Robin's Analysis - Part 4

Robin Matthews, who has been attending the court appearances when possible and reporting on them has outdone himself with his posting over at BC Mary's today. I never felt that the charged Indo-Canadians had enough influence to actually sell, but they could provide access to their employers like the "Soup Nazi, the ferret and Judith the Transport Minister, to name only three. Though the Ledge Raids and the sale of BC Rail seem like big scandals, Robin's post today illustrates how they are each just small parts of a much larger assault on the freedom, property and trust of all the citizens of this once proud province.

As Robin points out:

To suspect the Gordon Campbell government of attempting to undermine just investigations, the laying of charges, and fair pursuit of legal remedies in the history following the legislature raids is not, in my opinion, an option. It is a fundamental necessity.(italics mine)

Hie thee on over and read Robin - Part 4 (link above), you might want to wait awhile after eating however, because what the Soup Nazi and his crackers have been up to is truly and deeply sickening or as my boys used to say when they were young - grossening.

BTW, Hooray for the NDP for actually making the Liberals spend at least a little bit of time in the Legislature - in spite of the fact the Soup Nazi himself is far away across the sea. Of course we won't know what he's actually doing unless we get to see some mug shots. When it comes to the Rockpile, use it or lose it, you never know with these guys. If they see it sitting idle too long, they may just secretly sell it to the Empress for expansion of the Empress' tourist trade. We probably wouldn't know until the Empress started booking rooms thusly - "Would you like tea in the Original Empress or in what used to be the ferret's den?" To date they've just used the Legislature to sell influence, but hey, if the offer is good enough maybe the building is available. BC Rail wasn't for sale either, remember!

Brunch at Chez des Chiens!

For some strange reason much of the information fed to us "common folk" about the Legislature Raids and their resulting legal maneuverings, brings to mind that morning meal enjoyed by our canine friends. I'm not referring to anything to do with Belinda Stronach either, except to say that she has every right to feel disrespected by the likes of "Gumboots Crying in the Rain" MacKay, Norm Spector and those cult followers of the jolly King Ralphie. I wonder what would be the outcry if Ms. Stronach were to rise in the house and suggest (in an above board manner, that WOULD show up in Hansard), that the leader of our current excuse for a goverment is say......... "a pudgy, pasty, petulant chickenhawk?" I would bet that wouldn't slip by to a few chckles and winks, 'mongst the boys, ya know (nudge, nudge)!

While we are on the subject of dogs, however real dogs, I feel that freedom can be compared to a dog. With both it is important how you treat it and how you pay attention to it. If you ignore your dog, and don't address its needs it will probably wander off and find somewhere else to live. That is of course unless you have a monster big fence or keep it constantly on a chain, but then that doesn't exactly sound much like freedom either. Most people I run across in daily life don't even remember the Legislature Raids without some prompting, and then may say "aren't they done with that, yet?" I guess if "they" were done that would be just fine and dandy with those folks. They'll have plenty of time to think about it later when we're sitting in the dark, freezing so blow dryers can run free in the Arizona Desert.

I guess my point is that if we don't cherish and look after our freedoms (and our goods), nobody else will. People who are especially NOT concerned with your goods and freedoms would be those who covet them to satisfy their own greedy agenda. Of course who those people might be, or even if they are, is beyond my pay grade to determine.

But it would really kinda tickle some itch in me to know why:

1. Why did the Horsemen spend time during the holidays, when I'm certain they would have preferred being with their families, bring box after box after van load of documents out of the Legislature under sealed warrant (which by the way stayed mostly sealed until after the next election and is still approximately 20% redacted)?

2. One defendent was fired the day after the raid and the other stayed on paid leave, until he was charged, almost one year later. Why were they treated differently by people (their employers, the bcgov) who didn't know anything about what they were doing?

3. Just where is this legendary RCMP "Project Room" full of evidence? Surrey, Vancouver, Victoria (or maybe a mine shaft in Sandon)? See Part III of Robin Matthews' excellent coverage over at BC Mary's.

4. I can't help but wonder what would have come about thanks to Watergate, if the investigation had never gone beyond the original "plumbers?"

I don't know about you, but this dog has had enough breakfast for this morning. Besides there's other issues, like bringing a Grey Cup to Vancouver (to make up for not winning one there last year. Go Lions, they're serving frog's legs in Winnipeg this afternoon.

A Retraction - sort of!

With thanks to Bill Tieleman, whom I only take to task because he seems to be the only Holy Media Member aware of the Public's interest in this case, I have discovered an error in a previous post. It turns out that BC Mary and myself were looking at the wrong "Court Lists." But the fact is that the Government's "lets see how much we can hide" approach to sharing information online (Our bought and paid for information, by the way) was the most culpable party contributing to our confusion.

Bill, actually being an investigative reporter, tracked down this discrepancy and brought it to the attention of Mary and myself - and all I can say is "Thank You" Bill. But through his own investigating, Bill himself was made aware of the difficulty of actually finding the "Criminal Court" lists without actually talking to someone in Victoria. Any information that is difficult to find or access by an accredited member of the media, like Bill, certainly isn't readily accessible by the average member of the Public. Of course, just in case you hadn't noticed, I never thought that the concerns of the average hard-working, tax-paying person were a very high priority with the current excuse for a Government, that doesn't even bother to sit in the House of Infamy - anymore.

So I am now going to remove the link to download what we thought was the schedule and remove it from the server where it was residing to give members of the public access. However after much thought, I have decided to leave the posting itself as I feel that the issue of transparency and true justice are are both still relevant and the post itself still speaks to the "accidental or purposeful" government game of "Hide the Weenie."

The stricken out link still works, now though it shows you something I care about even more than I do the Legislature, and a big part of the reason I care about the Legislature at all.

Bill Tieleman Redux!

I meant to get this reply to your comment up sooner, but was delayed thanks to problems with our fancy, snazzy, new semi-privatized 'lectricity stuff for a day or so. I really do appreciate your taking the time to comment on my blog, but wish you demonstrated an understanding of what I was trying to say. Maybe I just can't express myself well enough.

I was very favorably impressed with your coverage of the November 14th judgment hearings. The part I liked the best was it was so much about what the Judge said and not what you think. It's not that I don't care what you think Bill, it's more like I resent the fact that unless I live in range of the courthouse my sources of information seem to be limited to nothing or what you and Vaughn or somebody thinks about whatever actually occurred. Opinion pieces are fine, I love 'em in fact, but do appreciate some actual reportage with a minimum of spin as well - sort of like Knowlton Nash maybe.

The only thing I might take issue with in that article is your view of winners and losers and not just whether you are choosing the correct parties. Although at this point the access to the "room" is a victory for the defense, more than that it is a victory for the people of BC and Justice. The people of British Columbia are the true victims in this "crime" and the only horse I'm backing in this race is Justice herself.

So once more with feeling, I will attempt to clarify my response to the original comment and the resulting comment from you. I certainly don't think for a minute that your job is easy or a "cakewalk" by any stretch of the imagination and hope to read much more of your coverage of this vital but maddenly confusing legal equivalent to WW I trench warfare.

You started by saying:

Sorry to burst your bubble, kootcoot. but you are shooting at the wrong guy.

Thanks Bill, for bursting my bubble and all, and here I didn't even know I was drooling. I wasn't really shooting at you either, though I do feel that the the press (of which rumor has it you are a part) has been extremely remiss in the coverage of this case with the possible exception of the few days immediately following the virtually unprecedented raids themselves. I would expect a crime possibly involving the improper transfer of a One Billion dollar "public" asset to earn at least the same amount of attention from you and your colleagues as say... a $3,500 deck in East Van. Oh yeah, how could I forget the guys that looked like extras from the Sopranos doing something as suspicious as actually walking out of a card room in North Burnaby. If you think about it, you might understand why that image sticks in my brain so long after they walked out that door, not once, not twice, but every friggin' day for how long?

And it's not condescending to point out the facts, even if it upsets your paranoia or conspiracy theories.

Actually I wasn't discussing any facts, I was referring to the condescending attitude that emanated from your comment on Mary's blog. If you read a little slower, or even, gasp!, the whole post, maybe that would be clear. Forgive me for not expressing myself more clearly in this regard. If we were on old Unix work stations communicating in 'talk' I could even type slower, but that won't make any difference here. But then I remind myself that your column in 24 Hours is called, after all, NewsOpinionAttitudes.

for full post click below



The only thing you said, and what I took issue with was that " ...but you have to be more accurate on the Courts." Aside from being an incredibly awkward and semi-literate way to say what I think you were trying to say (especially for a "professional" writer), to the casual reader, this statement, coming from you after all, celebrated media/political pundit, casts a cloud of doubt on everything written on Mary's blog. With one casually tossed off, almost Bu$h quality, phrase (no facts mind you) you make it likely that other readers will say "tin-foil hat people over here, let's go see if any white women are missing anywhere!"

Whoops, I almost was inaccurate. You did state one fact, that an article had been published over a week before the court date in a paper in a city at least 4 hours away from the courthouse (for people who can't commute by air) and even father away for about half of the population of the province. Then you were so kind as to paste aforementioned article into your comment. I'll admit there may have been some facts in that article, but where and when they were made available just proves my point about how scarce information is about this issue. Perhaps an article from the Sun from Sunday the 28th or Monday the 29th or even ideally Friday the 26th would have been more effective at "bursting my bubble."

re: conspiracy theories - How's about this one - the whole thing was the result of a bunch of hyperactive mounties with too much time on their hands and thus it's much ado about nothin'. No Bill, I don't think the "Soup Nazi," the AG and Chief Justice and media barons all get together at midnight in a secret compartment off the Deas tunnel to work out their nefarious schemes. People with common interests know who they are and what to do. It might not be a bunch of hand greasing themselves behind a curtain and pulling a fast one on the yokels. It could just be third rate journalism. Part of journalism is deciding what is important and why, and then there's public relations, a whole 'nother sea-lice infested kettle of fish.

First off, a wide range of media were in the courtroom October 30 - The Globe and Mail, CKNW, 24 hours, the Vancouver Sun, the Province, Global TV and others.

Great - so what was that four people? The G&M, CKNW, you and one person wearing three hats? The other question I have is - what were they doing there? I hadn't noticed that the Province even remembered this was going on and left this file for the occasional mocking piece by Keith on Global or Vaughn in the Sun. I'll admit Bill, you're the best of a bad lot, not counting the reporters from TO (you know - the center of the universe far away), maybe you could follow them and see where they get their information. Of course maybe its just a matter of what they decide to actually.....you know...share with their readers.

How on earth did they get there?

Assuming that the answer isn't by cab or skytrain and the question is how did they know when and where to go - that's what reporters are supposed to do, find out stuff. Jimmy Olsen knew that! I imagine they even get paid for going to the trouble, unlike say... myself or Mary!

They are following the trial despite it's confusions and length.
I knew and they all knew about the disclosure application.

You obviously have better sources than me. All I have is yourself and your colleagues and oh yeah, the Court Online Information Services that LIES and/or chooses to withhold information for no apparent reason - assuming of course that there are no unseen players, un-indicted participants or conspiracies!

I don't disagree for a moment that there should be more coverage, better coverage, more informed coverage.

See Bill, we can agree, wasn't that easy!

But if you want to advance this story and be taken seriously, the facts have to be accurate - it's the same criticism you lay at others' doors.

As I pointed out, I wasn't disputing any facts or presenting any facts and neither were you.

I don't need to pout, I'm not threatening anything - I'll keep reporting the story regardless.

I was responding to the tone in a facetious manner - I'm bad for that, get used to it or ignore me.

I understand you don't read the Victoria Times-Colonist - neither do I. But I found the article because I track the story.

I don't know if or where else it was reported but it's also possible the media didn't find a disclosure application with no details an interesting story, as opposed to a vast media conspiracy to silence the trial.

Well Bill, I beg to differ with anyone that thinks anything about this case is on no interest to the public. I can think of people who might benefit from a dearth of truth ever being available on the other hand. By the way, I would like to remind you about a small deck in East Van.

Lastly, as to my opinion, it is solely my own.

Glad to hear it.....

And in my opinion, shooting at the media with blanks isn't getting us very far.

I think the media is too often shooting blanks at us, or projectiles filled with cotton-candy.

Sorry - you'll probably find that condescending again.

Well I guess I kinda did.........

P.S I read your B-word piece in 24hrs and I'm in agreement with you on the Belinda issue and the lack of class, vocabulary etc. of Norman Spector, Peter MacKay and King Ralph. I must say I was surprised you didn't mention Ralphie's "boner" in your column. I was especially amazed when I found out it wasn't an off the cuff remark, but that he was reading from a prepared and vetted speech. No wonder Stephie Wonder has to muzzle most of his members most of the time.

Going to Court?

Say I, as a concerned citizen, wanted to go to court to follow the proceedings of the Basi, Basi and Virk case that resulted from the unprecedented December 28, 2003 RCMP Raid on the Legislature? Since I am one of those old fashioned cantankerous types who feels that a case of this magnitude so closely entwined with my government and the "unauthorized" disposal of Public Assets for Private Gain - IS MY BUSINESS, I won't accept the answer that it is none of my business. Indeed a transparent open justice system is in the citizen's interest.

I mean, I guess we could simplify and speed things up by having star chambers and other "secret" courts where no one but the accused really knows what is happening. If you are one who feels that way, I hope you get arrested as soon as we have simplified the system. By the way, I don't care if you are really guilty or not - it takes too much time and resources and IT"S NOBODY'S BUSINESS anyway.

So for the last couple of days I've been trying with no success (btw government, your website sucks) to access the Court Lists posted online. Finally around 5:00pm this afternoon I was able to get into the lists, and well, then I wrote a friend who shares my interest in open government and transparent delivery of justice. I'll just let the letter take over from here.

November 13, 2006
Dear XXXXXXX, (I can be greedy with information too)

It's 5:00pm and I just got into the Court Lists for all the use they are. If I could time travel backwards I know what cases are appearing in Nanaimo, Victoria and Vancouver Supreme Courts on NOVEMBER 10, 2006.

Now that's mighty handy don't you figure. I guess maybe, with luck tomorrow's listings will be up at 6:00am in the morning. Hey no problem, if BVB are on there, I'll just hop in my commuter jet and be right down. Not only are they assholes, but they take us for fools.

To me knowing what is on the docket in Van or Victoria tomorrow morning at 6:00am is just about as useful as knowing what cases were supposed to be on the docket last Friday. The whole government "online" information access program is a crock. It's just another way to actually pretend to be allowing access, while really making it almost impossible for the populace to even find out what in the beJeeeeezus is happening.

Hello SoupGuy or would, ala Seinfeld, "Soup Nazi" be more appropriate? In case you haven't noticed, British Columbia is a large area. It actually incorporates more real estate than the states of Washington, Oregon and California combined. For the little wee bit of information you guys grudgingly share to be of any use, a person would need to have it in time to actually be able to act on it. I guess anyone who lives east of Chilliwack or so doesn't matter. Heck, what am I thinking, I've always known that.

Guess what dipwads, I can - from my keyboard here in the Kootenays - find out more about what is going on in the Court Systems of Riverside or Los Angeles Counties in California. Not only that, but I can also find trial records, judgements and sentencing results of cases that happened in the last century, or last week, FOR FREE.

Spare Me the Wisdom, Bill
......and Hold the Condescending Attitude!

This afternoon intrepid "investigative journalist" Bill Tieleman weighed in among the comments at BC Mary's invaluable blog where she tries to shed some light on the shadowy occurrences surrounding the infamous Legislature Raids. Now if the lapdog media in this province treated this raid and the resulting legal action (or lack of same) as important as say.......when an NDP premier had a neighbor help him build a deck, perhaps neither Mary or I would have been inspired to start our blogs in an effort to generate interest and flush out information. But for some reason issues like, what is happening to BC Hydro, what happened to BC Rail, why are BC Ferries rapidly becoming water hazards and oh yeah, why did the RCMP spending most of a day during the holidays of 2003 rolling evidence out of the legislature on dollies seem to fail to meet the test of being of interest to the public.

Now Bill starts his comment at Mary's with this:

Folks - I appreciate Mary's blog and your following this case greatly - but you have to be more accurate on the Courts.

Or what Bill, will you go pout in the corner? The only inaccuracies I've run into on Mary's blog, or by her commenters are due to the difficulty of actually finding accurate information. Of course when Can(o'crap)West reporters actually attend the court hearing only to have their editor at the holy Times-Colonist (of which more later) decide not to publish the submission due to its lack of importance, one source of information is kinda cut off at the pass right there. This happened in the case of an earlier meeting of counsel at the Courthouse, see Mary's archives for details. Specifically see From the Editor-in-Chief, Times-Colonist and Some things did happen on Sept. 18, '06.

Editor-in-Chief Chodan of the T-C was extremely displeased and almost threatening towards BC Mary for having the temerity to share with her readers her (Chodan's) statement regarding coverage of and lack of importance of the day's hearing in question. I have publicly (well, as public as this blog) asked Ms. Chodan to answer a question or two myself. But I guess as an important newspaper figure Ms. Chodan's mandate has little or nothing to do with sharing facts or information with the public. Indeed, maybe big time newspaper folk have to take an oath (like joining the CIA) swearing to never allow a fact to enter the public realm without the proper application of spin. Silly me to even think otherwise. It shouldn't surprise anyone that the circulation of the Sun and Province is currently below that of 1957, at which time less folks lived in the whole province than the Fraser Valley today.

Or here at the Infamous House you could check out Almost Secret Hearing Held Yesterday from May 14.

Then you could follow that up with its sequel
? Anonymous ? Questions ? ? ? ? ? from May 16.

Maybe you could talk to Wally Oppal too, if anybody is spreading inaccurate and inappropriate statements about a matter before the courts - I nominate him. Oh yeah, Wally is the TOP law enforcement officer in the province and rumor has it he even went to Law School, so he should know better.

Then Bill gets even more condescending and says:

This article ran in the Victoria Times-Colonist on October 22, 2006 regarding the defense disclosure application. It clear (sic) states for all to read that the hearing for Basi and Virk would be held on October 30 - see the third from the last paragraph.

Bill, I know it ain't your fault, but I live over 500 miles from Victoria and never even SEE a Times-Colonist, much less have any reason to buy it. Perhaps you forgot, the trial is in VANCOUVER, or am I making a rash inaccurate statement again? When I am expecting news of something like say the Basi-Virk trial, I overcome my natural reluctance to buy the Vancouver Sun* and scour it for relevant information.

* I'm used to receiving P.R releases free in the mail or picking them up free. If I'm looking for fiction, I tend to prefer novels or short stories, clearly labeled as fiction. - kootcoot

I consider (however wrongly) the Sun to be the provincial paper of record, and the least it could do would be to provide information about such an important trial taking place in the very same city it supposedly serves. I guess I was being obtuse though. I should have known that this information would be in a paper published in a city about an hour's drive and a long ferry ride away from the courthouse and conveniently placed in paragraph 6 on Page ???, and that this easy to find information would be published over a week before the court date. I'm so dense and retarded, I never thought of that. Maybe next time I'll check the Fort Saint James paper a week or two before the trial date, though that is also a long way from my house and the courthouse.

Perhaps I wasn't being truthful and/or accurate above, Maybe I shouldn't consider you an investigative journalist. Perhaps you are more of a whatever they call folks like Baldrey and Palmer. Maybe you aren't a reporter at all, and you write "opinion" pieces (NewsViewsAttitudes?), I guess that would mean you are a pundit?

There's another thing that annoys me about this case and its coverage. How come there aren't any news articles that basically state what happened in court, without the spin or the attempt to minimize the importance of the issue. How come as far as I've been able to find the only coverage, in the Sun, of the recent few days of court has been sporadically in Keith Baldrey's "opinion" column. Doesn't this qualify as news? By the way Bill, whose opinion is it that you express?

By the way Bill, in light of your chiding, in the interests of accuracy I will correct some previous assumptions and statements:

On October 30, David Basi, Bob Virk and Aneal Basi, their counsel and Special Prosecutor Berardino were originally scheduled to deal with issues regarding discovery and disclosure in the Vancouver Law Courts. Apparently this had to be set back in order to accommodate some really important legal proceedings involving John Doe and his distant relative John Does.

Just to help keep this all in perspective, I would like to close with something from a couple years or so ago from either Reporter Bill or Pundit Bill.

" ... But we do know that there are connections between a police investigation into drugs, money-laundering, and organized crime, two privatization deals worth more than $1 billion, and allegations of breach of trust and fraud by top provincial government officials who have extensive connections with the federal Liberal party and the campaign to make Paul Martin leader and prime minister."

But "we do know"........we do, do we, Bill?

Why Mary and I Blog!

A reader of BC Mary's Blog (likely another Kootenay resident, judging from the username) left a comment that illustrates why it is important that SOMEBODY, if only we amateur journalists, try to shine some light on the machinations of this investigation and hopefully eventual trial. Honest government has nothing to fear from the bright light of day and public scrutiny. It seems that all parties cry out for open transparent government when they are in opposition, but once they form government, not so much.

Watching Keith Baldrey's sudden interest in this matter on Global TV suggest he is nothing short of a Basi, Basi, Virk apologist.

I can't believe this, right before our eyes we see the RCMP being put on trial for catching these rotten apples. Where is the media indignation about three government officials engaging in wholly unacceptable conduct?

The coverage is essentially a fraud. We've seen him take the government position before, but this time it is really too much.

Documents Available for Downloading!

I posted a .jpg image of part of the Vancouver Court Listings for October 30, 2006 in yesterday's post. Blogger's format etc. required me to reduce the size and as a result the print wasn't as clear as I would like. Anyone interested in perusing the complete lists for that day in Vancouver Supreme Court can download their own copy, at no charge, at the following:

Vancouver Court Listings - October 30, 2006   new hope

As explained above in a later post, this download has been removed, because it became apparent that it wasn't relevant to the case in question. However, I still feel that the whole issue could involve government or other even higher powers using mis-direction or lack of direction to keep the public in the dark. I don't know if it rises to the level of "Obstruction of Justice," a prohibited behaviour listed in the Canada Criminal Code, but even that might be a reasonable thing to consider. BTW, the link still works, even though it is striked (stricken(?) out, but all you will see is my Grand Daughter.

Adobe Acrobat Reader or equivalent is required to open and read most BC government information available online. Thus I will leave the link to Acrobat for anyone who might need to install it. Most people have this on their computer, if you don't it is available at www.adobe.com and is a free download.

They Didn't Fight for Freedom from Accountability

Today, as we pause to remember those who have given their lives to protect our way of life, it is also important to remember what it was they were fighting to defend. I am certain they didn't risk, and in some cases give, their lives to protect the Campbell government's right to operate in secret against the interests of the people of British Columbia. Hopefully they fought to defend our right to freedom, freedom to live free, freedom to know what "our" government is doing in "our" name, and supposedly for our benefit.

At times the greatest threat to our freedom and our way of life comes not from over there, wherever there is today, but from inside. Those who would steal "our" resources and the work of "our" ancestors to enrich themselves and their cronies, are often our greatest enemy. BC Mary posted this comment from BC Dude (left at Tyee) on her critically important blog, where she bravely keeps trying to frustrate the obvious efforts to make the Basi-Virk case simply disappear. This is just part of the comment - a quote from Cicero Marcus Tullius.

A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself..........

Now some people, like say Vaughn Palmer and Keith Baldrey, may think that the resulting legal actions and facts (they do remember those things - facts, or do they?) surrounding the unprecedented search and seizure of evidence from the LEGISLATURE three days after Christmas almost three years ago is of negligible importance. This is in spite of questions surrounding the sale of BC Rail, and pretty much anything else in the province that isn't actually nailed down or made of bedrock - and even that can be had for the right price, apparently. Somehow Basi, Basi and Virk transmorgrified into multiple instances of John Doe and John Does between October 26-27 and Monday October 30. I know it was close to Halloween, but that is no excuse for having litigants (with no issues deserving of privacy) to be scheduled to appear in court under fake names. As one lawyer quoted on Mary's blog put it:

This kind of thing doesn't happen by accident. It looks like a deliberate attempt to keep the press (and the public) from being aware of what was happening in Justice Bennett's courtroom - the only legitimate use of 'john doe' labelling is when there are reasons (under age children, physical danger or threat etc) why privacy is an important consideration for someone in the court....... in view of the public notice you received on Friday,..... none of those considerations would apply in this instance.

In a case like this the switch from BBV to John Doe etc over the weekend couldn't have been anything other than a cover up - and it's a cover up the press is up to its armpits in. Why wouldn't those 'vastly experienced' court reporters (Baldrey and Palmer - one must presume) have at least noted it in passing?

Here's part of page 3 of 7 from the Court Listing for Vancouver Supreme Court on October 30 - note Basi, Basi and Virk, or at least their representation did appear and issues were dealt with.

The system the court uses to inform the public regarding its schedule is more like an effort to limit and/or block information from reaching the public. The listings are only posted after 6:00am of THE DAY and not archived - unavailable the next day, unless you make your own copy. I'm sorry to inform the smug residents of the West End, but some people live a little too far away from the CorruptCourthouse to be able to get there on an hour or two notice.

This case potentially effects everyone in British Columbia. When the government and the Justice System are trying to operate in secret, usually it is because they are committing criminal acts!The use of privilege to cover up crime is Abuse of Privilege!

If there's nothing to hide - just quit hiding stuff!