Thursday, March 04, 2010

 

BC Rail: No, not a big publication ban; so why flaunt it?

.
Today's Vancouver Sun provides advance notice of a publication ban at the Basi Virk trial. O.m.g., horrors, hair-on-fire, etc.!!! 


But no. No need for alarm.  Justice MacKenzie's ruling seems to be a perfectly logical ban on "any document or broadcast or transmission of any evidence, submissions, rulings or Reasons for Judgment given in these proceedings in the absence of the jury until the jury renders its verdict or until further order of the Court".  Such a ban probably is implied in every jury trial.

So what's going on here? Why is the Reluctant-to-Talk-About-Basi-or-Virk-Vancouver-Sun making space for a Basi-Virk-related non-news item a full 2 months ahead of the trial date (May 3)?

Dare we hope that CanWest news is now planning to pay full attention to every twist and turn in the most important trial in B.C. history? 



Judge imposes publication ban at jury trial


Vancouver Sun - March 4, 2010


The judge in the Basi-Virk trial ... has imposed a ban on publication of trial-related material that is presented in the absence of the jury.


{Snip} ...

The announcement was posted this week on the B.C. Supreme Court's website.

The ban, issued by Justice Anne MacKenzie under Sec. 648 of the Criminal Code, covers any document or broadcast or transmission of any evidence, submissions, rulings or Reasons for Judgment given in these proceedings in the absence of the jury until the jury renders its verdict or until further order of the Court," the order says.

Such an order is not unusual. It does not preclude news coverage of court proceedings and evidence presented in the presence of the jury.


{Snip} ...

____________________________________________

The added emphasis is mine, because I wouldn't want anybody to think that the word "ban" extends to the public. We can -- and we must -- be there in the public gallery.

Except for the SECRET WITNESSES, there's nothing to prevent us from hearing everything that is said (whether the jury is present or not) and that's another added bonus for being in the courtroom ourselves.  What we cannot, must not do during the trial is report things that the jury hasn't heard. Fair enough, I say.

Plus, by being in the BC Rail courtroom, we'll be standing up for BC Rail and for British Columbia ... we'll be watching history unfold ... history which, in one form or other, will be held for future generations to study. And we should be watching those presentations too.

And yes, you're so right if you just said to yourself "A citizen's work is never done!"  Truer words were never spoken about citizens in this beautiful, abused province of ours. - BC Mary

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


Comments:
What it means is that your coveted blog reporters acting on your behalf BC Mary eg. Robin Mathews will not be able to report back here. No Jury, even as we lead up to the trial two months hence is out of bounds as far as publication is in place.
 
Hi Mary

The way that article was set up appears to me to be the MSM telling us to "move along folks, nothing to see here"
So it also would appear to me that they are still shilling for Gordo.
 
Set up?
 
The headline could (or should) have read Partial or standard ban. But they tell you right off "Judge Imposes Publication Ban at Jury Trial"
leading this reader to assume that there is a total ban in the court.
Do they do this just so you read the whole article? I think not because if I see an interesting piece I read the whole thing. And as Mary has stated she wouldn't want anyone to think the word "ban" extends to the public.
That's what I mean by "set up".
I already have statements from people in my email stating that they couldn't go because of a BAN.
 
from Mary's post:

"The judge in the Basi-Virk trial ... has imposed a ban on publication of trial-related material

It would only seem logical to suggest that the above is directly related to Skookum1's comment on an earlier thread this morning - to wit:

"It's come to a time when the mainstream media has no choice but to cover the Basi-Virk case.."

I guess if the so-called justice system takes away their choice, well, who can blame those eager beaver journalists for not digging for the truth as they so obviously would like to be doing (I forgot the irony tags).

Gary, they will be shilling for Gordo as long as they can avoid bankruptcy and continue to shill. Hopefully they will both be unpleasant memories before long - Canned Waste and Gordo. And I don't mean in the AGT sense, Gordo gone, with a new figurehead allowing the same old crew to carry on with the same sick, greedy and criminal agenda.
 
I gather the publication ban will apply to blogspace- blogspace on Canadian servers, that is. What "we" need is a blogger in Washington or elsewhere in the US or UK who will relay courtroom reports etc.....there's got to be a way around this; none of "us" doubt that this is only the thin edge of the wedge of the clampdown on proceedings and what is said/revealed during them. We cannot trust Canadian courts to act honestly; we've already seen the bias displayed in Justice Mackenzie's decisions so far, do we have any doubt that she will impose further bans, even invoke a closed court??
 
Further questions re: Publication Ban, be it partial or total.

Where does it take effect? In other words say Mary, Gary or Robin attend a hearing at the Hall of Smoke and Mirrors down there at Smithe and Robson. Obviously they can't publish an article in the Sun (as if, they hardly let their paid professionals (?) do that. But does that extend to mentioning anything on their blog (I suspect that counts as publication). But could they share their observations with me in a private letter, e-mail or phone call?

Or just as I forego benefitting from provincial expenditures for the most part because I don't live in the Lower Vainland, do I also sacrifice my access to the right to know what is occurring in a (so-called) public venue (courtroom) having proceedings supported by my tax dollars (on all sides apparently, prosecution, judges, defense, bailiffs etc. etc........?

Latest news from the Inferior Health Authority - Doctors at Trail Regional willing to pay wages out of their own pocket to retain O.R. nurses issued lay-off notices. Apparently locally we aren't having to wait long enough for knee replacements, so instead of bringing other Health Authorities up to our (according to Kevin "birdbrain" Falcon) too high levels we need to be brought down. It wouldn't do to make our system look good compared to private medicine which does so well in the asylum to the south.
 
Skookum, Blogger is a Google service, and I don't think Google has any server farms in Canada - thus at The Legislature Raids and the House of Infamy, it is unlikely that BC imposed publication bans apply. You are probably reading from a server in Mountain View, California at the moment.
 
This trend of governments (and their court lackeys) to withhold information from the public is being played on another level, and it is equally outrageous: the federal government (Stephen) is refusing to obey the law of the land to provide unredacted documents about the Afghanistan torture allegation to members of parliament.

That law is the most solid law in the land. Yet the federal government (Stephen) says he will only provide all "legally required" documents. The law does not allow for ANY documents to be withheld from members of parliament. PERIOD. These are just deceptive weasel-words designed to evade the law. No other law supercedes this law either. In our democracy, that's how we hold the ruling party accountable.

What I believe is happening here in BC and across Canada now is that there is a concerted push by compadre politicians to carry out a form of "shock and awe" assault on the Canadian public's ability to see government information. They're going to push hard on as many information suppression boundaries as they can so that they can move the legal goalposts, with the goal of public apathy and surrender. That way we dumb sheep will begin to think we don't have any rights. And then, voila, we won't. So Gordo & Co's courting of the BC Supreme Court to ensure the truth is buried so deep it won't be found for another 999 years (ha ha) is as easy as taking candy from a baby. It's just another PAB smear!

Hey, I know this is woman-centric, but I think I've coined a gem - PAB-smear! And maybe it's only fitting it's woman-centric, given that it was Jessica McDonald's baby.)

Seriously, we already live in a prison of armed guards and cameras at every public location, having to strip at their pleasure and so forth. Why? Because the boogey man might appear and harm a few of us. Maybe. And (maybe) a few people might be hurt, even a couple hundred (maybe, or so they are fond of telling us). And we gratefully submit to this ridiculous argument. Meanwhile, tens of thousands of people in Canada die every year from pharmaceutical drug "mishaps" and not a thing is done about that. Turning our country into an information police state kinda seems out of whack, no? For (maybe) a few hundred deaths (possibly). Like using a hammer to press a flower.

We've allowed our country to be turned into one huge prison where the vast majority of us are subjected to surveillance and tactics that previously were only found in the Big House. We've lost our freedom. Oh, Canada (no exclamation mark). Beautiful, BC (bitter irony).

Sorry to go on ad nauseum, sometimes I just gotta speak to some thinking people.
 
PUBLIC AFFAIRS BUREAU (PAB) IS EITHER BEING CUT OR INCREASED: TRIPLE SPEAK

Firstly the measure sounds Orwellian ... increase or decrease,

then throw in the fact that Les Leyne wrote the piece, another in a long line of Times/Colonist Campbell fart-catchers.

This is not even double talk its triple-speak.

http://www.timescolonist.com/opinion/Budget+notes+forests+ICBC/2640333/story.html
 
The point is it doesn't matter where BC Mary's server is based at all. The trial has gone from being decided by a Judge (who wouldn't read this rag) to being by a Jury of 12 fine people (who would read this "newspaper", or HAVE read this blog).

BC Mary has always maintained that what's needed here is a FAIR trial, in an OPEN court, and then we'll HANG the politicians responsible (in a Fair, and Open election).
 
Damned, enjoy it while you can.
 
Leah, you could be selected as a "peer" to sit as a juror. Would you want to be influenced by the scuttlebutt that could happens here? We've seen all of the redacted evidence, well maybe not all, but of the evidence that we have see would you want to have the phildelphia lawyers twisting the info around to suit their ends rather than waiting for the Crown and Defense Lawyers to make their submissions on behal of the public and defendants?
 
Is the order not saying that nothing can be published
"in the absence of the jury"
So judgements/applications casnt be published, but what happens in the court room while the Jury is there is OK, Right? If the Jury leaves the Court room, while Crown or defense has some discussion, then that cannot be published.

B> no publication in any document or broadcast or transmission of any evidence, submissions, rulings or Reasons for Judgment given in these proceedings in the absence of the jury until the jury renders its verdict or until further order of the Court.
 
Sorry, you dont need to post my last comment, I read the comments posted and NOT your whole piece, stating what I did in last comment.
 
Bingo EM that is exactly what the partial ban says. "In the absence of the jury" Therefor all evisdence given while the jury is seated can be published. If the jury is sequestered (as undoubtedly it will be for the double dare secret witness) then nothing said may be published.
 
Gary E I don't think that the Secret Witness will be not heard by the Jury, in fact this is probably the one reason why the defense team swung away from the a trial by judge to a trial by jury.

Professionals, engineers, accountants, journalists, and lawyers are not one's peers when it comes to a trial. How else to explain why defense and crown counsels shy away from those of our society who are meticulous on having to know every detail explained. Rest assured the SECRET witness will be heard by the Jury, if not, then what's the sense of having any trial at all. Why not just have the one witness (SECRET) testify and ship the three defendants of to solitary confinement for fifty years based on person's testimony.
 
Damned, not having Mathews reporting may be a good thing. SOrry, but I have a hard time agreeing with anything he says after he advanced that racism somehow motivated the prosecution of the three charged.
 
Re Conflict is repeating a lie/distortion he's focussed on, as if it were true, yet he says he was too illiterate and short-attention-spanned to read anything longer than the back of a cereal box. It doesn't really matter a good-god-damned piss what such a character thinks; he's a semiliterate goon, very obviously ibn the service of someone's agenda and whose only business here is to sow discord and outrageous on the behalf of someone who has something to hide.....

Damned seems to have too conveniently shown up from the same part of the swamp.....I saw the fake ID's and their fake duelling act before, on the Bornmann page on wikipedia, and it had much the same smarmy, smart-aleck dialogue - and the same penchant for presenting illogic and stupidity as if it were more valid than facts and laws and reason.....
 
And here's the headline in the Manchester Guardian and London Times:

Top court silences bloggers in controversial political scandal in former British colony. Seen as effort to to silence growing controversy over role of first minister and cabinet in corrupt sale of public assets....office of Attorney-General implicated in conflict of interest over appointment of Special Prosecutor....

Secret witnesses, conditional-amnesty witnesses, heavily redacted documents, evidence destroyed by government order, and now this muzzle on free speech...."


....Should get lots of play in the press in countries beyond the jurisdiction of a court ban imposed for obvious political reasons, and on an agenda that seems to have been part of the marching orders given Justice Mackenzie at the time of her semi-secret selection by Assistant Chief Justice Dohm.

And of course there's lots we know that won't be presented as evidence that reporters looking into the courtroom clampdown will have to talk about:

*A Mata Hari of unknown origin pulling the strings from the coatroom of the Premier's Office....who is the international-studies woman of mystery who controls the government's information machine....

*Top players in the federal and provincial Liberal Party acting illegally in various ways

*the fraud and harassmnent/uttering threats case against the Premier

*the systemic corruption in government contracting overall....

Stomping out a fire may yield the political villains here more trouble than they bargained for...

Thing is the Guardian clearly doesn't like Campbell or the BC Liberals to start with, and clearly there's a readership for this in the UK, and the cross-border nature of the government's dealings mean that sooner or later the US media - and US law - may catch up to those who currently enjoy control of the courts and police and prosecution in British Columbia.

The federal Tories couldn't be happier if the BC Grits go down, even though they tapdance with them all the time. Because nationally damage to the Liberal name can only benefit them, even though Ignatieff has, as far as we can tell, keeping his distance from any coziness with Campbellism. It's a win-win for the Tories, in fact......

I can't remember which blogger it was who invoked the line here "Follow the money".....I think we should get on that one. The other is "find the right investigative journalist", but add the rider "from another country", to take this on.

Oh, and a good paparazzi to get some pics of Mata Hari....and someone with good digging tusks to find out who she really is, and how she came to be in charge of the Premier's handbag and vetting his appointees (including those who are about to finally face trial).....
 
Damned says:
"Rest assured the SECRET witness will be heard by the Jury, if not, then what's the sense of having any trial at all."

Using your logic I say what was the sense of having discovery at all?
 
.
To "Citizen Queen" ...

This is your genial host speaking.

Your comment has been rejected.

If you have something to ADD to this discussion, or something to help us understand the BC Rail Case, please try again.

.
 
Gary E I didn't say the Jury wouldn't hear the testimony of a SECRET witness, but for clarification I didn't say the public would hear the testimony either.

I think the public will be ushered out of the Courtroom, along with the Defense team of lawyers too, so that the SECRET testimony will be made.

To Skookum 1 your assumption that I'm a Public Affairs Bureau personnel seems to be one that you apply to anyone that shows up on your "radar". Give it a rest Skookum 1. If you don't like what I have to say, tell me to leave. You haven't heard me saying anything negative about you so why the personal attack? Or is it just part of your chemical make-up to attack, attack, attack even though what has been written has a ring of truth?

Your long winded quote from headline in the Manchester Guardian and London Times seems like a diversion tactic to change the topic. The topic here is BC Rail rip off; the topic here is the charges laid against David Basi, Bobby Virk and Aneal Basi; the topic here are the police tapes of what will surely be entered as evidence; the topic here is listening to the opinions of others and keeping an open mind and not make personal attacks; the topic here is to try and find as much information related to all of the above before the courts so that WE have a source (BC Mary) to refer to in the future, a source that won't quietly be deleted by the Media; the topic here Patrick Kinsella and his dealing with the government and BC Rail; the topic here is the funding of the BC Liberals and how they reward them with ..... kickback... contracts in the form of a 900 year lease.

If you were to stay on topic Skookum 1.........
 
I took your quote from the English newspapers: "Top court silences bloggers in controversial political scandal in former British colony." loaded it into Google and came up with ZIP.

Skookum 1 could you please provide a link, a reliable source, for your quotes?
 
Just picked up a recent issue of The Lawyers Weekly.

There's a good chance seven Supreme Court Justices will retire in 2010...can you imagine what Pee Wee will do with THAT opportunity...

Skookum1:
I wonder if that same Guardian correspondent would be interested in doing a little reporting from a 'former' colony in a couple month's time?

Interesting parallels.
 
Damned Stupid: It matters not if you are actually a PAB employee or just a mislead idiot who does what would be their bidding for free - other than the fact it makes you even dumber than them, as at least they personally benefit - how do you benefit from the Gordo Gang's pillaging of our province - most of us just lose? Or is it that you are just too dumb to recognize your real enemy?

You remind me of the red-neck in the south who allows the Repukes to divert him with worry about whether or not his neighbor is gay, while they (the RePukes) export his job and send his son to be killed in an illegal war!

Skookum, the phrase "follow the money" came from "Deep Throat" who was Woodward and Bernstein's informant in the parkade. If you recall, just before his death, he revealed his real identity (as a retired FBI agent - tho still working at the time, hence the anonymity), which the two reporters had faithfully protected until he came forward - just a couple years ago.

Ironically by this time Woodward was acting as a PR flack for the Cheney/Bush/Rove gang, though not officially - but the old trading favorable coverage for access routine was in play. I found it depressing to watch the former reporter who had helped bring down Nixon now being for all practical purposes a cheerleader for an even more evil administration than that of Nixon, though it was riddled with Nixon's henchmen - who had mainly learned how to be sneakier and cover-up criminal activity better.

The Washington Post (of which Woodward is now a high up mucky muck) is an embarrassment to the Post that supported Woodward and Bernstein to pursue the Watergate story. They have come even farther down than the New York Times that at one time published Ellberg's Pentagon Papers and more recently paid Judith Miller to publish propaganda for the Cheney/Bush regime and promote lies about uranium, Sooter Libby, Curveball, WMDs and basically lead a nation into an illegal war, that still goes on under Uncle Barry.
 
I took your quote from the English newspapers: "Top court silences bloggers in controversial political scandal in former British colony." loaded it into Google and came up with ZIP.

LMAO x 20

You've been conned, sweetie, by your own paranoia. I was proposing the kind of headlines we can expect to see in the Guardian, which already has a hate-on for the Campbell Liberals.

ROTFL

No matter how the CanWest papers engineer their coverage of this, or how much PABsters use their off-time to back up the boss in blogspace (though word is there's 23 of them working full-time spewing garbage on blogs, at public expense), the mind-control and debate-stifling stupidities and inanities of johnny-come-lately trolls will just not wash internationally.

The techniques of writers in Pravda and the People's Daily are all over the side-swipes by Damned-in-Denial and Conflict-cause-I-Can. It doesn't really matter whether you're with the PAB or not; what matters here is that you're clearly here to derail debate and generally be a nuisance....all the while claiming to have a short attention span and so that excuses you from reading anything.

I have to laugh, too, that you would style that very brief post of mine and its quasi-headlines as "long-winded"....you have no idea who you're talking to, and it's just more proof of how much a bald newcomer you are around here. "Long-winded" LOLOLOLOLOL.......

My proposed headlines in the Guardian are understatements of what is actually possible from those quarters about this case. Especially once Fleet Street gets wind of the Gordo-and-Lara show....

Somehow you have tried to make a difference between the press ban on this trial and the trial itself, and as if the Basi-Virk trial weren't "the BC Rail trial". Tricks like that may work on little brains like yours, they don't work on ours....

Anybody who can't read more than thirty words at once without considering it "long winded" is in no position to comment on the sorry state of the judiciary and the political class in this province. If you can't read, or are just too lazy to, don't pretend to have read what you're clearly not educated enough to talk about....
 
I took your quote from the English newspapers: "Top court silences bloggers in controversial political scandal in former British colony." loaded it into Google and came up with ZIP.

LMAO x 20

You've been conned, sweetie, by your own paranoia. I was proposing the kind of headlines we can expect to see in the Guardian, which already has a hate-on for the Campbell Liberals.

ROTFL

No matter how the CanWest papers engineer their coverage of this, or how much PABsters use their off-time to back up the boss in blogspace (though word is there's 23 of them working full-time spewing garbage on blogs, at public expense), the mind-control and debate-stifling stupidities and inanities of johnny-come-lately trolls will just not wash internationally.

The techniques of writers in Pravda and the People's Daily are all over the side-swipes by Damned-in-Denial and Conflict-cause-I-Can. It doesn't really matter whether you're with the PAB or not; what matters here is that you're clearly here to derail debate and generally be a nuisance....all the while claiming to have a short attention span and so that excuses you from reading anything.

I have to laugh, too, that you would style that very brief post of mine and its quasi-headlines as "long-winded"....you have no idea who you're talking to, and it's just more proof of how much a bald newcomer you are around here. "Long-winded" LOLOLOLOLOL.......

My proposed headlines in the Guardian are understatements of what is actually possible from those quarters about this case. Especially once Fleet Street gets wind of the Gordo-and-Lara show....

Somehow you have tried to make a difference between the press ban on this trial and the trial itself, and as if the Basi-Virk trial weren't "the BC Rail trial". Tricks like that may work on little brains like yours, they don't work on ours....

Anybody who can't read more than thirty words at once without considering it "long winded" is in no position to comment on the sorry state of the judiciary and the political class in this province. If you can't read, or are just too lazy to, don't pretend to have read what you're clearly not educated enough to talk about....
 
Cyber high five, Skookum - LMAO and OAML X infinity.

It certainly is easy to send a letter to the Guardian, not necessarily for publication - but they do take an interest in the colonies and the states, like Washington, Idaho, Montana, etc. have an interest in their neighbors - especially neighbors they are acquiring.

Real papers, and reporters, the kind we don't have in BC, tend to be on the lookout for leads and aren't necessarily members of the Gordo fan club.
 
Damned: for christ sake read the comments you are responding to. You can't have your spin both ways. You haven't read fully one iota that others are discussing here, including BC Mary. You are cherry picking. And that is one of the foremost tactics of the PAB. Give it up. I'll even bet you get paid by the number of responses you get to your comments which is why I think I'll just stop responding to you.
 
cherry picking eh, isn't that what the courts are leaving the public to pick over, with the help of the BC liberals?

what you really mean gary e, is that here on the blogs we are left to pick over the pits
 
Anonymous 8:27,

Your message slipped past me so I gotta tell you,

Anonymous = boring + confusing

so I beg of you, please give yourself a User Name so that I can follow the conversation,

because one of these days, I swear, I'm going to delete every Anon on sight: blam! gone!! just like that.

It doesn't mean that you have to make an absolutely public introduction (unless you want to). It simply means that I (and others) can tell if we're taking part in one conversation or 1 dozen conversations.

For example, I have a User Name: BC Mary and I have a good feeling about that name. Over time, I think that people who only read what BC Mary writes, and who aren't distracted by 1,001 things about a person's voice and/or appearance, or history ... well ...

I think they have a better grasp of who I am, than with any amount of formal introduction. I think you'll appreciate that aspect of your own special User Name identity.

Drop in again soon, OK?
.
 
Interesting, over at Mr. T's I left a comment as Anonymous and Kootcoot used it as a backdrop to take the discussion further.

Requesting that we use a name that you can follow along with has its drawbacks.... personal attacks. I'll stick with the blogs that allow Anonymous commentary.

----------------------------------
SNIP
""..... and all because the Defense team sought a trial by jury, rather than the judge."

The BVB boys are likely playing along - the prosecution (and the judge) wanted them to request a jury, just for this reason - the fix is in. Otherwise the best defence would be to come clean and roll over on the higher life forms. But just think of how many jurors can be excluded for being aware of the issues and perhaps having an opinion. The only eligible members of the jury pool will be the most unaware (a very large pool) of the electorate. " SNIP
------------------------------

As it turns out the Anonymous comment above here is mine as well and so far you haven't thrown in a demand to use a handle.

Good luck on your recovery BC Mary, I know you can do it with BC Health at your side.

We are rallying around my Father in law who is going through Chemotherapy to deal Leukemia and he's still plugging along at 92, and counting. Although its a long haul from the lower mainland for us to be with him, and the immediate family up there in Kelowna, we are seeing more of each other than when the now adult children were young cousins frollicking in the orchard at Keremeos.
 
Re the BC Court webpage, forgive Me if this was stated here, but it also says it has removed all decisions(see below )
NOTE: It does not say in the absence of the Jury.

March 2nd Decision posted on website 2010/03/02
Supreme Court

I did a search and found two decisions only regarding Basi Virk, and that is the Publication ban.
----
Pursuant to s.648of the Criminal code and inherent jurisdiction of the court,no information about these proceedings including evidence,submissions, rulings,and Reasons for judgement shall be published in any document or broadcast or transmitted in any way until the jury renders its verdict or until further order of the Court.March 02 2010
http://www.courts.gov.bc.ca/jdb-txt/SC/10/00/Basi%20Publication%20Ban%20Order%20-%20MacKenzie%20J%20-%20March%202,%202010.pdf


" "The publication ban prohibits the publication in any document or broadcast or transmission of evidence, submissions, rulings and Reasons for Judgment given in this proceeding in the absence of the jury. This publication ban will expire when the jury renders its verdict.
As a result of this publication ban order, all of the rulings and Reasons for Judgment which were previously published on the Court's website have been removed. These rulings and Reasons for Judgment will be re-published when the publication ban expires. "

Court of appeal webpage
http://www.courts.gov.bc.ca/Court_of_Appeal/index.aspx
--------
 
Well isn't my face red. I was quoting from another blog. Bill Tieleman's in fact.
 
And now I will take back ny apology. Because I went to the court website Just to make sure I'm not cherry picking) and read the whole decision. The second paragraph states:"The publication ban prohibits the publication in any document or broadcast or transmission of evidence, submissions, rulings and Reasons for Judgment given in this proceeding in the absence of the jury. This publication ban will expire when the jury renders its verdict."
And I still trust Bill Tieleman completely.
 
Am I the only one who finds it fascinating how ALL media yesterday had more coverage of the Reyat perjury trial than any of them ever gave the BC Rail Trial, even before the fascist publication ban from "I'm onboard with the program" Justice MacKenzie.

Oh yeah, the Reyat trial is under a publication ban.............


Either all the obstruction of justice, destruction of evidence and other mis-behaviour will eventually catch up with and bite the asses of the perpetrators or we might as well just make sure our slave collars are adjusted for comfort. Hell, maybe living in the equivalent of a depleted gravel pit will still be the "Best Place on Earth!"
 
koot, are you saying the Reyat prosectution was/is racially motivated?

Give me a break!! That no one did time for that Air India deal is evidence charges were not racially motivated, although the act of terrrorism more certainly way.
 
Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link



<< Home