The Legislature Raids

Professor Emeritus Robin Mathews, THE leading correspondent on ALL issues regarding the Kafkaesque events arising from the Legislature Raids continues to challenge the forces of injustice on behalf of the public's right to know what is happening in THEIR so-called justice system. Though the modest Dr. Mathews downplays the importance of his ongoing struggle to be treated fairly and with respect, all 17 or 19 of us "Railgate Cultists" and the ILK who follow The Legislature Raids think otherwise. We think not only should Robin be accredited, only so he can use a recording device in the courtroom, but that Keith Fraser and the rest of the Glow Ball/Canned Waste  and one CeeTeeVee drones who in their capacity as some kind of "accreditation panel" should be ashamed of denying THEIR BETTER the right to serve the public interest, a public interest in which they obviously HAVE NO INTEREST in serving!

As Robin so modestly puts it:

Dear Mary,
The (minor, minor, minor) saga of the attempt to get accreditation goes on. Here are the three last letters.

Those of you who are regulars here will be familiar with the ongoing run around Dr. Mathews has been receiving from the "in crowd" and Keith Fraser and his little club. Here's the first in the latest round of Robin's reasonable requests and the ongoing Cover Your Ass Dance by the courts and their annointed "external" bodies: This mostly self explanatory letter was sent to Jill Leacock, Law Officer - British Columbia Supreme Court

From: Robin Mathews

Date: June 9, 2010 5:51:21 PM PDT (CA)
To: jill.leacock@courts.gov.bc.ca
Subject: journalist court accreditation

Dear Ms. Leacock:

This e-mail is to ask you to grant me journalist accreditation for the Basi, Virk, and Basi trial. I have been covering the pre-trial hearings for three and a half years for two websites: vivelecanada.ca and the legislature raids site. As well material I have written has been published in magazines and newspapers, etc. I have been a radio producer for CBC. I have written text books, books on culture and politics, articles galore, etc. I am an adjunct professor at Carleton University after forty years of university teaching ... and publishing.

The "committee of journalists" rejected my request for accreditation for reasons that may not be examinable - I don't want to engage in any dispute with them. I have - over the years - criticized CanWest and three of the four work for CanWest. They assure me that has no relation to my rejection by them. They allege I am not a "working journalist" - though what the definition is seems strange.

Spokesperson Neal Hall said I could approach the judge. I wrote to her and she has not replied. The other day one of the committee (attending the Basi,Virk, and Basi trial) said I should go to Criminal Registry and get an application form, fill it in, have it stamped, and Madam Justice Anne MacKenzie would respond to the formal application.

I went to Criminal Registry and was sent to Sherriff's counter and was sent to Administration and was handed a sheet with a website address and told the form would be on it. Yesterday, with the Courts librarian I went to the website address - and no form is included on it. From there I went back to Administration, and after some talk, the head there told me that the form isn't on that website and that I have to contact you - not face to face. But by telephone or email. I telephoned you, and when there was no answer I hung up.


And so now I am writing to you by email. I will be happy to hear from you on this subject. Accreditation permits the accredited person to use a recording device in order to assure accuracy of reporting. Since I report regularly and have been doing so for three and a half years, I believe the court will be interested in assuring the information I convey is accurate.

I will appreciate hearing from you without too much delay since the trial is in progress right now.

Thanks for your consideration.

Yours truly,

Robin Mathews

I will continue to resist the urge to bold certain parts, especially with Ms. Leacock's reply - mainly because once I started how would I ever know when to stop - the ridiculosity is so thorough - I do believe Ms. Leacock should be nominated for the Stephen Leacock Prize - except it really ISN"T funny. Next comes Ms. Leacocks absurd excuse for a reply, explanation or to my way of thinking "Ass Covering Excercise
Extraordinaire!"

From: "Leacock, Jill"

Date: June 16, 2010 10:09:41 AM PDT (CA)
To: Robin Mathews rmathews@telus.net
Cc: "McBride, Heidi"
Subject: Journalist Accreditation

Dear Mr. Matthews

I am writing to acknowledge receipt of your recent correspondence, both by way of letter and email. I understand that the accreditation committee, which is external to the Court, rejected your request for journalist accreditation, a decision with which you disagree for the reasons you set out. As you observe, accredited journalists are permitted to bring recording devices into the court room for the limited purpose of using the audio recording to verify the accuracy of their notes. My colleague Ms McBride has written a letter to you to describe the steps that you may take to pursue the matter from this point. The letter and enclosures was sent to you by mail on Monday. I attach for your information, a copy of the letter (without attachments) that was sent.

Associate Chief Justice MacKenzie is aware of your correspondence. Since you have been writing to the court for some time now, I expect you are aware that judges do not engage in correspondence concerning cases that come before them for hearing. That is part of the role that Ms. McBride and I have as lawyers for the Court. Hence you should not expect to receive a reply to your correspondence directly from Associate Chief Justice MacKenzie. If you wish to engage the court’s formal process by bringing an application, it is open to you to do so as Ms. McBride’s letter states.

Jill Leacock, Law Officer
British Columbia Supreme Court
800 Smithe Street,
Vancouver B.C. V6Z 2E1
Ph: (604) 660-2720
Fax: (604) 660-1723
email: jill.leacock@courts.gov.bc.ca

Then our Dr. Mathews responded thus, and this is where the exercise against arrogance and ignorance stands for the moment.

From: Robin Mathews

Date: June 17, 2010 12:44:27 AM PDT (CA)
To: jill.leacock@courts.gov.bc.ca
Subject: Fwd: Journalist Accreditation

Dear Ms. Leacock:

Thank you for your e-mail sent yesterday. I appreciate receiving acknowledgment of my communication to you. (I'm always interested when lawyers spell names incorrectly, and I wonder what part of their training leads in that direction.)

You know, of course, I am fully aware that judges don't answer the letters of ordinary Canadians. I have no opinion on that matter. But I do know that ordinary Canadians have a perfect right to write to judges. If judges choose not to have letters of gravity answered by court officers (such as yourself), then, of course, the judges will face what criticism they evoke by ignoring communications. Judges are - after all - public servants in the very best and highest sense of that phrase.

Associate Chief Justice Anne MacKenzie has chosen to ignore completely my second reasoned and concerned letter about the wrongful appointment of William Berardino as Special Prosecutor in the Basi, Virk, and Basi case. She has doubtless made that decision in the full consciousness of its implications.

Thank you again for writing to me. I await the material sent by Ms. McBride and I am grateful to her for sending it. I shall consider, upon receiving the material, whether to "engage the court's formal process by bringing an application". My letter to you recorded a muddle in the Supreme Court in which it took me three days going from post to post to post to get to the point of being advised to write to you. While the time of court officers is held, it seems, at the highest value there, the time of ordinary Canadians seems to be considered worthless.

I want court accreditation. I may "engage the formal process by bringing an application" to attempt to get accreditation AND to report to an already concerned public the behaviour of the Supreme Court of British Columbia towards those who (in the words I choose to use) are not in its charmed circle.
That I should be weighed for accreditation by a "voluntary" committee of the British Columbia Supreme Court made up of three CanWest employees out of four on the committee is simply unacceptable. That you should characterize that committee as "external to the Court" is baffling! In what way can a committee be "external to the Court" that has acted with the full authority of the Court and with the knowledge of the Associate Chief Justice who accepts its decision? The committee's decision is final (and acceptable to the Court), unless - in your own words - I wish to make an application which, in effect, is to appeal the decision of the committee.

Your statement that the committee is "external" to the court is, I believe, "chop logic" of the first order - a statement that is intended to be incomprehensible to sane people of normal intelligence but which suggests the court is not responsible for actions over which it exerts control.

I believe I was considered by a committee that reasonable men and women reject out of hand.

Thank you again for your communication.

Respectfully,
Robin Mathews

Dear readers, please forgive me for not being able to resist a bit of bolding at the end there, as there is only so much B.S. one can tolerate in silence - Reading this foolishness must be like listening to Martyn Brown "testify" in court!
...........posted by kootcoot