Tuesday, January 19, 2010
BC Rail trial date is almost here!
Madam Justice Anne MacKenzie of the Supreme Court of British
Andrea Mackay, a lawyer on the team headed by Special Prosecutor William Berardino, said “the Crown and defence counsels have been working together [outside court] to prepare the case for trial.”
And she said the matter has been going so well she could not see the need for the judge to get involved in the process. In the past lawyers on both sides have come before the court to argue about numerous issues, but those hurdles seem now to have been swept aside, and the next substantive step is expected to be the setting of a trial date.
Outside court defence lawyers for Dave Basi and Bob Virk, the two aides charged with fraud, breach of trust and accepting bribes, said they expect the trial to get under way relatively soon.
Michael Bolton, Mr. Basi's lawyer, said if progress continues at the current pace the trial could be under way by March.
“We're moving to trial, for sure,” he said.
[WoooHOOOOO! Oops, sorry. Mark Hume's complete column based upon today's pre-trial hearing is HERE.]
Grant, Gary E.,
Great news, yes it surely is. We've worked hard for this chance to revisit what happened to BC Rail ... and how to make best use of what we learn.
Note Mark Hume Globe and mail Dec. 15 updated Jan 11 2010
“When these informants first surface, and at the point when Mr. Basi is first named as a target, there isn't anything to justify his being named a target other than these three informants,” Mr. Bolton said.
The defence application asks Madam Justice Anne MacKenzie to review the source debriefing notes to determine if they are relevant, to see if the Crown can withhold any material on the basis of informant privilege, and to order disclosure subject to appropriate vetting by the court.
Janet Winteringham, a member of the prosecution team, opposed the application, saying the judge is being asked to do exhaustive work the Crown has already done.
She said most of the material cannot be disclosed because it is related to the drug case and is not relevant to BC Rail, or because it could reveal the identity of an informant.
She writes "On December 18, 2009, I gave an abbreviated oral ruling in which I dismissed the application with respect to both categories of material. I indicated then that a full written ruling would follow. This is that ruling. lINK BELOW. Interesting points, also note teh references to Bains case requesting the same info as defense.
 The defence articulate the relevance of the reports in question as relating to “the defence challenge to the reasonable and probable grounds on P.67 and P.73, full and frank disclosure to the Authorizing Judge and the defence challenge to the search warrants, which ITOs relied upon, almost exclusively, the evidence gathered from the Authorizations.” However, they have yet to file a notice in respect of their anticipated s. 8 Charter challenge particularizing the specific grounds upon which that challenge will be based. The defence insist that that notice will not contain anything further than what they have set out in paras. 7 to 9 of their “Further Particularization of Defence Request for Disclosure of Materials over Which the Crown Claims Informant Privilege”, quoted earlier in this ruling. If that is indeed the case, then I would only observe that they appear to have a weak foundation for a challenge to the wiretap authorizations.
...... It would be entirely speculative, and thus dangerous, for the Court to be determining what information in the reports could reveal the identity of a confidential informant. In my view, the Court is entitled to rely on the affidavit evidence and the Crown’s submissions on the issue of informant privilege. I accept the Crown’s submissions and the evidence of Sgt. Hartwig that disclosure of the reports, even in a heavily vetted format, could identify the three informants. I would add that there is no suggestion that the “innocence at stake” exception to informant privilege is engaged here.
 In summary, I conclude that the defence have failed to establish the potential relevance of the reports so as to justify this Court reviewing each of the 427 documents. The grounds of relevance they advance were expressly rejected by the Court of Appeal in Barzal. I further conclude that those reports are subject to informant privilege.
Mind, that would have caused some of the 'lites to miss their games, that'll never do.
In BC for example our entire social governing order has imploded, none more than in the courts with multiple layers of dirty judges and crown councils supported by Taser crazy killer cops.
As long as the criminals are smart enough to leave the BC elite class alone (and make contributions) they will be have a free hand to prey on the citizens of BC.
The end result of BASIGATE will be an "inconclusion" with a legal technical judgement ghost-written by Wally Oppal to insure Basigate never happened.
We Only Cheat When We Can't Win . . . and the BC Liberals always win.
The GREAT SATAN
but here's what I can't understand: isn't there a vital instinct within each living thing to survive?
I don't understand you wanting to give up.
The instinct in this particular BC Rail case is to find some way to survive
and God knows (excuse this, Satan) there's no survival unless we believe we can do it.
OK, now you're going to ask me how I propose we survive this current state of corruption and betrayal.
Well, that's easy. We won't live or die according to any legal technical judgment,
but by making use of the facts presented in evidence during the BC Rail trial.
And I know we can do that.
I am in full agreement that in fact we have the means to effect dramatic change, but I must admit that is primarily if not entirely because I have had a personal incentive to pursue my own case, from which effort I have gained knowledge I could not have anticipated.
How do we inspire more people to believe that change is possible? Personally, I am hoping that a resolution of my case will do precisely that, but in the meantime I would encourage people who have an interest to do more reading of selected materials and authors. Among the recommendations I would make, none ranks higher than John Ralston Saul and his extraordinary trilogy published in the early nineties. These books have all been re-released in recent years. They fortuitously range from "Voltaires Bastards", which at over 600 pages is a challenging read, to "The Doubter's Companion", which is very entertaining and a relatively slim volume.
Finally, if I had read nothing else, Saul's "Unconcious Civilization" would have been sufficient to inspire me.
Ironically, I believe that the Internet has given us the means to effect a revolution, yet there's nothing in the three books just mentioned that speaks of the Net or its potential. In fact Saul's thesis is a cautionary tale about how society has been seduced by the "rational" thinking that seems to be paired with the spectacular rise of technology over the last 200 years. He doesn't offer specific solutions but he thinks outside the box - way outside the box. That's where we need to go to find the solutions.
This smells and feels like the public affairs bureau doing their job. Lets all make sure everything in the media reinforces that BC is a utopia – “The Best Place on Earth.”
Free of corrupt politicians, an efficient legal system, no homelessness, and really business (“CN”) friendly.
I hope the defense is not falling into a well composed trap.