Thursday, September 09, 2010
The BC Rail Scandal. "The New Lawlessness". "The Three Brown Men", and an Intentionally Faulty Court Procedure
By Robin Mathews
Thursday, September 9, 2010
An activity similar to a trial process in the BC Rail Scandal criminal accusations will resume on September 13.
Associate Chief Justice Anne MacKenzie will, however, preside over what is tantamount to a theatrical farce. The "three Brown men" accused by a Special Prosecutor who was wrongfully appointed (and who shouldn't be in the courtroom) must see the strange distortion of justice to which they are being subjected - by the full power of the state and the B.C. High Courts - as something much, much more alarming than theatrical farce.
Whatever legitimacy the charges against the three Brown men might (in theory) hold, every scrap of legitimacy disappears in the light of the fact that those charges were formed and put in place by a Special (Crown) Prosecutor appointed in violation of all relevant legislation governing the position he fills.
Canadians should ask themselves what kind of gross indignity is being perpetrated when three men are forced to sit, day after day, in a glass box - especially there for "the accused", in full, open court, hearing argument and evidence about their guilt or innocence when the process they are being subjected to is illegitimate. The judge knows the Special Prosecutor was wrongfully appointed. She knows the Special Prosecutor cannot act in the case with credibility, cannot be fully believed. Nothing can undo his scandalously wrongful appointment ... and his direct relation to the (then) Deputy Attorney General as of the Spring of 2007.
Every responsible power has been informed about the wrongful appointment of Willliam Berardino QC. The last to be informed, by means of Complaint, was the Canadian Judicial Council. Acting for the Council (incidentally, in a Complaint against his fellow Council member B.C. Associate Chief Justice Anne MacKenzie!), Chief Justice Neil Wittmann of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench [Alberta's Supreme Court] , rejected the Complaint. In his rejection he took pains to say he had formed no opinion about the wrongful appointment of Mr. Berardino!
Chief Justice Wittmann chose, I suggest, to make that point clear - that he didn't look at the basis of the Complaint - so that he could not, at any time, be charged with knowing and approving of the wrongful appointment. Dealing with the Complaint to the Canadian Judicial Council, he said, in effect, he would not look at the wrongful appointment of William Berardino as Special Prosecutor. He took that position in the face of the fact that he was dealing with a Complaint that Associate Chief Justice Anne MacKenzie, presiding judge, would not deal with the fact William Berardino was wrongfully appointed and that Mr. Berardino should not be in the courtroom leading the Basi, Virk, and Basi trial.
My Complaint claims that by allowing Mr. Berardino to continue in her court - knowing that he was wrongfully appointed by people [friends?] intimately connected to Gordon Campbell's policies and actions in the BC Rail Scandal - she is involving herself in improper conduct. Chief Justice Neil Wittmann rejected the Complaint - alleging it is not concerned with conduct.
Chief Justice Wittmann is someone with whom I have become familiar. He was in charge of the Calgary Court of Queen's Bench through almost all of what I believe was the slow, measured, torturous, illegitimate destruction of the Kelly Marie Richard dental malpractice case - from about 2002 until very recently.
Possessing evidence of dental malpractice that I judge to be unquestionable (and scientifically recorded), Kelly Marie Richard has been prevented from ever being able to present that evidence in court. The whole, many-years obstruction she faced, I believe, was undertaken to prevent the evidence being fairly weighed. Under Justice Neil Wittmann what I allege was an improper "case management" process was undertaken. By Justice Wittmann's appointment, judge after judge, I allege, furthered the destruction of the Kelly Marie Richard case and the destitution of Ms. Richard and her two sons.
Involved in what I allege was, in fact, the protection of the large corporate insurer against the legitimate case of Kelly Marie Richard and her sons were the RCMP, some judges of the Calgary court of Queen's Bench, the dental professional body of Alberta, and the litigating lawyers for the insurer.
I appealed to the (then) Chief Justice of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, without result. I had a review of the RCMP involvement undertaken by the RCMP. The "internal investigation" was so fraudulent I called upon RCMP Deputy Commissioner R.R. Knecht for remedy. He cut off communication. I appealed to the Canadian Judicial Council whose report I consider a sham. I wrote a letter to every MP in the House of Commons, and was ignored. Stockwell Day, Public Safety Minister, refused to reply to communications. I wrote the present Minister of Justice, asking for a Public Inquiry - and after receiving support letters from many, many people - Rob Nicholson refused. I wrote to every MLA in Alberta, with almost no response, and no action. The Attorney General of Alberta refused - in a very strange correspondence - to act in any way.
If Justice Wittmann did, as I allege, engage in wrongful actions (among many others involved) in the Kelly Marie Richard case, the door was shut tight against any serious investigation or review.
The Kelly Marie Richard case opened my mind to rule by "The New Lawlessness" in Canada. Powerful corporations, in fact, govern the country and bend all institutions of citizen protection to lawless action on behalf of private wealth and power.
I do not believe, for a second, that Stephen Harper is ignorant of the criticisms of Neil Wittmann in the Kelly Marie Richard case. Nonetheless, he raised Wittmann to the position of Chief Justice of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench.
Chief Justice Wittmann responded to the information that William Berardino was appointed wrongfully as, in effect, all other people in relevant relation to the appointment have done.
Is there high-level collusion to protect William Berardino as Special Prosecutor in the Basi, Virk, and Basi case? If so, why?
The Assistant Deputy Attorney General, Robert Gillen, stated to me, falsely I believe, that he couldn't comment on the appointment. The Attorney General of B.C., Michael de Jong, refuses to answer correspondence on the matter. The top judges of the B.C. Supreme court report they had nothing to do with the appointment and will do nothing! The judge on the case, Associate Chief Justice Anne MacKenzie, refuses to reply when re-approached about the matter. Stephen Owen, set up (in conflict of interest I believe) by the Attorney General to review the Special Prosecutor appointment process, refused to reply to my letter giving full information, and he reported in July to the Attorney General without mentioning the facts of the Berardino matter.
Owen may have been influenced by the fact that he consulted one of Mr. Berardino's prosecution team, Janet Winteringham QC. Ms. Winteringham can, doubtless, attest to Mr. Berardino's impeccable character and the faultlessness of the Special Prosecutor appointment process - none of which is relevant in the particular case in question.
As I have written, the three accused 'Brown' men must see the ridiculous 'White' proceedings into which they are locked as something distinctly other than theatrical farce.
Think, too, of the jury members. They are ordinary Canadians in the courtroom, having placed their complete trust in the presiding judge, Associate Chief Justice Anne MacKenzie. Her position of trust requires that she tell the jurors everything they must know to make a fair and honest judgement about the accusations against Basi, Virk, and Basi. But she is knowingly - possessing full knowledge of the wrongful appointment of Mr. Berardino - apparently hiding the fact from the jurors and asking them to conduct their assessment of the charges (Mr. Berardino caused to be laid) and the evidence (Mr. Berardino , in part, caused to be assembled) as if Mr. Berardino was correctly and properly appointed.
Because of his wrongful appointment, and the unfailing support he gets from the powerful, any Canadian may fairly believe Mr. Berardino was put in place to serve the highly political (and, perhaps, criminal) interests of Gordon Campbell and his associates. Any Canadian may believe three Sikhs were settled on to be offered as accused in order to introduce racial stereotyping into the mix in order to provide a smokescreen for Gordon Campbell and his associates in the corrupt transfer of BC Rail to CNR. Many white Canadians, presumably, would accept the stereotyping, believing the three Brown men would "naturally" be criminal, while a white man, Gordon Campbell, would, of course, not stoop to criminal actions.
The minds of reasonable Canadians, I am sure, can barely deal with the facts of this situation.
Add to what I have already written the additional fact that I have been refused journalist status in the case, though I have been reporting on it regularly for nearly four years. Add that the four journalists who refused me accreditation - led by Neal Hall of the Vancouver Sun - refuse to report the wrongful appointment of Mr. Berardino. Add that Associate Chief Justice Anne Mackenzie supports them in their rejection of my application (which would allow me to use a recording device in the courtroom and to examine all documents made 'public' and kept on file in Criminal Registry).
Add that Associate Chief Justice Anne MacKenzie has had her law officer send me application forms for journalistic accreditation so that I may, so to speak, "appeal" the earlier decision. The forms are complicated and bureaucratic and permit the presiding judge to continue to refuse me accreditation. I have no intention of submitting to further insult from the court or its officers on the matter.
Add to those facts a primary one. No journalist should permit himself or herself to be a servant of the court, A journalist who does so places himself or herself in conflict of interest. How can the journalist "please" the court and at the same time grant accreditation to someone the court dislikes? The journalist can't. And so - as in my case - the journalists of the Accreditation Committee declare themselves ready to be perceived as lackeys of the court.
Consider the situation before us. The accused in the BC Rail Scandal case KNOW they are locked in a trial in which the administration of justice is in a state of on-going violation - in order, the accused may fairly believe - to assure their conviction. The jury is locked in a trial in which their trust in the process is complete and is being - unknown to them - betrayed.
And what about Associate Chief Justice Anne MacKenzie? With every additional support she receives from powerful people in responsible positions who refuse to face William Berardino's wrongful appointment, her credibility diminishes. Indeed, as support from powerful people grows, it increases the suspicion that they intend to prevent justice from being done.
Associate Chief Justice Anne MacKenzie came strangely to the position of judge in the Basi, Virk, and Basi case, seemingly propelled there after concerns expressed (as I see things) by Mr. Berardino and then-Associate Chief justice Patrick Dohm.
On surface matters of jury sanctity, court processes, and the rigid (and I believe extreme) publication ban, Associate Chief Justice MacKenzie is a very Lioness guarding the administration of justice. All the more reason that her refusal to deal with the wrongful appointment of William Berardino must lead many reasonable Canadians to believe she is knowingly bringing the administration of justice into disrepute. With what end in view?
Surely the three Brown men accused must wonder at what seems to be her judicial posturing. They must know it denies them a fair trial. And if they think that denial is - even in part - being maintained because of the colour of their skin, who can blame them? And who can say they are wrong?
BCE to buy all of CTV
Click HERE to read a bit more about it ... and it's important news for those hoping to read up on current events ... because I think The Globe and Mail winds up with Woodbridge ... part of the Thomson empire. Not sure, though. Never before have I seen so much gobbledy-gook rhetoric in one small space.
As usual you are both inspiring and depressing. However awareness is the first necessity to correct inequities and eventually he who speaks the truth can no longer be marginalized.
Aside from the obvious ploy to replace a judge who showed every sign of dispensing actual justice, Anna MacKenzie demostrates why she replaced Justice Bennett everyday that the court meets under conditions the public are allowed to know about.
1. How could an impartial judge listen to days and weeks of Martyn Brown suffering from advanced amnesia and never mention the notion he should consider being responsive to the questions or remind him of the penalties applicable to contempt of court.
2. Meanwhile behaviour that suggests at the least the APPEARANCE of attempted jury tampering is brushed off as minor and minimized - though I would be loathe to believe similar behaviour from the defence side wouldn't be subject to severe sanctions.
3. Then after ignoring almost anything less than pulling a gun out in the courtroom and threatening the jury by Wild Bill's team, or Martyn Brown's delicate dance between perjury and non-responsiveness, (in)Justice MacKenzie threatens to eject the defendents and/or their counsel from the courtroom for involuntary eye movements as they inadvertantly respond to the egregious B.S. coming from the witness stand.
Since it is clear that the people of BC aren't being represented by either the Judge or the Oh So Special (and illegitimate) Special Prosecutor, it is great to know that Robin and Citizen Journalist 54, and hopefully others, are gearing up to at least look through the veil that the complicit erstwhile Canned Waste empire not Post (after media died) Media empire try to drape around the most important case this century, if not ever, in BC.
From your post written by Robin, ninth paragraph down with Calgary highlighted....
"Involved in what I allege was, in fact, the protection of the large corporate insurer against the legitimate case of Kelly Marie Richard and her sons were the RCMP, some judges of the Calgary court of Queen's Bench, the dental professional body of Alberta, and the litigating lawyers for the insurer."
AND for the IndiaTimes headline"
"Involved in what I allege was, in fact, the protection of the large corporate insurer against the legitimate case of Kelly Marie Richard and her sons were the RCMP, some judges of the Calgary court of Queen's Bench, the dental professional body of..."
As to why they selected the ninth paragraph, identical throughout ...... ?????
If even a fraction of these stories are true, our judicial system is completely corrupted. If that is the case, we must face the fact that we have already been enslaved by a Totalitarian regime.
Then we will have to consider the fact that other,similar "democracies" have also been compromised. At least the United States and the UK.
Which leads me to the conclusion that all the conspiracy theories about the Bildenberg Group, the Skull and Bones and the New World Order are not only true, but have already come to pass.
We need to organise.
In reading The 2009 Annual Report of the BC Supreme Court - in it they mention that:
"The Honourable Mr Justice Terence A. Schultes was appointed to the Supreme Court at Vancouver on May 15, 2009. Mr Justice Schultes was appointed to fill the vacancy created when the Honourable Madam Justice Elizabeth A. Bennett was appointed to the Court of Appeal"
I remember that we mentioned it once here on BC Mary's blog at the time, then there was the Dohm appointment of Justice Mackenzie to the BBV trial.... why didn't Schultes take over the trial if he was Bennett's replacement - or does it not work like that ?
Unreal. What else can I say?
when Pierre Elliott Trudeau, as justice minister, declared that "the state has no place in the bedrooms of the nation" and that "what's done in private between adults doesn't concern the Criminal Code."
Trudeau's omnibus bill decriminalized sexual behaviour
In this particular case involving a lawyer, now a judge, her husband and another guy, I wonder if Trudeau envisioned that his words of wisdom would be brought up here.
The CBC should never have run with this story.
Whether we like it or not, our private lives and our private actions, do affect our views and judgment. Something we can't afford while judging another from a bench, or being judged by them.
There is no justice in BC.
Is there a presidence?
Come on, lets get this thing to trial, let both sides say their piece and let the Jury decide (it is a jury isnt it?)
Well ... yeah.
The important thing is: What are we going to do about it?
And if you wring your hands and say "There's nothing we can do ... we're doomed!"
then just think that one through a bit farther.
And so it goes that the havoc reined on BC and its assets is not the fault of Campbell and the Liberals. Its the NDP's fault.
As the alternative remains the woefully inept NDP, the liberals will continue to rule.
When a new deck was built for then Premier Clarke, the Fast Ferries Fiasco, the Liberals where able to dismantle the NDP, reducing them to 2 seats.
In spite of all the gaffs, missteps, and disasters thrown at Carol James and the NDP by Campbell and the Liberals, the NDP are and remain clueless.
Think about it. A drunk driving charge, BC Rail, exporting of raw logs, expanding gambling when they said they wouldnt, not sharing gaming revenues as promised, a deficit budget, privitisation of hospital services, the list goes on and on and on and in response the NDP role out a "increase mimimim wage" platform to run the election on.
The reality is, most voters in BC havent the foggiest idea of what good stewardship is. me included.
it was the single most thing that pissed the voters off and opened the door for the bc liberals to waltz in to govern us.
photo radar was a hidden tax, no different in its implementation than that of the hated hst.
get the peoples' backs up and the ability to stay in power is doomed.
I have been at nomination meeting where Brown men like these have showed up with bus loads of non-English speaking members of their community and as a result the complete atmosphere and purpose of the meeting was compromised. A lot of the older members were frightened and others got up and walked out knowing that
the democratic part or the exercise had been corrupted.
Now, to perfectly clear, I don't care whether these people were purple with pink polka dots, this is not the way we as Canadians conduct the democratic process.
One other small tidbit. These three Brown men, as shown in some of the dirty political "tricks"?? they were involved in, would take people like you and me and cheerfully throw us (politically)
under the bus the first chance they got. They all knew full well what they were involved in, they didn't think they would get caught up in the quagmire they helped create.
(2) Defence is correct in arguing that the greater criminals are being hid, and 'the boys', though not small potatoes ARE small potatoes in relation to the ones being protected.
(2) that other more culpible souls lurk matters not that a wrong exists here.
Links to this post: