Tuesday, October 31, 2006


John Doe in court, Basi Virk Basi weren't?

Who can you think of, who might have been in B.C. Supreme Court on
30 October 2006, listed under the name "John Doe" ?

John Doe is listed 5 times, John Does, 3 times in the On-Line Attendance List.

They share two File Numbers:
VLC - S - L - 051893 and VLC - S - L 052627

The names of Udhe (Dave) Basi, Bob Virk, and Aneal Basi are not on the Attendance List for 30 October 2006. But their trial was discussed. Oh yes, it was discussed!

Robin's eye-witness report from the courtroom is being written up.

The pre-trial hearing continues today 31 Oct. Maybe. You just never know.

Check your emails Mary. Headline in the T/C this morning. seems the police accidentaly wiretapped a conversation between the Premier and Garry Collins when Collins used basi's phone, anyway its in your emails as mentioned. dl
seems the police accidentaly wiretapped a conversation between the Premier and Garry Collins when Collins used basi's phone,

I saw Baldrey mentioning this last night - seems there was concern about "privilege." Well I for one believe that the "PEOPLE" should have the privilege of knowing what guys like the Premier and the Finance Minister are doing in our name, for us(?). Why was the ferret using Basi's phone, was he afraid that his was tapped, and why? That is the operative term here, what the hell was/is going on and WHY?
Stealing and selling railroads for one's own benefit is definitely within the realm of questionable activities! Just sayin'
So true ... Why? And why again. From the moment of those Legislature Raids, I've felt that all of us ought to be watching carefully, and volunteers should be in the court room as often as possible, to report on what's said, what's explained, what's revealed, who said it, who objected ... and what to do next. The Public Interest ... that's us, eh?

Even the best journalists on the West Coast are caught in the system. Not their fault. All we can do is (a) learn to read between the lines they write, (b) interpret the strange opinions as approved by their news editors, and (c) keep in touch with them, telling them how we feel about things. Politely, encouragingly of course.

Thank goodness, Robin Mathews has volunteered -- along with two friends -- do be our observer. He's writing up his notes. I'll post them promptly, with gratitude.

Same with other Citizen Journalists. Please keep observing, analysing, writing. This is our little war. Ain't nobody going to do battle for us ... except us.
Mary, don't get your hopes up too much. I have been waiting to see which angle the defence team pursues. If you asked me last week, I would have said that attacking the character of Eric Bornman (which is pretty easy to do) would be the best angle. But resignations of Collins and Christie Clark made me wonder if the premier knew something that we didn't. Today we find out that Collins is 'engaged' more than previously expected. I'd wager that in the coming months we will learn that Chistie was also picked up unintentionally in the wire taps.
We've heard a lot about wire tap evidence and we've seen the cash transfer transactions. If the crown thought that to be enough, why the deal with Eric Bornman? Last time I checked it was a crime to bribe a public official. That's the question that needs an answer?
Ajax ... why do you say "Don't get your hopes up too much?"

My big concern, at the moment, centres upon what I see as the converging objectives of the Special Prosecutor and the Defence. It's not supposed to be that way. And if you had asked me about that last week, I would've thought it a crazy idea. But right now, I think both sides share the same objective.

Yesterday's complaints from the Defence lawyer suggest that the office of the Special Prosecutor has done an appallingly bad job -- fumbling, losing the evidence.

And certainly the Defence has no reason to rush into a trial.

Then they start finding fault with the R.C.M.P. who can't stand up and defend themselves.

So if Spec Pros + Defence = total mess, the case might be thrown out, the police made to carry the blame, and both prosecution and defence and many scoundrels would be happy.

I hate that idea, when in my opinion the RCMP were the whistle-blowers. It must've taken great courage to carry through with those raids, knowing ... well, just knowing a lot o'stuff.

It still makes me angry to remember Keith Baldrey sneering and belittling RCMP Sgt Ward who was the ONLY person in authority who cared a fig for the public interest, and who warned us that organized crime had reached "critical mass."

That's what worries me most, right now. This whole new twisted, diabolical scenario seemed to jump out at me yesterday. I hope I'm wrong.

Can't wait to hear what Berardino, the Spec Proc, has to say today -- which was his turn to speak in court.
I keep trying to figure out why couple posters are so keen on attacking the RCMP. Basi, Basi and Virk were appointed to public offices by the people and then betrayed their oaths.

The RCMP were right to do whatever it took to cut these corrupt officials out our of public institutions.

That includes:
1. wiretaps
2. deals with witnesses
3. raiding the legislature

If any of these steps had not occured these corrupt public officials would still be in business and our democracy would not be stronger.
First the defense creates all sorts of delay by filing motion after motion...then the defense complains about delay in trial

First the defense refuses to cooperate...then the defense argues that no immunity should be given to witnesses that do cooperate

First the defense argures against disclosure to the press and public... then the defense argues that the RCMP aren't disclosing enough

First the defense says their guys are innocent... then the defense says other people should have been charged too

First the defense says their guys are hurting because of all the publicity... then the defense holds a media availablity to discuss sensational, but irrelavent, facts like a meeting in an airplane hanger or the interception of the Premier's call to Collin's on Basi's phone.
Some very good thoughts ... seems we're all watching the pre-trial conference with a great deal of concern.
When Premier Clark was subjected to false allegations by the RCMP, it was David Gibbons that questioned the neutrality of an RCMP officer who happened to be asked to run in the provincial election for Gordon Campbell.

Let us stop being the apologists for an organization that hounded a sitting premier of this province and notified BCTV of a search warrant being executed on his private residence.

I remember the buttons (which I wore proudly) claiming "RCMP - TV for BCTV"
Breaking News -

I just heard on CKNW News that the Defence are asking for a mistrial!!

Mary, this confirms everything that you said!!
That should be no surprise - they're going to petition the judge that the wirtap evidence was obtained improperly because the RCMP finessed the last warrant to avoid the question of parliamentary priviledge - which the supervising justice had earlier said made a wiretap warrant impossible.

Tainted evidence, the defence will contend, taints the whole case and the accused should walk free. The prosecution must have known there was a mine hidden in their own evidence.

Lots of precedent for it too! The judge will have to decide either to throw out anything they caught in that net and proceed with the rest of the case - that's when the bribers are important - and probably why they haven't been charged.

I still think the john doe business is extremely interesting and is getting no attention at all.

That was a flagrant attempt to deceive the public.
This really knocks me out. Blatant, outrageous abuse of the public trust from start to finish.

Can't agree, Michael, that one selfish unethical cop makes the entire 36,000 RCMP also unscrupulous ... or how would we explain Sgt. John Ward? How otherwise can we explain the raid itself?

But if we have a corrupt government, a corrupt society, and turn our backs on the police force ... then what?

Surely we have to stand behind each of those elements, insisting that they live up to the standards we pay them to uphold.

I agree with the last anonymous: the use of the John Doe appelation was a flagrant attempt to deceive the public -- to keep them away from a court session which is vitally important to British Columbians.

Let's renew our resolve, this Hallowe'en night, that we won't give up on any of the elements of a healthy society. To give an inch, at this time, is to let the bastards win.
Explain Sgt. Ward?? This is a man who said that the public do not need to know!

Mary, come on. Please remember that those who forget the past are doomed to repeat it.
Michael, I haven't "forgotten the past" ... I remember John Ward looking as if he'd been whipped, and grimly tossing off that remark ... which (if you remember the past) came long after the raid on the Legislature.

On the 2nd occasion, I did (in my mind) connect those two events, and wondered who had made life so difficult for Ward. And why.

I mean, if he'd zipped his lip (like the premier, prime minister, all cabinet ministers, the media) they could've pretty much buried the issue of what the raids meant. You've gotta give John Ward credit for that, at very least.

I still think it's a faulty analogy to take one man (the cop who wanted to be a Liberal candidate) or one event and say that it can reasonably be multiplied 37,000 times to create an accurate picture of the RCMP.

Doesn't that old axiom also say something about how necessary it is to remember the past in order to navigate in the future?

So tell us: what would you rather have, if we got rid of the RCMP ?
So tell us: what would you rather have, if we got rid of the RCMP ?

I hate to undertake the responsibility, but okay, I'll decide who lives, dies or goes to jail. BC and Canada need a Deciderator, and it's hard work, but okay, I'll do it - you better all appreciate it now (I'd wouldn't want to be finding out you don't)!
Post a Comment

<< Home