Tuesday, June 22, 2010
Report from Courtroom 54 -
June 22, 2010
I apologize for not being able to post for the last few days. Just unable to find transportation to and from the courts.
Last week we began to hear more about the family relationship between RCMP Team Commander Kevin Debruyckere and BC Liberal Party Executive Director. As if on cue, the sharp sounds of police sirens could be heard in courtroon 54 as Michael Bolton began to ask questions of Martyn Brown and his dealings with Kelly Reichert and if Mr. Brown knew of his family relationship with RCMP Team Commander Kevin Debruyckere.
Defense counsel has been allowed to engage in meaningful cross-examination for the last few weeks of Mr. Brown, despite unwarranted objections by Special Prosecutor Bill Berardino.
Bill Berardino raised an objection to the line of questioning regarding the BC Liberal Party and the RCMP. I don't think that I can report on what was said about the objection but can say that his objection was based clearly on the questions around the key relationship with the head of the BC Liberal party and Kevin Debruyckere who was in charge of the RCMP. Why did he object to that line of questioning?
I had thought that today we would begin with those questions about the RCMP but we had another strange twist to this case that I cannot report on.
However, I can say that the issues dealt with this morning are very serious and raise more questions about how this case has been handled.
Citizen Journalist from 54
June 22, 2010 1:53 PM
I apologize for not being able to post for the last few days. Just unable to find transportation to and from the courts.
Last week we began to hear more about the family relationship between RCMP Team Commander Kevin Debruyckere and BC Liberal Party Executive Director. As if on cue, the sharp sounds of police sirens could be heard in courtroon 54 as Michael Bolton began to ask questions of Martyn Brown and his dealings with Kelly Reichert and if Mr. Brown knew of his family relationship with RCMP Team Commander Kevin Debruyckere.
Defense counsel has been allowed to engage in meaningful cross-examination for the last few weeks of Mr. Brown, despite unwarranted objections by Special Prosecutor Bill Berardino.
Bill Berardino raised an objection to the line of questioning regarding the BC Liberal Party and the RCMP. I don't think that I can report on what was said about the objection but can say that his objection was based clearly on the questions around the key relationship with the head of the BC Liberal party and Kevin Debruyckere who was in charge of the RCMP. Why did he object to that line of questioning?
I had thought that today we would begin with those questions about the RCMP but we had another strange twist to this case that I cannot report on.
However, I can say that the issues dealt with this morning are very serious and raise more questions about how this case has been handled.
Citizen Journalist from 54
June 22, 2010 1:53 PM
Comments:
<< Home
I hope it is not another left hook being swung in our National Police's Forces direction...
Has that Bass been caught yet?
(No I am not referring to the fish!)
It makes you wonder, what has to happen to hold those accountable?
Has that Bass been caught yet?
(No I am not referring to the fish!)
It makes you wonder, what has to happen to hold those accountable?
# posted by 
: June 22, 2010 at 3:25 p.m.
: June 22, 2010 at 3:25 p.m.
I had thought that today we would begin with those questions about the RCMP but we had another strange twist to this case that I cannot report on.
Is the public interest being served by that information not being possible to report? Would it influence the jury wrongly if they read about it online than finding out about it when they're in court? Or is the publication ban blanking out information that the public's right to know must superseded the sanctity of the jury's info-virginity? How would it harm the case for us to know about it?
And why would the RCMP-Liberal Party relationship need to be sequestered from the jury's ears - or from the public's ears?
Life the publication ban. Televise this courtroom.
Let the people know.
Is the public interest being served by that information not being possible to report? Would it influence the jury wrongly if they read about it online than finding out about it when they're in court? Or is the publication ban blanking out information that the public's right to know must superseded the sanctity of the jury's info-virginity? How would it harm the case for us to know about it?
And why would the RCMP-Liberal Party relationship need to be sequestered from the jury's ears - or from the public's ears?
Life the publication ban. Televise this courtroom.
Let the people know.
Mary,
Please come back soon. This blog is not the same without you. Take care and i wish you nothing but good health and happiness.
Best Regards
Harry.
(please do not publish)
Please come back soon. This blog is not the same without you. Take care and i wish you nothing but good health and happiness.
Best Regards
Harry.
(please do not publish)
# posted by : June 22, 2010 at 6:39 p.m.
: June 22, 2010 at 6:39 p.m.
Since they rejected your request for journalist accreditation I can assume that you are not a journalist therefor not part of the media and should not be subjected to the publication ban, eh?
# posted by : June 23, 2010 at 7:04 a.m.
: June 23, 2010 at 7:04 a.m.
http://lailayuile.wordpress.com/2010/06/23/breaking-new-this-early-wednesday-am-cbc-reports-that-csis-has-indications-that-cabinet-ministers-in-two-provinces-under-the-influence-of-foreign-countries-and-several-bc-liberal-ministers-under-s/
This BS publication ban appears to have a dual purpose.
First to exclude a jury from hearing evidence. Which begs the question: Is this trial being manipulated to bring forth a verdict from a jury that didn't hear all the evidence? And is that because the defense perceived a biased verdict from a judge alone?
Second to exclude a vast majority of the public from learning that evidence and forming a public opinion that will further give us lack of trust in our so called justice system?
Disclaime: I have not attended the actual trial portion of this fiasco, so I don't know if any of my thoughts have been discussed in the absence of the jury, in court.
First to exclude a jury from hearing evidence. Which begs the question: Is this trial being manipulated to bring forth a verdict from a jury that didn't hear all the evidence? And is that because the defense perceived a biased verdict from a judge alone?
Second to exclude a vast majority of the public from learning that evidence and forming a public opinion that will further give us lack of trust in our so called justice system?
Disclaime: I have not attended the actual trial portion of this fiasco, so I don't know if any of my thoughts have been discussed in the absence of the jury, in court.
Well there's one way that should help to end this travesty of justice known as BCSC!
Check this web site out!
https://www.cjc-ccm.gc.ca/english/index_en.asp
Check this web site out!
https://www.cjc-ccm.gc.ca/english/index_en.asp
# posted by : June 23, 2010 at 9:13 a.m.
: June 23, 2010 at 9:13 a.m.
Gary E wrote:
Is this trial being manipulated to bring forth a verdict from a jury that didn't hear all the evidence? And is that because the defense perceived a biased verdict from a judge alone?
The slight of hand trick:
sanitize, suppress and strip the truth from the central evidence used for the Judgment which ultimately becomes a sham decision in our highest courts.
Ask the BCers who has seen these judicial games up close and personal; they will state with conviction:
"YES".
Is this trial being manipulated to bring forth a verdict from a jury that didn't hear all the evidence? And is that because the defense perceived a biased verdict from a judge alone?
The slight of hand trick:
sanitize, suppress and strip the truth from the central evidence used for the Judgment which ultimately becomes a sham decision in our highest courts.
Ask the BCers who has seen these judicial games up close and personal; they will state with conviction:
"YES".
# posted by : June 23, 2010 at 11:21 a.m.
: June 23, 2010 at 11:21 a.m.
Bravo - To Gary E for the question...
And to Secondlook for the answer.
And to Secondlook for the answer.
# posted by : June 23, 2010 at 1:07 p.m.
: June 23, 2010 at 1:07 p.m.
This whole charade is being played out with several sets of cards; what the public knows, what the jury is allowed to know (which doesn't include everything the public knows), what Crown wants us to think, what the Justice will allow us to think, and what Defence knows......that there are multiple dealers (the judge, the media, citizen reporters) only makes it all the worse.
Transparency, please - meaning one deck of cards only, not ones with various cards removed and others inserted that shouldn't be there....
Transparency, please - meaning one deck of cards only, not ones with various cards removed and others inserted that shouldn't be there....
This is a wild guess - but does that new strange twist in the case that you mention have anything to do with CSIS' announcement that cabinet ministers in two western Canadian provinces are "owned" by foreign governments?
Skookum1
Where did you see that announcement. I'll bet I can guess two of them at my place.
Where did you see that announcement. I'll bet I can guess two of them at my place.
# posted by : June 23, 2010 at 6:47 p.m.
: June 23, 2010 at 6:47 p.m.
Omg I am realing and gasping. Fadden makes statements about foreign governments influencing Canadian politicians in 2 provinces at the municipal and Ministerial level. He claims to have advised the Privy C but later retracts and downplays. CSIS is just plain gossiping but adversely affecting the political future of any Chinese ancestry public officials in the process. Hmmm. I wretch to learn that Campbell has called them out on this inappropriate conduct. The world learns that CSIS is still as incompetent as ever and foreign spies salivate at our exposure. I double wretch to find I agree with Campbell for the first times since one of his previous lies. Obama fires his Afghanistan General for much the same behavior in chatting and disclosing his and his team's gossip to the Rolling Stone Reporter.
Back to BC, the most important court case in recent memory in BC is hijacked by a Prosecutor's Dad by more inappropriate gossip and he cannot be fired but we are assured that it won't happen again. lol.
After the Braidwood inquiry and Majors take on our institutions behavior in the Air India fiasco, and expecially after the string of suspensions without pay over the Surrey 6 investigation (including the man in charge); This has been a very long couple of days that require some serious heads to roll.
I am completely cynical about apologies from Prime Ministers and assurances that we will get competence for a change in the institutions our democracy relies upon.
This is a deadly outbreak and a severe and thorough quarantine must be imposed before we rebuild I think.
We can poke fun and gasp and be as dramatic as we want but I am convinced that jailtime for those responsible will be required for us to heal.
Extremely
Solocanoe
Back to BC, the most important court case in recent memory in BC is hijacked by a Prosecutor's Dad by more inappropriate gossip and he cannot be fired but we are assured that it won't happen again. lol.
After the Braidwood inquiry and Majors take on our institutions behavior in the Air India fiasco, and expecially after the string of suspensions without pay over the Surrey 6 investigation (including the man in charge); This has been a very long couple of days that require some serious heads to roll.
I am completely cynical about apologies from Prime Ministers and assurances that we will get competence for a change in the institutions our democracy relies upon.
This is a deadly outbreak and a severe and thorough quarantine must be imposed before we rebuild I think.
We can poke fun and gasp and be as dramatic as we want but I am convinced that jailtime for those responsible will be required for us to heal.
Extremely
Solocanoe
future of any Chinese ancestry public officials in the process.
Just because China has been named by CSIS does NOT mean that it's Chinese Canadian politicians who are who he's talking about; I really wish people would stop making that STUPID ASSUMPTION. It plays into the spin doctors' hands all too well.
I trust Ray Louie a lot more than I trust Gordon Campbell. I trust Jenny Kwan a lot more than I trust Kevin Falcon. I trust Bev Oda a lot more than I trust Colin Hansen.
It's the media and the excuse-makers and deflectors/spinners who've made the foreign governments/"ethnic" politicians equation, not CSIS. Unless - given Norway's considerable political and economic clout in British Columbia - you're willing to go after Colin Hansen as a Norwegian quisling in the BC government ("quisling" is actually of Norwegian origin, interestingly).
Corruption, like the money that fuels it, does not have a colour. And it's worth remembering that "ethnic" politicians, i.e. naturalized Canadians, often had reasons to get out of their countries and away from their governments and have no interest in serving them.
It's native-born politicians in the service of foreign governments that I believe CSIS is talking about, and who are more likely to be either gullible or greedy and amoral enough, and "naturally disloyal", than someone who had to study to become Canadian, and who worked hard to prove themselves to this country.
Wally Oppal and Ujjal Dossanjh, likewise, I can't see as agents of the Indian government or of Indian state interests here. They're too determinedly Canadian by choice.
And I'll re-iterate again, and will continue to, that the foreign "government" that's of most concern is the GOP, and those in the US government, who rightly perceive BC and its resources to be high on the list of US "national security interests". Looking at China alone is easy enough, and rightfully so - any corrupt imperial power is going to engage in corrupt and imperialist practicies by definition.
But this is not about race, it's about loyalty, and about corruption. And the corruption that we're all looking at right now, in this blog and others, has to do with American ownership, not just of a former Crown asset (or two or three), but also of whole agencies and services of the provincial government.
Gordon Campbell, I'll wager, has made more trips to New York than he has to Beijing......
So leave the self-righteous ethno-racial paranoia lie right where it is, stinking in the middle of the media's railroading of this issue. Let's hear what Fadden found out, who he's talking about. And I'll be it has nothing to do with politicians of Chinese or Indian extraction, or of Norwegian extraction either.....
Post a Comment
Just because China has been named by CSIS does NOT mean that it's Chinese Canadian politicians who are who he's talking about; I really wish people would stop making that STUPID ASSUMPTION. It plays into the spin doctors' hands all too well.
I trust Ray Louie a lot more than I trust Gordon Campbell. I trust Jenny Kwan a lot more than I trust Kevin Falcon. I trust Bev Oda a lot more than I trust Colin Hansen.
It's the media and the excuse-makers and deflectors/spinners who've made the foreign governments/"ethnic" politicians equation, not CSIS. Unless - given Norway's considerable political and economic clout in British Columbia - you're willing to go after Colin Hansen as a Norwegian quisling in the BC government ("quisling" is actually of Norwegian origin, interestingly).
Corruption, like the money that fuels it, does not have a colour. And it's worth remembering that "ethnic" politicians, i.e. naturalized Canadians, often had reasons to get out of their countries and away from their governments and have no interest in serving them.
It's native-born politicians in the service of foreign governments that I believe CSIS is talking about, and who are more likely to be either gullible or greedy and amoral enough, and "naturally disloyal", than someone who had to study to become Canadian, and who worked hard to prove themselves to this country.
Wally Oppal and Ujjal Dossanjh, likewise, I can't see as agents of the Indian government or of Indian state interests here. They're too determinedly Canadian by choice.
And I'll re-iterate again, and will continue to, that the foreign "government" that's of most concern is the GOP, and those in the US government, who rightly perceive BC and its resources to be high on the list of US "national security interests". Looking at China alone is easy enough, and rightfully so - any corrupt imperial power is going to engage in corrupt and imperialist practicies by definition.
But this is not about race, it's about loyalty, and about corruption. And the corruption that we're all looking at right now, in this blog and others, has to do with American ownership, not just of a former Crown asset (or two or three), but also of whole agencies and services of the provincial government.
Gordon Campbell, I'll wager, has made more trips to New York than he has to Beijing......
So leave the self-righteous ethno-racial paranoia lie right where it is, stinking in the middle of the media's railroading of this issue. Let's hear what Fadden found out, who he's talking about. And I'll be it has nothing to do with politicians of Chinese or Indian extraction, or of Norwegian extraction either.....
<< Home
