Thursday, April 22, 2010


Basi-Virk? Not today, apparently ...

BC Supreme Court listings for today, April 22, 2010, shows no listing for Basi, Virk, or Basi (Case No. 23299). 

Does this mean that there are no discussions ongoing? Not even in the judge's chambers?

We don't know.

We don't know because there's a special Publication Ban laid on this case by the presiding judge: Madam Justice Anne MacKenzie.

You can see her ruling HERE, as well as her corrected version.

And you can see the chilling effects of her cockeyed ruling almost everywhere you look in the news media -- that is to say, you won't find any mention whatsoever of the Basi-Virk case -- except for Bill Tieleman's blog and BC Mary's blog.

The judge provides no reason for this publication ban ... and I believe that any  law, any judicial ruling should be crystal clear for public understanding and acceptance.

But this is not the case with Madam MacKenzie's ruling. On the contrary, this ruling has baffled and inhibited even the professional journalists.

Have we seen a report by Keith Fraser after he was confronted by that locked Courtroom door on April 15? No, we haven't.* Why? That's what I am trying to understand.

Robin Mathews did report on it and declares that by stepping carefully, we can safely cross the ban and discuss the people's business. But should we need to approach the topic of BC Rail with fear and trembling?

Why should our legitimate public concern suddenly be viewed as risky? and  law-abiding citizens be viewed with such suspicion?

It's as if we, the public, are guilty unless somehow proven innocent of a crime we don't even know about.  With every fibre of my British Columbia being, I object to that insult.

I would like to ask the judge: have you found that the people of B.C. are trying to influence the trial process? or the verdict? or the jury?

Going by what people say on this blog, I believe that no, you haven't found such a thing. People on this blog are, in my view, trying their best to understand this trial. That's what dutiful citizens do. That, Madam Justice, should be encouraged. 

I would also suggest to the judge that she  work with us ... not against us ...

It was our railway, remember? The Accused and their bosses were our employees, remember? As are you.

As for who's paying the cost, Case No. 23299 is our trial, too. Ours.

Ours to watch over until, in the end, the BC Rail trial should fulfill its own special duty by enabling us to feel that justice has been done.

Therefore, in my view, those Courtroom doors should be wide open, with reporting un-blocked and encouraged.

- BC Mary

* There's a very brief report by Keith Fraser in The Province for today, April 22, 2010 HERE

Bill Tieleman's report is HERE.


Court Services for #23299-1 April 21 shows a Pre-trial conference for April 26 - which has be Initiated by Judge.
#23299-20 shows Ian Munro wanting to testify from Nova Scotia
#23299-21 Wants to adjourn trial from May 3, 2010 to May 17, 2010 - APG - Application Granted
Dear Anonymous,

I don't know who you are or what you have done with a whole slew of West Coast reporters,

but I thank you, thank you, thank you for this information.

Ian Munroe, for those interested, was the lead investigator for Charles Rivers Associates on the "Fairness Review" of the incomplete bidding process leading up to the 2003 "sale" of BCRail to a private company known as CN. He has left B.C. and settled on the farthest-away-possible coast.

I have other valued commenters to thank for the extra information. I must also reassure everyone that "No journalists were harmed in this investigation."
I just checked the court listings and I searched 23299 and on pg,38,39, it appears charges have been stayed...with no next appearence.
Not sur what to make of this.
I just checked the court listings and I searched 23299 and on pg,38,39, it appears charges have been stayed...with no next appearence.
Not sur what to make of this.
Post a Comment

<< Home