Wednesday, October 13, 2010


MacKenzie's Publication Ban appears to be working. No sittings, no news for BC Rail Political Corruption Trial today. Only yada yada yada ...

BC Mary comment: Another week's delay as requested by this fancy Prosecution team which will presumably struggle to achieve the cube root of SFA while rejoicing in another 1-week recess (delay). Big Media will undoubtedly join them in their reverie.

Realistically, a lot of witnessing could have been done in the week of court time which has just been tossed aside. The public would have been grateful. But no ...

Contempt of court? I'll say it is. 

So ... October 18th is the new date for  booking our travel plans if we want to be in Vancouver -- and in the public gallery of BCSCourtroom 54 -- for the next Act in the unfolding tragedy of BC Rail Political Corruption. October 18, 2010. 

This trial was scheduled to begin 4-1/2 years ago: in June 2006. The delays and the inadequate reporting began right off the bat. That's why this blog (and House of Infamy) got started -- trying to fill in the gaps of information. And still it goes on ... 

Is there nobody in charge of this fiasco? You bet there is. And right from the beginning, I have wondered why Dave, Bobby, and Aneal don't do the right thing and tell everything they know about how the people of BC lost the nation's 3rd largest railway, the lifeline of our province.


Someday In the Supreme Court of Canada We may Hear these words.
Speaking about the Judge in This Corruption Trial.

"He clearly attempted to influence the manner in which both counsel were presenting their respective cases"
"The errors made by the trial judge and indeed the whole conduct of the trial have a cumulative effect that makes it readily apparent that no other disposition than that of a new trial would achieve a fair result."

Read Below this case, involving similar charges.
R. v. Hinchey, [1996] 3 S.C.R. 1128
Criminal law -- Trial -- Charge to jury -- Conduct of trial -- Whether trial judge’s errors and persistent interference preventing accused from receiving fair trial -- Whether curative proviso applicable -- Criminal Code, R.S.C., 1985, c. C-46, s. 686(1)(b)(iii).

"While I do not intend to go into this aspect of the appeal in detail inasmuch as a decision has already been reached as to disposition, the transcript clearly demonstrates untoward interference with both counsel’s conduct of their respective cases by the judge throughout the trial. In the course of the trial, which lasted over two weeks, the judge continually questioned counsel (indeed “grilled” is perhaps a more apt description) both prior to and during the examination of many witnesses as to the form and nature of the evidence to be given. On at least eight occasions the judge suspended the proceedings, excused the jury and of his own volition entered into what he termed as voir dires for that purpose. He clearly attempted to influence the manner in which both counsel were presenting their respective cases.
1 A review of the transcripts makes it apparent that the proceedings were more in the nature of an ordeal than a trial. Certainly they indicate that the accused could not have received a fair trial.
Well done, E.M.!!

Thank you!
Post a Comment

<< Home