The Legislature Raids

So I'm not allowed to print here that we have a series of references in Supreme Court Vancouver Division today for "limited access" Pre-Trial Conferences in the BASI/VIRK Affair?

Is that right Mary?

I'm not going to be anywhere near the court - the suggestion I can't post the schedule so anyone who is might be able to try and attend seems, well, bizarre.

Don't you think.

If I can 'read' the thing surely I can 'report' on it - just as I've done above.

Or do you think posting this is going to send the gendarmes to knock on your door?

But, more seriously, if you're concerned please don't post this.
 

23299-21
LIMITED ACCESS & others vs
HMTQ
10:00 AM
REG
CNT
Adjourn trial from May 3,
2010 to May 17, 2010.
001

I didn't publish it, they did, and I guess you need to change your header as far as Court Date. They can't accuse me of contempt, I've already proclaimed to the skies that I hold J-Mac, Wild Bill and the entire BCSC in contempt - nolo contendre!
 

Well, yes G West, I do think that the sweep of Madam MacK's ban is deeply concerning ...

I am deeply concerned because I feel that a vital public principle of open courts and "justice being seen to be done" is at stake ...

and isn't it "Limited Access" only for the one Accused Person who is facing another trial? and it's always been this way, without causing these disruptions in the past.

If, in fact, the Courtroom Doors are slammed shut and locked again today, as they were on April 15, well, yes I'm very concerned.

As a mere citizen, I think the public requires a clear explanation when they're refused entry to a case so significant to the province.

Let nobody doubt the importance of the BC Rail Case after this ...
.
 

Hi Mary.
I remember an A to Z list of the characters in the BVB trial etc but I'm not good at searches. Can you please refresh my memory on how to access it?
 

Leah:

Many thanks for that useful addition to what we know about the Charles Rivers Associates "Fairness Report"

which, I do believe, falls squarely and more logically under the heading of documents which might be used in evidence at trial, and therefore we are forbidden from discussing it.

So I will do as you request, Leah: NOT FOR PUBLICATION. But thanks very much for what you found. Interesting. Maybe someday, at the Public Inquiry, eh?

But I ask you: have we EVER tried to influence the decision of the court in the trial of Basi, Virk, and Basi? No, we have not. So what is this wall-to-wall ban all about? Will it create a more fair trial? I don't see how.

I can't help thinking that the ban was unnecessary as well as flawed, and that repeating it (with correction) only added to the chill it had so successfully laid upon the province.

Co-incidence?
.
 

watchingfromnextdoor:

Bill Tieleman's A-Z list is on his site,

and it googles easily.

Then you print a copy and keep it in your desk drawer.

Adding a few names, as we go, of course.
 

I agree Mary. This is way tooooooooo important for those of us out here in the boondocks who have followed (as much as we're able) every twist and turn of this case to pretend we're now 'okay' with locked doors and self-throttling 'reporters'.

It's just NOT GOOD ENOUGH and there are way too many questions - many asked by Robin Mathews and yourself - which need to be explored for us to all just shut up in the interim.

We can't report on what's happening behind those doors but we sure as hell can discuss what's already happened; what we already know and what we may legitimately extrapolate from that knowledge.

Justice is, or should be, a vital living thing - it can't survive with a bag over its head.

I think we need to get that debate going again - even if it amounts to nothing more than an academic exercise which starts out by looking at Madame Justice Mackenzie's actions in the context of other similar cases and judicial precedent.

There's an article at the Tyee this morning about how Peter Munk used his money and influence to prevent a Canadian book about Barrick Gold and other mining companies being published at all. Have a look.

If people don't stand up for free speech we're going to lose it....

Time to start fighting back.
 

Koot,

Interesting, that word "adjourn" ... as in "adjourn trial from May 3 to May 17"

as if the BCRail trial has already begun?

and sheesh ... for all we know with these bags over our heads ... maybe the BC Rail trial began on April 15, 2010 and is halfway done by now.

Just kidding. I think.
.
 

If someone, or better still a few dozen people were to chain themselves to the court room doors after calling in the tv cameras to whitness the act maybe some questions would be answered.??
Any volunteers??

Those that should have bags over their heads are the sleaze balls that are in the Court room and those running our Justice system.

When the jury thing happened the playing field changed in the Liebrels favor.

CGHZD
 

Mary, as far as I'm concerned that ban is totally ignorant, and politically motivated. Just like the trial itself. Were the courts truly interested in "justice" being served, they would want it to be SEEN being served...which proves the lie in this case, doesn't it?

If you're looking for integrity - you better look to your dictionary cuz you sure as hell won't find it in any judicial/political body in the province of BC as near as I can see.

And - you're welcome Mary...sorry for the rant. I'm pissed.
 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION - maybe. Hi Mary, I thought I'd let you decide whether this posting should go up. I don't want to monopolize the blog, and you've been good enough to give this event/idea wider exposure a few weeks ago. I thought it might be helpful to remind people. I'll leave it to you to decide. All the best, CC

LAST CALL for a rare opportunity to speak truth to power in person.

On April 23 and 24, 2010 in Vancouver, the legal establishment will gather to celebrate the:

100th ANNIVERSARY OF THE
BRITISH COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEAL
JUDGES’ AND LAWYERS’ BCCA CENTENARY
CONFERENCE & GALA

Venue 1: MORRIS J. WOSK CENTRE FOR DIALOGUE
580 West Hastings Street, SFU downtown campus
(enter via Seymour Street courtyard entrance)

Venue 2: THE WESTIN BAYSHORE hotel
next to Stanley Park

The CENTENARY GALA DINNER will be held Friday, April 23, 2010 from 6 pm to 10 pm at The Bayshore.

Some of the topics in the regular conference (8:30 - 4:30) include:

* Effect of Disruptive Technologies and Social Developments on the Legal System
* Evolving Challenges for Courts in Democracies
* Confidence in the Justice System in British Columbia
* Media and Public Perceptions of the Judiciary

More info at this website http://bcca100.ca/wp-content/themes/BCCA/pdf/BCCA_AcademicProgram_Fri&Sat_Mar18.pdf

I envision "information placards" surrounding the transparent walls of The Bayshore's lobby. How illuminating it would be (for the justices)! Or, print handouts with brief, succinct concerns, and a list of this blog's address, and others of note where more information can be obtained. Or, print your favourite slogan on a t-shirt, and slip a nice jacket over it so you can slip past the guards of the elite.

This isn't reporting on the BC Rail (aka Basi/Virk/Basi) case. It's simply expressing concerns about the legal system in BC using the BC Rail case as an example. Surely, we are still allowed to express our concerns publicly in this province?

The legal elite need to know/see that ordinary people have grave concerns about the erosion and apparent corruption in our judicial system. Otherwise, they can claim they never knew. Don't give them that excuse.

Call/tweet 5 people to join you; ask them to call/tweet 5 people, and so on.

What are they going to do? Conduct a mass arrest of the middle class? Bring your cellphone/cameras too. Let others know what's going on as it happens. The people of Thailand took their concerns to the public, surely we in Canada should be allowed that same freedom?
 

For the record, a most courageous woman named Mary, whom some might be interested in learning a little more about, herself shows up in a certain A-Z list that can, indeed, be found on a well-known Lotuslandian Blogger's site as was mentioned above.

However....

This particular 'list', which is interesting for many, many, many reasons that have nothing whasoever to do with that which must not be named was also previously published in the public prints (pixel edition).....


.....here.


.
 

not only the secret witness has anonymity so does everything else<didn't they have to go to the soc to get that wtf?
 

So, there is a belief that I have shared with others over the past few years, about this trial. That belief is that somewhere, somehow the case would be "discontinued" due to possibly intentional violation of the rights of the accused. I'm guessing that is where this trial is heading. If it were heading in that direction, which I have no idea it is, it would probably be through a violation of section 11(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms which is the "right to be tried within a reasonable time". If it were, it would be based on a case where the trial was delayed for 45 years. Do you think this is possible, hypothetically speaking?
 

due to possibly intentional violation of the rights of the accused.

If that intent is proven, then that intentional violation is itself a crime and punishable by the Criminal Code. Probably more than one count, too.....

but we all know who gets charged with what in BC is very selective, especially if it involves politicians and/or civil servants and/or lobbyists and/or corporate people close to the party machine.
 

If this case fails due to interference or manipulation, then I don't think we have any choice but to make it a civil issue all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada if necessary.

And I think the judiciary of BC needs to understand that - we are NOT about to let this go through sleight of hand, or political underhandedness. It is NOT going to happen - so do the job right the first time. It will save a lot of money, time and embarrassment for ALL concerned.
 

the stay, to me, is most likely because of the need to prevent BVB from testifying, with the ramifying disclosures from the stand which would lead to criminal charges against members of cabinet, past and present, and point to fumbling and fiddling by Mounties great and small. The stay is to protect the system, to try and keep public investigation and public outrage at bay.

The muzzle should be on the Canadian coat of arms. It's how things are done in this country. Or rather, how they're gotten away with....

I was thinking about all this today and it's pretty clear to me that if the truth about CN-BC Rail came out "too far" then there would be an investigation of how CN went into private hands in the first place and which political favour-mongers were involved in that transaction. In who scratched whom. This isn't just being shut down to protect the provincial regime, "the way things are done", but also the federal level of both the same party and the same ideology (which takes in the Grits and Tories, respectively who are, after all, just different sides of the same dirty coin).

The stay is because they are afraid, very afraid. And BVB are holding a variety of axes above their heads, I'm sure.

Next up, Leah is right, a class action suit on behalf of the people of British Columbia against the players in BC Rail-CN Rail. And, as I've said and will keep on saying, there is more than just the Canadian legal arena where this case can/should be heard. A case by Canadian taxpayers against Canadian politicians and US corporate backers for conspiracy and rigged bidding and bribery et al. ad nauseam in US courts - parallel to or independent of any proceeding to the Supreme Court of Canada, seems called for.

Oh, if I'd only listened to my mother and studied law....

I do get a big kick out of the menu at the gala dinner:

* Effect of Disruptive Technologies and Social Developments on the Legal System
* Evolving Challenges for Courts in Democracies
* Confidence in the Justice System in British Columbia
* Media and Public Perceptions of the Judiciary

Gonna be a lot of interesting posturing and cold-faced denials about how things really are. "Media and public perceptions of the Judiciary"....LOLOLOLOLOL - "Confidence in the Justice System in BC" ..... it's like Groucho Marx wrote that list, as if those things existed.....ROTFL. Tell us another one.....

Hey Supreme Court of Canada types - we already know the BC Supreme Court doesn't care that evidence in a criminal proceeding under the care of the Premier's office/appointee was destroyed, during an election no less, and we all know this was a criminal act.

Why has there been no investigation, and no one charged? If a provincial court doesn't act on this, why don't - or won't - YOU I know, I know, it's up to Prosecutors to lay charges, on the recommendation of police. But what if the prosecutors, and the police, are politically and privately, are closely connected to those implicated in the same destruction of evidence.

And maybe we could get a ruling on the validity of warrants sworn in Palm Springs; isn't that extraterritoriality?

I'm starting to think that it might be US warrants in the offices of US companies (CN, Maximus, Kiewit and others) that will be the path to truth and reconciliation of the many evils of the Canadian political system, that Canadian laws and Canadian courts are useless because they are part of the same political machine doing the selling-out.....
 

This line betrays a certain attitude/bias on the part of the organizers of that "Gala Dinner"

Effect of Disruptive Technologies and Social Developments on the Legal System

"Disruptive technologies" being their euphemism for the internet. "Social developments" meaning everything from social networks to the ability of interested taxpayers/citizens to communicate with each other political ideas without the interference of the media or the intervention of authority.

"Disruptive technologies"...kind of a haunting phrase, and more reminiscent of the Chinese Politburo's attitude towards electronic dissent than of what Canada is supposed to be about.

All you justices reading this, give your collective heads a shake. Elitist bastards, all of you who think like this, who consider democratic conclaves of interested citizens to be "disruptive". We wouldn't have to be if you were doing your jobs.