Wednesday, November 17, 2010
BC Rail Political Corruption: Destruction of evidence carries a presumption that the evidence destroyed would have been unfavourable to the party who destroyed it
British Columbia can't afford to disregard what Dave Basi said about his battle to prevent the RCMP from pressuring the Defence to surrender all documents relating to the BC Rail Political Corruption trial. The RCMP purpose is allegedly to destroy the documents.
The fact is: this evidence is the foundation of a Public Inquiry. It may also demonstrate beyond reasonable doubt that the premier of British Columbia, the Minister of Finance, and the Minister of Transportation were allegedly responsible for the decision and the negotiations undertaken to "sell" BC Rail.
Not the RCMP, not the Special Prosecutor, no one is entitled to seize and destroy vital evidence which has the power to shape and/or correct the future progress of the Province.
There's no accommodation for anyone of evil intent to blunder in, do the damage, and then pretend "Oops, sorry!" After 7 years of watching this travesty unfold, many BC Citizens are able to identify the criminal minds at work.
It is entirely possible that, if the Special Prosecutor is finally acknowledged as having been improperly appointed, then not only will the trial collapse of its own rot, but it could also mean that the charges against Basi, Virk, and Basi will be stayed as well.
Law Society of British Columbia has something to say about the destruction of evidence:
Suggested minimum Retention and Disposition Schedule for Specific Documents and Files ...
"Factors such as the complexity of a matter may require a longer retention period than [the following] schedule suggests ..."
Closed Files - Retention and Disposition
Prosecution: 6 years after completion of sentence
Defence : 6 years after completion of sentencing and appeal proceedings (unless strong possibility client has been "wrongfully convicted").
Canadian courts have long recognized that the destruction or “spoliation” of
evidence carries a presumption that the evidence destroyed would have
been unfavourable to the party who destroyed it ...
This evidential principle, also known as the Latin maxim omnia
praesumuntur contra spoliatorem (“all things are presumed against the
despoiler or wrongdoer”), was described by the Mr. Justice Duff of the
Supreme Court of Canada almost a century ago ...
It can safely be said that if the documentary evidence from the BC Rail Political Corruption Trial comes under actual assault by whatever authority, that authority is automatically presumed Guilty of the tainted and probably illegal sale of British Columbia Railway.
Dave Basi is no protector of information. He is a convicted criminal who plead guilty rather than have the wire tap evidence played for all ears.
Quit perverting the truth, and quit giving this criminal a soap box!!!
Peel yourself off the ceiling for half a minute,
and read what I wrote.
It's not about Dave Basi. It's about the destruction of documents.
Those documents are part of BC history. Those documents are needed for the Public Inquiry. Those documents could very likely tell us exactly who negotiated the sale of BC Rail.
And about BC Rail.
Cripes, get a grip.
No one wants to hear the wire tap evidence, or the Collins cross examined than me.
But to play into Basi's game that he is somehow wanting the truth to come out is just plain naive.
Basi is a crook and a waste of time. Lets not even mention his name again!
What kind of country do we live in where when someone is convicted the public is denied the chance to look at the evidence.
Somebody should take the Liberal party to civil court to return the things they stole. That would get the evidence out in the open.
Problem is, by who? The Complaints Commissioner? The federal Solicitor-General? CSIS? Little Bo Peep?
And anonymous above, people like you are tiresome; you want to shove it all into the garbage can along with where you're shoving Dave Basi. We've heard it all before, and those of us who've followed this a long time know that while Dave Basi is now a convicted criminal, he is by comparison a petty criminal compared to those who pulled the string - and those would would destroy the evidence of their own wrongdoing.
The NDP have had no spine at all through all of this, I see no reason why we should expect a proper inquiry from them, either.
In the meantime could we file for an injunction prohibiting the destruction of any documents relating to the sale of BCRail until after the civil suit has been heard.
These are good ideas which, if BC had a realistic Opposition, you could take to the Opposition Justice Critic and see if he's working on that kind of protest.
I find him to be useless even as an ornament, but maybe you'd have better luck. His name is Leonard Krog. This should be the exact thing a Justice Critic ought to be working on.
There was a CIVIL trial in the OJ case. Someone with deap pockets has to launch it, I would think. Perhaps CP Rail?
Why the tone as if you dont agre with my post? You and I appear to be singing from the same sheet ... ?
Here's a former Minister of Gordon Campbell's cabinet spilling every answer to the questions posed by the msm and not one of them popped the question on the recently "concluded" BC Rail deal which brought about the ensuing wrath that forced Campbell to go on TV to plea bargain with voter personal income tax. He offered us money, our own money, in exchange for us to "like him". We didn't then, we still don't now.
Is it too late for someone to ask Bill Bennett? He said he's tired of all the bullshit, well, the public has put up with the bullshit from the BC Liberals since the raid on the Legislature. Its time for the truth, to come freely, without our treasury having Deputy Ministers squander another $1.
There's a phrase that Bill Bennett used over and over again, something called the "no surprises" rule. You'd think that two Deputy Ministers sitting down with full access to BC Government Treasury writing a cheque, worth $6 million dollars in exchange for guilty pleas from David Basi and Bobby Virk wouldn't been seen as a violation of the NO SURPRISES RULE.
Sure like to know of other rules that these elected officials, these Ministers of the Crown, this Premier, adhere to when it suits them.
Links to this post: