system. Defence pointed out that the only credible determinant of truth in a trial is judge and jury or judge in a judge-alone trial. Crown does not and cannot determine truth.
In addition, Defence argued that the application must be heard before trial - for obvious reasons. If there has been abuse of process by the Special Crown Prosecutor, it must be known before trial begins. To bring up the allegation and test it during trial would dizzy the heads of jurers; would be costly; would call for remedy in the middle of trial if proved, etc. etc. And to do it after the whole trial is over would be catastrophic because, in a sense, if upheld - then the whole trial would be in question as an illegitimate action based on an abuse of process.
William Berardino, Special Crown Prosecutor, argued eloquently and well (but off the main issue, Defence claims). He argued, as I understood his position, that Defence was claiming tainted evidence not abuse of process. Because the Defence had used the word tainted to describe the whole presentation of Bornmann and his "evidence" if abuse of process has taken place, Berardino spoke mostly of tainted process. He argued that precedent accepts "immunity" so that justice may be done.
Of key importance, Defence argued that there could not be a choice of when the application will be heard; it must be heard before trial begins. Berardino dissented, preferring, of all, that it be heard after all the evidence is in at the trial.
To the ordinary, unprofessional layman like myself, Defence should carry the day. If the allegation of "abuse of process" (a serious allegation) is baseless, then it should be shown to be baseless at the earliest opportunity and gotten out of the way. Then the trial can be clean and straightforward. If the allegation of "abuse of process" has basis, then remedy may be made BEFORE a trial begins and the trial can be based upon the remedied wrong.
Try as one might to think of a reason why the application should be heard in trial or after trial, one cannot bring a good reason to mind. (This "one", at any rate, certainly can't.)
Madam Justice Anne MacKenzie seemed to me (an observer in the gallery) to hear the Defence with less than complete objectivity. When she declared that Defence was arguing against itself by using both of the terms "abuse of process" and "tainted evidence", Defence acquitted itself reasonably by explaining its (perhaps) unfortunate use of the term "tainted" as describing what the condition would be if the "abuse of process" were allowed to stand. As observer in the gallery, I understood clearly the argument, and the clarification.
Nonetheless, in the closing few minutes of the day, Madam Justice Anne MacKenzie found for the Special Crown Prosecutor - to provide reasons tomorrow (I think she said).
Her ready decision seems to be a part of her wish to move the process along and get to trial. If that is true, and if her action is reasonable, she did well today. But if some other motivation is present, and her action not reasonable, the decision must seem strange.
She wants the argument about "unnecessary delay of process" (which Defence will make) to be heard before Defence thinks suitable; and she wants the argument about "abuse of process" to be delayed far beyond the time Defence believes is warranted. From the extended argument today, it is plain that further allegations of delay could very well surface in the next weeks. To force the application for delay to be heard before all evidence of alleged delay is in seems, simply, somewhat crackpot.
That is why the title of this report reads: "Is 'the fix' in?"
Defence has argued that the Gordon Campbell government pretended an open "sale" of BC Rail while "the fix" was in to sell it to CN Rail and pretend and pretend all the rest about an open, public auction process.
Is the "fix" in for the trial of Basi, Virk, and Basi - to appear to conduct a full and open trial while setting up a process that is predetermined? That is a strong question to ask. The rather strange positions taken by Madam Justice Anne MacKenzie, however, bring the question to my mind. And so I ask the question. An observer who is an ordinary British Columbian must ask all the questions that may be relevant to the preservation of democratic society. They may be painful. But in defence of democracy, they must be asked. And so I ask that question.
""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
Bill Tieleman wasn't in court today but his blog is updated HERE.
Excerpt:
Tuesday, November 24, 2009
BASI-VIRK - defence spars with judge over timing of application to throw out case, seeks info connected to secret witness
Defence lawyers and BC Supreme Court Justice Anne MacKenzie sparred Tuesday over an application to have corruption charges against three former BC Liberal government aides thrown out due to delay of the trial.UPDATE - The Vancouver Sun's Neal Hall reports from BC Supreme Court Wednesday that defence lawyers are claiming a deal between the Crown and key witness Erik Bornmann breaches the constitutional rights of the three accused former aides. The Province's Keith Fraser has also filed an online story. I am unable to attend today's hearing but you can find more at the links to Neal and Keith's stories above or at The Legislature Raids.
Hearing continues Wednesday and Thursday in BC Supreme Court, Vancouver.
""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
Defence at Basi-Virk trial claims immunity deal breaches constitutional rights. [And updates by Citizen Journalists.]
.
By NEAL HALL
OTTAWA CITIZEN - November 24, 2009
VANCOUVER SUN - November 25, 2009
VANCOUVER - Defence lawyers at Basi-Virk trial claimed Wednesday that the immunity deal offered a Crown witness breaches the constitutional rights of three former government aides accused of corruption.
"We say that the trial fairness is impaired," defence lawyer Tim Russell argued about the immunity from prosecution deal reached with Erik Bornmann.
Bornmann was a lobbyist representing a U.S. company, OmniTrax, which was bidding to buy BC rail operations in 2003.
Bornmann allegedly paid bribes to two senior provincial government aides in exchange for confidential information about the BC Rail bidding process.
Bornmann, a prominent Liberal organizer, was never charged but is expected to testify as a key Crown witness.
{Snip ... }
Defence lawyer Michael Bolton argued that Bornmann did not offer to make a police statement until he was offered an immunity deal by the Crown.
The deal constituted an inducement that tainted the evidence of Bornmann, Bolton said.
Special prosecutor Bill Berardino argued before B.C. Supreme Court Justice Anne MacKenzie that the abuse of process application should be heard at the end of the trial.
The trial judge wants to start the trial next January.
{Snip} ...
The defence's trial delay argument - the defence contends it took too long for the matter to get to trial - will be heard star[t]ing next Jan. 11, the judge decided this week.
{Snip} ...
Neal Hall's complete column is HERE.
""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
North Van's Grumps was in Court today. He left a new comment ... see if you don't feel a sense of community ... as N.V.G. writes:
What a hoot, today I had the day off work, spent the morning on Bowen Island and then the afternoon was spent trying to figure out who the public gallery players were at the Basi/Virk/Basi pre trial preparations.
Of the 7 in the gallery: Neal Hall and Kieth Fraser were there to represent the "Press", Robin Matthews, EM (and a friend) and myself (NVG) were there representing BC Mary. The seventh participant reminded me of Stuart Chase who was paid by the A G office to look in on the proceedings on behalf of the government, but in this case the official was none other than a fully armed, bullet proof vested RCMP which led me to the front desk on the way out of the BC Supreme Court building to ask the equally bullet proofed recectionist ....WHY. Why have an office on duty inside the public gallery area. The reply was "To give testimony." "Really".
This was the first time in 42 years that I've stepped inside a court room as a visitor to the public gallery; I've been a juror on three occasions/called to be a juror five times all told.
Robin made the introductions, especially after I introduced myself as BC Mary's henchman to which he replied that I should meet EM a henchwoman. So, as it turned out there were more blog reporters in the public gallery today than the Press. [WooHooo! Pause here for Dance of Joy! - BC Mary.]
Its been mentioned earlier on BC Mary's blog of a similarity between the treatment by by the Crown Prosecutor of Erik Bornman and Ontario's Crown Prosecutor of Karla Homolka and from my perspective today we might as well throw in Gillian Guess as well.
Part of what I heard today in regards to Bornman's much needed testimony for the Crown and in exchange he wouldn't be charged with a crime regarding bribing, even after the Basi/Virk/Basi trial was over, was that if the Crown didn't like what they heard they would charge him with PERJURY! and this came from the the defense lawyer Tim Russell.
You'd think that Bornman would have been first in line for charges with ensuing charges against those who accepted the monies.
"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
By NEAL HALL
OTTAWA CITIZEN - November 24, 2009
VANCOUVER SUN - November 25, 2009
VANCOUVER - Defence lawyers at Basi-Virk trial claimed Wednesday that the immunity deal offered a Crown witness breaches the constitutional rights of three former government aides accused of corruption.
"We say that the trial fairness is impaired," defence lawyer Tim Russell argued about the immunity from prosecution deal reached with Erik Bornmann.
Bornmann was a lobbyist representing a U.S. company, OmniTrax, which was bidding to buy BC rail operations in 2003.
Bornmann allegedly paid bribes to two senior provincial government aides in exchange for confidential information about the BC Rail bidding process.
Bornmann, a prominent Liberal organizer, was never charged but is expected to testify as a key Crown witness.
{Snip ... }
Defence lawyer Michael Bolton argued that Bornmann did not offer to make a police statement until he was offered an immunity deal by the Crown.
The deal constituted an inducement that tainted the evidence of Bornmann, Bolton said.
Special prosecutor Bill Berardino argued before B.C. Supreme Court Justice Anne MacKenzie that the abuse of process application should be heard at the end of the trial.
The trial judge wants to start the trial next January.
{Snip} ...
The defence's trial delay argument - the defence contends it took too long for the matter to get to trial - will be heard star[t]ing next Jan. 11, the judge decided this week.
{Snip} ...
Neal Hall's complete column is HERE.
""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
North Van's Grumps was in Court today. He left a new comment ... see if you don't feel a sense of community ... as N.V.G. writes:
What a hoot, today I had the day off work, spent the morning on Bowen Island and then the afternoon was spent trying to figure out who the public gallery players were at the Basi/Virk/Basi pre trial preparations.
Of the 7 in the gallery: Neal Hall and Kieth Fraser were there to represent the "Press", Robin Matthews, EM (and a friend) and myself (NVG) were there representing BC Mary. The seventh participant reminded me of Stuart Chase who was paid by the A G office to look in on the proceedings on behalf of the government, but in this case the official was none other than a fully armed, bullet proof vested RCMP which led me to the front desk on the way out of the BC Supreme Court building to ask the equally bullet proofed recectionist ....WHY. Why have an office on duty inside the public gallery area. The reply was "To give testimony." "Really".
This was the first time in 42 years that I've stepped inside a court room as a visitor to the public gallery; I've been a juror on three occasions/called to be a juror five times all told.
Robin made the introductions, especially after I introduced myself as BC Mary's henchman to which he replied that I should meet EM a henchwoman. So, as it turned out there were more blog reporters in the public gallery today than the Press. [WooHooo! Pause here for Dance of Joy! - BC Mary.]
Its been mentioned earlier on BC Mary's blog of a similarity between the treatment by by the Crown Prosecutor of Erik Bornman and Ontario's Crown Prosecutor of Karla Homolka and from my perspective today we might as well throw in Gillian Guess as well.
Part of what I heard today in regards to Bornman's much needed testimony for the Crown and in exchange he wouldn't be charged with a crime regarding bribing, even after the Basi/Virk/Basi trial was over, was that if the Crown didn't like what they heard they would charge him with PERJURY! and this came from the the defense lawyer Tim Russell.
You'd think that Bornman would have been first in line for charges with ensuing charges against those who accepted the monies.
"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
Basi-Virk witness's evidence should be heard: Prosecutor
.
By Keith Fraser
The Province - November 25, 2009
The special prosecutor in the Basi-Virk corruption case on Wednesday defended an immunity deal he reached with a key Crown witness, denying a defence allegation that the witness’s evidence had been corrupted.
On Tuesday defence lawyers said the charges against three former Liberal government aides should be stayed or the evidence of former lobbyist Erik Bornman excluded because of the nature of the deal that Bornman signed with the Crown. Under the deal, immunity won’t be granted to Bornman until after he testifies at trial and special prosecutor Bill Berardino conducts an assessment of that testimony.
The defence lawyers say that process paves the way for Bornman to be induced to give false testimony and therefore breaches the accused’s right to a fair trial. They say there’s no need for any evidence of Bornman to be heard in order for the judge to conclude the testimony has been tainted.
{Snip}
Keith Fraser's complete report is HERE.
"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
By Keith Fraser
The Province - November 25, 2009
The special prosecutor in the Basi-Virk corruption case on Wednesday defended an immunity deal he reached with a key Crown witness, denying a defence allegation that the witness’s evidence had been corrupted.
On Tuesday defence lawyers said the charges against three former Liberal government aides should be stayed or the evidence of former lobbyist Erik Bornman excluded because of the nature of the deal that Bornman signed with the Crown. Under the deal, immunity won’t be granted to Bornman until after he testifies at trial and special prosecutor Bill Berardino conducts an assessment of that testimony.
The defence lawyers say that process paves the way for Bornman to be induced to give false testimony and therefore breaches the accused’s right to a fair trial. They say there’s no need for any evidence of Bornman to be heard in order for the judge to conclude the testimony has been tainted.
{Snip}
Keith Fraser's complete report is HERE.
"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
Basi Virk Basi - 10:00 AM today, Nov. 25, 2009
Tuesday, November 24, 2009
Basi Virk Legal bid querying delay in trial ... gets delayed
.
Basi-Virk lawyer says Bornman evidence corrupted by immunity deal
Basi-Virk lawyer says Bornman evidence corrupted by immunity deal
Defence lawyers in the Basi-Virk corruption case say the evidence of former lobbyist and key Crown witness Erik Bornman has been corrupted by an immunity deal he reached with prosecutors.
Michael Bolton, a lawyer for accused David Basi, made the comments in court Tuesday as part of an application to have the issue heard before the trial gets under way.
He told B.C. Supreme Court Justice Anne MacKenzie that the deal that special prosecutor Bill Berardino cut with Bornman was unlawful and unconstitutional. {Snip} ...
The judge earlier ordered that a hearing that deals with a police informant issue that was ruled in Berardino’s favor at the Supreme Court of Canada last week should be heard on Dec. 14.
The judge said she will then will hear other disclosure applications involving other informant issues related to disclosure applications.
An application of the defence that there has been an unreasonable delay in getting to trial was to have been heard starting Dec. 1 but it has been pushed back to Jan. 11. {Snip} ...
"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
Basi Virk as seen by Robin Mathews:
.
Morning in Courtroom 43, November 24, 09
By Robin Mathews
We looked at a few trees.
We spent the morning looking at a few trees - seven of us in the gallery and nine in the court. The forest is spreading, huge and important, away from us. But we looked at a few trees. Madam Justice Anne MacKenzie sees the bare trunk directly in from of her - of one tree, I think. She seems imperturbably unaware there is a forest - and unaware that the tree she is staring at is part of a forest....
I could characterize all the people in courtroom 43 this morning by their "tree vision". But I'll stop here. Not many, it seems, could see the forest. Fewer still knew the trees they were looking at were intimately linked with the forest that (both the trees and)they are in....
In straightforward, sensible terms, the morning (and most of the afternoon will be too) was given over (broadly) to scheduling, to the order in which items preceding trial will be dealt with. The Special Crown Prosecutor wished to move in one way. Defence another. Argument was presented. The essence of the argument being that Defence does not wish to bring forward its Charter Challenge for a declaration of mistrial on the basis of unnecessary and protracted delay until all of the disclosure material to come is before them.
How, they argued, (in short) could they present a characterization of the alleged delay if material to be disclosed after that presentation reveals more delay and delay that has not yet been recorded?
Of enormous interest to the public was the reminder by Defence that the Crown had named two confidential informants and held material (therefore) as privileged in relation to them, only to decide they weren't confidential informants after all. What if circumstances will show that the present informant (identity protected by the recent Supreme Court of Canada ruling to the point of letting him/her give testimony in camera) turns out to be something other than claimed?
As the usually quiet and untheatrical Joseph Doyle, Defence counsel put it, this situation is unusual. (Madam Justice Anne MacKenzie - during her interventions with Mr. Doyle - wanted to make clear that the attribution of delay, as I understood her, suggests intention, and should not be embarked upon lightly.) Mr. Doyle pointed out that THIS confidential informant is known by many. And in the light of the earlier two, who were changed in characterization, doubt enters. And, yes, Mr. Doyle said, the erroneous naming of someone as informant is delay. Yes.
In short, the Crown won the argument in the Supreme Court of Canada to hear the confidential informant in secret. But, Defence asks, was that appeal unnecessary, and will the following days during which the secret hearing occurs reveal that?
The forest, almost unannounced, then came into view.
Michael Bolton, for the Defence, argued that much of the time spent by counsel getting material for the defence of their clients should have been unnecessary. He pointed to the what he described as the failure of police to make appropriate investigations. They had obligation, he reminded the court, to gather evidence of use to both the Crown and the Defence. The part of the search warrant "raids" that were on the actual legislature offices were made only upon the offices of Dave Basi and Bobby Virk. Not the transportation minister's office, or any others.
Mr. Bolton characterized it as a "very partisan investigation".
In my most recent letter to the RCMP Deputy Commissioner, Gary Bass, I pointed out that not long before the legislature search warrant "raids", Finance Minister Gary Collins was, Defence alleges, under investigation. Then he was dropped (without record, apparently). And concentration thereafter was upon the cabinet aides as possible wrong-doers. I asked Deputy Commissioner Bass in my recent letter who it was who ordered that the investigation should go around elected persons involved in the (corrupt) sale of BC Rail? Why was a fuller investigation not carried out? Deputy Commissioner Bass has not yet answered my questions.
The answer to those questions will take the whole matter deeper into the forest.
Madam Justice Anne MacKenzie stated that the police evidentiary basis (for the charges) can only be tested at trial. That is, of course, true. But the trial - as carefully prepared - only includes accusations against the three men named. It cannot, unless remarkable and dramatic events occur, move into the forest, announce that others were implicated, and add their names
to the accused. Once the trial of Basi, Virk, and Basi begins, it will be a trial of those three men as if no others were allegedly criminally engaged in the transfer of BC Rail to CN Rail. And so Mr. Bolton's statements about an inadequate investigation have a double sting.
That suggests why some may appear to want the trial to go forward with the least possible delay.
The general morning argument appeared to be brought to a compromise when Mr. Berardino for the Crown suggested that all matters be cleared between now and Christmas and that, at the latest, the Charter Application be heard immediately after Christmas. Madam Justice MacKenzie entered and stated that would happen immediately after Christmas even if the other matters fail to be cleared.
The court broke for lunch and for discussion among counsel about the proposal of Mr. Berardino - to see if it could be agreed to by all.
Tomorrow, hearings resume.
"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
Citizen Journalist "EM" with a first-person report from Courtroom 43,
Nov. 24, 2009 ... [I sorta want to shout "All rise, please!" as EM steps forward - BC Mary]:
EM here Mary, I made it to Court yesterday without incident, thanks for your posted help. WHAT A DAY, meeting the prof, journalist, speaking with the Crown and defense, more than i could have dreamed, lol,
I am returning this morning [Wed., Nov. 25]. everyone else has described yesterday very well, but a couple very exciting things were found out. Speaking with Crown about the SCC decision, he said he was asked very good questions by the Judges, he wished we could see it, I asked if it will ever be on CPAC. his assistant went on to explain that the SCC made a error, evidence discussed was already edited during trial, but becasue of the documents factums ect were sealing order (public cannot see) they assumed the trail was sealed, Bernadino said we could ask the SCC to remove it, so we can view it on CPAC he really wants us to see him in action there I think, lol,He then said He would look into it being made available. (I keep losing connection here, so cant say all I want to.
This morning, Mcullough who has someone speaking to the application for him will continue for 1/2 hour, he spoke at end of day yesterday for 1 hour, We left the court at 4 20. Then Bolton has 1 hour, then the Crown at 11, this is regarding Bornman, abuse of process, defense stated remedy would be exclusion of evidence by Bornman, and "trial without bornman would be considerably shorter" and hundreds of thousands of tax payers money saved, he repeated that many times.
The judge setting dates, Bernadino stated he wants to go flat out, the judge said after going through the dates of Jan 11 then Feb 15th -Feb 22nd she said " no reason for further delay, if you cant make it that day, have someone else here to cover it.
more more later.
EM
"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
EM, this is amazing news-reporting! Who ever heard of going up to those Black Gowns and asking the questions?? Who ever heard of obtaining the kind of answers you were given? This is so interesting ... and we'll be looking forward to your new dimension on today's news. Thank You immensely. - BC Mary.
"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
Isn't it odd that there's no BC Supreme Court listing for Basi Virk Basi this morning, Nov. 25? All of yesterday's participants said that yes, the hearings would be continuing today.
"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
Sharing is Good comments:
Through all of this, it has continually behooved [surprised?] me that people would be charged with accepting a bribe, but not those offering the bribe. Both parties are guilty.
Oh yeah, the private enterpriser (middleman) was given a deal by the prosecution. But money isn't just handed out in private business (nor in backroom government deals) without approval of the partners/higher-ups.
If the privatizer was acting as a middleman, then the money had to come from the other player wanting to buy the railway. Middlemen don't just empty their wallets on behalf of others with whom they are doing business.
Why wouldn't the the prospective purchaser be charged? As far as I know, the prosecution didn't cut a deal with the purchaser too. Is the prosecution afraid what might come out about the BC government if they prosecuted the prospective buyers?
I am incredibly curious to see where the money trail began and the path it took. And, really, how would Basi and Virk get the necessary information? The bidding process was supposed to be secret.
I have never been able to figure out how these guys had access to the bidding docs/details. They had better open all of the court documents to the public. It is our money, our railway, and our employees that are involved. Government employees are employed by the people of BC; we pay their salaries.
The secrecy has to end.
""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
Morning in Courtroom 43, November 24, 09
By Robin Mathews
We looked at a few trees.
We spent the morning looking at a few trees - seven of us in the gallery and nine in the court. The forest is spreading, huge and important, away from us. But we looked at a few trees. Madam Justice Anne MacKenzie sees the bare trunk directly in from of her - of one tree, I think. She seems imperturbably unaware there is a forest - and unaware that the tree she is staring at is part of a forest....
I could characterize all the people in courtroom 43 this morning by their "tree vision". But I'll stop here. Not many, it seems, could see the forest. Fewer still knew the trees they were looking at were intimately linked with the forest that (both the trees and)they are in....
In straightforward, sensible terms, the morning (and most of the afternoon will be too) was given over (broadly) to scheduling, to the order in which items preceding trial will be dealt with. The Special Crown Prosecutor wished to move in one way. Defence another. Argument was presented. The essence of the argument being that Defence does not wish to bring forward its Charter Challenge for a declaration of mistrial on the basis of unnecessary and protracted delay until all of the disclosure material to come is before them.
How, they argued, (in short) could they present a characterization of the alleged delay if material to be disclosed after that presentation reveals more delay and delay that has not yet been recorded?
Of enormous interest to the public was the reminder by Defence that the Crown had named two confidential informants and held material (therefore) as privileged in relation to them, only to decide they weren't confidential informants after all. What if circumstances will show that the present informant (identity protected by the recent Supreme Court of Canada ruling to the point of letting him/her give testimony in camera) turns out to be something other than claimed?
As the usually quiet and untheatrical Joseph Doyle, Defence counsel put it, this situation is unusual. (Madam Justice Anne MacKenzie - during her interventions with Mr. Doyle - wanted to make clear that the attribution of delay, as I understood her, suggests intention, and should not be embarked upon lightly.) Mr. Doyle pointed out that THIS confidential informant is known by many. And in the light of the earlier two, who were changed in characterization, doubt enters. And, yes, Mr. Doyle said, the erroneous naming of someone as informant is delay. Yes.
In short, the Crown won the argument in the Supreme Court of Canada to hear the confidential informant in secret. But, Defence asks, was that appeal unnecessary, and will the following days during which the secret hearing occurs reveal that?
The forest, almost unannounced, then came into view.
Michael Bolton, for the Defence, argued that much of the time spent by counsel getting material for the defence of their clients should have been unnecessary. He pointed to the what he described as the failure of police to make appropriate investigations. They had obligation, he reminded the court, to gather evidence of use to both the Crown and the Defence. The part of the search warrant "raids" that were on the actual legislature offices were made only upon the offices of Dave Basi and Bobby Virk. Not the transportation minister's office, or any others.
Mr. Bolton characterized it as a "very partisan investigation".
In my most recent letter to the RCMP Deputy Commissioner, Gary Bass, I pointed out that not long before the legislature search warrant "raids", Finance Minister Gary Collins was, Defence alleges, under investigation. Then he was dropped (without record, apparently). And concentration thereafter was upon the cabinet aides as possible wrong-doers. I asked Deputy Commissioner Bass in my recent letter who it was who ordered that the investigation should go around elected persons involved in the (corrupt) sale of BC Rail? Why was a fuller investigation not carried out? Deputy Commissioner Bass has not yet answered my questions.
The answer to those questions will take the whole matter deeper into the forest.
Madam Justice Anne MacKenzie stated that the police evidentiary basis (for the charges) can only be tested at trial. That is, of course, true. But the trial - as carefully prepared - only includes accusations against the three men named. It cannot, unless remarkable and dramatic events occur, move into the forest, announce that others were implicated, and add their names
to the accused. Once the trial of Basi, Virk, and Basi begins, it will be a trial of those three men as if no others were allegedly criminally engaged in the transfer of BC Rail to CN Rail. And so Mr. Bolton's statements about an inadequate investigation have a double sting.
That suggests why some may appear to want the trial to go forward with the least possible delay.
The general morning argument appeared to be brought to a compromise when Mr. Berardino for the Crown suggested that all matters be cleared between now and Christmas and that, at the latest, the Charter Application be heard immediately after Christmas. Madam Justice MacKenzie entered and stated that would happen immediately after Christmas even if the other matters fail to be cleared.
The court broke for lunch and for discussion among counsel about the proposal of Mr. Berardino - to see if it could be agreed to by all.
Tomorrow, hearings resume.
"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
Citizen Journalist "EM" with a first-person report from Courtroom 43,
Nov. 24, 2009 ... [I sorta want to shout "All rise, please!" as EM steps forward - BC Mary]:
EM here Mary, I made it to Court yesterday without incident, thanks for your posted help. WHAT A DAY, meeting the prof, journalist, speaking with the Crown and defense, more than i could have dreamed, lol,
I am returning this morning [Wed., Nov. 25]. everyone else has described yesterday very well, but a couple very exciting things were found out. Speaking with Crown about the SCC decision, he said he was asked very good questions by the Judges, he wished we could see it, I asked if it will ever be on CPAC. his assistant went on to explain that the SCC made a error, evidence discussed was already edited during trial, but becasue of the documents factums ect were sealing order (public cannot see) they assumed the trail was sealed, Bernadino said we could ask the SCC to remove it, so we can view it on CPAC he really wants us to see him in action there I think, lol,He then said He would look into it being made available. (I keep losing connection here, so cant say all I want to.
This morning, Mcullough who has someone speaking to the application for him will continue for 1/2 hour, he spoke at end of day yesterday for 1 hour, We left the court at 4 20. Then Bolton has 1 hour, then the Crown at 11, this is regarding Bornman, abuse of process, defense stated remedy would be exclusion of evidence by Bornman, and "trial without bornman would be considerably shorter" and hundreds of thousands of tax payers money saved, he repeated that many times.
The judge setting dates, Bernadino stated he wants to go flat out, the judge said after going through the dates of Jan 11 then Feb 15th -Feb 22nd she said " no reason for further delay, if you cant make it that day, have someone else here to cover it.
more more later.
EM
"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
EM, this is amazing news-reporting! Who ever heard of going up to those Black Gowns and asking the questions?? Who ever heard of obtaining the kind of answers you were given? This is so interesting ... and we'll be looking forward to your new dimension on today's news. Thank You immensely. - BC Mary.
"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
Isn't it odd that there's no BC Supreme Court listing for Basi Virk Basi this morning, Nov. 25? All of yesterday's participants said that yes, the hearings would be continuing today.
"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
Sharing is Good comments:
Through all of this, it has continually behooved [surprised?] me that people would be charged with accepting a bribe, but not those offering the bribe. Both parties are guilty.
Oh yeah, the private enterpriser (middleman) was given a deal by the prosecution. But money isn't just handed out in private business (nor in backroom government deals) without approval of the partners/higher-ups.
If the privatizer was acting as a middleman, then the money had to come from the other player wanting to buy the railway. Middlemen don't just empty their wallets on behalf of others with whom they are doing business.
Why wouldn't the the prospective purchaser be charged? As far as I know, the prosecution didn't cut a deal with the purchaser too. Is the prosecution afraid what might come out about the BC government if they prosecuted the prospective buyers?
I am incredibly curious to see where the money trail began and the path it took. And, really, how would Basi and Virk get the necessary information? The bidding process was supposed to be secret.
I have never been able to figure out how these guys had access to the bidding docs/details. They had better open all of the court documents to the public. It is our money, our railway, and our employees that are involved. Government employees are employed by the people of BC; we pay their salaries.
The secrecy has to end.
""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
