Thursday, July 01, 2010

 

Ms. Jill Leacock, Law Officer, reproves Robin Mathews

 

Introduction by kootcoot:

The degree of contempt for the public of British Columbia shown by the government of Gordon Campbell and the (in)Justice system, that for now seems to be securely ensconced in the pocket of the criminals posing as government is nothing less than breathtaking. I feel that folks like Ms. Leacock and (in)Justice MacKenzie or Wild Bill Berardino have almost toxic levels of GALL to even use the word contempt themselves.

Meanwhile we watch as Justice (I can hardly type that title in front of the name to follow without feeling hypocritical/dishonest) MacKenzie gives the defendants grief over the slightest head shake or eye movement at the same time as she allows Martyn Brown to be UNRESPONSIVE to legitimate questions from counsel day after day. Couldn't the counsel and the so called judge have an occasional side-bar or meeting in chambers to iron out procedural issues? Instead we are supposed to see justice being delivered in a farce of a performance that has taken over six years to even get to this point, which seems to be little more than secret discussions, day after day, with occasional visits to the court room by the so called jury - who hopefully have other things to do with the other 95% of their lives, as their presence in the courtroom is rarely appropriate or invited.

The only person, and HIGHLY QUALIFIED person at that (so much more so than the buffoons employed by Canned Waste and CeeTeeVee who deem him unqualified for accreditation as a journalist), Robin Mathews, who has tried to cover this trial and the issues surrounding it has run into nothing but obstruction (of justice to my way of thinking) and/or the people's right to know what is happening with their assets and the administration of so called justice on their behalf. As a result of Robin's last post here at the Ledge Raids, Robin has received the following reprimand from the oh so Holy Ms. Jill Leacock. Ms. Leacock's affront to Robin and the citizens of the province is followed by Robin's immediate reply - but Prof. Mathews is in the process of doing further reflection about just how to deal with this ongoing disrespect from those who theoretically, at least, work for him and the rest of us, including the vast majority of us who aren't either friends, donors or both to Gordon Campbell and his criminally acting organization known as the BC Liberal Party.

Dispatch from Dr. Mathews:

For the Supreme Court of British Columbia Ms. Jill Leacock, (June 29, 2010), Law Officer reproves Robin Mathews for his interpretation of the Publication Ban “in the absence of the jury” imposed by Associate Chief Justice Anne MacKenzie in the Basi, Virk, and Basi trial. Robin Mathews replies.
***

From Ms. Leacock to Dr. Mathews:

“Mr. Mathews
You seem to be unaware of section 648 of the Criminal Code. It provides as follows

Restriction on publication

648. (1) After permission to separate is given to members of the jury under subsection 647 (1), no information regarding any portion of the trial at which the jury is not present shall be published in any document or broadcast or transmitted in any way before the jury retires to consider its verdict.

Offence

(2) Every one who fails to comply with subsection (1) is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.


Mr. Mathews, this section of the Criminal Code bans the publication of any information about what occurs during a trial when the jury is absent, unless the jury has been sequestered and is in the process of deliberating its verdict. The 648 ban applies automatically as a matter of statute – no one has to apply for it – it is automatically in place. The presiding judge may extend the terms of a publication ban, but the statutory ban always applies as a matter of law.

[Ms. Leacock highlights the following sentence.] A person who breaches the ban by broadcasting information about what has happened in the court room when the jury is not present, is in breach of the ban, and guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.

Jill Leacock, Law officer”

Dr Mathews replies to Ms. Leacock:

Dear Ms. Leacock: Thank you for your message. I read the Criminal Code as you have represented it. I also read the publication ban as it is represented in the piece I wrote about the whole question of publication ban.
That passage on the Supreme Court of Canada website repeating the publication ban set by Associate Chief Justice Anne MacKenzie says that it is “pursuant to” 648 and sets out the terms – as I say in the piece I wrote – SPECIFYING the four matters under ban. I took it to mean that if a total ban was intended the specifying would not have taken place. 648, as it is, declares total ban.

As you will have observed, I didn’t write about any of the four specifically named matters. I was, I believed, honouring the ban. And I would not violate it with intention.

I assumed that if 648 was meant – unmodified – Associate Chief Justice MacKenzie would simply have named 648. But since it was “pursuant to” and itemized kinds of publication ban, I took it to be (and I think that is a reasonable inference) an intention to modify 648 to characterize particular matters banned – as you say automatically. But not to intend a total blackout, so to speak.

You suggest I am wrong in that reading.

If that is the case, then I will observe a “total” ban, and I regret any misunderstanding. I assure you that it was not and is not at any time my intention to violate the ban.

Sincerely,
Robin Mathews

final comment from kootcoot:

That last line from Robin is, I think, unfortunate as it suggests to me that he and the rest of us should just go along and do what "they" so obviously desire and ignore this travesty of justice and the ongoing robbery of what were once the assets of ALL the people of British Columbia starting with BC Rail and including BC Ferries, BC Hydro, our universal health care, BC Gas and once public forest lands.

Happy Canada Day, All!

I will be celebrating Canada today, the mountains, the prairies, the rivers, the lakes, the sea coasts and the people - however I will not be celebrating democracy or transparent government or due process - I will be mourning the ongoing loss of these things and wondering how far down the road of tyranny of corporate interests and greed of the few we will go before the system is either reformed or OVERTHROWN!

Comments:
Bloggers, and their opinions, have been accused by the MSM of not being up front with who they are. They, we, are accused of hiding behind a mask of anonymity. However, in my humble opinion, by way of two examples, are Kootcoot and BC Mary any differently portrayed to the public than the Executive Editorial Board of the Vancouver Sun?

I'd say that there are distinct differences between Kookcoot and BC Mary. But when it comes to the Vancouver Sun, they'll never tell the reader who is doing the talking, who is doing the writing.

At the bottom left hand corner of the Opinion page of the Vancouver Sun, the newspaper states this on the topic of (bold highlighting is mine):

"Informed Opinion

The editorials that appear in this space represent the opinion of the Vancouver Sun newspaper. They are unsigned because they do not necessarily represent the personal views of the writers. The position taken in the editorials are arrived at through discussion among the members of the newspaper's editorial board, which operates independently from the news departments of the paper. The members of the Sun's editorial board are editorial page editor Fazil Mihlar, editorial writers Harvey Enchin, Craig McInnes and Peter McKnight, editor-in-chief Patricia Graham and publisher Kevin Bent. Columnists Stephen Hume, Johnathan Manthorpe and Barbara Yaffe are advisers to the board"



As to Robin Mathews, he could easily be likened to a David Black newspaper Editor where he expresses his own opinion, and writes it as HE sees it without having to confer with others.
 
From Ms Leacock:
the publication of any information about what occurs during a trial when the jury is absent

ANY information is a rather broad brush and I doubt its legal meaning should include items like "the father of one of the prosecutors has been sitting within earshot of the Accused until he was found out" or "Madame Justice Mackenzie was wearing a flower in her bonnet", or "there was palpable tension in the room as Crown and Defence hurled indirect insults at each other as they discussed legal wrangling" or "there were x many people in the gallery".

Ms Leacock evidently confuses "anything" that happens with things outside of legal arguments per se.

I respect Robin for attesting that he is not intentionally breaking the ban. But as with my post on Bill T's blog, I'm waiting for someone who IS ready to deliberately break the ban so as to precipitate a Charter of Rights and Freedoms appeal to blow this whole fiasco wide open (and, perhaps, if a mistrial IS declared, say because of those shady warrants and Justice Dohm's and S-G Coleman's suspicious involvement, to replace Madame Justice Mackenzie with a judge who has more of a public conscience and more respect for the public's right to know).

You'd think the Canadian Civil Liberties Association or whatever they're called would be all over this by now. Lord knows at next year's journalism awards the assembled "working journalists" will hand Neal Hall a trophy for doing such a great job of keeping all debate and all investigating and all reporting safely away from public eyes.

What's needed is a Crown Commission into all this; but of course CC reports have always gone ignored, from LeDain and Spicer back through Chant and beyond.....but a public autopsy of all this is really really needed, without politically-motivated publication bans placed by a suspiciously-appointed judge.

Happy Canada Day. Peace order and good government. But forget about that democracy and equal rights before the law thing; it's entirely un-Canadian, as ACJ Mackenzie's court of misrule continually reminds us of late.
 
Happy Canada Day everybody, I hope this message falls on happy people. Thanks again for everything you do ;)
 
This is excellent. It demonstrates, in public, the principles that matter to administrators of justice in BC. This will be evidence of official preoccupations for historians who will write about this situation for posterity.

Connections between prosecutor and Liberal insiders? No problem.

Premier's number one guy swears an oath to tell the truth but is persistently unresponsive, devoid of memory unless it is to vindicate colleagues? No problem.

Documents that should have been retained by government but were destroyed? No problem.

Family connections between a senior RCMP investigator and a top Liberal insider? No problem?

Irregular posting of notices and public schedules by administrators? No problem.

Years of delay in getting to trial. Three weeks of court and only a few hours of testimony? No problem.

An official journalist accreditation committee dominated by Canwest blocks potential competition from equal access? No problem.

But, report ANYTHING that happened in the courtroom in the absence of the jury and you are a criminal. Even if you report that people were illegally carrying and using smartphones that are also cameras and recording devices, you are a criminal.
 
Norman, your encapsulation is powerful. A sound bite beauty that lays bare the hypocrisy and utterly ludicrous thinking that lies behind these power-mad monsters.

I'm going to try to commit that to memory, like a mantra, so I can reiterate it to others.

It is critical that we keep spreading the word and educating other citizens about the outrageous behaviour by so-called "officers of the court" who, in fact, hold the public in contempt.

Heads must roll. The public needs to know. The citizens of BC need to roar.

CC
 
Norm, as good as your encapsulation is, and I agree wholeheartedly with CC, you still left out much you could have listed.

Like what appeared to be attempted jury tampering with the addition of the judges admonition to not take it seriously - would she have said that to the jury if it had been someone from the defense that approached jurors across town.

Then there is the issue of regualarly positioning oneself behind the defense table - and what is the reason for that?

I've got other things to do right now, but I'm pretty confident we could add more to the list Norm started with minimal effort - and as Ross would say, without violating any publication bans!

Sometimes I wonder how dumb these guys think we are, but then I guess enough of us are a little slow on the uptake, as they have been re-elected twice!
 
Norman's list and koot's suggestions are actually charges that should be laid in court, and could be if a citizen didn't need the Crown's permission to sue the Crown. This applies also to a class action suit against the BC Liberal Party and CP for conspiracy to defraud the public. Norman's is a list of laws that have been broken, or matters of suspicious nature needing investigation (such as Mr MacKay's eavesdropping on the Defence).

Those who hold the power of the Crown currently are prepared to use it on us for defying their arbitrary and unjust rule, while they at the same time refuse to lay charges for the string of very serious crimes that we all know has taken place.

there needs to be a way to get them all into court, not in such a way that a Special Prosecutor can object to their introduction because they don't bear directly on the OmniTRAX bribe.

If the Supreme Court of Canada won't act - though a deus ex machina move by Justice Bennett to hear a public petition to investigate the charges by the BC Court of Appeal (?!) - then I'll go back to the mantra about unfair trade practices and illegal dealings by American investors with foreign political machines, and try and build a US lobby to investigate US support for corrupt politicians in Canada, and get this into the SEC or even US Congressional Hearings. Or, if necessary, as someone has suggested, into the UN (i.e. the International Criminal Court).

British Columbia is a US national security interest for many reasons, and what happens here affects them even if they don't talk about it in public; Glen Clark scared them silly with his defiance and macho grandstanding, he was gotten rid of and they installed an Allende...they can't afford a revolution here, as almost happened in '83 and in the thirties, they'll do what it takes to maintain the rule of law.

And that might have to mean dragging BC Rail into US courts and US investigative spheres by civil action. Can Canadian citizens sue US-owned but Canadian-registered companies in United States court?

Now what's kind of an interesting question isn't it? Especially if the citizens suing had dual nationality......hmmmm......
 
Norman's list and koot's suggestions are actually charges that should be laid in court, and could be if a citizen didn't need the Crown's permission to sue the Crown. This applies also to a class action suit against the BC Liberal Party and CP for conspiracy to defraud the public. Norman's is a list of laws that have been broken, or matters of suspicious nature needing investigation (such as Mr MacKay's eavesdropping on the Defence).

Those who hold the power of the Crown currently are prepared to use it on us for defying their arbitrary and unjust rule, while they at the same time refuse to lay charges for the string of very serious crimes that we all know has taken place.

there needs to be a way to get them all into court, not in such a way that a Special Prosecutor can object to their introduction because they don't bear directly on the OmniTRAX bribe.

If the Supreme Court of Canada won't act - though a deus ex machina move by Justice Bennett to hear a public petition to investigate the charges by the BC Court of Appeal (?!) - then I'll go back to the mantra about unfair trade practices and illegal dealings by American investors with foreign political machines, and try and build a US lobby to investigate US support for corrupt politicians in Canada, and get this into the SEC or even US Congressional Hearings. Or, if necessary, as someone has suggested, into the UN (i.e. the International Criminal Court).

British Columbia is a US national security interest for many reasons, and what happens here affects them even if they don't talk about it in public; Glen Clark scared them silly with his defiance and macho grandstanding, he was gotten rid of and they installed an Allende...they can't afford a revolution here, as almost happened in '83 and in the thirties, they'll do what it takes to maintain the rule of law.

And that might have to mean dragging BC Rail into US courts and US investigative spheres by civil action. Can Canadian citizens sue US-owned but Canadian-registered companies in United States court?

Now what's kind of an interesting question isn't it? Especially if the citizens suing had dual nationality......hmmmm......
 
I started reading this blog with a lot of interest as a concerned resident of BC. However, as the trial is proceeding, I am finding that much of the commentary is descending rapidly into the petty and bitter.

It does not seem strange to me, and I think based on his contrite response that mr. Mathews agrees, that a court of law would uphold the law. I have found it strange since I started reading the blog that you all contend that the publication ban is conspiratorial when in fact Section 648 reads quite clearly as applying to all court cases. The courts action wrt the publication ban may be frustrating, but it is consistent with Canadian law.

While I continue to support your cause in seeking the truth in the BC Rail, I humbly suggest that you try to remain objective about discussing and reporting the facts of the case, lest you alienate some of the more moderate supporters in the quest for truth.
 
to AnonoMouse at 4:54AM

In the dictionary of modern terminology your comment above would be an excellent example for illustrating the crap that is produced by "concern trolls."

A concern troll is one who tries to make outrageous statements while trying to appear calm and reasonable, thus implying those he is trying to criticize are rabid kooks or members of a radical cult.

You also meet the same criteria as the classic "good German" of the Nazi era - which isn't as "outrageous" as it may appear. The government of Gordon Campbell fits the definition of fascism about as perfectly as anything since World War II. Fascism really hasn't by definition anything to do with anti-semitism or the Holocaust, but mainly the merging of the corporate and the state - where the state acts to further the corporate agenda and the citizens goals are irrelevant. Keep in mind that under German law at the time as constructed/manipulated etc. by Hitler and his minions everything that occured under the Nazis was LEGAL (he even had a more genuine electoral mandate than say Bush the Lesser ever had) .......that doesn't make it right, or do you disagree?

I would think you were merely a Public Affairs shit disturber, but I doubt they pay enough (though anything of my tax dollars is TOO MUCH) for you to be up at cow milking time to leave your little stealth bombs here. Then again maybe with your attitude and acceptance of injustice you have difficulty sleeping and that is why you are up before 5:00AM making a fool of yourself here.

I would suggest you go back up and read Norm Farrell's little list of outrageous examples of government and justice system mis-behaviour and then mine following which points out how this is merely the tip of the iceberg and then tell me who is ignoring or perverting the LAW!

If you think what is happening in Courtroom 54 bears ANY relationship to justice or due process and like what has been happening to BC for the last decade then just measure your neck and shoulders for the YOKE and get in line to have one installed. Or are you one of the elite that is benefitting from all this B.S. - and trying to defend your gravy train? If that's the case I'll be seeing you in the future on a spit when we are roasting your type to feed our dogs if that is what it has to come to - we are not going to "eat cake" forever and watch a bunch of greed bags steal, destroy and ruin this province to satisfy their own pathological greed.

Unless governments free themselves from this corporate slavery and servitude and actually represent the people, the recent happenings in Thailand and Greece and some of the 'stans are just a preview of the near future..............As Vietnam and today Afghanistan prove, it doesn't matter how well armed the oppressors are, the people can only be held down by the heel on the neck so long and the only sustainable option is either justice or complete extermination of the non-elites - and then who would actually produce anything?

I'll never understand why the 5-10% who control 90% of the world's wealth aren't satisfied and are so determined to horde that 10% they don't already control.......but then greed is a disease I neither have nor understand!
 
I say the judge in this case is out of order. I think she is weighing her chances being appointed to a superior position (Supreme Court?), an Order of Canada or a Senate appointment and having an honest trial.

The whole BC Railgate episode is a national scandal, yet the powers involved are shielded by the court in ways which we poor peons are not.


I think the whole trial is a done deal and what we are seeing is a mere pantomime, giving the pretense of an honest trail.

Our entire legal system has collapsed in chaos where the rich and wealthy need not fear the law; in fact, we are now living in a lawless society, where there are only rules for the poor.
 
re: Anonymous said...

"I started reading this blog with a lot of interest as a concerned resident of BC. However, as the trial is proceeding, I am finding that much of the commentary is descending rapidly into the petty and bitter."
And who's little skirt are you hiding behind? Me thinks you be a gordo minion, yes!
 
that a court of law would uphold the law.

ROTFL. Really, you think so, do you? then why hasn't this court laid an injunction on the BC Rail/CN contract - because illegally-obtained contracts are inherently null and void? Why hasn't it ordered an investigation of someone in the Premier's Office deleting email evidence fully known to be needed for this case? Why haven't jury tampering charges been laid against a certain Mr. Mackay? Why does "upholding the law" only mean muzzling people who are trying to make sure the public knows the truth and that "justice" is not being as rigged as the BC rail deal was? Why does Bill Berardino still hold the Special Prosecutor position, even though his appointment was clearly not only improper but also highly illegal by law. Why haven't there been investigation or charges of illegal lobbying activities, whether by Patrick Kinsella or by the Pilothouse boys? Why were the warrants in this case issued improperly? Don't talk about upholding the law, when so many laws have been broken in the course of trying to shunt this case into oblivion.....

If you say "uphold the law", you can't be selective and only take it out on those who want real justice done; not "business as usual" as a rationale to allow all kinds of corporate and political-machine law-breaking.

The courts action wrt the publication ban may be frustrating, but it is consistent with Canadian law.

No, it's not; it's unprecedented that a ban be imposed when neither side has requested it. It's not mandatory in jury trials, either, or else the Picton trial would have been totally in camera and not subject to "war room" media bunkers and 24x7 coverage of courtroom goings-on.

There is no consistency of law in this case whatsoever. The only rules in operation seem to be those of political expediency. And one whole lot of denial. Oh, and "I can't remember" and "I don't recall" (yawn) - i.e. contempt by a highly-paid, very powerful civil servant/political appointee whose job should include the ability to remember important facts, especially those shoved in his face in the form of paper records. And who thinks that massive campaign donations and a subsequent insider deal on one of the (formerly) largest public assets are not a problem.

The wrong people are sitting in the Accused dock, is what my feeling on all this is. But "the law" isn't interested in the more important laws that were broken here, but instead trying to shaft only a few, selectively chosen, political scapegoats.

Speaking of which, given Bobby Virk's allegation about being offered benefits to hush up - there's another broken law that's going uninvestigated, while the weight of the court is being threatened against those who talk about it, or about the improper connection between the Liberal Party brass and the RCMP in charge of conducting this case?

Alienating moderate readers? How can you be "moderate" about blatant wrongdoing?

Justice Mackenzie's publication ban, and Jill Leacock's warning to Professor Mathews, are anything BUT "moderate".
 
Skookum1, you are absolutely right; a contract that is deemed illegal obtained is no contract at all, thus CNR would have to return BC Rail as it received it!

I do not think corporate American and corporate Canada could allow this to happen and have ordered the judges to render their decisions for what is good for corporate America, not what is contract law!

What we see is mere pantomime, camouflaging the real courts intent, without raising too many eyebrows. George Orwell would have been proud!
 
I can't wait for this to hit the Court of Appeal..as I'm sure it will. Poetic justice would see Madame Justice Bennett once more at the helm - in a bad mood for the incompetent, inept handling of the case in the courts below hers.

Failing that, the citizens of BC need to lay their own law suit against EVERY party involved, and those who have benefited from this "sale." Yes, that includes Mr. Gates. Now THAT would bring the attention of the media, on both sides of the border. Matter of fact, I wonder if he's paying attention to what's going on this courtroom now? And if not...should it be brought to his attention?
 
Maybe someone can help Me, I attended court room 54,and sat in the public Gallery, in front there were the Lawyers for the accused, thier assistants ect. The person who spoke to the jurors was able to sit up front? If that is true, that He sat behind the defense/accused, how is that possible?

appreciate someone claifying this.
 
June 17,2010 Supreme Court of Canada,this is pretty interesting decision.It is Ontario.

[10] Both men applied for a stay of proceedings in 1997 on the grounds of a breach of their Charter rights. Glithero J. concluded that their rights under ss. 7, 11(b) and 11(d) of the Charter had been violated to such a degree that the proceedings should be stayed, stating:


I have found many instances of abusive conduct by state officials, involving deliberate non‑disclosure, deliberate editing of useful information, negligent breach of the duty to maintain original evidence, improper cross‑examination and jury addresses during the first trial. That prejudice is completed. The improper cross‑examinations and jury address would not be repeated at a new trial and the completed prejudice with respect to those issues would not therefore be perpetuated in a new trial. The effects or prejudice caused by the abusive conduct in systematic non‑disclosure, deliberate revision of materials so as to exclude useful information to the defence, and the unexplained loss, or breach of the duty to preserve, of so much original evidence would be perpetuated through a future trial in that the defence cannot be put back into the position they would originally have been, and which in my view they were entitled to maintain throughout the trial process. That evidence is gone, either entirely or to the extent of severely diminishing the utility of the evidence, and the prejudice thereby occasioned has only been exaggerated by the passage of time since the 1991 trial and prior to the belated disclosure of this information in 1996. [Emphasis added]



(R. v. Court (1997), 36 O.R. (3d) 263 (Gen. Div.), p. 300)

35] Not every demand for government information serves this purpose. Thus the jurisprudence holds that there is no general right of access to information. The position is well put in Ontario (Attorney General) v. Fineberg (1994), 19 O.R. (3d) 197 (Div. Ct.), per Adams J.:

By contrast, our political access makes government bureaucracy accountable to elected officials who, in turn, conduct their business in the context of public elections and legislatures and where the media, again, play a fundamental reporting role. . . . Against this tradition, it is not possible to proclaim that s. 2(b) entails a general constitutional right of access to all information under the control of government and this is particularly so in the context of an application relating to an active criminal investigation. [Emphasis added; p. 204.]

http://scc.lexum.umontreal.ca/en/2010/2010scc23/2010scc23.html
 
The multi-roles of the multi-talented and multi-forgetful, Mr. Brown: (All excerpts are from hansard)

"Hon. G. Campbell: ..... I have a deputy chief of staff of issues management and a senior coordinator of issues management who report through to the chief of staff and through to me.

J. MacPhail: Okay......

In the office of the Premier, on the other side we have reporting again, as I see it, through up to the chief of staff through issues management, I think, the communications side of the operation: the communications director, the deputy communications director, the press secretary......

Hon. G. Campbell: Let me start by saying that the communications director reports through to the chief of staff. The director of internal liaison reports through to the chief of staff as well..... He reports to the chief of staff on regional issues that may come up, and he has various special project duties that are assigned by the chief of staff."

*********************

"Hon. G. Collins: All of the staff in the office — I should say the MAs and the EA, and this is the case in all ministries — report to the chief of staff, Martyn Brown. Generally, the administrative coordinators and receptionists appoint through the deputy chief of staff, Lara Dauphinee in the Premier's office....

*************

"J. MacPhail: Did the minister talk with the Premier about this matter at all around December or January, either in Hawaii or in Vancouver?........

Hon. G. Collins: This was a decision made by Martyn Brown. I was advised of it the day after it happened. I've said publicly that I concurred with that decision. There was no need to discuss it with the Premier. It was done, and I agreed with it. It was Mr. Brown's decision, as I said earlier. These people report to Mr. Brown directly — not to me, not to the Premier but to the chief of staff. This was a decision for him to make. He made it. As I said, with regard to severance that was paid, there was advice requested and received from the Public Service Agency.......





*******************

"Hon. G. Collins: Yes, there are. I think there's a regular meeting of the ministerial and executive assistants — I don't know if it happens daily or something like that — on an ongoing basis, and all of them attend.

J. MacPhail: I assume it would be Martyn Brown who would chair those meetings.



Hon. G. Collins: I don't know that, but it wouldn't surprise me.

J. MacPhail: Well, I know it, so I'm not sure why the minister can't answer the question — that he doesn't know it. Everybody here knows that it's Mr. Brown who does those meetings. Honestly, it does seem to be a bit ridiculous that we're pussyfooting around some of these questions....."

*************

"J. MacPhail: Have there been meetings over the course of the last 30 months between Mr. Martyn Brown, Mr. Dave Basi and the minister about House business?

Hon. G. Collins: I can't recall one, although I wouldn't be surprised if there had been one. Mr. Brown heads the public affairs bureau or helps to direct that. He's in charge of the government's overall political agenda as the chief of staff to the Premier. I consult with Martyn Brown fairly regularly about the government's agenda, where we're going and how that might relate to the Legislature......"

******************
 
Skookem1, Kootcoot, Robin, CanadianCanary, Norman, EvilEye, BCMary, and all other Legislature Raids truth-seakers: I humbly offer my warmest regards and never-ending appreciation for your continued diligence on behalf of the people of BC. I am inspired by your commitment and your caring. Thanks, SIG
 
Evil Eye your words are wise:

". . . . yet the powers involved are shielded by the court in ways which we poor peons are not.

I think the whole trial is a done deal and what we are seeing is a mere pantomime, giving the pretense of an honest trail.

Our entire legal system has collapsed in chaos where the rich and wealthy need not fear the law; . . ."


But please be aware, this situation with the total 'political taint' of the justice system in every nook and cranny, including the Public Offices set up to protect the people . . . has been fixed for a long time.

Cast your mind back to the VanderZalm era - no different to today. Same old dirty deals.

The BC Rail trial has just made it more starkly evident to a wider populace.

Ask any citizen who has brought major litigation into the Supreme Court involving government corruption and they will tell you the shifting shands/games are well practiced. The goal post keep changing. There are no rules.

Try to imagine the impact all of this has on private citizens faced with fighting a 'catch 22' . . . . (while guilty government officials have their legal costs paid for by taxpayers) . . . . as you describe, all linkages working in lock step to protect the guilty in highly placed positions connected to BIG vested interests.

Those private citizens gain invaluable insight that only experience can teach; but the raw, brutal pain of seeing this happen before one's eyes, is far beyond what most people would ever understand.

I know well some people whose trials were a "done deal" - fixed by all the tricks of the trade: promotions on the Bench at strategic moments; jury cancellation; Judge switching/ promotions; retirement of government officials; sanitizing evidence inh Judgments written by hand picked Judges of the Club . . . .

. . . blocking down every avenue of recourse from Legislative Committees to the Ombudsman's Office to the police all sliding sideways in silence so they may get their promotions for playing he game heads.

People who have been through the tainted system and survive have much to share; they know that persistence with the truth is an unstoppable force that will succeed and encourage others to keep the focus with powerful intent.

Those people I know have gained a resilience of spirit against corruption that can't be bought.

They see this "chaos" as a breakthrough. It is the time when great change can happen.

It is up to the people to learn; to make the right choices on a bigger level and not to repeat the mistakes of the past that brought disrepute to our government. We must never let it happen again.
 
Interesting wording:

no information regarding any portion of the trial at which the jury is not present

Emphasis mine. Remember the argument about whether or not Justice Bennett was "seized" by the trial, defined by as to whether it had begun or not...and there was that discussion of already having heard witnesses? It was decided by those on high that the trial had not yet begun, such that Justice Bennett might leave without being "relieved" (so 'tis claimed). That she was not yet "seized" by the trial proper.

So anything that began before the trial proper, as defined by the advent of Justice Mackenzie to the case, is by that wording NOT COVERED BY THE BAN.

They can't, or shouldn't, have it both ways. It's not just Hansard that's beyond the ban's reach - by its own terms also beyond its reach are all the evidentiary disclosures and related decisions of the oh-so-lengthy pre-trial hearings. Emphasis on "pre-trial"....or is there a clause in the Criminal Code defining the pre-trial as part of the trial for the purposes of that clause? Or not? If Justice Mackenzie's ban includes the pre-trial, how is that legal if it's not in the Criminal Code?

I mean, she can't write her own version of the Code can she?

Certainly we know sh'es not bee n applying it enough on the many many obvious instances of crminal wrongdoing which have nothing at all do to with Messr Basi, Virk and Basi - except that we might find out a whole lot about hem from those three, indeed.

The ban is not only unjust and obviously political in origin, it is also legally contradictory upon its own terms, even after it was repaired (without comment) after it was first brought down.

I doubt very much it would stand up to the Supreme Court of Canada; or even a BC Court of Appesl (w/wo Justice Bennett doing the undertaking.

Justice Dohm, of course, is - because of the matter of the warrants - is himself before the court (as well as behind it) and potentially part of the case as defined by Defence....and cannot and/or will not comment. And he's probably in Palm Springs anyway.....
 
Skook sez:

" And he's probably in Palm Springs anyway.....

It tends to be pretty hot there at this time of year,being low elevation desert(remember it was Christmas holidays when he was busy signing warrants there). Maybe he should invite Gordo and the Gang down - it would be good practice/conditioning for eternity for this gang of liars and thieves!
They are unlikely to have justice rigged when it comes to the Final Judgement.......whether Martyn Brown can remember anything or not - the big guy upstairs sees and remembers all, or so it is said and the other big guy downstairs loves clientele!

Rumor has it the horned one with a pitchfork also has more lawyers at his disposal than the US Justice Department and the Vatican combined - and the Law Society can't get them an early or ever release!
 
Dante had some interesting quarters for lawyers....but I'd have to go browse the whole Inferno to find the description of their quarters and punishments. Some of course would be found in the bowels of ht Pit, where the Cardinal Sins are dealt their justice.

Imagine being among what you thought was the Righteous, turned out to be among the Damned, as you had used your religion as a vehicle for the commission of sin - avarice, vanity, sloth, malice. That's definitely in the lower levels of the Pit. I think they might be the ones swimming in bubbling excrement (in Dante's vision of the place).

Gimme that old time religion....

There should be ceremonial public punishment of corrupt politicians, as a deterrent to bad behaviour while in office. I'd even say corporal punishment or other public humiliation should be instituted for crimes against the public interest by elected officials. Something old-fashioned, like public floggings, or the stocks.

Somebody out here who I was talking with about BC Rail and BC scandals and the wickedness of politicians in general, and he asked me if I thought Mulroney would ever see a jail cell. I didn't know, I said, or I raelly couldn't answer. He couldn't answer either, and it was really bothering him. That someone could away with such a base crime, deny all, and see no jail time nor even a punishment. Not that just someone could have pulled off what Mulroney had the name and power to do, but it was a sort of crime that an ordinary person would be pilloried for. Glen Clark was pilloried for far less.

The pillory, now there's an idea....
 
.
Another round of applause for Koot and the commentors. It's good to stand back and admire the thoughts posted here.

It's comforting to read these lively ideas and to know that many others are thinking through these issues ... and looking ahead.

I share the feeling that there's "something" we should be doing at this time.

After July 7, Madam MacK. will be declaring a summer holiday; her courtroom will go dark until September.

This gives us about 2 months to do what's necessary ... I like the idea of challenging that cockeyed publication ban ... but not if it becomes another excuse for postponing the trial.

What's our goal? My goal is to hear the facts given under oath as to what happened to BC Rail.

So (I'm just guessing here) ... perhaps our first step could be an application to the court to have the publication ban lifted, in the public interest.

To my way of thinking, lifting the ban would provide for the freer flow of factual information without causing delays in the courtroom.

What do others think?
.
 
Well, yeah, I'm wondering what it would take to get the Canadian Civil Liberties Association to spearhead this. And is it only media conglomerates that have ever challenged publication bans? i.e. do you have to be an "accredited journalist" (LOL) to challenge a publication ban? I wouldnt' think so......

And would such an application be made to the Court of Appeals, or to the Supreme Court of Canada? Because we know it will be turned down by the Supreme Court of British Columbia.....

Do you think it could be made directly, in fact and very pointedly, to Justice Bennett?
 
What I can't understand about this publication ban is that the reporters and others that are present during these "wranglings", by the lawyers/judge, could cause a mistrial if they let slip, by accident, something that was said.

There's even the possibility that those in attendance may inadvertently write something that shouldn't be, within the open court proceeding days that are allowed to be published. Yes, yes, I know they're "professional" but with all the days that have been banned, and the contents not to be published, somethings going to give way here.

If Judge MacKenzie wants to prevent a mistrial from happening under her watch, then she should clear the public gallery every time the "wrangling" goes on, because right now anyone who attends these proceedings in Court room #54 is a cause for a potential disaster to happen.

One other thing, the spectator who caused a halt to the proceedings for almost three days because he said "Hello" to two jurors at Patterson Station in Burnaby, what are the conditions upon which WE, or ANYONE, is permitted to have a conversation with Judge MacKenzie during the trial on the publication ban?

To answer my own question, sort of, I think the Judge is OFF LIMITS, except by the lawyers involved in the BC Rail trial.
 
Wow. I voice my opinion on one small detail of this trial and I'm labeled:

Troll
Nazi-sympathizer
Shit disturber
Ashamed and unable to sleep
Gordo sympathizer...

And this is when the main drive of my post is that I agree with you and support seeking the truth on the BC Rail scandal!

I think we should do it fervently, but rationally and objectively. Mercilessly, but with a degree of politeness in manners that will set us apart from Campbell's arrogance. Apparently I'll find little support for that position here based on the response I received.

Maybe this will help: I think this whole thing stinks to high heaven, that undoubtedly the Campbell government is spinning, lying, manipulating, conspiring, and hiding the truth about this deal. I think the court is being inconsistent and should uphold all the laws to remain impartial and fair. I think Brown should be fired and held in contempt of court for his "memory". I think the appointment of the special prosecutor should be contested, reviewed, appealed; whatever it takes to get the truth. I hope that someone in the court is keeping careful record of the proceedings so that as soon as the jury is sequestered, everything that is under ban can be layed out on the table for the public (or that we can read the court reporter records? Not sure how that works).

However, I do not think that some poor woman who is just doing her job in writing a letter to mr. Mathews should be lambasted for it. Nor do I think that her upholding that law is evidence of conspiracy. Nor do I think that the publication ban in so far as it remains within the confines of 648 and nothing further is evidence of anything except the court doing its job.

Perhaps I'm being overly optimistic, but I view this trial as an opportunity to find some truth rather than an extension of the lies.

It is my opinion that those who have lost their temper have lost their reason. Feel free to continue to call me names for my opinion and I will continue to believe that in doing so, you do far more damage to the cause we both support than I do in requesting that we support it rationally and objectively.
 
We really are in a dictatorship. Campbell is quite open and brazen about it. He and Hitler, have a lot in common. Anyone opposing Campbell and Hansen, find themselves out of a job. Hansen tattled to Campbell, that bad, bad boy Neufeld, wouldn't break the law, and let poor little Hansen send out his useless, HST brochure, that no-one wanted to read. Neufeld was told, he would not be reappointed. What silly little juvenile vendetta's. The BC Rail corruption trial, will be a travesty of justice. The only thing that MAY happen, is the three patsies, could do a little time. It was said, if they kept their mouths shut, they would be looked after. Only in BC, if you can't get anywhere with the horses ass, they say go to the horses mouth. Problem is, in BC you will find the horses ass is, in it's mouth.
 
Review with mary before publication please.

I thought I had sent this info in awhile back, and my comment was not posted, I thought maybe because of the publication ban, and Mary respecting it.(and the Media also, ha ha ha)
APRIL 09,2010
COURT OF APPEAL FOR BRITISH COLUMBIA On September 4, 2008, the appellant, Jasmohan Singh Bains, was convicted by a provincial court judge for conspiracy to traffic in cocaine. The offence occurred between September and December 2003, and spanned the distance from Victoria and Vancouver, B.C. to Toronto, Ontario. On September 11, 2008, Mr. Bains was sentenced to nine years’ imprisonment and ordered to pay a fine of $242,170 in lieu of forfeiture. In default of payment of the fine, Mr. Bains was ordered to serve an additional three years. This appeal is taken from Mr. Bain’s conviction.

Citation:


R. v. Bains,

2010 BCCA 178

Date: 20100409

Docket: CA036491

Jasmohan Singh Bains

On appeal from: Provincial Court of British Columbia, September 4, 2008
(Victoria Docket No. 127870)

HOLY SHITE!!! R Peck?????

Counsel for the Appellant:

R. Peck, Q.C.
J. Campbell

On September 4, 2008, the appellant, Jasmohan Singh Bains, was convicted by a provincial court judge for conspiracy to traffic in cocaine. The offence occurred between September and December 2003, and spanned the distance from Victoria and Vancouver, B.C. to Toronto, Ontario. On September 11, 2008, Mr. Bains was sentenced to nine years’ imprisonment and ordered to pay a fine of $242,170 in lieu of forfeiture. In default of payment of the fine, Mr. Bains was ordered to serve an additional three years. This appeal is taken from Mr. Bain’s conviction.
..... In the result, I am not persuaded the trial judge erred in dismissing the appellant’s s. 11(b) and s. 7 Charter applications. I would dismiss the appeal.

No publication ban was stated on this judgement.
http://www.courts.gov.bc.ca/jdb-txt/CA/10/01/2010BCCA0178.htm
 
Anonymous said...
I started reading this blog with a lot of interest as a concerned resident of BC. However, as the trial is proceeding, I am finding that much of the commentary is descending rapidly into the petty and bitter.


Relax, sit back and enjoy the creativity and common sense of what you see as "hyperbole". Learn to feel the angst of the writers and appreciate the depth of experience and truth behind their words and conclusions.

Everyone's writing in these spaces is not carefully packaged for general consumption and orchestrated spin to appeal to and persuade the naive. Some write to provoke thought, share information and drive home less common and strongly felt points of view.

Where do you think you are anyway? At a mid page in Reader's Digest?

On the other hand if you are just trying to find fault, back off or I will tell your mother on you.
 
Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link



<< Home