Saturday, January 19, 2008


Bill Tieleman stirs up a discussion

Bill Tieleman commented on Before police raided the B.C. Legislature, there was time to destroy evidence by Three Concerned Canadians. This provided a good opportunity to widen our discussion by showing Bill's comments to the Three Concerned Canadians and a few others, and to give them time to reply to Bill's views. So here is Bill's commentary accompanied by some of their responses. I hope others will add more thoughts, questions, feelings on these important issues in a very important B.C. trial. - BC Mary.

Bill Tieleman wrote:

While I appreciate that the lack of complete information and even more importantly, lack of a trial, four years after the raid on the BC Legislature is highly frustrating, it is critical that the facts be examined before conclusions are drawn.

Unfortunately the Three Concerned Citizens have made some errors in their posting here.

First, the Crown Counsel Act is clear about Special Prosecutors – they are appointed by the Assistant Deputy Attorney General, Criminal Justice Branch.That lawyer must not be in the employ of the Attorney General – i.e. an outside counsel is required, as we’ve seen previously. The idea that Geoff Plant appointed Bill Berardino is therefore wrong.

Secondly, the fact that Bill Berardino and Geoff Plant once practiced law at the same very large law office – years before Plant went into politics in 1996 – is meaningless. Most obviously, if the defence team who have been exceptionally vigilant in pointing out the flaws in the Special Prosecutor’s approach and that of the RCMP investigators thought Berardino was in some conflict, they would have filed an objections years ago. They have not.

Thirdly, David Harris is a law partner of Berardino and was originally appointed Special Prosecutor, with Berardino later taking over. Nothing unusual here. Andrea Mackay, also with the firm, has taken over the case at times in Berardino’s absence. It simply seems to mean the firm is acting as Special Prosecutor. Janet Winteringham, who is not part of the firm, is also a senior lawyer acting as part of the Special Prosecutor team.

Fourthly, the publication of the appointment of a Special Prosecutor in the Gazette may “delayed if to do so would be in the interests of the administration of justice.” This makes sense, as media immediately begin speculating and investigating whenever a Special Prosecutor is appointed.

Lastly, the Three Citizens write: “Look: There was time. There was a motive. There was opportunity. There was a team. There was the quietness of the Legislature at Christmas when many people were off duty.”I’m sorry but the idea that a group of politicians and political staff subverted the course of justice by sneaking around in balaclavas shredding evidence and no one to this day found it simply beggars the imagination!

The real “conspiracy” if there is one is that the defence has been consistently frustrated in receiving evidence that truly exists and is in police files; that documents were marked by RCMP “do not disclose”; that 100,000 pages or more of evidence has been produced, swamping the defence in paper; that the RCMP has a series of conflicts of interest to explain on the stand in front of Justice Elizabeth Bennett; that key political figures have to explain their actions in a court of law regarding the $1 billion privatization of BC Rail and much, much more.

Allegations of shadowy men in a shadowy Legislature shredding documents and Special Prosecutors who are connected to government figures are not helpful to figuring out what happened.


BC Mary replies:

Bill, thanks as always for joining in our discussion. But on this occasion, I think I'm going to see your balaclava and raise you a couple of brown paper bags with eye-holes cut out.

The political atmosphere of that time, December 2003, featured a 77-member Campbell government relishing power for the first time, feeling answerable to nobody. Remember how they refused to allow the two member Opposition to have a research budget? Those weren't Boy Scouts running B.C. Not by a long shot.

I'm pretty sure you would agree, Bill, that the Campbell government (in whole or in part) knew for 28 days that the police raid was coming to the Legislature. What I'm trying hard to understand is how you can imagine that for 28 days they all played harps and polished their halos, with brown paper bags over their heads, until the police came to collect evidence against them. Never mind mysterious men in balaclavas. They didn't even need balaclavas. They were on home turf, most people on Christmas holidays, no problems. What the Three Concerned Canadians are saying, in my opinion, is that sometimes the simplest answer is the answer.


Lynx comments:

Well, I'm afraid I don't agree with Bill Tieleman. I don't think there is anything wrong with questioning or surmising "how things were handled", especially considering the lack of investigative light shone on the sale of BC Rail and the subsequent raid on the legislature. Any good citizen would question and challenge the fog of obfuscation that has hung over these proceedings from the beginning. While I don't think documents were necessarily shredded, (tho' it is a possiblilty considering the lack of oversight) and I hope for the sake of BC they still exist - I think what Joy MacPhail was saying was very important - that some "BIG Behind the Scenes" things were happening, including the appointment of special prosecutors that no one knew about it . The government had an opportunity on the Dec.16 legislative special session to inform the legislature about the SP appointments but they did not.

These are questions that need to be asked. Just as Joy MacPhail questioned the "how and why" of the appointment of the office of the Solicitor-General, a new office to government and yet as she states there was no clear delineation of what his (Coleman's) role actually was in government....quite convenient, don't you think, as it seemed to be made up along the way.... the reason some have questioned why Coleman had to accompany the police to Kamloops to inform the Speaker, Claude Richmond

So why when there was opportunity to inform did the government not inform the legislature? As Joy MacPhail said: "The Legislature was sitting while the special prosecutor was appointed. We had a special sitting to deal with ordering IWA workers back. Cabinet was meeting, the building was busy, and there'd been a special prosecutor appointed that no one knew about — no one knew about....."

" What exactly did the police tell the Solicitor General? Did he have any words with the Attorney General about lack of information on his side? If the Solicitor General is truly the chief cop, chief police officer — sorry, Mr. Chair — shouldn't those details have been known between the two at least? What if files went missing? What if activities were put at risk while the Legislature was actually sitting?...."

So considering "how things were handled" the questions surrounding the possibility of files being shredded or "gone missing" seem actually very good questions to me. Good enough for even the leader of the Opposition to query over as a matter of utmost significance - as was the appointment of an SP in this matter. This was an investigation of some significance, no small potatoes. But the public seemed to have been intentionally left uninformed though there was plenty of opportunity to do so. Why? How ? And who made these decisions?

J. MacPhail: I'll go in exactly the opposite direction of the Solicitor General. I think the public should have been informed that a special prosecutor was appointed. In fact, I'm appalled that the government didn't let the public know that a special prosecutor had been appointed. I can absolutely guarantee that if the previous administrations — any previous administration — had kept the appointment of a special prosecutor secret, this member and his leader would go absolutely nuts in crying foul.

And finally this from the June 4, 2007, BC SC, application by the defense for production of records in possession of The Province of BC - listed under the grounds for application: (note points 5 and 6). Two points that bring into play the very thing MacPhail was questioning which is "What exactly is the role of the Solicitor-General?" " Who defined and determined the parameters of that role?" "Why are those parameters not clear - why don't we know what the parameters are for this newly created role of Solicitor-General?"

5. There was considerable strategic discussion and planning by the R.C.M.P. in the preparation, application and execution of the Search Warrants. The R.C.M.P. consulted and liaised with the Solicitor General and his Assistant Deputy Minister before and during the execution of same.

6. The involvement of the Solicitor General and Assistant Deputy Minister in the criminal investigation continued after the search of the Legislature and until at least February 13, 2004, and this involvement consisted of collaboration with, and direction to, the R.C.M.P. with regard to the timing and content of the R.C.M.P. interviews of Ministers Collins and Reid.


Serenity Now writes ...

The thing is Bill, I think you’re suggesting that this case has been, and is being, run by the book.

However, I’m afraid there’s enough broken china on the floor to make me wonder why you’d still hold that point of view.

There are just too many anomalies between what I’d say is “normal practice” and the way the investigation, the surveillance, the raid, the charges and the disposition of those charges have proceeded for me to sustain your opinion – much as I respect it and the job you’ve done in reporting the case for your readers.

The special circumstances of the relationship(s) between the accused individuals and the democratically elected premier of this province are bound to create a lot of speculation; not least because of the obvious fact, despite your colleague Vaughn Palmer’s suggestion that the case is being well-covered by traditional media, that there has been little or no speculation in those traditional media outlets.

So, I’d suggest that you might want to look a little more closely (as I’m sure you will do) at some of the ‘speculation’ that appeared in the piece Mary posted yesterday from ‘Three Concerned Canadians’.

Because, and I’m sure you know this, although things are often meant to be done according to protocol and ‘by the book’ – a general knowledge of the way things are ‘done’ in British Columbia leads any prudent student to conclude that they often aren’t.


earseyeswideopen responds to Bill Tieleman's comments:

Whoa Nelly . . . . .on this one, Mr. T, I'm a little puzzled by your comments re: the Three Concerned Citizens editorial perspective having made "errors", in your opinion. This trio's meaning was crystal clear to me, about the events in Dec. 2003 & they are entitled to their perspectives as you are - their opinons echoes with truth in the dark recesses of my mind! I have always respected your 'take' on politics but lets get real here! The 'raid' on your office must have been unnerving, but hopefully that or something else has not caused your usual astute perspective to lose its sharpness.

With all due respect, some of your comments are splitting hairs on specific words written rather than the overall picture they painted in bold strokes. You appear to come from a perspective that all is tickety boo re: the the public systems that were originally set up to protect the best interests of the public, but in fact, NOW have become increasingly suspect re: the inappropriate injection of politics into their proper operations.

Lots of things are written in Acts, legislation & due process but what happens can be a whole different pile of rot. You know the saying about 'power' corrupting . . . . . Honestly, what you wrote verges on being naive which you are NOT

Bill you have been involved heavily in all things political as you matured into the measured, informed thinker you are today. I have a lot of respect for you. That background has allowed you to have a well rounded view of the very real, high profile connections that pull the strings in BC often crossing poltical 'label' boundaries; where politics & BIG business make strange bed fellows. It is all about control & money. You have also worked in government & surely saw the politics that operate in the buildings, up close & personal. So what's up Mr. T?

Strictly speaking, Bill, you are correct of course re: the Act re: Special Prosecutors: it is the Asst. Dep. AG who appoints the Special Prosecutor not the AG. The operative question here, is whether strong suggestions/events were made/set in motion, even not fully appreciated by the Asst. Dep. AG at that time . . . given the ticking time bomb of this politically sensitive matter where politicians/aides in powerful positions are the focus of allegations of corruption: e.g. drugs, money laundering, & the selling off British Columbia's assests are ALL involved under the roof of the Leg???? You think that great lengths would not have come into play to protect certain people??? - Puh - lease!

You stated: "the fact that Bill Berardino and Geoff Plant once practiced law at the same very large law office – years before Plant went into politics in 1996 – is meaningless . . . NOT!

Do you really believe that old ties are not meaningful in the justice system including the AG's Ministry & the BC Supreme Court or any number of bodies where key decisions are made that affect people in lofty positions and/or huge vested interests are at stake? Say it ain't so, Bill! There are a small number of big law firms in Vancouver which rule the roost & want to maintain control. It is a highly coopertive set up. Circumstances like this operate far & wide in most countries like this: Big Government - Big money & tried & true connections. I believe it is naive to believe otherwise.

No, the defence team hasn't filed objections re: conflicts. My guess is that they know to file an objection to these 'too close for comfort' ties would be useless technically: AG Plant was not at the firm anymore etc. . However, perception IS 9/10ths reality - when there is a stink it's a stench & often, in peoples assessment, THAT is what counts in the final analysis. Big changes in directions can turn on perception - especially in politics when people are caught with their pants down, like in this case.

Re: your statement: "the publication of the appointment of a Special Prosecutor in the Gazette may “delayed if to do so would be in the interests of the administration of justice.” . . . . . or, could it be as a cooperative move to try to coverup for as long as possible - while some cleanup takes place LOL? Good grief, why shouldn't the media/the public be in the position to speculate on the monkey business within the Legislature when a Special Prosecutor is appointed - it is OUR 'House' - people are weary of coverup, my friend, including from the MSM.

Your fluff off of: "I’m sorry but the idea that a group of politicians and political staff subverted the course of justice by sneaking around in balaclavas shredding evidence and no one to this day found it simply beggars the imagination! . . . . One only has to look at the huge ramifications of this trial poltically speaking & the perception of the Three Citizens perfectly realistic. Have you never sat in on a trial where there was key missing evidence? Don't you think your imagination seems to need some flexing with a dose of real life here, Bill?

Further, re: evidence. . . it can only be in police files if the police were able to obtain them in the first place & we saw that they were stymied in being allowed to investigate the politicians and secondly, as Barbara McClintock wrote: " all 37 boxes, along with material seized from computers and hard drives" . . . . "went back to the Supreme Court judge who issued the search warrant. It will be the judge's job to go through all that material without the police or Crown counsel being present. . . . Only when that is done will the remaining material be turned over to the RCMP officers for their further investigation."

Right, like so many people have unbridled faith in certain BC Supreme Court Judges "sorting" selections to be "sorted" solely with apolitical eyes/ethics in the best interests of the rest of British Columbians . . I don't think so, sir - more like sanitizing to suit the desired outcome of poltical masters maybe?????

When you wrote that "documents were marked by RCMP "do not disclose" ... yes, once again, the possibility exists that is based on the instructions from Sol. Gen. Coleman (former RCMP) - nudge, nudge, wink, wink, - who seemed to insert his views a lot to the RCMP's work, e.g. travelling with the RCMP to Kamloops to visit the Speaker of the House Richmond through to the diclosure that the Solicitor General's staff person, Kevin Begg, got on the blower to Acting Deputy Commissioner Gary Bass on Dec. 29, 2003 suggesting NOT to interrogate Collins in Hawaii etc. ... what else was suggested by this cozy connection at the top layers of the RCMP?

How interesting that we further learn, in a report by Neal Hall, that Mr. Begg got a big promotion to Assistant Deputy Minister on Feb. 1, 2004. - one month after the Raid! Could that be a pat on the back for a job well done the 'team'? Isn't that the way the 'game' works guys? Just think of what this staffer, Kevin knew . . . .

Finally, when you wrote: "that key political figures have to explain their actions in a court of law regarding the $1 billion privatization of BC Rail and much, much more". . . . Yes, indeed . . . . This is exactly the message the 3 Citizens were saying in the Editorial: these low lifes & their minions were hard at work to plug & coverup the flow the the truth, everywhichway, once they learned the police were hot on their trails. This political bunch of theives under the Leg's roof, are conniving but they are not very smart, in my humble opinion. They always have the advantage of using the power of their offices to coverup & manipulate but to further their private agendas NOT British Columbians.

BC Mary again:

Nobody picked up on this paragraph, where Bill Tieleman writes [guesses?] that "it simply seems to mean" that "the firm is acting as Special Prosecutor" but then he stretches the point even farther by saying that "Janet Winteringham, who is not even part of the Berardino's firm, is also ... acting as part of the SP team" ... how weird. Look again:

Thirdly, David Harris is a law partner of Berardino and was originally appointed Special Prosecutor, with Berardino later taking over. Nothing unusual here. Andrea Mackay, also with the firm, has taken over the case at times in Berardino’s absence. It simply seems to mean the firm is acting as Special Prosecutor. Janet Winteringham, who is not part of the firm, is also a senior lawyer acting as part of the Special Prosecutor team.

We've grown accustomed to NOT knowing if our very special Special Prosecutor is even going to make an appearance in this important case in B.C. Supreme Court. Nobody asks. And nobody ever explains where Bill Berardino -- our specially appointed Special prosecutor -- is. I've often thought how disrespectful that is toward everyone connected to or concerned with this case.

I absolutely do NOT understand how Berardino's firm could act as Special Prosecutor. Law firms run to many, many persons. Dozens, sometimes hundreds. And this is a complex case.

But I had no idea that Janet Winteringham, who often steps up in Bill Berardino's place, has not even that much of a loose connection to our actual Special Prosecutor.

So where did Winteringham come from anyway? Was the appointment for an individual? - or for the firm? - or for anyone else Berardino decides to shove into battle when he's out defending cigarette companies?

Bill, here's another question: Is Case #23299 being handled properly? Serious.


Bill Tieleman checks in again ... and says:

Thanks for posts on this debate.

Regrettably, I simply do not have time to respond at this point and may not be able to for a day or two.

I will simply say this - I have helped uncover and report many important pieces of information about this complex case.

And I am a very notable critic of the BC Liberal government who pulls no punches.

So if I felt that the prosecution and/or the government were involved in a serious conspiracy to secretly destroy evidence and create a special team to hide the facts, I would have said so a long, long time ago.

And I have never said this case was being handled "by the book"!!

Rather, I have repeatedly shown that some of the RCMP's actions are highly questionable, if not downright improper, based on testimony and facts.

Lastly, I think the facts speak for themselves about problems in this case without presuming clandestine shredding of unknown evidence and other conspiracies.

I regret if anyone took offence at my questioning their conclusions but that is also my job, as it is in Courtroom 54.

See you there soon!

Many thanks, Bill. It was good to have you here to take part in this discussion. It helped each of us strengthen our understanding of this important trial. We reached no conclusions but sometimes it's important just to ask the right questions. Certainly, no offence was taken by any of us here, and certainly none was intended. Quite the opposite. We'll be reading every word you report. Stay strong. Thanks again!

- BC Mary.


Kootcoot from the House of Infamy has written about Bill Tieleman's commentary too. Koot's essay is called "Another One Bites the Dust".


Special prosecutions are required when government or party interest in a justice issue could inhibit impartiality and objectivity, and scrutiny should be independent. But they are a sham. SP Len Daoust has supposedly been looking at the case of Ivan Henry, who walked out of an Appeals Court hearing when he saw CJ Lance Finch on the panel. Finch - a elitist - put himself in position to judge his own decision. Justice was delayed for 14 months, and now Daoust is delaying it further. Check this out.

I have read all the trial determinations. Prior to the Rape charge, Henry had only a record for petty crime. It is a fact that Vancouver Police tried him in the media; feminist groups led one march to denounce him, and influence the trial. Henry seeks DNA exhoneration. Daoust appears disinterested in ensuring that exculpatory evidence be placed before the courts. I smell a cop based coverup. Last Summer local Vancouver media - including Bill Tieleman (I made him aware of this) - covered up the return of the city lockup to VPD, years after they lost it in the Michael Jacobsen' crippling atrocity that reached the Supreme Court of Canada.

The Innocence Project, based in the US, does the same work in weeks that our justice system slugs take years to accomplish.

I blame the media for the sorry state of our justice system. BC reporters are narcissists who print nothing, unless it fits their career and group needs. A BC journalist is a: paid liar.
Funny, isn't it, that you won't find any serious discussion, about the implications of having a Premier who fomented - or at the very least - acquiesced - while the kind of thing that 'caused' Basi/Virk grew at the very nerve centre of government, anywhere in the so called professional media?

Thank you Mary, I hope people will start to pay more attention as this thing moves along toward some kind of conclusion.

Sadly, your website is about the only place where any serious consideration of what’s happening to this province under the megalomania of CEO government is taking place anymore…
To Anonymous 1:13,


My first thought, on reading your invitation, was to agree with you: that Paul Martin's appearance in Vancouver BC is off-topic, and has nothing to do with Basi, Virk, Basi or the legislature raids.

So I had hit the DELETE button before it dawned upon me: of course it's connected! What was I thinking? Almost the whole doggone line-up at the time of the police raids was made up of Paul Martin people connected to Gordon Campbell people.

So I'd like you to re-submit your invitation ... and please identify yourself. I think it's important that you stand behind a political invitation.

Specifically, readers here would like to know if you are - or if you work for -- Erik Bornmann, Jamie Elmhirst, Brian Kieran, Bill Cunningham, Bruce Young, Mark Marissen, Bruce Clark, Christy Clark, Gary Collins or Gordon Campbell.

I'll post what you tell us. OK?

What a delicious discussion over a Sunday morning cup of coffee!!

Great idea, BC Mary. There is nothing better than an open sharing of ideas, bantered back & forth to clarify the the fine details of this case.

I am eager to hear Bill Tielman's further reply. I too was a bit discombobulated after reading his initial post???? He did seem out of his usual down to earth demeanour?
Bravo, Mary!

I hope Anonymous 1:13 replies real soon. (wink, wink) I especially liked that you gave him a good long list of "employers" (and oh what an infamous list it is!) from which to choose from. ;-)

I found this poll by Robbins Research from the end of November, 2007. It got absolutely no play in the press/big media....but this could be the reason....the poll results are predicting a Carole James win in 2009 and a public that is much more aware of the disastrous state of Gordo governance than we have been led to believe:
I hope that Bill is not being intimidated into saying or not saying anything.

Please ... say it ain't so Joe. That would fit the movie version though, wouldn't it?

We have to laugh, if possible, or what is the point of living?

None of us are immune to evil, and I hope, therefore, that none of us are immune to good.

Please excuse my confused bewilderings. I'm just looking out the window, trying to understand the point of existence.
I noticed a article by Mike Smythe in The Province this morning. We have all raised concerns about CanWest ignoring this court case, in waiting. Up pops Mike with a pretty good article about the whole event.Any one else happen to read it?

I figure Bill T. has written some fairly clear comments as to just how a lawyer gets selected to be a Special Prosocuter. I feel with his bacground he has spelled it out quite well. Even Jeff Plant isn't dumb enough to shred stuff. It would be highly unlikely that the raid wasn't known by the premier as to get the permission to raid comes from the Speaker of the House. Heck what could he has arranged to be shreaded. The document pile is massive, and even now some of it has not been released. Some documents being argued about right now were earlier relased to the defence.
I've never been much of a conspiracy person be it , who killed Kennedy , or did man acually get to the moon.

Lets not forget that Tieleman has a life and a number of contracts to keep the bread on the table. He is a pretty regular attendee at the court house. Is he being paid for doing so? Not that I know.

Ssure a lot of folks want Gordo to crash and burn, but at present he holds a 10 percent spread in approval , even as his group slides from one development to another. Personally I tend to agree with a well known Columnist , more than with somebody calling themselves."Three Concerned Canadians". Many of us are concerned and now and again actually say who we are. Let's not question the spear carrier, Bill. If he decided to sell his information this blog or other ones couldn't afford to pay.

The actual trial is getting closer, let's concentrate on facts not maybees D.Love
Hi, Anon 2:10:

Just to let you know: I've kept Bill informed of my wish to present his views accompanied by comments from others.

After that posting went up yesterday, January 19, I let Bill know.

He replied with thanks, saying he'll write when he gets time, but that he's in the middle of writing his regular column. I hope that means his regular column in The Tyee, eh?

But you know, just looking out MY window and thinking about the Meaning of Life, too, Anon ...

I've been thinking that if anybody had good reason to feel a bit intimidated these days, wouldn't it be the guy whose office was broken into and wrecked for no apparent purpose except to give a clear threat indicating that the vandalism was connected to the Legislature raids?

So his cautionary reference about mysterious men and balaclavas suddenly began to make sense, when I thought of it that way.

He's a good man, is Bill Tieleman. He'll be back.

dl, I saw Mike Smyth's column today. The person you can thank ultimately for that column in the MSM is Mary operating this site with diligence.

It is no small coincidence that suddenly old Mikey suddenly appears with a column on this rather large scandal that has been looming since Dec. 2003. Where has he been?

Mary has put all of the these guys to shame, along with their editors for sanitizing the news far too long. Thanks to her many months of diligence & balanced approach, we have all benefited from having a centralized home base to 'read all about it' right here. Mary has left these so called journalists in the dust!

As Anonymous 5:39 am posted above:

"Sadly, your website is about the only place where any serious consideration of what’s happening to this province under the megalomania of CEO government is taking place anymore…"

I thought the views put forward from the Three Concerned Citizens were very well taken, as did a lot of other posters apparently, dl. Bring it on.

It is healthy to question & discuss issues, including those held by Mr. T, who with all due respect is not the last word on what lurks in the shadows of this shocking scandal involving the top echelons of the Govt. I, too, was surprised at what he had written above.

Those of us who have experienced the fancy footwork of the Govt., political party 'games', & the justice system from the inside, know that it truly is in the shadows, in the coverups. . . that the truth is found - NOT on the surface, which I believe was the point well taken by the Editorial from the Concerned Citizens.

Again, my hat goes off to YOU, Mary. If only we could all be so giving of our time, so courageous, including you dl, as you have been Mary, BC would be a better place! Carry on, please . . .
I will never forgive Mike Smyth for his defence of the YVR taser cops. An onsite witness told 1 media outlet that she heard 4 distinct taser jolts, with 3 being given AFTER the man was prostrate. Tasers give off 50,000 volts in 5 second bursts. Smyth should have subjected the cops to due scrutiny, rather than come to a conclusion based only on cop spin. Smyth probably accesses this site, to see how people with scruples deal with legal issues.
I have free time tomorrow, and will do a Westlaw search on Janet Winteringham.

Again, in 100% of cases where I researched into sweetheart findings by BC judges, I have learned that these malfeasants have either a prosecutorial or Crown attorney background. Oppal and his administrative law flunkey, Alan Seckel, are ensuring that ONLY those attornies who are unlikely to apply natural justice to the facts and law before them, are appointed to the Bench. 100%.

No? You saw how Supreme Court weasel, CJ Donald Brenner (former administrative law fiduciary, with ONLY a government and corporate client base), delivered Oppal an audiotape that disclosed profanities uttered by SC justice, Peter Leask during a trial. Within 3 hours of said utterance, Oppal was already speaking to the media about the incident. Oppal would be well aware that the SCBC is under federal jurisdiction, with the Canadian Judicial Council the party of notice viz judicial affairs. Still, Leask was coerced into issuing a tearful apology.

Why was Leask treated differently? Leask was a member of the Defence Bar, who slipped through the exclusion crack in 2005, only because the rights-butchers felt the need to allow a token admission from their enemy. Brenner is well aware that as an attorney, Leask petitioned against judge Cronin of the Provincial Court.

Canwest: the Libs are stacking the Bench with Crown-robots and you believe that this isn't a threat to democracy and liberty? You are a media pig-pen, and your reporters are swine.
Wow, Bill, I do not know what you were looking for in responses, but you have them. And I agree, Bill is a very good man and one we are all lucky to have around. Without you,(all of you who post your blogs) who have put in so much time and effort to keep us informed, we would still be in the dark. From your comments Bill, and others, brings up more questions then answers, at least to this humble soul. Firstly, the Assistant Deputy AG appoints the Special Prosecutor. Who does he take his orders from, as I am certain he cannot act on his own and make such appointments without instruction to do so. Then, If David HARRIS was the first appointment, when was that appointment made? We know Berardino was appointed on or about the 11th of Dec 03. When you say the Documents the Defence want are in Police files, indicates these files are in the possession of the police. Were not all 37 boxes of files taken in the raid turned over to the Supreme Court Justice that issued the warrant? Was that not Justice DOHM? Why would he be withholding these files? Is he, in fact, Justice Bennetts boss?
The next question is, Who was the RCMP member that was "escorted" to Kamloops by Coleman? Was he the informant? Was he a member of the raiding party? What was/is his role? What did Coleman hope to learn from him?
Also Bill, you said the disclosure of the appointment of a Special Prosecutor may be delayed if in the interests of the administation of justice. How does that fit into this case, if that WAS the purpose of the secrecy?
I also find the opening sentence of the Three Concerned Citizens, and I quote" During the month of December 2003 KEY PEOPLE, in the B.C. Legislature knew that an unprecendented POLICE RAID was coming", unquote. From Hansard it is known that Campbell was present in the Legislature on Dec. 16th 2003. What Hansard does not say, is how long did Campbell and these KEY PEOPLE remain in the Legislative buildings after the sitting? There was Campbell, his KEY PEOPLE, with time and opportunity to plan and execute action, if any, that was deemed necessary. And I do recall that two of the 17?? documents that the Defence want, have already been obtained via FOI proceedure, so if there was skuldugery in the Legislative buildings, it could not have been these documents. What gives here?
I did read Mr. Smyths article and thanked him for it. Also asked him to continue his reporting and if at all possible, attend the trial dates. Joey
The Paul Martin event is on Thursday January 31st at 6 pm at the Floata Seafood Restaurant at180 Keefer Street in Chinatown. Tickets are $28 and have to be ordered before January 24th. For more info go to the website:
It is a fundraiser for Vancouver Kingsway Wendy Yuan. The Floata holds about 500 people. Don't expect to see Erik Bornman there. He shuns the public. A lot of other people on Bill Tieleman's Martin campaign supporter list will be there.
As for me, I'm just a UBC young Liberal whose name is not on your list.
Hello again, Anonymous 5:47 AM.

Why not "Anonymous Open and Transparent"? Why hide behind "Just a UBC Young Liberal"? That's sad, if your political affiliation has you "shunning the public" too, instead of standing tall.

I've posted "Open and Transparent's" free political announcement (above) even though you failed the test (identify yourself if you want political trust). So people get to maybe see the former prime minister with ...

Dinner $28. at Floata Restaurant, Chinatown, January 31 at 6:00 PM

And O&T ... please ask "Mr Martin, how do you feel about the way this trial is going, for Basi, Virk and Basi?" and tell us what he said afterward. Thanks.

[Is there really a "Floata" restaurant? Like Mr Floatie in the past provincial election?]

DL above mentions that:

"Bill. If he decided to sell his information this blog or other ones couldn't afford to pay."

Perhaps DL hasn't noticed that those who theoretically "pay" those who unearth information tend to pay more often (or at least when it is info unfavorable to the Campbell Gang) to bury information. I submit the infamous Lucinda Chodan and Kirk "Pointy" La Pointe to illustrate my point. BTW, Pointy, we're still waiting for that promised coverage of the hearing MONTHS ago! Oh that's right, I forgot, it isn't important.....silly me!!!

As someone said, it is funny that the whole idea of men in balaclavas should be injected from whole cloth into the discussion by he who was visited by balaclava clad dudes. Bill, was there another note they left behind that you haven't mentioned but have felt the need to heed?

Myself, I'm trying to decide whether or not to publish a whole post concerning Bill T's surprising comment or just put him on the short list for a Leaden Gyro in February of 2009 - as December 31, 2007 was the closing date for entries for this February. But then there is certainly nothing unusual about journalists/reporters/pundits either ignoring or minimizing the relevance of anything arising out of the infamous Ledge Raids of 2003.

House of Infamy
I think there's another way of looking at all of this which tends to support Bill's impression of things...on which, more later.

This is not for a moment, nor do I think anyone should assume it is, to suggest that there isn't a real basis to extending the reach of this inquiry (and the trial) well beyond the confines of the offices of a couple of ministerial aides.

I think you have to look at the whole picture, factor in the 'normal' legal and police practices and remember that 'raids' on legislative precincts don't happen every day...this certainly didn't go completely smoothly - but I don't think that means Gordon Campbell is so foolish as to try and shred the tons of paper he would have had to shred in the days between Dec 11 and Dec 28. The timing isn't right - Campbell, who runs this government through the Premier's Office, was happily heading for Hawaii after the quick Dec 16 session.

He'd had a bitch of a year - starting out on Jan 11 with his arrest for DUI...the CNRail thing had almost fallen off the 'rails' due to lack of 'real' interested buyers and he'd only just gotten the whole deal signed, sealed and delivered...Our Premier was due for a rest and I think you can be fairly sure the 'yes' men and women who snap to attention when he yawns weren't going to disturb him at all between Dec 16 and the date of his expected return from holiday.

It just wouldn't be on (the attempt to destroy evidence) - somebody would have noticed and somebody would have talked - it didn't happen (in my view).

I think we need to focus on what went on in government AFTER the raid in order to understand what's actually happening relative to disclosure.

More, as I said, later.

This will take some time.
I've been waiting to bring this up. G West has said that he was sure the yes men weren't going to disturb him. But they did. Twice. Coleman called him on vacation twice. He originally said he called him once and said there was going to be a problem. I never beleived this at all. I submit he called him to tell him that the raid was happenig. But only two calls were admitted to. I'll tell you one thing,I'd sure like to see Fred and Kathys' phone records for that period. I don't know if the police ever thought about that.
As far as Mike Smyth goes he has reported a few times on this. Once recently when he had Bill T. on Bill Goods' show. But in the beginning ALL of the reporting was very slanted. They used to compare all the wrongs to the NDP. Most of the time they never made sense to me . But Hey what the H.
The other thing is, and I've mentioned it on this blog before. When Coleman was being grilled and set up by Joy McPhail in estimates one day (the day he couldn't explain his job description, I think it was)he specifically said that the police wanted as much info to get out there as soon as possible. He went on to say that it wasn't their job. The courts would see to that.
On Bill T: I think what Bill is trying to tell us here is to be careful how things get worded. Sometimes the meaning gets twisted and we (myself included) tend to sensationalize the moment. We all know that he is without exception the lead reporter on this matter. And I for one firmly beleive that he has information, or a lead on information that we have yet to see. So when he espouses caution I think we should listen.
Having said that he sure knows how to evoke one hell of a debate. Doesn't he?
While I'm here Mary. During the time I was reading this the fact that this case wasn't getting out nagged the hell out of me. So I started thinking "what could I do?". There must be something. And I came up with an e-mail that let all my family and friends know about the raids case. I gave them the URL for this blog, Koots',Ross' Robin, 24hrs, The Tyee, and then told them that they could find a host more by googling the "legislature raids". Finally I asked them to pass it on to any of their friends, and relatives. Now if others did the same we could wind up with the "I told two friends, and so on" Hope it works. Don't know why I didn't think of it before.
I knew about Coleman's fact I happened to see the former solicitor general in the Gordon Head Home Depot in Victoria tonight.

This is not the sharpest tool on the bench gary - I think probably - at the time he was "answering" Joy's questions in the house he already realized this was likely going to be his only chance to make himself look good.

The problem is that Campbell IS smart and he IS the government.

In this particular case I don't believe he had the information to act until it was too late to grab up some of those boxes. And even if he’d had the time, I don’t think he’d have been stupid enough to interfere at that stage of an investigation into what (from his government’s point of view) was pretty much a mystery.

All the fancy footwork began after the Raid – led by little ERIK BORNMANN – who was singing like a lark…

Gordon’s been playing catch up ever since - despite his having professed support for letting it all hang out. That promise was worth about the same as his promise not to sell BC Rail!

Why else hire Stuart Chase?...We know that one didn't come from anywhere 'except' the Premier's Office - remember how - on the day the Opposition brought up his presence in the court (Campbell wasn't there) that neither Wally nor Carole really had a clue about what little Stuart the scribe was up to.

Sometimes you have to read between the lines....

Gordon is, I'd say, very worried about how this is going to come down.

Even if he's never charged, this case has the potential to trash his reputation worse than that DUI ever did.

That is, in my view, a good thing...but only if this thing actually goes to trial. Psychologically I believe that there is a reason why the accused haven’t asked their lawyers to get them out of this as minimal cost. I think the worm has turned and Gordon Campbell ought to look to his powder. I think the CEO premier has a couple of subordinates who are sick and tired of being blamed for doing as they were told.
Hi Mary - I am still unable to respond at length but having read Kootcoot's post and his website diatribe I thought I'd just post here what I posted there as well, since the subject is much the same.

I will first add two points. I am unaware of any information that David Harris was appointed Special Prosecutor before or after Bill Berardino. The only reference I have is from a January 22, 2004 Canadian Press story: "Dohm sided with lawyer David Harris, acting for Berardino, who said the Crown wants another six weeks to complete parallel reviews of material seized in the raids and warrant information that triggered the searches."

Secondly, had the government announced the appointment of the Special Prosecutor BEFORE the December 28, 2003 raid it could indeed have jeopardized the investigation. Why anyone thinks they would announce that on December 16, 2003 is beyone me.

Here then is my message to Kootcoot and others:

KOOTCOOT - I could react with predictable outrage, feigned indignation, false bravado or complete disdain to your comments about me.

But I choose not to do so.

I will say that when I question The unknown Concerned Citizens hypotheses I get the third degree from you and others - almost every one of which is Anonymous.

I use my real name, I go to court, I report in two publications plus my blog. I do not hide from anyone, including those thugs who broke into my office to trash the place.

This is a big important case. I suggest those who want to make contributions - as I hope you all will - develop a little thicker skin than some of you obviously have.

I have insulted no one, I have debased no one and I have belittled no one. I have posed questions and given my opinion.

Get used to it and get over it or read someone else's stuff that conforms to your suspicions, because mine isn't going to change.
Bill, you say in your last comment that:
" I am unaware of any information that David Harris was appointed Special Prosecutor before or after Bill Berardino."

I'm glad you cleared that up, as the only reference to David Harris that I had seen was made by YOU yesterday (the original comment that stirred stuff), to wit:

"Thirdly, David Harris is a law partner of Berardino and was originally appointed Special Prosecutor, with Berardino later taking over."

So I'll just leave you to taking issue with yourself now! The relevant point in all this being that it can always be a surprise to see who shows up to represent the SP. The biggest surprise would be if the documents that were demanded "forthwith" by Judge Bennett, ever show up or if any one was being held accountable for showing contempt for the court.
I scrolled too far and posted a reply on topic here, in the Jan. 16 entry. Please check same for my review of 30 cases in which Janet Winteringham served as counsel. Can she be trusted?
Anonymous 1:37,

Many thanks for your hard work.

Your comment is so interesting, I picked it up for pasting here, too:

Anonymous said...

I just completed research of 30 cases where Janet Winteringham served as counsel. As I read, she was schooled in Burnaby and served as a defence attorney until she became a prosecutor, circa 2000. She returned to defence work in late 2006.

Actually, her work record is rather good. She served all classes of private clients, and appealed several cases on principle. Law firms do not routinely assign appeals to someone of her youth, but she obviously impressed her bosses.

As a prosecutor, she handled 3 prosecutions of cops (Langlois, Coquitlam RCMP; Dosanjh, Victoria PD; Stewart, Vancouver PD). She was anything but lenient.

Normally, prosecutors are cop doormats. Winteringham has proven otherwise. Given the pollution of the Bench by Administrative Lawyers - this has accelerated with the loathsome, Wally Oppal in the AG office, with Alan Seckel (yet another AL rights butcher) in his Deputy role - I still suspect that Winteringham can be leveraged. However, I can't accuse her of lack of public purpose, since her record suggests otherwise. We'll see.

Yoo Hoo, Anonymous 5:47 ...

Today is January 31 and The Province says, quote:

"The March 17 byelection will determine who succeeds Liberal MP Stephen Owen, who is pursuing a new career with the University of B.C.

"The seat has been held by the Liberals since 1984.

"[Joyce] Murray, a former B.C. environment minister, held a fundraiser LAST night with former prime minster Paul Martin in attendance.

"She said she will knock on her 6,000th door today and is devoting much of her time to the riding's Chinese community, which makes up 30 per cent of the 86,000 voters. [Etc. etc.]"

See that? Paul Martin was in Vancouver LAST night, i.e., January 30! Whaddaya mean, telling us he'd be at the Floata Restaurant on 31 January! Sheesh.


Post a Comment

<< Home