Monday, March 29, 2010
BC Rail: Doesn't this look like more treachery, this time from BC Supreme Court itself?
The Publication Ban prevents any reportng of today's Basi-Virk pre-trial hearing.
This cockeyed ruling, contrived by the presiding judge at the BC Rail trial, is very likely unconstitutional and illegal, and is therefore up for a challenge by any civilized society. Even in B.C.
Was this a blunder? A mistake in judgment? Or is that the point?
Is this total lock-down of the courts today actually the stumbling block which will bring this important trial to a halt again?
Bill Tieleman was there in the courtroom today for the final pre-trial hearing before this same Madam Justice Anne MacKenzie hears the trial.
Bill writes: Meanwhile - I would love to tell you what was discussed in court, which lawyers representing which clients were attending, who else was present, and what was decided - but I can't.
"The reasons are rather clear based on the Criminal Code section Justice MacKenzie cites above:
Criminal Code s.648 - Restriction on publication
(1) After permission to separate is given to members of a jury under subsection 647(1), no information regarding any portion of the trial at which the jury is not present shall be published in any document or broadcast or transmitted in any way before the jury retires to consider its verdict.
(2) Every one who fails to comply with subsection (1) is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.
So, you will just have to wait until the trial ends - and hope there are no further restrictions on reporting during the trial itself.
Read more at:
We dare not kid ourselves: this is no mistake. The court system is now functioning to prevent us from knowing -- or even asking -- about the evidence.
But I ask why? Before any such a ham-fisted ruling is issued against a whole province on such a vital issue, shouldn't there be a reason given? A compelling reason? I wonder what Elizabeth Bennett would say about this situation. - BC Mary.
In 2003 William Barardino was appointed special prosecutor. According to Wally in 2007 "The reason a special prosecutor is appointed is in order to avoid any suggestion of any political interference or any political influence."
But if that's the case why did the special prosecutor donate to the BC Liberal Party in 2005, while serving as Special Prosecutor?
Campaign donations by the guy overseeing the investigation and prosecution of a case that involves almost exclusively members of that political party doesn't seem to avoid the perception of political influence if you ask me.
My kids sno board cost more than $600!!!
But you are silent on how much he donated in 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009? How come?
Did he not donate in those yrs?
Was the $600 a one-off?
Either way, $600 is not an amount that I would think would cause influence of the political process, or of anyone save for my 9 yr old nephew who is in need of a new sno board himself.
$600 is a generous gesture to be sure, but not of the size or import that would cause influence, and I am sort of perplexed why you would bring it up all?
BTW, such contributions are legal, and tax receipts are provided for such largess.
DO you think he would have lost his appointment if he hadnt of put anything into the hat when it was last passed around?
How much did he donate in 2006?
Honestly, keep that bag over your head and sit with your hands crossed,
And let the corruption grow ...
The special prosecutor section of the Prosecutor's Act exists to ensure that prosecution is both non-partisan and seen to be non-partisan in cases where partisan allegiances may or may be seen to lead to a partisan outcome in a prosecution.
Appointing a Liberal donor to oversee the investigation and prosecution of an action of the Liberal government violates the whole point of the Act. It's like appointing Gordon Liddy to oversee an investigation of Nixon. Wrong, wrong,wrong.
CN donated $152,750.00 to the Liberals since obtaining BC Rail's operations. Pilarinos offered to build a deck worth $40,000 - that was declined. We all know how the press treated the one, and how they treated the other.
The Liberals, IF they had any principles, would have declined Berardino's donation. Of course, if they had any principles, they wouldn't have appointed him in the first place.
Mind you, if they had any principles, they would have resigned long ago. And if they had principles, they never would have sold off BC Rail's operations in the first place.
And if they had principles, in fact, they never would have replaced one adulterer with another......
Nonsense. That isnt the real world. No one lives there.
I am aware of many who have donated to MANY parties, sometimes opposing parties, thats right, Socred and NDP, as the case were.
Everything matters in large amounts. Taking a cup of coffee is not accepting a favour.
$152,750 is a different story.
For cryin' out loud, this is the judiciary we're discussing,
where justice is seen to be done, where absolute IMPARTIALITY should reign, without prejudice of any kind ...
that's the hope.
Got it yet?
It wouldn't matter how much or how little he donated - ANY DONATION IS IMPROPER AND should be grounds for dismissal - that's right, dismissal, not resignation.
One would have thought it was obvious - you, apparently, have a different idea and think that corruption is simply a matter of haggling about the price.
God, that we can have stooped so low as to reach such a level of public and ethical ignorance.
You got me thinkin...
You are the limit. Sheesh.
Like, so if I give $600. to the next Hells Angel I see,
that provides no clue? Why would I do that, if I didn't harbour some sort of bond?
The answer is: I wouldn't. Just would NOT. And you know it, Silly Person.
Oh right, that's me, the Silly Person -- YOUR name is Conflict.
Wake up and smell the espresso, Conflict. It's because he was in the party's hip pocket, and good buddies with ministers and senior bureaucrats related to the investigation. No other answer is possible.....
I don't care how you spin this, the man has NO CREDIBILITY without a decent explanation for the improper donation.
If it was from his firm and done without his knowledge then all he has to do is make a statement to that effect.
In the absence of clarification he has a huge cloud over his head.
Furthermore, your purblind refusal to understand that it not the size of the donation that's critical - it is the fact THE DONATION WAS MADE AT ALL. We’re not dealing with a fine that goes up depending upon how fast you were going when you went through a speed trap – this is the administration of justice we’re talking about.
Special Prosecutor in BC Rail case shirked duty to be neutral, defence says.
Read the Canadian Press story here:
You are putting way too much emphasis on the donation and none at all on the size of the donation, which in my opinion, matters greatly. You are doing that becuase thats all you have come up with so far.
No were near pervasive, imho. Also, donations are legal and transparant.
So Bernardino was one of 12,000 who donated to the BC Liberals in 05. Of the approximately 7,000,000 (seven million), that his six hundred bucks is of any influance is beyond absurd.
So now now it's our turn, to publicize to the public and get going as the media Canned Waste is in gordo's corrupt fist along with I believe OUR so called SCBC has also been compromised!
Also, sign the petition against the HST as we only have from April 01, 2010 - June 30, 2010!
Not that, of those 12,000, probably a fairly unhealthy percentage got more than a few insider favours from the government, before and after the election....
No doubt, of those 12,000 an unhealthy percentage were also people who received benefits of one kind or another from the government, before and after the election, and would also include others with ties to this case.
And at this point, Conflict, given your mouthy stupidities here, it's pretty clear you're probably also a donor to the Liberal Party as well as probably a member (even if volunteering your services instead of burning up the public payroll like PAB trolls do...)
The principle is the key to the thing - the man is hired to do one job - separate the political from the legal and ensure that justice is done.
It wouldn't matter how much he donated - it is simply the unethical aspect of donating at ALL.
In a sense it's like trying to serve two masters.
When a lawyer is admitted to the bar he or she takes an oath to serve the law and serve justice - we do that in the courts and Berardino was hired - at public expense - to serve justice and keep political interference out of this case.
If this was an innocent mistake and the donation was made without Berardino's knowledge that is one thing (something I already pointed out); to my knowledge he has not plead innocence.
The only conclusion is that he is guilty of unethical behavior.
This is not a question of accounting - it's a question of ethics.
Something you, apparently, simply cannot grasp.
As Lord Hewart put it in Rex v Sussex Justices; Ex parte McCarthy:
“… it is not merely of some importance but is of fundamental importance, that justice should not only be done, but should manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done.”
Your argument reminds me of an anecdote variously attributed to George Bernard Shaw or Winston Churchill.
I'll give you the Shaw version:
GBS: Madam, would you sleep with me for a million pounds?
Actress: My goodness, Well, I’d certainly think about it.
GBS: Would you sleep with me for a pound?
Actress: Certainly not! What kind of woman do you think I am?!
GBS: Madam, we’ve already established that. Now we are haggling about the price.
Links to this post: