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:
Quote:
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
Criminal
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.
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:
Quote:
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
Criminal
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").
The Criminal Code of Canada has something to say about it, too:
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.
"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
Comments:
<< Home
stop with the MADNESS!!
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!!!
CAL
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!!!
CAL
# posted by 
: November 17, 2010 at 3:39 p.m.
: November 17, 2010 at 3:39 p.m.
Would it be reasonable to assume that somewhere along the line all these documents passed through the hands of honest people who made copies for future reference or as a back up in case the originals had an 'accident'?
# posted by : November 17, 2010 at 3:39 p.m.
: November 17, 2010 at 3:39 p.m.
CAL,
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.
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.
BC MAry, there is not going to be any inquiry. The NDP will not call for one, and the Fiberals wont have one done either.
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!
CAL
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!
CAL
# posted by : November 17, 2010 at 4:32 p.m.
: November 17, 2010 at 4:32 p.m.
I would agree with keeping the evidence for say 50 years, with the proviso that those wire taps are kept as well.
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.
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.
# posted by : November 17, 2010 at 4:58 p.m.
: November 17, 2010 at 4:58 p.m.
If the RCMP are the ones who destroy said evidence, shouldn't they be the ones investigated and charged?
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.
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.
I've thought about the Civil Court as a means to at least get at the truth. Probably very expensive when we have to pay twice. Could we launch a civil suit and subpoena witnesses to provide all the documents in their possession as material evidence to the criminality and breach of trust in the sale of BCRail.
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.
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.
# posted by : November 17, 2010 at 6:22 p.m.
: November 17, 2010 at 6:22 p.m.
Cal doth protest too loudly, and too strongly to be taken seriously. Or perhaps there's another reason for his vehemence?
# posted by : November 17, 2010 at 6:43 p.m.
: November 17, 2010 at 6:43 p.m.
Rick,
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.
Good luck.
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.
Good luck.
Skookum, it appears you agree with me. I dont beleive the NDP will do the inguiry thing either, they havent made any political hay out of this, really.
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 ... ?
CAL
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 ... ?
CAL
# posted by : November 18, 2010 at 4:57 a.m.
: November 18, 2010 at 4:57 a.m.
I've lost count on how many times Bill Bennett used the word "truth" in his tape recorded interview with the press yesterday. It was enough times, by way of examples he gave that he was more than willing to tell the truth, which begs the question as to why the msm never asked MLA Bill Bennett, who was elected in 2001, what he knew of the Sale of BC Rail.
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.
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.
I had thought, the RCMP were asked to do a further investigation of, Campbell's corrupt sale of the BCR, they refused to do so. Why are they sticking their unwelcome noses in now? Is it any wonder, BC people don't want the RCMP as an icon for Canada. Craig James has the RCMP investigating seven citizens, that have supposedly signed duplicate signatures, on the fight HST petition. One was an elderly lady in her eighties. She was so terrorized and afraid, she said, she will never sign anything to do with this government ever again. Shame on Craig James and the RCMP, for scaring the elderly. This must be the BC Liberals and the RCMP's finest hour.
Post a Comment
# posted by : November 19, 2010 at 9:51 a.m.
: November 19, 2010 at 9:51 a.m. << Home
