Tuesday, November 24, 2009

 

Basi Virk Legal bid querying delay in trial ... gets delayed

.
Basi-Virk lawyer says Bornman evidence corrupted by immunity deal

By Keith Fraser
The Province - November 24, 2009

[This is a fascinating point of view. Click HERE to read Keith Fraser's complete report. - BC Mary.]

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} ...

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


# posted by BC Mary @ 6:40 p.m.
Comments:
"....key Crown witness Erik Bornman has been corrupted by an immunity deal he reached with prosecutors."

This sure is starting to sound like the deal that Ontario Crown prosecutors struck with Karla Homolka to catch Paul Bernardo when in fact Karla Homolka was just as guilty as Paul Bernardo.
# posted by Anonymous Anonymous : November 24, 2009 at 8:29 p.m.
 
I forgot to mention that in the case of Homolka, the video evidence was found in a secret hidy hole inside their house, even after it had been thoroughly searched by police. But then after a lawyer for Bernardo found himself in possession of evidence that would incriminate both of them, and he, the lawyer, turned the evidence over to police and in doing so ruined his career.

In the BC Rail case the evidence is the money that was laundered, passing from one hand Omintrax???? to Bornman to Aneal Basi to Basi/Virk.... and the Crown Prosecutors chose to select Bornman as the key witness.... give yourselves a shake boys
# posted by Anonymous Anonymous : November 24, 2009 at 8:42 p.m.
 
Quick note, search SC this am, no listing for 23299, completed list for yesterday, 23299 no results for next appearance. 134750, completed court list for yesterday, next appearance January 11th.

EM
# posted by Anonymous Anonymous : November 25, 2009 at 8:05 a.m.
 
I said that,about three years ago,why are the recipients of the bribe charged and not the actual people that made the bribes,and three judges can't see through that,it just seems unbelievable,that these highly qualified judges....? payed a fortune and live a life we can only dream of can't see that or is it that they just won't see it for what it is,no wounder the courts are in such public disregard!!!!!somebody make sense of this please professor Mathews must be ten times as fustrated as the rest of us GODS SPEED SIR MATHEWS GO GET EMMMMMM!!!!!!!!!
# posted by Anonymous Anonymous : November 25, 2009 at 8:58 a.m.
 
Did anyone else notice the irony in the fact that they delayed the discussion on the trial delay?
# posted by Anonymous Anonymous : November 26, 2009 at 10:31 a.m.
 
Anon 10:31,

Yes ... but there's an even bigger irony if you look closely at what the two msm reporters say ... and compare it to what Robin says.

Defence wants a ruling on the correct and lawful procedure for granting witness an immunity ...

Crown wants to discuss the quality of the witness evidence.

Which one do you choose?
.
# posted by Blogger BC Mary : November 26, 2009 at 12:21 p.m.
 
Post a Comment



<< Home