Monday Morning
Sing Along

One of my anono-mice said the other day:

I was particularly amazed by the way the puffmaster played down Dobell's role as a lobbyist in the 90 seconds of the conversation with Stonewally this morning.

I don't really have an opinion because I don't get to, or don't have to, listen to the puffmaster other than the odd time my normal guy and gal are away. But the comment did get the creative juices flowing. Here's the first verse or the new chorus, feel free to add verses in the comments.

Fluff the Magic Flackman

Cluff the Magic Dragon, broadcasts by the sea,

Spinning tales of truthy fluff,
to the likes of thee and me

StoneWally told Ricky, an inquiry ain't due,

If it's good enough from Mr Puff,
it's good enough for U.

Oh Cluff the Magic..........

Dirty Tricks and the Fantastic

it's just the daily due,

Hardly done and completely Spun
It's what they call the news.

Oh Cluff the Magic.........

Little Wally Oppal, loves that wascally Cluff,

He never criticizes much or asks him tricky stuff.

Oh, Cluff the Magic................

Tell                It  
TO
the COPS

Those of you old enough to remember the sixties might remember the line used by those who weren't necessarily on my side of the issues that went something like:

If you don't like the cops, then the next time you are in trouble, "Call a Hippie."

StoneWall(y) Oppal proved he could say something other than "it's before the courts, therefore, it would not be appropriate for me to comment" when he told NDP Leader Carole James that if she felt Ken Dobell, the Soup Nazi's man of many hats, was in a conflict of interest, "she should take her concerns to the police." He repeated this view on CBC this morning on Early Edition saying that "an investigation into a possible conflict is not warranted at this time and the New Democrats should take their complaints to the police." Of course he didn't say that as the top Law Enforcement official in the Province that he would "advise" the police to assign a "special investigator," to look into the allegations and that Mr. Dobell's mom would be the ideal person to choose to lead the investigation.

For Mr. Dobell it seems that there can never be too many different groups to collect money from to lobby for in the best interests of Mr. Dobell's mother's son. As presented in yesterday's Vancouver Sun:

The NDP released meeting minutes showing Dobell told the Vancouver civic theatres board in April 2005 that money for the redevelopment of the Queen Elizabeth Theatre might be available from the budget surplus in early 2006.

"Sure enough," James said, "one year later, $5 million flowed from the province to the city, and Ken Dobell got his contract."

James pointed to other documents showing that in March 2006 -- after Dobell had left government, but while he was still a special government adviser -- he was involved in a series of meetings with the premier, the Vancouver city manager and the Ministry of Tourism.

The following month, on April 5, 2006, Campbell announced the Tourism Ministry would give the City of Vancouver $5 million to start planning a downtown "cultural precinct" that would include the Queen Elizabeth Theatre, the Vancouver Art Galley and the public library.

Dobell is paid $250 an hour to a maximum of $150,000, according to a contract obtained by the NDP.

Vancouver city council minutes show the money for the contract comes from the province's $5-million contribution.

(my bolding -kc)

While you are coloring me green with envy, let me see if I've got this right. Mr. Dobell managed to snag a second part time job (only paying up to $150,000) at $250 per hour to go to his $250-$350 per hour day job and whisper in his boss' ear about the needs and wants of the City of Vancouver. His boss is happy to toss $5,000,000 the city's way, out of which $150,000 is Mr. Dobell's cut. Did I miss something? Nice work if you can get it I guess. I know if I could find that kind of work, I wouldn't feel the need to work fulltime, much less take on a second job. Of course I never really understood greed, or else I would be a Republican, Conservative or BC Lieberal.

Update: According to the Province:

The Crown has referred to the RCMP a possible infraction of lobbyist regulations by the premier's special adviser, Ken Dobell.

Dobell registered as a lobbyist six months after he began a contract for the City of Vancouver. The regulations say registration must be done within 10 days.

Privacy commissioner David Loukidelis is reviewing Dobell's tardiness in registering as a lobbyist.

So the big question now is - whose mom or in-law will be leading this investigation?

I should point out that Canned West, even though they are at least paying some attention to the BC Rail trial, prove their complicitness in the ongoing conspiracy with the following headline for an editorial I won't even dignify with a link.

LIBERALS, NDP MUST ASSURE VOTERS THEY DON'T CONDONE DIRTY TRICKS

It may just be me, but I think this headline makes it seem like it is the NDP that are being accused of "DIRTY TRICKS." I guess really they just feel compelled to point out that if new tightened conflict of interest legislation introduced by NDP Member John Horgan becomes law, the NDP would be expected to obey the law also. Well, DUH!

Sometimes I'm amazed that the Lieberals didn't manage to convince the public, with the eager assistance of Canned West/GlowBall that the premier's DUI in Maui was the result of Joy and Jenny plying him with alcohol against his will, but I guess they were somewhere else at the time, and they couldn't blame Moe, Glen or Bob Skelly either.

Court Date
Tomorrow

According to the Completed Court Lists for Monday and Tuesday, this week, Courtroom 54 on Smythe Street will be busy with at least some BC Rail issues at 10:00am, Friday, April 27 - Vancouver Law Courts, Room 54 (room 54 Where are You?).

Amongst those who are following this affair, there has been some debate about whether the BC Rail Trial has actually begun or not. Robin Matthews for one is of the opinion that it hasn't and the very idea that it has is just another part of the ongoing mis-direction and down right obstruction that has characterized this whole operation, since even before the infamous "Raid."

April 18, Courtroom 54. In the Supreme Court of British Columbia. Finally - the trial of Basi, Basi, and Virk - a splash-off from the rotten sale of BC Rail and the odious cancellation of the intended government sale of the Roberts Bank spur line is here. Finally (after years of delay) that trial - announced with fanfare - started on April 18.


Except it didn't.

Basi, Basi, and Virk were nowhere to be seen. The absurdity of the pretence that the trial had begun seemingly escaped almost all the circle of journalists present and working for the Gordon Campbell government. There may be a sicker set of journalists in Canada but if there is, it will be hard to find.

The Grand Opening of the Basi, Basi, and Virk trial was held without Basi, Basi, and Virk, and without the Special Crown Prosecutor, William Berardino. The reason? Because it wasn't the beginning of the trial at all. It was another pre-trial hearing. Perhaps the Supreme Court of British Columbia has mismanaged the whole Basi, Basi, and Virk matter so massively, it decided the trial must pretend to begin. That is entirely possible. It pretended to begin on April 18.

(emphasis - kc)

Bill Tieleman on the other hand, admits that he is confused, that it isn't necessarily that easy to define exactly when a trial, especially in a complex situation like this, actually "officially" begins.

A NOTE: Some media, including 24 hours, are calling today's application the beginning of the trial while other are calling it a "court proceeding". There is some debate as to when exactly a trial begins and so far I've found no definitive answer.

The old Coot here is just glad to see that finally this festering sore is starting to be dealt with on a regular basis, rather than another adjournment or re-scheduling every few months. It must be a nightmare for the Soup Nazi and his Cabinet of Crackers, having to face new allegations every day or two while wondering how long "it's before the courts" will work. They undoubtedly are cognizant that that line won't hunt from the witness stand, and we've seen nothing yet of what they may do to stay out of that particular box.

Technically, I tend to agree with Robin, that the trial hasn't really started yet. It is stuff that has to be dealt with though, so it is good the things happening are happening. But again, technically, according to the Ministry of the AG, all of the current happenings are classified as CNAs and the previous results were IBJ, or ContiNuations of hearings on Applications Initiated by Judge. For further information on today's legal terms click below to go below the fold.

   More

Today's Justin Code Definitions:

CNA

Continuation of hearing on an application:
Only to be used when a hearing of an accused has been scheduled previously and is adjourned to continue. (Tautology anyone? - kc)

IBJ

Initiated by Judge/Justice - adjournment:
Used when the adjournment is initiated by the adjudicator, i.e. adjourned for lack of court time or to give judgement/sentence/disposition/continuation.

Hansard Blues
Part Deux

When we took a break from the Hansard Blues for Question Period yesterday, the Soup Nazi had just sat down to so his colleague the Honorable Wally Oppal, Attorney General could take over the challenging task of finding ever new ways to say nothing. Now as an attorney general, Mr. Oppal is competing at an elite level, Alberto Gonzales managed to find new ways (or just repeat himself) to say I don't recall for the whole day under increasingly impatient grilling by the Senate Judiciary Committee. Estimates vary from just over seventy to over a hundred times that "Torture Boy" managed to say "I don't remember" depending on which variations one counts. In the end his whole day of testimony came down to in short form - "I don't have a clue just what happened, but I am sure that none of it was "wrong."

Surely Mr. Oppal could do as well for just a hour or so under the gentle "coddling or poaching" (as opposed to grilling) of the tame NDP opposition or can he? Well to carry on in the same manner as Hansard Part Uno lets return to the Blues themselves.

(Once the tumult had calmed to a low roar........Wally managed to say:)

Hon. W. Oppal: That might be news to members of the opposition. Allegations are often made. Evidence is often led, but evidence often isn't factual. It may or may not be proved. But it's not proper for those questions to be raised in this House and for anybody to comment on those. As lawmakers, we should be painfully aware of that. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY (annotated by kootcoot) and exaggerated by kootcoot]

Hon. W. Oppal: This is the same question, so I'll give the same answer.

(it wasn't actually the "exact same" question, but......)

J. Horgan: Well, it's a sad, sad day in British Columbia when you can't ask the Premier of the province what his staff do for a living. The taxpayers of British Columbia….

(the two questions above prompted Wally to tag Gordo who jumped back into the ring to deliver some campaign speeches about how wonderful BC truly is under the BC Lieberals )

Keep in mind that this is the same Wally Oppal who according to Scott Sutherland of Canadian Press said last October that.....

he is concerned that an RCMP wiretap recorded an innocent phone call between Premier Gordon Campbell and his then-finance minister in 2003, slightly before police raided the legislature in late December.

Wally Oppal, a former B.C. Appeal Court judge, said Wednesday that his office has not been asked to consider the matter officially. "But it's obviously something we're concerned with," he said on his way into a weekly cabinet meeting.

......snip

Oppal said it's relatively common that wiretaps often record lawful conversations and do not contribute to gathering evidence of a crime.

"That's always been the problem with the wiretap sections of the (Criminal) Code, people who are entirely innocent of any wrongdoing are caught in the intercepts," he said.

(do you think that the FBI caught John Gotti's wife making an appointment with her hairdresser - should they release the Teflon Don if they did?)

He said he was troubled by reports the RCMP may not have been entirely up front about the fact the wiretap warrant was for a government phone.

"I don't know whether they misled the judge," said Oppal, who as a judge said he authorized many wiretaps. "It would bother me if they did.(BTW, It bothers me that it took about two years (until safely past the election) to release the information in the warrants. And what about those documents Robin Matthews is still waiting for?)

"Keep in mind this is an invasion of privacy of phone calls that are lawful in every sense (and) if something is altered without the consent of a judge then that's something that is a matter of concern."

While Oppal expressed his opinion, the province's solicitor general, responsible for the RCMP in B.C., was reluctant. (interesting)

"These are matters that are playing out in court as we speak and I think are best left there," said John Les. (this is starting to sound familiar)

One does tend to wonder why it was so appropriate for the AG to be expressing his opinion all over the place while John Les stuck to the party line. After the Gord carried the ball for awhile, Jenny Kwan, formerly one half of the previously seemingly more effective opposition of two took the floor, necessitating the Premier to tag his AG to jump back into the fray.

More

J. Kwan: It is very unfortunate that the Premier has displayed, in my view, complete contempt for British Columbia's…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

J. Kwan: …loyal opposition in asking these questions. These questions are legitimate. Liberal staffers have been caught with media manipulations for the government's political gain in the past….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.
Continue, Member.

J. Kwan: It is legitimate to ask the Premier whether or not any of those kinds of activities are continuing today. Will the Premier commit in this House to launch a full investigation into this matter? And will he confirm for members of this House that none of his staff are engaged in media manipulation for his own personal political gain

(Notice that Jenny was asking the Premier a question, but notice who answers, it's a bird, it's a plane, no it's the Consigliere)

Hon. W. Oppal: Yes, the names are not before the court. Those names are not before the court. But any six-year-old who reads the newspapers would know that all this arises out of the trial that's now being conducted in the Supreme Court.

Apparently even issues to do with Prem Vinning and his activities back in 2005 are related to "The Trial." I guess having "everything" off limits due to the ongoing "trial" is the next best thing to having war powers, and fortunately, I guess provinces can't declare war on anybody, except for their own citizens. Mr. Oppal managed to stonewall the rest of this attempt to elicit information with such gems as:

Hon. W. Oppal: You know, we don't conduct "investigations" while trials are going on......

Hon. W. Oppal: ..............All of those are matters that have arisen out of the Supreme Court trial that is presently going on in Vancouver. The member opposite can say what he wants — that this doesn't arise out of the trial. We don't conduct investigations that are parallel to trials.

Hon. W. Oppal: Well, if the question has been asked 19 times, it's been answered 19 times.

(Saying "It's before the courts, thus I can't comment" is more of an evasion than an actual....you know....ANSWER.....and 19 times is really a conservative estimate.)

The so-called cloud that the member speaks of is a cloud that's over on that side of the House. I can assure the House that there's no cloud over this side of the House.

(I'm starting to get it now, the cloud is on the opposition side of the House. The NDP actually gave away BC Rail, while the Premier was drinking and driving and allegedly philandering on Maui)

I could include many, many more of Wally's weasel words, but it's already getting pretty darn redundant. NDP member S. Simpson thought maybe another line of questioning might prove more likely to be productive. Fat chance, different questions same old answers, though from the Premier himself rather than the AG.

DISCLOSURE OF DOCUMENTS ON
SALE OF B.C. RAIL

S. Simpson: We know that the integrity of the Premier's office and of this government is in shambles, and it's unravelling more every minute in this question period as they deny information. In the court proceedings today…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Member.

S. Simpson: …counsel for Mr. Basi and Mr. Virk made it clear that they will be seeking disclosure in the coming days for documents that this government is withholding. The counsel is making the assertion that those documents will confirm or deny that the B.C. Rail oversight committee, made up of senior cabinet ministers from this government, was aware of the discussions of a consolation prize in the B.C. Rail deal.
My question is to the Premier. If the Premier is so sure and clear that these are false allegations, will he commit today to release all of those documents to the defence?

Interjection.

Mr. Speaker: Excuse me.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. G. Campbell: At least on this side of the House, we believe in the rule of law. (ROTFL).......
We will not taint that process.(is that a promise Gord? Like "We will not sell BC Rail) We will encourage the prosecution to be to the fullest extent of the law. I'm sure the defence will provide their defence, and we will not in any way taint that process, so we can get to a resolution that every British Columbian can count on.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

[End of question period.]

The sad thing, or one of them, is that we pay these people and provide the venue for this nonsense. Gordon Campbell had a real winner during one of his shifts serving as the Wall of Stone. Maybe I will need to start referring to Gordy and Wally as a tag-team, known as what else, the Wall of Stone.

Hon. G. Campbell: The independent review which is taking place into the substance of the e-mail that was written by the third party will be fully public. It will be available to the public, subject to freedom-of-information and privacy protection legislation

I was wondering if Gordon is referring to the new FOI legislation just rammed through the House this spring under which the results of so called "Public Inquiries" don't even have to be shared with the whole cabinet, much less the public? Just wondering!

                  Gimme dem ole
Hansard Blues

Well I ain't got no more to lose,

I got dem mean ole Hansard Blues........

Hansard from yesterday afternoon should live on as a case study in future editions of Understanding the Stages of Denial for Dummies. Future social scientists and mental health professionals may actually diagnose clinical denial using the The Soup Nazi Scale of Denial.

Early on, like just after the raids, Gordon Campbell's position could be summed up as: "I don't know."

......David Basi? Who's that?

I don't know why I fired one and just put the other on paid leave, heck, I hardly know who they are, much less what they do.............

Of course the famous memo excerpted below from 2001, kinda, sorta, contrindicates the old "I don't know" denial stage/tactic.

June 25, 2001,
from: G. Campbell
to: all cabinet minsters

Martyn Brown will arrange the structuring and staffing of your offices. All ministers are instructed not to act like the chief executive officer of their ministries, this role should be performed by your deputies who will be selected by the premier's office."

Now the Soup Nazi and his minions have moved onto the next stage which can be summed up as "Can't talk now, it's before the courts." Though this stage has been apparent for awhile now, it became glaringly obvious during question period yesterday at the ledge. It appears that the only things that can be discussed in the House now are matters such as the Armenian Genocide, Agriculture Day and Aboriginal bosoms in an historical mural in the lobby. The MSM really went to town with the bosom story, natch. Anything relating to BC and/or the present is verboten because it relates to the "Trial." Actually in a way, I have to agree with Gordo and Wally, the scope of this trial is much more than the misdemeanors of Dave, Bob or Aneal.

The complete Hansard (blue) for yesterday afternoon is here. But some of the highlights include: (annotated by koot) and bolded by koot

C. James: Serious allegations.....(any question)?

Hon. G. Campbell: As we have canvassed in this House in the past and as I will repeat today, (and repeat, and repeat, and repeat....) I have no intention of commenting on issues that arise during the court case that is currently before the courts. I think it's our responsibility to protect the integrity of that process. We will do that, and I will not be commenting on any issues that come out of that court case while it is ongoing.(you can say that again, oh, yeah, you do) [all excerpts DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY - annotated and exaggerated (bolding) by kootcoot]

Hon. G. Campbell: My answer remains the same.

Hon. G. Campbell: .............we are going to let this run to fruition prior to any comment on any issues that arise out of that court case.

(shall we use the passive voice for variety?)

Hon. G. Campbell: Issues that arise out of the court case will not be commented on by me prior to the conclusion of the court case.

(perhaps it's time for some future tense)

Hon. G. Campbell: The answer is that while there is a court case ongoing, I will not be answering…

Hon. G. Campbell: I don't know how I can be clearer. I will not be commenting on issues that arise…

(maybe by answering a question, occasionally, that may make your agenda clearer, oops, I forgot, that's the point.)

(Then an opposition member began a question with)

M. Farnworth: I didn't mention the term "courthouse." I didn't mention the term "trial." I didn't even ask if these employees came from the firm of Haldeman, Ehrlichman, Dean and Mitchell. What I asked, hon. Speaker…

Click below for more of Mr. Farnworth's question - plus

More

Farnworth cont'd... There's a pattern in this government of senior staff misrepresenting themselves in the public. We've seen it with Prem Vinning, we've seen it with the Deputy Premier's assistant, and now we are asking questions about staff in the Premier's office.
So my question once again to the Premier is this. Can he assure this House and can he assure the taxpayers of British Columbia that senior communications staff in his office are not working on blatant partisan media manipulation?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. W. Oppal: I know that the member opposite didn't mention the trial. He didn't have to mention the trial. Anybody that's read the morning Province knows what he's talking about. He's talking about evidence that emerges from the trial.
I want to point out one other thing, and that is that allegations are often made in court. They're not necessarily factual. You know, that might be news to the….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Attorney, continue.

So the mentioning of Nixon's plumbers and architects might have scared the Soup Nazi back to his seat, or his jaw had become numb from the drone of constant repetition or Mr. Farnworth ventured into territory scary enough to awaken the Consigliere, Wally, Wunnaful, Wunnaful Wally. At least the Soup Nazi deigned to appear at the Legislature this week. He was probably hunkered down last week, memorizing the "I can't speak about an issue that is before the courts" line and its myriad variations in tone, voice, tense and meaning. He also probably needed to learn a few impressive twenty five cent words to throw into sentences written in the passive voice, like "fruition."

Things to watch for in the future. Once Gordo and the Guys can't hide behind the all-purpose "it's before the courts" anymore; like when they are witnesses under oath, or Justice Bennett "orders" documents to be produced (oh be still my heart) they will move on to stage/strategy Level III or "I can't recall." If we were in Amurka, they would invoke the "Fifth" and I don't mean the fifths Gordo used on Maui.

So many of the amateur or professional "media manipulators" that troll Mary's site or the Tyee boards repeat ad nauseam that the Campbell Agenda is just bidness as usual, so no blood, no foul. I beg to differ, Glen Clark's (completely legit) deck or the Zalm's SMALL paper bag of money wouldn't even create a blip against the current background of slime. Especially if the media actually paid attention to what is important. But of course yesterday it was BC's own version of Janet Jackson's nipple at the Superbowl, or the Indian Maiden Breasts in the Lobby of the Ledge. Perhaps one slow news day there won't be so much important breast related news happening and the media will be forced to seriously cover say, Question Period, to fill unsold ad space. I mean if there is no editorial content at all, the advertisers might as well publish their own flyers and hire their own people to put them on doorknobs.

I now realize that yesterday afternoon's Question Period, just the part addressing "ALLEGATIONS OF PARTISAN MEDIA ACTIVITIES BY LIBERAL STAFF," [Page 1355] is simply too rich of a vein to exploit in merely one post. So I will now try to get together Hansard Blues: Part Deux or What did Wally Say and Where and When Did He Say It? Wally is teetering on the brink of an opportunity to become famous internationally as the Alberto Gonzales of British Columbia, or perhaps the John Mitchell of Campbell's Cabinets 'R' US? Find out soon when Part II is released!

the Defense
Gets Busy
Defending

Between Spring springing and the BC Rail trial either starting or just having pre-trial activities so often that it seems like one, I'm still working on my post about last week. After three years of living like a mushroom, in the dark being fed......well you know what mushrooms are fed; suddenly there are so many published reports that just finding and reading them all takes significant time. Don't think I'm complaining, the lack of media attention to the BC Rail Trial/Ledge Raids issue was the primary reason the House of Infamy ever came into existence.

The big chore now, especially with our local excuse for media, dominated by Canned West/Glowball, is to try to see the truth through the spin. That's why the updated article in the Globe and Mail this afternoon is interesting if only because the view and spin from the East is different than the view from here in the belly of the BC Lieberal Agenda. In Defence in BC Rail case to seek cabinet documents, Mark Hume details how:

The Supreme Court of British Columbia was given notice yesterday that an application for government documents will be coming within days.

Outside court, Michael Bolton, one of several lawyers for three former government employees, said the defence doesn't believe the RCMP got all the relevant material when it searched the legislature offices of Dave Basi and Bobby Virk......

Then Mr. Bolton gets closer to the nub of the underlying issues in this case.

The privatization of BC Rail is at the heart of the RCMP investigation that led to charges of fraud, accepting bribes and money laundering against Dave Basi, Mr. Virk and Aneal Basi.

Dave Basi and Mr. Virk are accused of leaking confidential government information about the BC Rail process in return for bribes, and Aneal Basi, who was a low-level information officer, is alleged to have laundered the payments.

The defence contends, however, that Dave Basi and Mr. Virk were “political operatives” who at all times were following government directions.

The defence argues that the RCMP “tailored and targeted” their investigation to focus on the minor figures to leave politicians out of the case.

“It's been one of our frequent themes. . .that clearly there are the overtones and undertones of very significant political involvement in this case,” said Mr. Bolton.

thanks to verso for the heads up on Globe and Mail article cited above


Our man who has been on the case more than pretty well any genuine BC journalist, Bill Tieleman, points out that the Kevin McCullough, lawyer for Bob Virk, advanced eerily similar charges in his posting in today's Tyee.

David Basi and Bob Virk were following government and party orders throughout this period, McCullough said, in a wide variety of highly political operations.

To argue, therefore, as the Crown is, that Basi and Virk were acting on their own in the breach of trust situation simply does not make sense, McCullough inferred.

"This government was using Mr. Basi every which way and the RCMP knew it and they undertook no investigation," McCullough argued, cleverly using the actual title the RCMP gave to their case -- Operation Everywhichway. "There was an intention to put this investigation on the backs of Mr. Basi and Mr. Virk, and take it away from elected officials."

I would like to point out that Mr. Bolton and Mr. McCullough are obligated to work in the best interests of their individual clients, and no one is suggesting that it should be or is, otherwise. But to those who would suggest it is no surprise that the defense teams arguments seem to support each other, I would like to point out that it is easy for everybody to keep their stories straight as long as they try to stick to the truth. I would like to remind the Soup Nazi, the ferret and their ilk that them there lies really start getting in the way eventually, like if you can't make this go away and especially if some folks start being concerned with saving their own posteriors.

Before I go I would like to say that it sure seems to me that for the last few days the defense lawyers have been saying the same kinda things that I've been thinking for the last three years.

When There is News
We Plan to Report It
blah!blah!blah!blah!

I wonder if Ms. Lucinda ever wishes she could call those words back home and lock them in her notebook? Unfortunately it is worse than just having people like the Editor in Chief of the Times Colonist deciding what is worthy of being shared with the hoi polloi, but is the news even actually........well......really stuff based on "actual" facts that exist in actual reality. Even the official court department tasked with communicating with the citizens seems to play fast and loose with what is news and whether statements actually refer to anything that exists in reality. I will try to explain what's bothering me this morning and keep it simple.

On April 11, Neal Hall, theoretically after attending a hearing in the nice Arthur Erickson building, published in the Vancouver (keep 'em) Stunned that:

"The trial was to begin Monday but now will start two days later, on April 18, at the Vancouver Law Courts."

Silly me, after a straightforward factual(?) statement like that, why would I even bother to check the Court Schedule for today (Tuesday, April 17). But then if I had to think of a word to use as a theme for this ongoing exhibition of contempt for justice and contempt for the citizens of BC it would be "discrepancy" for discrepancies seem to pop up everywhere you look. Robin Matthews trying to access documents that he has been told he has the right to access, or BC Mary cruising up and down Vancouver Island searching for the courthouse that actually exists AND has computers with scheduling information. The kind of exercise that Mary went through last summer helps to remind one of the courthouses that the Soup Nazi and his minions closed as soon as possible after using the courts to smear and destroy the sitting premier and thus steal the "right" to form government. It has been made perfectly clear through the courthouse closings and their own (UN condemned) labor dealings with their own prosecutors, as well as their forgiving of legal judgments against their psuedoFish farming buddies how much respect they have for the law. Their dedication to improving the public access to justice is non-existent, unless by public you mean the Corporate Elite.

I was going to keep it simple, so, thanks to the eagle eyes of BC Mary I now discover that for today there are almost six pages of issues concerning the Basis and Mr. Virk. Now they are all ADD appearances, or in other words the code is ADD. For example PTC stands for pre-trial conference, which perhaps not surprisingly has been the reason for many of the previous occurrences in this case. There is a key to the codes on the Court site but they fail to define ADD. They are listed alphabetically and after:

ADC - App after alleg. Breach of Def. Cust. & Supervision

the next entry is

AHR - For an Arraignment Hearing

So I'll go out on a limb and guess it means Additional Disclosure Demands and not Attention Deficit Disorder. The second ADD is what I would imagine the Soup Nazi and his Crackers hope most of us are suffering from, frankly watching them in action indicates to me that they are pretty confident it is almost an epidemic.

As Mary also points out, the hearing time today is 2:00pm, instead of the usual 9:00am or so, or even the less usual logging/cow milking time in the extraordinarily early morning. Besides keeping everybody off step, it means nothing will show up on the noon news broadcasts and thus those with a reason to promote a spin can hopefully have them Gyros ready to go by the dinnertime excuse for news

If I was younger journalism would be an attractive career goal. I would get hired and then after arranging for my paychecks to be deposited would fly off to Tahiti to research about grass skirts or something. If any body back where my media was based complained, I would just point out that I need not come back, because there is no news to report, but.....when there is, if ever, I'll be there with bells on! And to be perfectly Frank, I can make up non-reality based news just as well in Tahiti as somewhere cold.

By the way, even the official communications channel of the Courts isn't really obligated to stick to actual facts. I guess a department that is full of lawyers should be expected to use almost as much prose expressing disclaimers as information. The main disclaimer heading to the schedule makes it clear that nothing is necessarily true, just because you read it here. To read the disclaimer from the Ministry of the AG click to go below the fold.
More

Disclaimer

These court lists are not official court lists. The information may be updated after it is posted on this page. For confirmation of information contact the specific court registry.

If you have been served a summons or otherwise notified by the court that you are to come to a court appearance, but your name does not appear on the posted court list, you must still come to court.

The court lists of the Provincial and Supreme Court are available on the internet for public information and research purposes and may not be copied or distributed in any fashion for resale or other commercial use without the express written permission of the Office of the Chief Judge (Provincial Court lists) or Office of the Chief Justice (Supreme Court lists). Provincial and Supreme Court lists may be used without permission for public information and research, provided the material is accurately reproduced and an acknowledgement made of the source.

Every effort is made to ensure that the court lists posted are or remain consistent with statutory and court-ordered publication and disclosure bans. However the posting of court lists on this page in no way is a representation, express or implied, that the court lists conform with publication and disclosure bans. As bans may be granted at any stage in the proceeding, the daily list will not include details of a ban granted in court on that day. It is the responsibility of persons using or relying on the court lists to personally check with the applicable court clerk or registry for bans and ensure that they comply with any bans on publication or disclosure.

Ministry of Attorney General

It Must be Time for
Getting Busy

The holidays are all over, even Easter. Except for some places, winter is pretty much over and the people who work for "us" are going back to work, with all kinds of tasks underway. The Canadian Parliament comes back from spring break and so do both houses of Congress in our rogue nation to the south. The Halls of Justice are reverberating on both sides of the border as well. Our own (kinda) Conrad Black continues to be tried in the Windy City, though we haven't heard a lot about that except for when his personal witch Barbara opens her potty mouth to share her feelings about the media. Oh yeah she pretends to be a part of the media, maybe they are sluts, she's the one that said it, don't blame me.

Abu "Torture Boy" Gonzales has a date with the truth tomorrow before the Senate Judiciary Committee, I wonder if he can explain the difference (or if he detects one) between being the Attorney General of the United States or being the Consiglieri for the Bu$h Crime Family.

Of course, most importantly from the perspective of this blog, the BC Rail Trial may actually get underway - ON WEDNESDAY. We've been here before, court dates have been plentiful in this case, but to actually proceed, that would be a new and quite welcome variation on a theme that is quickly (if three years is a short time) becoming BORING.

Robin Matthews has an Open Letter dated this past Friday (13th) to the Chief Justice of the BC Supreme Court over at Vivre le Canada. The letter deals with the general problem of openess and accountability to the people of the court system in relation to three specific matters:

• Re: R.v. Basi, Basi, and Virk,
  Registry No. VA23299
  

  
  

• Re: District of Kitimat and Wozney v. Minister of Energy and Mines, the Attorney General of British Columbia and Alcan
  Docket L050918
  

  
  

• Re: Complaint against Madam Justice Brenda Brown to the Canadian Judicial Council concerning the Court-implicated death by draconian use of “criminal contempt” of court and by the unnecessary incarceration of Harriett Nahanee, aged and ill Native environmental protester. [And the parallel draconian incarceration of Betty Kkrawczyk, non-Native protester, not addressed in the Complaint].
  

After addressing Justice Brennan as "My Lord," Robin's letter begins:

Law Officer of the Supreme Court of British Columbia H.L. McBride, replying (March 30) to a letter of mine to Madam Justice Elizabeth Bennett concerning “public access to documents filed” in the Basi, Basi, and Virk matter, repeated the objectionable terms of the general restriction of documents from public examination imposed by Associate Chief Justice Patrick Dohm - obviously imposed with the approval or consent of judges involved and with your support. That so-called “Practice Direction” has been explained as a device employed to insure the protection of the accused. In my own experience the substance of such documents does not bear negatively upon the accused; rather the denial of those public documents to the public appears to protect those who may be corrupt members of the present and past Gordon Campbell government and other highly placed people possessing political power in the province.

With respect, I submit to you that the so-called “Practice Direction” - which is in fact an illegitimate universal gag order - is intolerable and is a violation of the freedoms of Canadians to know. I believe an address to the Supreme Court of Canada would see the so-called “Practice Direction” struck down as illegitimate.

Robin's letter at Vivre le Canada is prefaced with this statement.

[Dear Reader: The following letter by Robin Mathews to the Chief Justice of the B.C. Supreme Court is a courageous and finely worded challenge to the person in charge of justice for all British Columbians. It’s essential that the questions which Mr. Mathews asks of the Chief Justice are forwarded to as many citizens as possible throughout this province to insure that the courts are made aware of the extent of the general dissatisfaction with the questionable processes and decisions that Mr. Mathews alludes to in his letter. Please pass this letter on to as many of your associates as you possibly can. For the sake of those still living in prison under false charges i.e. Betty Krawczyk and for justice concerning the unnecessary death of Harriet Nahanee consider this request of an urgent nature. Thank you. Arthur Topham, Editor and Publisher, The Radical Press]

As a result of the above statement I feel obliged to reprint the entire letter below the fold. Of course you can link to it at Vivre le Canada (and maybe the Radical press also.) Robin has certainly been our man in the trenches lately. Thank you, sir!
—————–
More

My Lord:


Law Officer of the Supreme Court of British Columbia H.L. McBride, replying (March 30) to a letter of mine to Madam Justice Elizabeth Bennett concerning “public access to documents filed” in the Basi, Basi, and Virk matter, repeated the objectionable terms of the general restriction of documents from public examination imposed by Associate Chief Justice Patrick Dohm - obviously imposed with the approval or consent of judges involved and with your support. That so-called “Practice Direction” has been explained as a device employed to insure the protection of the accused. In my own experience the substance of such documents does not bear negatively upon the accused; rather the denial of those public documents to the public appears to protect those who may be corrupt members of the present and past Gordon Campbell government and other highly placed people possessing political power in the province.

With respect, I submit to you that the so-called “Practice Direction” - which is in fact an illegitimate universal gag order - is intolerable and is a violation of the freedoms of Canadians to know. I believe an address to the Supreme Court of Canada would see the so-called “Practice Direction” struck down as illegitimate. I believe a process by writ of mandamus might have the same effect. With respect, I believe that any fair-minded person concerned with justice and the freedoms of Canadians would see the present so-called “Practice Direction” as an intolerable, dictatorial, and repressive invasion of the freedoms and the tranquility of Canadians. If you do not see it as that, would you explain to me why you do not?

H.L McBride, in her letter of March 30, 2007, invited me to write to you if I “wish to obtain access to other documents which may be contained in the [Basi, Basi, and Virk] court file….” (1) I wish the freedom to see all documents presently in the court file. Will you grant me that freedom?

(2) I request that you conduct a full review of the repressive protocol and write a letter to me (that may be made public) to state your findings.

In addition, I wish to record two matters with you concerning the behaviour of Madam Justice Bennett. First: in her letter of March 9 to me H. L. McBride wrote: “During the hearing [of March 6], Madam Justice Bennett … indicated that she will be establishing a protocol for media and public access to documents filed in this matter. In the future, copies of further documents ordered released may be obtained from the Criminal Registry upon payment of the usual photocopying charges.”

More than a month has passed and no protocol is in place though documents have, apparently, been filed. Since documents have been in the process of being filed for pre-trial hearings for months and months, why is Madam Justice Bennett delaying? Have you or Associate Chief Justice Patrick Dohm intervened to prevent her from making documents available? When an irrational and repressive system is put in place, as is the case with the so-called “Practice Direction”, any suspicion is possible because the essential crudeness of the system invites wide speculation.

Secondly, Madam Justice Bennett has presided in a court in which some of the main characteristics have been obstruction, delay, misinformation, and truculence on the part of some counsel and others outside the court. Why has she not employed threat of sanctions and then the invocation of sanctions misused in the cases of Harriett Nahanee and Betty Krawczyk but appropriate in the Basi, Basi, and Virk matters? Why is the Supreme Court of British Columbia practising, openly, a system of lenient or non-existent discipline for the probably corrupt and the powerful, and another system of penalty and censure - more oppressive and harsh - for principled, decent, and powerless Canadians?

That question must be answered.

In the matter of District of Kitimat and Wozney v. Minister of Energy and Mines, the Attorney General of B.C. and Alcan (Oct 16-20) you were the judge presiding; your decision was released in March, 2007.

With respect, I submit to you that your decision is wholly invalid and must be wholly invalidated by reason of your being in conflict of interest.

You were, in fact, the presiding judge in an action which saw a recent colleague of yours as a chief respondent; and to put the matter forcibly, Wally Oppal, Attorney General, might well have written the decision for you. That is a way of saying your judgment is so completely a reflection of his wishes in the matter that he might have authored the decision.

For some years Wally Oppal was your colleague in the Supreme Court. When he stepped from a position as an Appeal Court judge into a Gordon Campbell Liberal candidacy, he should have been publicly reproved by you as Chief Justice. As Attorney General of B.C. he could never appear before a B.C. Supreme Court colleague without being himself - and placing the judge presiding - in a position of conflict of interest.

In the specific case here referred to - the Kitimat case - you should have declared your unsuitability to preside over the action and you should have sought a judge from outside the Supreme Court of B.C. You did not take that simple precaution . With the deepest respect, I challenge your role in the matter and declare that I do not believe any reasonable and prudent Canadian can accept the judgment you made as an untainted judgment.

A number of matters contained in the judgment you wrote place it very seriously in question, and, I believe, place you in a highly equivocal position - apart from the demonstrable conflict of interest. I will not refer to those matters here, now.

Re: Complaint to the Canadian Judicial Council against Madam Justice Brenda Brown concerning the court-implicated death by draconian use of “criminal contempt” of court and by the unnecessary incarceration of Harriett Nahanee, aged and ill Native environmental protester. [And the parallel draconian incarceration of Betty Krawczyk, non-Native protester not addressed in the Complaint.]

As Chief Justice of the B.C. Supreme Court you must know the extent to which so-called “court orders” and “injunctions” (providing bases for declarations of “criminal contempt of court) have been discussed by the Canadian Judicial Council and declared to be the kinds of instrument rarely used. You must know, too, that those instruments are frequently used by members of the Supreme Court of B.C. You must know that they are instruments defined by the Canadian Judicial Council in May 2001 as “not governed by the rules of court”. That means - you must know - that a corrupt Supreme Court and any petty despots or servants of corrupt government present in that court may make use of extraordinary powers “not governed by the rules of court” to attack, damage, violate or otherwise harm people not deserving of such action.

Cameron Ward, in his defense of Betty Krawczyk, said that the B.C. government of Gordon Campbell “has come up with a creative way of punishing political dissidents. Rather than have people charged with breaking laws enacted by their duly elected representatives, the conventional way of dealing with public order, the government enlists the courts to have objectionable conduct characterized as contempt of court. It does so by encouraging the use of injunctions issued in sham proceedings.”

One must extend the statement by Cameron Ward. What is “objectionable conduct” to the Gordon Campbell circle may be - in fact - simply the full exercise of freedoms by Canadians. When police are asked to remove gatherings of people expressing political dissatisfaction with policy and with the violation of democratic processes, the result is wide and deep discussion - absolutely necessary in a free society. The employment of “court orders”, “injunctions” and “criminal contempt of court” in such cases to clamp down on information and debate may be and often is, the use of repressive, anti-democratic, and intolerable behaviour on the part of the Supreme Court and its judges. They should be the defenders of the freedoms of Canadians against plots and manipulations by powerful governments and corporations.

Cameron Ward stated that Betty Krawczyk was victim of an “officially induced abuse of process”. Harriett Nahanee, many have suggested, was the murder victim of an “officially induced abuse of process”. That any Supreme Court judge in Canada would be a party to such behaviour brings the institution into serious risk of being held in contempt by a large part of the population. Such a situation cannot come to good.

If that is not bad enough, providing very powerful grounds for actions of serious discipline against Madam Justice Brenda Brown, two further, important matters must be set down. When concerned Canadians were told they could get reasons for the judgment against Betty Krawczyk at Criminal Registry in the Supreme Court building, they went there, gathered peaceably waiting for communication, and - one of them reports - were served with “a court injunction which threatened us with arrest”. As Chief Justice and, therefore, chief protector of the rights and freedoms of Canadians in the sanctity of Supreme Court space you cannot but be alarmed at such repressive and coercive behaviour. Please tell me who gave that order. Where is it recorded? What do you intend to do to assure Canadian freedoms in Supreme Court spaces in future?

In each of the matters to which I have referred in this letter you are the Chief Supreme Court officer. In each of the matters to which I have referred, I allege that reasonable and prudent Canadians would find cause for serious unhappiness at the behaviour of court officers and, alas, deep suspicion of their motivations. In each of the matters to which I have referred in this letter a simple question must be asked: are some judges of the Supreme Court of British Columbia and their servants acting to prevent “justice” as that word has meaning to most Canadians, and are those judges knowingly (or even unknowingly) acting in a fashion that supports corrupt, repressive, anti-democratic, and lawless forces in the society?

If the answer to that question is “Yes”, then the task of more and more British Columbians will be to sweep the Supreme Court clean, to remove offending court officers, and to restore the Supreme Court of British Columbia to honesty and competence. Such a cleaning will have to take place if you fail to act on the matters I have raised and others of like nature - unless British Columbia descends into the condition of a police state in which the highest court openly serves thieves and fascists.

Please examine each of the questions I have asked and please answer each one fully and carefully.

You must be aware that this letter does not arise from any dislike of the Supreme Court as an institution. On the contrary. It arises from deep respect for the B.C. Supreme Court and for all Canadian institutions intended to assure the tranquility of the people and the full and visible operation of judicial machinery when that tranquility is disturbed. It arises, moreover, from a deep understanding of the evil that results from courts that have become the instruments of the corrupt and the greedy for power. The primary intention of this letter, then, is to alert you to very real problems in the behaviour of some Supreme Court judges and to enlist your wisdom, your competence, and your authority in the task of resolving those problems.


Yours respectfully,

Robin Mathews
rmathews@sfu.ca

http://www.radicalpress.com/?p=445

Yet Another
Trial Date
Announced!

Well, well, maybe the beautiful Arthur Erickson building will be put to use soon, with the Basi-Virk trial, or as I prefer to call it anymore, the BC Rail Trial. Yesterday afternoon I heard (or I thought I heard) on the CBC radio during one of the newscasts that a trial date had been set, and that the judge was intending to block out six months of court time for the matter. The rest of the day though I was unable to confirm this as I couldn't find it aired again, on radio or the evening news on TeeVee. Thanks to the Vancouver Sun, I now consider it official as the current edition states unequivocally that:

Trial of former government aides could take as long as six months, pre-trial conference told

Neal Hall, Vancouver Sun
Published: Wednesday, April 11, 2007

VANCOUVER - The trial of two former provincial government aides accused of corruption could take up to six months to complete, the trial judge heard Tuesday.

During discussions between lawyers and B.C. Supreme Court Justice Elizabeth Bennett, one estimate of the trial's length was 120 days, the equivalent of six months of court time, based on the fact a trial sits five days a week or 20 days a month.

The trial was to begin Monday but now will start two days later, on April 18, at the Vancouver Law Courts.

This certainly isn't the first time we've had a date for trial set in this matter, and even if it does begin next week it will start with disclosure issues and Charter challenges from the defense. Also both the defense and prosecution teams have already begun making noises about their pending summer "vacations." I would tend to think that if I were accused of something three years ago I would already be aquitted or doing my time. Of course the government wouldn't be likely to be trying to conceal evidence in a case involving me, or would they? Well in my case as long as they conceal evidence that would tend to convict me, go for it. I do want all exonerating evidence out there though with flashing lights and alarms on it.

All we can do now is stay tuned for next week, I know I will!

Let's All Play
27
Questions!

Almost half way back to the previous century on Friday, January 2, 2004, the front page of the Vancouver Sun was black with 27 questions printed on the front page concerning the recent (Sunday past) Raid on the Legislature, in recess, over a weekend, during the holidays. The answers to many of these questions are now known, but many are still unanswered or unaddressed. First there was nothing to talk about, nothing had happened. Now that it may actually happen nobody can say anything because the issue is before the Courts. Pardon moi, but isn't Robert Willy Pickton's guilt or innocence in the missing women murders also before the courts, but I certainly have to consciously avoid a lot more coverage of that trial, the witnesses and evidence than I have the stomach for.

According to the subhead line under RAID QUERIES REVISITED "reporters Chad Skelton and Neal Hall are in a position to find some answers." You will be well advised to remember to keep in mind the "some" that is placed before "answers" as it is a very relevant qualifier. I will just discuss a few of the questions that I find to be still highly interesting and perhaps very relevant.

7. Who was arrested that Sunday and then released?
At the time, Victoria police said that they had arrested one person in connection with the legislature raids but that no charges were laid. That person has never been indentified.

(?- we don't hear of the Victoria force much in relation to this incident - kc)

12. Does the Government know more than the pubic is being told?
That is hard to assess because elected officials have declined to comment about the case because it is before the courts

.
(I know it can be easy to forget this is before the courts and we do seem to be moving toward the Star Chamber type courts where everything is secret, including the fact it is even happening.)

21. Why did a 20-month investigation come to a head on a Sunday between Christmas and New Year's?
At the time there was speculation the legislature raids were conducted on Dec. 28 in the hopes of avoiding media attention. However, no evidence has emerged to support that.

(And as we now know the Vancouver Stunning Sun definitely had noticed it by Friday, January 2 when it published its blackface edition with a front page full of questions.)

One question I've been asking since the first week is:

22. Why was Dave Basi fired and Bob Virk only suspended?
See answer to question 23

.
(Here we are almost there - still gettting the run around, but let's hurry over to question 23.)

23. Why would the government fire someone who has not been charged with any crime?
Martyn Brown, the premier's chief of staff, (think of him as Campbell's "Scooter" - kc) later said that the decision to fire Dave Basi one day after the raids was based on the nature of Basi's job and information Brown had available at the time, including the fact that Basi's residence was searched by police while Virk's was not. The government fired Virk a year later, after he was criminally charged, along with Dave Basi's cousin Aneal Basi, a communications officer with the government, who was also charged in the case.

Well, this doesn't exactly make everything crystal clear, nobody was charged, named Basi or Virk, for almost a year after the raids. But they are words filling up space, and that's all it takes to confuse lots of folks.

I really like question 24!

24. Have the province's 28-billion operations been compromised?
Aside from the BC Rail spur line sale --- which had to be cancelled --- there is no evidence that the government operations were compromised by the case.

I guess that's all well and good. Theres no concern with lost revenues from BC Rail hauling coal to Prince Rupert to feed the 25 or so coal fired plants China is building every week or so (this is a rhetorical "quote" they are building lots, I've repressed the actual number). We will get to share the dirty air that blows back across the Pacific, but we are above being interested in making money as well. Totally unrelated also must be the rolling stock and hazardous materials littering the landscape anywhere near a former BC Rail right of way these days.

25. How long will this investigation cast a shadow over B.C.?
More than three years later the major criminal cases connected to the legislature raids are just now coming to trial.

That was written where one would expect to find the answer to Question 25, but I ain't buying it, it ain't an answer. I will answer question 25, more accurately, though it will still be lacking as I am on even more of a diet designed to grow mushrooms.

My Answer to 25: More than three years later most of the province has forgotten the raids ever happened, or thinks that the RCMP went nuts and everything should be dismissed. Only now are some minor trials of some second string ministerial aides with no real influence to sell, other than their access to those with INFLUENCE, are MAYBE going to be getting underway. However the government, which apparently controls and refuses to share much of the evidence may force aquittals by default for these minor functionaries. With the RCMP's recent track record, blaming any left over smell on the "out of control" horsemen could disperse the odor and life (or what passes for life) in BC can continue with the corporate elite continuing to exert their proper ownership over everything. The Shadow will last until the people have heard something that makes sense. You might say a shadow hangs over the JFK Assassination and/9-11, because the "official" conspiracy stories don't make sense.

My three "current" questions are:

1.How come the Sun is so zealous about emphasizing Basi and Virk links to the Federal Liberals and Paul Martin and/or Stephane Dion? They did live in BC. They did work for the BC Liberal Government in Victoria. Former Finance Minister Gary "ferret" Collins was Dave Basi's boss (in title anyway, maybe the inscrutable Martyn Brown was the Boss behind the mask). Former Transport Minister Jude "the non-dude" Reid was "officially" the boss of Virk. Of course we mustn't forget that His Holiness the Soup Nazi and his sidekick Martyn Brown are the real bosses.

2. Why doesn't the Sun even mention the relationship between the lead RCMP Inspector on this investigation, Kevin DeBruyckere - the brother-in-law to B.C. Liberal Executive Director Kelly Reichert? Most likely irrelevant, wouldn't you think?

3. Why Now?Are they feeling late to the dance, is there an agenda to prepare the peeps for, like dismissal, a plea, anything that leaves the truth, "out there somewhere?" I wouldn't be surprised if a few folks occasionally have difficulty sleeping at night, and I'm not talking about Basis or Virk.

Upon Some Further
Reflection:

BC Mary points out today on her comment board the following:

Today in Vancouver Sun (thanks to DPL for telling me about it), Neal Hall has a start-to-finish summary of the Basi Virk Basi issues. A useful reminder.

I was going to tell you (bcmary) also, but between being in shock and temporarily having to yield the phone for other biz, forgot. I always thought you were hours ahead of me with the Stun anyhow. Where I am we get the edition that hits the street in town before the bars close, only we get it the next afternoon - at least it is technically the same day though.

What puzzled me greatly is his declaration that the trial begins on April 16. Because my notes say:

2 April - pre-trial hearing delayed (see Robin Mathews: Breaking News from Courtroom 53)

10 April - the 2 April hearing's new date

13 April - filing of Charter Rights application

16 April - begins a 3-week hearing on disclosure items.

But no trial date.

So I've asked Neal Hall for confirmation ... will certainly headline any clarification that comes in.

It isn't as if "discrepancy" isn't the norm regarding court appearances and non-appearances in this case. There are scheduled (published) dates that don't actually occur and then unscheduled surprise meetings in the middle of the night. It is difficult to be surprised by much of anything in this ongoing mystery tour other than when it is actually mentioned in public. Then the question becomes who mentioned it and why and whose agenda are they promoting.

Yesterday's piece in the Sun seemed to me to be layin' the groundwork to blame any bad things on those nasty Federal Liberals. The Soup Nazi and his Cabinet of Crackers want nothing but the best for each and every British Columbian (who is one of their "type.") Old people, sick people, poor people, native people (unless it involves alienating ALR land), and any others whose agenda differs from the corporate elite, need not apply.

Oh yeah, I guess I should point out since it gets repeated so much, that no elected officials are/were under investigation, bugging business dinners with executives is just RCMP recreation perhaps. Besides, what influence could the Soup Nazi or the Ferret have on decisions such as the giveaway of BC Rail? Obviously all those important decisions are in the capable and reasonably priced hands of people like Dave Basi and Bobby Virk. Stealing from the people of BC is OK, as long as it is kept reasonable and affordable for the elite and soon to be elite.

I too like Mary and others will be looking forward to seeing today's Sun and its promised coverage, but will leave my agenda perceiving antennae on full sweep. A couple articles from about a year ago here on this blog may be helpful to some folks trying to refresh their recollections of the timeline and/or characters. The first is called Brief Summary to Date and has many links to other sources. Also from April of last year is Dramatis Personae, which gives a rundown on many of the characters involved, mostly accused and witnesses. Maybe I should publish a guide to the attorneys, but that is in short form in yesterday's Sun, and you want to be careful what you say about lawyers unless you have lots of chain available and are on the shore of Lake Ontario, with the energy to start a BIG project.

But just for edification here are pics of the main lawyers who occasionally meet in BC Supreme Court over these issues. These are just the Special Prosecutor and the main attorney for each defendant.

Along with Justice Bennett these are the stars of vast teams of investigators, litigators and other members of the teams it takes to pursue justice in a democracy.

Having been a defendant myself in the past, and a successful one at that, sometimes, from my experience anyway, the defendant(s) seem(s) almost an afterthought or distraction from the legal beagles as they growl at each other using their particular protocols of growling techniques. In my case the fact that the US Justice Department attempted to obstruct justice at every opportunity contributed to my eventual victory. In this case I hope those who would like to see it all just go away are not granted their wish. The people of BC deserve to know a lot more about the Raid on the Leg, the sale(?) of BC Rail and many other things that they've been having to make do with the mushroom diet about. Taking away local authority over land use, selling off every stream, Kinder Morgan and I could go on. The only question here is where do we start and when are we done, when the Soup Nazi and Crackers are in orange jumpsuits?

Hopefully this trial will open the doors and expose what has been being done TO us by people who are supposed to be acting in OUR interests, not theirs.

Read All About It
IN
The Sun!

When a gentleman reaches a certain age and state of health and condition, extreme shocks can seem frightening, even perhaps leading to more shocks with people saying "clear." Well, maybe I exaggerate, but I was definitely shocked (though pleasantly so), when I opened today's Sun and found on the first page of the second part, Westcoast News, the headline - "Former Victoria aides go on trial." The first trial date may be about 10 days from now, or April 16, but the Sun has three articles and various background material to prepare their readers for the big day, or the big hissing of a balloon losing air.

The headline after the jump reads -

"BC RAIL DEAL AT CENTRE OF TRIAL."

Might as well call it that (BC Rail Trial), especially if the "paper of record" does also. A lot of the information seems to be emphasizing the Basi and Virk links with the federal Liberals rather than the BC Liarbrals who employed them and, oh yeah, just happened to be flogging a railroad to the 'chosen bidder'. It is so astounding and really demonstrates either hard stones or lack of a sense of reality to hear these clowns like Harper or the BC Liarbrals insist how the media has a leftie bias. Well, so far the media has paid a lot more attention to a certain deck in East Van and Ralph Goodale's possible transgressions than the unprecedented Raid on the Legislature on December 28, 2003. So just to keep it simple, we'll try to remember to refer to this as the BC Rail Trial, sounds good to me, and appropriate.

It is good to see the trial covered at all in the big time daily and they also promise more coverage for tomorrow. Tomorrow they will be addressing the questions they published on the front page on January 2, 2004. I have that paper somewhere, but nowhere I can locate. The background was black and the lettering white. They also promise to profile Mr. Bornmann (officially with 3 n's, according to the paper of record) or "Spiderman." Defense counsel has been advised by the special prosecutor that "Mr. Bornmann continues to this day to have the threat of criminal charges brought against him until after he testifies."

I'm gonna kinda try to relax, not get excited and be prepared for a bumpy ride, but dang it all anyhow, this show might finally be getting on the road and not a moment too soon! Oh yeah, and tomorrow I will be scoring the Vancouver Sun, thus doubling my normal weekly intake of fire starter. Though I've been talking about the real "hard copy" newspaper the Sun, for now (at present) this material is available on line at the Vancouver Sun.