Monday, November 15, 2010
The strange morning of Nov. 15, 2010 in BC Supreme Court. Dave Basi is there, alone, to be punished.
.
By Robin Mathews
November 15, 2010
The day began almost as if a regular day in the Basi, Virk, and Basi trial. The judge was fifteen minutes late entering the courtroom.
Surprises happened. One of the first was the presence of a solid wall of glass between the gallery and the courtroom proper. It was, apparently, a stacking of accused boxes the Supreme Court System can find nowhere else to store. Most of the assembled people in the gallery (about ten) were press and media. At each end of the wall of glass was a small passage for exit and entry to the courtroom proper from the gallery section.
The rest of the assembled group seemed to think nothing of the obstruction, always being wonderfully able to adapt to changes in the availability of access to court proceedings (and records). I was alarmed. We were present at a continuation of the most important criminal trial involving public matters in British Columbia history. And the store of accused boxes couldn't be pushed to the side to afford the gallery unimpeded sight and sound of matters being conducted in the courtroom.
The people in the gallery (however ill-chosen) represented the people of British Columbia. The Supreme Court of British Columbia seemed to be saying (again) it considers the people of the province worth ... nothing.
The next surprise was that the wrongfully appointed Special Prosecutor was not in the room. Two of his "team", Janet Winteringham and Andrea MacKay, carried the prosecution load. Ms. MacKay reported the terrible breach of terms by Dave Basi of the shabby deal that ended the illegitimate trial. Dave Basi had allowed himself, the day after trial ended, to be interviewed. He was punished for that by having to wear an electronic device for six months and having to review each coming week with his 'keeper'.
That, of course, opens the question of free expression in a democratic society. I suspect the part of the 'deal' denying the accused their right of free expression is unacceptable. It is as if the court wishes to keep the convicted from speaking for fear they will incriminate their superiors - or why else was the trial shut down in a shabby and disreputable fashion just as the faces of the present Campbell Liberal government and its noxious friends began to be fully exposed to the public?
Another surprise that happened seemed to be wholly off-centre - but it, too, suggests the government in power wants to bury as much of the BC Rail Scandal as fast as it can. Again (as hinted in another, earlier, report) word ran through the hallways that there will be a move by the cabinet (probably masked as a move by the RCMP) to get all documents out of any hands which may be properly described as "public".
Indeed, outside the Law Courts the massed media waiting to hear from Bill Vanderzalm and his team about the HST and the Recall Campaign, found themselves (willingly) addressed by Michael Geoghegan, a consultant from Victoria. Describing himself as a concerned citizen and a friend of Dave Basi and a card-carrying member of the Liberal Party, Mr. Geoghegan stated his belief that there was going to be a grab ... by government ...for the evidentiary documentation produced in the process of the pre-trial and trial processes.
Mr. Geoghegan said that the material should stay in hands that can make it available to a Public Inquiry - or for any other reasonable use to which the public wants it put.
In my reports and analyses I have long reported my belief that the RCMP conducted an unacceptable investigation, and that it - with the assistance of the wrongly appointed Special Prosecutor - curtailed the range of people charged. I have long said it is my belief that a full and fair investigation of Gordon Campbell and his associates in the corrupt transfer of BC Rail to the CNR would eventuate in criminal charges against some. I have long said the actions of the cabinet involved with BC Rail were in breach of trust. I formally asked RCMP Deputy Commissioner Gary Bass to undertake a criminal investigation of the chief actors in the BC Rail Scandal ... and he refused.
If what I have alleged is so, then anxiety by the RCMP and the present cabinet to get all evidentiary material in its complete control makes perfect sense. Such a desire to get the material in its control - if the material reveals nothing but innocence in all directions - would seem to be a waste of time. Wouldn't it?
Significant comment by N.V.G., cross-posted:
R. v. Stinchcombe, [1991] 3 S.C.R. 326
"The Crown has a legal duty to disclose all relevant information to the defense. The fruits of the investigation which are in its possession are not the property of the Crown for use in securing a conviction but the property of the public to be used to ensure that justice is done."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R._v._Stinchcombe
=======================================
"The Crown has a legal duty to disclose all relevant information to the defence. The fruits of the investigation which are in its possession are not the property of the Crown for use in securing a conviction but the property of the public to be used to ensure that justice is done. The obligation to disclose is subject to a discretion with respect to the withholding of information and to the timing and manner of disclosure. Crown counsel has a duty to respect the rules of privilege and to protect the identity of informers. A discretion must also be exercised with respect to the relevance of information. The Crown's discretion is reviewable by the trial judge, who should be guided by the general principle that information should not be withheld if there is a reasonable possibility that this will impair the right of the accused to make full answer and defence. The absolute withholding of information which is relevant to the defence can only be justified on the basis of the existence of a legal privilege which excludes the information from disclosure. This privilege is reviewable, however, on the ground that it is not a reasonable limit on the right to make full answer and defence in a particular case."
Supreme Court of Canada
http://scc.lexum.umontreal.ca/en/1991/1991scr3-326/1991scr3-326.html
May 2; 1991: November 7
snip
"It cannot be over-emphasized that the purpose of a criminal prosecution is not to obtain a conviction, it is to lay before a jury what the Crown considers to be credible evidence relevant to what is alleged to be a crime. Counsel have a duty to see that all available legal proof of the facts is presented: it should be done firmly and pressed to its legitimate strength but it must also be done fairly. The role of prosecutor excludes any notion of winning or losing; his function is a matter of public duty than which in civil life there can be none charged with greater personal responsibility. It is to be efficiently performed with an ingrained sense of the dignity, the seriousness and the justness of judicial proceedings."
Sort of makes one wonder why the Special Prosecutor delayed the trial be two years by going to the Supreme Court of Canada... to protect the informer's identity.
Comment by Chinese Sneakers cross-posted:
If you want the essential documents for this case, ones among us are going to have to resolve to go down there and physically get hold of them. Form a human chain and surround the "Project Room", then go live from there on in. It's the only way we are ever going to know what happened. Because there are too many powerful interests with far too much to lose should the truth of matters begin revealling itself in public. How apocalyptic that would be--you can imagine, no?
But, if one were looking forward favourably, you might hope for the formation of local safety committees and a commission, say, that would have the documents taken to the floor of BC Place. Where they'd be meticulously laid out in preparation for the difficult phase of actually reading through the extensive records--in order to disclose...whatever...may be found there.
The more difficult question is whether or not we have the courage to even begin to dare to find out, knowing as we do that, if we do go there, all bets are off and anything could happen.
I'll leave that decision with finer minds.
Cheers.
By Robin Mathews
November 15, 2010
The day began almost as if a regular day in the Basi, Virk, and Basi trial. The judge was fifteen minutes late entering the courtroom.
Surprises happened. One of the first was the presence of a solid wall of glass between the gallery and the courtroom proper. It was, apparently, a stacking of accused boxes the Supreme Court System can find nowhere else to store. Most of the assembled people in the gallery (about ten) were press and media. At each end of the wall of glass was a small passage for exit and entry to the courtroom proper from the gallery section.
The rest of the assembled group seemed to think nothing of the obstruction, always being wonderfully able to adapt to changes in the availability of access to court proceedings (and records). I was alarmed. We were present at a continuation of the most important criminal trial involving public matters in British Columbia history. And the store of accused boxes couldn't be pushed to the side to afford the gallery unimpeded sight and sound of matters being conducted in the courtroom.
The people in the gallery (however ill-chosen) represented the people of British Columbia. The Supreme Court of British Columbia seemed to be saying (again) it considers the people of the province worth ... nothing.
The next surprise was that the wrongfully appointed Special Prosecutor was not in the room. Two of his "team", Janet Winteringham and Andrea MacKay, carried the prosecution load. Ms. MacKay reported the terrible breach of terms by Dave Basi of the shabby deal that ended the illegitimate trial. Dave Basi had allowed himself, the day after trial ended, to be interviewed. He was punished for that by having to wear an electronic device for six months and having to review each coming week with his 'keeper'.
That, of course, opens the question of free expression in a democratic society. I suspect the part of the 'deal' denying the accused their right of free expression is unacceptable. It is as if the court wishes to keep the convicted from speaking for fear they will incriminate their superiors - or why else was the trial shut down in a shabby and disreputable fashion just as the faces of the present Campbell Liberal government and its noxious friends began to be fully exposed to the public?
Another surprise that happened seemed to be wholly off-centre - but it, too, suggests the government in power wants to bury as much of the BC Rail Scandal as fast as it can. Again (as hinted in another, earlier, report) word ran through the hallways that there will be a move by the cabinet (probably masked as a move by the RCMP) to get all documents out of any hands which may be properly described as "public".
Indeed, outside the Law Courts the massed media waiting to hear from Bill Vanderzalm and his team about the HST and the Recall Campaign, found themselves (willingly) addressed by Michael Geoghegan, a consultant from Victoria. Describing himself as a concerned citizen and a friend of Dave Basi and a card-carrying member of the Liberal Party, Mr. Geoghegan stated his belief that there was going to be a grab ... by government ...for the evidentiary documentation produced in the process of the pre-trial and trial processes.
Mr. Geoghegan said that the material should stay in hands that can make it available to a Public Inquiry - or for any other reasonable use to which the public wants it put.
In my reports and analyses I have long reported my belief that the RCMP conducted an unacceptable investigation, and that it - with the assistance of the wrongly appointed Special Prosecutor - curtailed the range of people charged. I have long said it is my belief that a full and fair investigation of Gordon Campbell and his associates in the corrupt transfer of BC Rail to the CNR would eventuate in criminal charges against some. I have long said the actions of the cabinet involved with BC Rail were in breach of trust. I formally asked RCMP Deputy Commissioner Gary Bass to undertake a criminal investigation of the chief actors in the BC Rail Scandal ... and he refused.
If what I have alleged is so, then anxiety by the RCMP and the present cabinet to get all evidentiary material in its complete control makes perfect sense. Such a desire to get the material in its control - if the material reveals nothing but innocence in all directions - would seem to be a waste of time. Wouldn't it?
""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
BC Mary comment: Thank you, Robin. We must indeed find ways in which to safeguard the documents which appear at this juncture to be our only means of finding out how BC Rail slid from public ownership into private pockets.
""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
Significant comment by N.V.G., cross-posted:
R. v. Stinchcombe, [1991] 3 S.C.R. 326
"The Crown has a legal duty to disclose all relevant information to the defense. The fruits of the investigation which are in its possession are not the property of the Crown for use in securing a conviction but the property of the public to be used to ensure that justice is done."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R._v._Stinchcombe
=======================================
"The Crown has a legal duty to disclose all relevant information to the defence. The fruits of the investigation which are in its possession are not the property of the Crown for use in securing a conviction but the property of the public to be used to ensure that justice is done. The obligation to disclose is subject to a discretion with respect to the withholding of information and to the timing and manner of disclosure. Crown counsel has a duty to respect the rules of privilege and to protect the identity of informers. A discretion must also be exercised with respect to the relevance of information. The Crown's discretion is reviewable by the trial judge, who should be guided by the general principle that information should not be withheld if there is a reasonable possibility that this will impair the right of the accused to make full answer and defence. The absolute withholding of information which is relevant to the defence can only be justified on the basis of the existence of a legal privilege which excludes the information from disclosure. This privilege is reviewable, however, on the ground that it is not a reasonable limit on the right to make full answer and defence in a particular case."
Supreme Court of Canada
http://scc.lexum.umontreal.ca/en/1991/1991scr3-326/1991scr3-326.html
May 2; 1991: November 7
snip
"It cannot be over-emphasized that the purpose of a criminal prosecution is not to obtain a conviction, it is to lay before a jury what the Crown considers to be credible evidence relevant to what is alleged to be a crime. Counsel have a duty to see that all available legal proof of the facts is presented: it should be done firmly and pressed to its legitimate strength but it must also be done fairly. The role of prosecutor excludes any notion of winning or losing; his function is a matter of public duty than which in civil life there can be none charged with greater personal responsibility. It is to be efficiently performed with an ingrained sense of the dignity, the seriousness and the justness of judicial proceedings."
Sort of makes one wonder why the Special Prosecutor delayed the trial be two years by going to the Supreme Court of Canada... to protect the informer's identity.
"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
Comment by Chinese Sneakers cross-posted:
If you want the essential documents for this case, ones among us are going to have to resolve to go down there and physically get hold of them. Form a human chain and surround the "Project Room", then go live from there on in. It's the only way we are ever going to know what happened. Because there are too many powerful interests with far too much to lose should the truth of matters begin revealling itself in public. How apocalyptic that would be--you can imagine, no?
But, if one were looking forward favourably, you might hope for the formation of local safety committees and a commission, say, that would have the documents taken to the floor of BC Place. Where they'd be meticulously laid out in preparation for the difficult phase of actually reading through the extensive records--in order to disclose...whatever...may be found there.
The more difficult question is whether or not we have the courage to even begin to dare to find out, knowing as we do that, if we do go there, all bets are off and anything could happen.
I'll leave that decision with finer minds.
Cheers.
""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
Comments:
<< Home
Thanks, Robin.
I have thought for a long time now that the raid on the legislature, that historic showboat removal of all those boxes of documents from our legislature, was never for the purpose of investigation, but for the purpose of removing masses of information both from public access and scrutiny, and more importantly, 'from the possibility of further/deeper investigation'.
When the scope and range of the documents is so large, involving so many ministries, how do you prevent the possibility of such a massive amount of documents from being leaked, or from them being intentionally, or unintentionally being released via FOI requests that are difficult to control at every level? When there are such massive numbers of documents, many that could be revealing.....incriminating... How do you control them from 'inadvertent' or intentional discovery inside the legislative offices?
You remove them all....via a raid.
So they can be controlled and vetted outside of the public 'confines' of potential public access.
And the tight control over those documents is continuing, seven years later.
When you follow the course of those documents, how, where and who vetted them, where some missing computers landed, and how information became redacted, deleted or lost, Robin's following question becomes an excellent one - because why so much ado about 'nothing', unless nothing is something?:
"If what I have alleged is so, then anxiety by the RCMP and the present cabinet to get all evidentiary material in its complete control makes perfect sense. Such a desire to get the material in its control - if the material reveals nothing but innocence in all directions - would seem to be a waste of time. Wouldn't it?"
I have thought for a long time now that the raid on the legislature, that historic showboat removal of all those boxes of documents from our legislature, was never for the purpose of investigation, but for the purpose of removing masses of information both from public access and scrutiny, and more importantly, 'from the possibility of further/deeper investigation'.
When the scope and range of the documents is so large, involving so many ministries, how do you prevent the possibility of such a massive amount of documents from being leaked, or from them being intentionally, or unintentionally being released via FOI requests that are difficult to control at every level? When there are such massive numbers of documents, many that could be revealing.....incriminating... How do you control them from 'inadvertent' or intentional discovery inside the legislative offices?
You remove them all....via a raid.
So they can be controlled and vetted outside of the public 'confines' of potential public access.
And the tight control over those documents is continuing, seven years later.
When you follow the course of those documents, how, where and who vetted them, where some missing computers landed, and how information became redacted, deleted or lost, Robin's following question becomes an excellent one - because why so much ado about 'nothing', unless nothing is something?:
"If what I have alleged is so, then anxiety by the RCMP and the present cabinet to get all evidentiary material in its complete control makes perfect sense. Such a desire to get the material in its control - if the material reveals nothing but innocence in all directions - would seem to be a waste of time. Wouldn't it?"
# posted by 
: November 15, 2010 at 6:31 p.m.
: November 15, 2010 at 6:31 p.m.
Lynx, I think you are onto something with your analysis. If memory serves me correct, it was Rich Coleman that gave the RCMP the okay to carry out the raid. It also enabled Gordo & Co. to answer no questions regarding BC Rail because it was "BEFORE THE COURTS".
# posted by : November 15, 2010 at 8:07 p.m.
: November 15, 2010 at 8:07 p.m.
Robin Mathews, thank you.
Without you, there would be no reporting of the BC Rail Government Corruption Trial.
And Lynx, take heart. Someone somewhere, somehow, one day will leak, or break, or like someone did to the 86 year-old Mafia Don in Montreal last week, put a bullet through it.
One day, the truth will out. It always does.
Trailing through the mainstream media stories today, I'm struck by how they sure know how to butcher trees, pixels and airwaves for virtually no "story" and absolutely no enlightenment of the public. Shame on you all MSM.
Without you, there would be no reporting of the BC Rail Government Corruption Trial.
And Lynx, take heart. Someone somewhere, somehow, one day will leak, or break, or like someone did to the 86 year-old Mafia Don in Montreal last week, put a bullet through it.
One day, the truth will out. It always does.
Trailing through the mainstream media stories today, I'm struck by how they sure know how to butcher trees, pixels and airwaves for virtually no "story" and absolutely no enlightenment of the public. Shame on you all MSM.
# posted by : November 15, 2010 at 11:02 p.m.
: November 15, 2010 at 11:02 p.m.
"Give another interview and we'll clap you in irons"
Dave Basi is the horse's mouth, and quite frankly I want to hear this horse sing grand opera. I don't want the media's access to Basi, or Basi's to the media, controlled by the judge who allowed a dirty deal to get cut by a prosecutor who should never have been appointed after she had re-introduced a publication ban meant solely to keep the public from knowing anything. "House arrest" is not supposed to limit those you're talking to, other than former partners in crime....and if you want to have CBC in for a chat in the kitchen, that's not violating the terms (unless "thou shalt not talk to the media" is in either the wording of the sentencing, or in the wording of the secret deal cut with Berardino).
This is starting to remind me of Jack Cram (well, it has for a while now...). "Exercise your right to speak and we will punish you severely). In Cram's case it was electroshock and forced medication and being hauled in court in chains and made to apologize for daring to say that BC courts were corrupt.
Consider: if he violates the bracelets, what's next? Probably a little trip into Matsqui or Kent where they'll let the real criminals do their work for them (beatings, rapes, drug addiction).
Next time some patriot spews off about Canada being a free country.....laugh in their face.
Dave Basi is the horse's mouth, and quite frankly I want to hear this horse sing grand opera. I don't want the media's access to Basi, or Basi's to the media, controlled by the judge who allowed a dirty deal to get cut by a prosecutor who should never have been appointed after she had re-introduced a publication ban meant solely to keep the public from knowing anything. "House arrest" is not supposed to limit those you're talking to, other than former partners in crime....and if you want to have CBC in for a chat in the kitchen, that's not violating the terms (unless "thou shalt not talk to the media" is in either the wording of the sentencing, or in the wording of the secret deal cut with Berardino).
This is starting to remind me of Jack Cram (well, it has for a while now...). "Exercise your right to speak and we will punish you severely). In Cram's case it was electroshock and forced medication and being hauled in court in chains and made to apologize for daring to say that BC courts were corrupt.
Consider: if he violates the bracelets, what's next? Probably a little trip into Matsqui or Kent where they'll let the real criminals do their work for them (beatings, rapes, drug addiction).
Next time some patriot spews off about Canada being a free country.....laugh in their face.
Lynx
Thanks for turning the lights on...I think you`re right on..
btc
Thanks for turning the lights on...I think you`re right on..
btc
# posted by : November 16, 2010 at 10:36 a.m.
: November 16, 2010 at 10:36 a.m.
Isn't it time BC and Canada had actual Laws in place, as they do in much of the world, for the preservation of significant historical records and other objects? For History to be summarily liquidated like the assets of a public utility is infinitely more evil than the mere work of innocent fools. A culture which is mired in a vast sea of outrageous lies, deceptions, and political sociopathy destroys its very future when it destroys its "books". Canadian Canary is right. The desperate purges of this contemporary inquisition will be talked about for a long, long time to come. Does the name Torquemada ring a bell?
# posted by : November 16, 2010 at 10:52 a.m.
: November 16, 2010 at 10:52 a.m.
How to safeguard the documents? You are all enlightened here, thanks to BC Mary and Robin. I wonder where Mr. Cram is now?
Nope, although the name Torquemada sounded familiar, it rang no bells. So I looked it up.
Tomás de (1420-1498) M, Spanish, RELIGION: monk, POLITICS: Inquisitor-General) Tomás de (toˈmas de). 1420-98, Spanish Dominican monk. As first Inquisitor-General of Spain (1483-98), he was responsible for the burning of some 2000 heretics.
Hmmm.
jota c, Victoria: much as I dislike Gordon M. Campbell and all the harm he has done to British Columbia, I'm apparently not hearing the same bell ringing as you hear. Would you care to explain a bit more?
.
Tomás de (1420-1498) M, Spanish, RELIGION: monk, POLITICS: Inquisitor-General) Tomás de (toˈmas de). 1420-98, Spanish Dominican monk. As first Inquisitor-General of Spain (1483-98), he was responsible for the burning of some 2000 heretics.
Hmmm.
jota c, Victoria: much as I dislike Gordon M. Campbell and all the harm he has done to British Columbia, I'm apparently not hearing the same bell ringing as you hear. Would you care to explain a bit more?
.
Sorry Mary, should be using paragraphs.
How to safeguard the documents? I asked this question at Joseph Arvay's law firm website. Waiting for a reply.
The rest was less important. Sorry for the ambiguity.
How to safeguard the documents? I asked this question at Joseph Arvay's law firm website. Waiting for a reply.
The rest was less important. Sorry for the ambiguity.
R. v. Stinchcombe, [1991] 3 S.C.R. 326
"The Crown has a legal duty to disclose all relevant information to the defense. The fruits of the investigation which are in its possession are not the property of the Crown for use in securing a conviction but the property of the public to be used to ensure that justice is done."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R._v._Stinchcombe
=======================================
"The Crown has a legal duty to disclose all relevant information to the defence. The fruits of the investigation which are in its possession are not the property of the Crown for use in securing a conviction but the property of the public to be used to ensure that justice is done. The obligation to disclose is subject to a discretion with respect to the withholding of information and to the timing and manner of disclosure. Crown counsel has a duty to respect the rules of privilege and to protect the identity of informers. A discretion must also be exercised with respect to the relevance of information. The Crown's discretion is reviewable by the trial judge, who should be guided by the general principle that information should not be withheld if there is a reasonable possibility that this will impair the right of the accused to make full answer and defence. The absolute withholding of information which is relevant to the defence can only be justified on the basis of the existence of a legal privilege which excludes the information from disclosure. This privilege is reviewable, however, on the ground that it is not a reasonable limit on the right to make full answer and defence in a particular case."
Supreme Court of Canada
http://scc.lexum.umontreal.ca/en/1991/1991scr3-326/1991scr3-326.html
May 2; 1991: November 7
snip
"It cannot be over-emphasized that the purpose of a criminal prosecution is not to obtain a conviction, it is to lay before a jury what the Crown considers to be credible evidence relevant to what is alleged to be a crime. Counsel have a duty to see that all available legal proof of the facts is presented: it should be done firmly and pressed to its legitimate strength but it must also be done fairly. The role of prosecutor excludes any notion of winning or losing; his function is a matter of public duty than which in civil life there can be none charged with greater personal responsibility. It is to be efficiently performed with an ingrained sense of the dignity, the seriousness and the justness of judicial proceedings."
Sort of makes one wonder why the Special Prosecutor delayed the trial be two years by going to the Supreme Court of Canada... to protect the informer's identity.
"The Crown has a legal duty to disclose all relevant information to the defense. The fruits of the investigation which are in its possession are not the property of the Crown for use in securing a conviction but the property of the public to be used to ensure that justice is done."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R._v._Stinchcombe
=======================================
"The Crown has a legal duty to disclose all relevant information to the defence. The fruits of the investigation which are in its possession are not the property of the Crown for use in securing a conviction but the property of the public to be used to ensure that justice is done. The obligation to disclose is subject to a discretion with respect to the withholding of information and to the timing and manner of disclosure. Crown counsel has a duty to respect the rules of privilege and to protect the identity of informers. A discretion must also be exercised with respect to the relevance of information. The Crown's discretion is reviewable by the trial judge, who should be guided by the general principle that information should not be withheld if there is a reasonable possibility that this will impair the right of the accused to make full answer and defence. The absolute withholding of information which is relevant to the defence can only be justified on the basis of the existence of a legal privilege which excludes the information from disclosure. This privilege is reviewable, however, on the ground that it is not a reasonable limit on the right to make full answer and defence in a particular case."
Supreme Court of Canada
http://scc.lexum.umontreal.ca/en/1991/1991scr3-326/1991scr3-326.html
May 2; 1991: November 7
snip
"It cannot be over-emphasized that the purpose of a criminal prosecution is not to obtain a conviction, it is to lay before a jury what the Crown considers to be credible evidence relevant to what is alleged to be a crime. Counsel have a duty to see that all available legal proof of the facts is presented: it should be done firmly and pressed to its legitimate strength but it must also be done fairly. The role of prosecutor excludes any notion of winning or losing; his function is a matter of public duty than which in civil life there can be none charged with greater personal responsibility. It is to be efficiently performed with an ingrained sense of the dignity, the seriousness and the justness of judicial proceedings."
Sort of makes one wonder why the Special Prosecutor delayed the trial be two years by going to the Supreme Court of Canada... to protect the informer's identity.
If you want the essential documents for this case, ones among us are going to have to resolve to go down there and physically get hold of them. Form a human chain and surround the "Project Room", then go live from there on in. It's the only way we are ever going to know what happened. Because there are too many powerful interests with far too much to lose should the truth of matters begin revealling itself in public. How apocalyptic that would be--you can imagine, no?
But, if one were looking forward favourably, you might hope for the formation of local safety committees and a commission, say, that would have the documents taken to the floor of BC Place. Where they'd be meticulously laid out in preparation for the difficult phase of actually reading through the extensive records--in order to disclose...whatever...may be found there.
The more difficult question is whether or not we have the courage to even begin to dare to find out, knowing as we do that, if we do go there, all bets are off and anything could happen.
I'll leave that decision with finer minds.
Cheers.
But, if one were looking forward favourably, you might hope for the formation of local safety committees and a commission, say, that would have the documents taken to the floor of BC Place. Where they'd be meticulously laid out in preparation for the difficult phase of actually reading through the extensive records--in order to disclose...whatever...may be found there.
The more difficult question is whether or not we have the courage to even begin to dare to find out, knowing as we do that, if we do go there, all bets are off and anything could happen.
I'll leave that decision with finer minds.
Cheers.
# posted by : November 16, 2010 at 4:45 p.m.
: November 16, 2010 at 4:45 p.m.
When I read Robin's piece, especially the part about the walled fortress
of documents - it was quite symbolic, I thought, of the whole proceedings for the last seven years - how the documents have been
constantly manipulated and controlled to maintain/ensure that wall of silence.
Seven years, my God, who would believe it?! You deserve a medal, Mary, for standing on guard, for your continued vigilance.
Your recent piece on Judge Bennett was really revealing as well. In
reading it, it became quite clear, in hindsight, how she was being held in check, the defense as well, and how those documents were being
'protected' from disclosure - that Judge Bennett ruled in favour of
the defense for access must have been seen as threatening to the powers that be.
And it just gets curiouser and curiouser as they say....
Only I do know more people are following this than the msm would have us believe - even the guys who came to drain our septic tank knew about The BC Rail Trial and were furious with Campbell! And our little town was all abuzz the day 'they' ended the trial.
of documents - it was quite symbolic, I thought, of the whole proceedings for the last seven years - how the documents have been
constantly manipulated and controlled to maintain/ensure that wall of silence.
Seven years, my God, who would believe it?! You deserve a medal, Mary, for standing on guard, for your continued vigilance.
Your recent piece on Judge Bennett was really revealing as well. In
reading it, it became quite clear, in hindsight, how she was being held in check, the defense as well, and how those documents were being
'protected' from disclosure - that Judge Bennett ruled in favour of
the defense for access must have been seen as threatening to the powers that be.
And it just gets curiouser and curiouser as they say....
Only I do know more people are following this than the msm would have us believe - even the guys who came to drain our septic tank knew about The BC Rail Trial and were furious with Campbell! And our little town was all abuzz the day 'they' ended the trial.
# posted by : November 16, 2010 at 7:35 p.m.
: November 16, 2010 at 7:35 p.m.
Wasn't there an attempt by the railway's employees to take it over, or am I thinking of another Crown Corporation? But if so, then they - you'd think - would have the right and interest to intervene to protect the documents as people aggrieved and damaged by an illegally-contrived sale process which excluded them, and their interests. Overall we were all stockholders, also, so it strikes me that an interest group who feels their rights of property, and of proper participation in the disposition of that property, should as a logic be able to justify some very strong legal action to not just protect the documents, but to open the REAL case(s) that BVB were always a smokescreen for.
And yeah the media are pandering to the myth that the HST forced the so-called resignation (just a sideshow) but that didn't happen until the heat started getting hot on BC Rail....yet even alternative columnists like Tieleman and Mair keep on talking like it's only HST and/or environmental policy that are the reason for the dive in popularity, and the mounting suspicions of criminality pointing at the Premier's Office......
The HST revolt is a red herring, albet a galvanizing one. But the emblem of the real rot, and the ciscontent, is BC Rail....
And yeah the media are pandering to the myth that the HST forced the so-called resignation (just a sideshow) but that didn't happen until the heat started getting hot on BC Rail....yet even alternative columnists like Tieleman and Mair keep on talking like it's only HST and/or environmental policy that are the reason for the dive in popularity, and the mounting suspicions of criminality pointing at the Premier's Office......
The HST revolt is a red herring, albet a galvanizing one. But the emblem of the real rot, and the ciscontent, is BC Rail....
Skookum1,
Your recollection is accurate but I never have much luck trying to find the BC Rail Union, as I understood that they put up a strong argument in favour of maintaining BC Rail as a public asset.
I wonder if some of the BC Rail Union records have been weeded ... a process I've encountered during WWII studies of the Dieppe Raid (1942) which reflected badly upon its originator (Lord Mountbatten). It's difficult to research anything which isn't there ...
And incidentally, this is the danger facing us right now, when we hear that the RCMP is trying to seize all trial documents allegedly for the purpose of destroying them. Same scenario: to protect someone.
Your recollection is accurate but I never have much luck trying to find the BC Rail Union, as I understood that they put up a strong argument in favour of maintaining BC Rail as a public asset.
I wonder if some of the BC Rail Union records have been weeded ... a process I've encountered during WWII studies of the Dieppe Raid (1942) which reflected badly upon its originator (Lord Mountbatten). It's difficult to research anything which isn't there ...
And incidentally, this is the danger facing us right now, when we hear that the RCMP is trying to seize all trial documents allegedly for the purpose of destroying them. Same scenario: to protect someone.
The real crime here isnt how Basi or the Govt tried to steal BC Rail from the people, but how the Lawyers STOLE 14M from taxpayers by dragging this farce, this cirucs out for 6 yrs!!
There is no mystery there. There was a perversion of justice. Many others, including Basi, should be behind bars, not feeding lawyers our money and having accused fellons to wear an ankle braclet.
As for Wille Picton, 100M is too much. We need to overhaul the justice system. If that means getting rid of the Charter, I am all for it.
Give our money to Education and Healthcare, NOT TO LAWYERS!
BTW, reading Mathews essays one gets the impression BVB were somehow picked on because of their skin color, that they were innocents, that they were unfairly accused/prossecuted.
Nothing could be futher from the truth. They were fully engaged in the fraud. BV please guilty after years of lying to us. SHAME ON THEM AND SHAME ON THE GOVT FOR AGREEING TO PAY THEIR LAWYERS BILLS!
Give it up Mathews, no one buys that expect for the head nodders here that will agree with anything that comes off the end of your pen.
There is no mystery there. There was a perversion of justice. Many others, including Basi, should be behind bars, not feeding lawyers our money and having accused fellons to wear an ankle braclet.
As for Wille Picton, 100M is too much. We need to overhaul the justice system. If that means getting rid of the Charter, I am all for it.
Give our money to Education and Healthcare, NOT TO LAWYERS!
BTW, reading Mathews essays one gets the impression BVB were somehow picked on because of their skin color, that they were innocents, that they were unfairly accused/prossecuted.
Nothing could be futher from the truth. They were fully engaged in the fraud. BV please guilty after years of lying to us. SHAME ON THEM AND SHAME ON THE GOVT FOR AGREEING TO PAY THEIR LAWYERS BILLS!
Give it up Mathews, no one buys that expect for the head nodders here that will agree with anything that comes off the end of your pen.
# posted by : November 17, 2010 at 6:19 a.m.
: November 17, 2010 at 6:19 a.m.
Anonymous 6:19,
You again?
This blog is about BC Rail.
I don't really understand what your mission is, but I do know that repeating one minor detail isn't helping us come to terms with understanding how a big publicly-owned railway slid into private pockets with the full story still being kept secret from us.
We had Canada's 3rd largest railway stolen from us ... and you keep harping on racism?
Either stay on the topic of BC Rail and be civil ... or your messages will be deleted.
You again?
This blog is about BC Rail.
I don't really understand what your mission is, but I do know that repeating one minor detail isn't helping us come to terms with understanding how a big publicly-owned railway slid into private pockets with the full story still being kept secret from us.
We had Canada's 3rd largest railway stolen from us ... and you keep harping on racism?
Either stay on the topic of BC Rail and be civil ... or your messages will be deleted.
Basi-Virk didn't try to "steal BC Rail", they were just enablers and had no hands-on role in that transaction, just in managing the stage props and walk-on actors and keeping the grease rolling. Who stole BC Rail is CN.....
Skookum1,
I didn't say -- and have never said -- that Basi-Virk tried to steal BC Rail.
You can see that I plainly said
We had Canada's 3rd largest railway stolen from us
and, in fact, have often repeated my view that neither Basi nor Virk had arranged the so-called "sale" of BC's railway.
OK?
.
I didn't say -- and have never said -- that Basi-Virk tried to steal BC Rail.
You can see that I plainly said
We had Canada's 3rd largest railway stolen from us
and, in fact, have often repeated my view that neither Basi nor Virk had arranged the so-called "sale" of BC's railway.
OK?
.
"Who stole BC Rail is CN....."
I dare say you have it exactly right there, sir.
And i wonder what's up with David Maclean these days. Spending his time in--...where is it again?...--Houston. Busy building up the skeleton of the North American Union, i guess.
Trans Pacific Partnership, anyone?
And i've also got the funny feeling that--if you go back and look at the sale of CN, you'll find a secretive wealth-transfer scam and whole lot of missing records and a code of silence. The same usual suspects hard at work.
I dare say you have it exactly right there, sir.
And i wonder what's up with David Maclean these days. Spending his time in--...where is it again?...--Houston. Busy building up the skeleton of the North American Union, i guess.
Trans Pacific Partnership, anyone?
And i've also got the funny feeling that--if you go back and look at the sale of CN, you'll find a secretive wealth-transfer scam and whole lot of missing records and a code of silence. The same usual suspects hard at work.
# posted by : November 17, 2010 at 3:10 p.m.
: November 17, 2010 at 3:10 p.m.
... and I wouldnt doubt if Gordon Campbell is soon to be BOD of CN.
Bets?
CAL
Bets?
CAL
# posted by : November 17, 2010 at 3:43 p.m.
: November 17, 2010 at 3:43 p.m.
SO?
BC Mary, I get that this is your site and all, but you are very arbitrary with what you think is relevant, etc.
Why are you playing into Basi's tale that he is somehow wanting to preserve and share information with all?
What reason do you have to beleive in the man?
He has proven himself a bold faced LIAR. He plead not guilty, then admitted guilt, ocsting BCers millions of dollars defending him!
CAL
BC Mary, I get that this is your site and all, but you are very arbitrary with what you think is relevant, etc.
Why are you playing into Basi's tale that he is somehow wanting to preserve and share information with all?
What reason do you have to beleive in the man?
He has proven himself a bold faced LIAR. He plead not guilty, then admitted guilt, ocsting BCers millions of dollars defending him!
CAL
# posted by : November 17, 2010 at 4:21 p.m.
: November 17, 2010 at 4:21 p.m.
BC Mary, then use those "others" and name them, not BASI.
You lose credibility when you side with an admitted liar.
CAL
You lose credibility when you side with an admitted liar.
CAL
# posted by : November 18, 2010 at 5:52 p.m.
: November 18, 2010 at 5:52 p.m.
You trying to run my blog, CAL ... ?
You trying to add punishment to what the court has already handed Dave Basi?
You're a little off-balance when you imagine that I "side with" Basi.
We were talking about the TRIAL DOCUMENTS and you keep trying to change the subject.
You're this close to being banned from this site.
.
You trying to add punishment to what the court has already handed Dave Basi?
You're a little off-balance when you imagine that I "side with" Basi.
We were talking about the TRIAL DOCUMENTS and you keep trying to change the subject.
You're this close to being banned from this site.
.
lynx and Crankypants,
Now that this trial is over, and Basi's cousin is in jail for 9 yrs, arguably the genesis of The Raid, go and review the court records of Jas Bains trial, and see what all evidence was dislosed there, that might relate to the trial here.
Post a Comment
Now that this trial is over, and Basi's cousin is in jail for 9 yrs, arguably the genesis of The Raid, go and review the court records of Jas Bains trial, and see what all evidence was dislosed there, that might relate to the trial here.
# posted by : November 19, 2010 at 3:32 p.m.
: November 19, 2010 at 3:32 p.m. << Home
