Watch Out Vaughn!
Don't Get Stepped On!

He who Robin Matthews refers to as Gordon Campbell's personal P.R. Flack at the Vancouver Sun published a column today titled "For the Liberals, maybe that fall session wasn't such a hot idea after all." Mr. Palmer begins with:

VICTORIA - The B.C. Liberals were keen to get into the fall session of the legislature, believing they could capitalize on a favourable run in the opinion polls and a troubled Opposition party.

It hasn't worked out that way.

After the upbeat tone surrounding the introduction of the Tsawwassen treaty on the opening day, the session has gone from bad to worse for the governing party.


The Opposition, putting aside internal disagreements, came well prepared. It hit the government hard on a string of issues.

Jeepers, the stuff of dreams an actual opposition, coming prepared and "hitting" the government hard, who'da thunk? Then after a tale of failures and disastrous P.R. Vaughn closes his "hard hitting" critique with this recap:

Recapping: A botched megaproject. Cheap tricks with needy families. A failed lobbyist registration act. Multiple investigations. Many questions, a dearth of answers.

That paints a far less flattering portrait of the B.C. Liberals than the self-satisfied image they have been promoting in their speeches and publicly funded advertising.

Too soon to say which image will stick, which will fade.

But two weeks into the session, the New Democrats have already raised doubts about the B.C. Liberals' ability to cruise, unmolested, to a third term of government.

Reading Vaughn's "hard hitting" critique one would never guess that the almost default "going on forever" BC Rail Trial had a pre-trial hearing on Friday, just past and that at that hearing we learned that approximately 25,000 pages of "evidence" had been dumped on the defence that week. Vaughn also didn't mention anything about this exchange during the pre-trial hearing (from Bill Tieleman)

A massive 25,000 page disclosure of new evidence in the breach of trust trial of two former provincial government ministerial aides could impact current BC cabinet ministers, BC Supreme Court was told Friday morning.

And tempers flared as defence lawyers, the Special Prosecutor and even Justice Elizabeth Bennett all expressed frustration at lengthy delays that have stalled the pending trial, which began with a police raid on the BC Legislature on December 28, 2003.

Kevin McCullough, lawyer for Bob Virk, the former ministerial assistant to then-Transportation Minister Judith Reid, told Bennett that current members of Premier Gordon Campbell's government may be affected when the new evidence is examined.

I guess compared to the embarrassment of handing out booster seats in photo ops being implicated in a criminal investigation/trial just doesn't cut the standard of "newsworthiness," but I think I'll stand by my suggestion of a couple of posts ago and suggest that the MSM start focusing on the BC Rail trial if for no other reason, just to divert attention from all the other slime oozing through the cracks in the facade of the "transparent" and "benign" rule of the Gordo Gang.

Often when a significant thing seems to be being ignored, those who feel it should be brought to the attention of folks refer to it as the elephant in the room (that no one seems to notice). In this case it's more like there is an elephant standing on the Legislature Building and now and then somebody notices his solid waste raining down on the whole idea of democracy and justice. But mostly, everyone, especially Lucinda, Pointy and everyone else who answers to the Canned West Masters of the Universe, just brush off their shoulders and carry on, after all, elephants and elephant poop aren't news and there will be another shooting in Vancouver any minute, and don't forget the Pickton trial. I almost forgot, Dr. Day most likely has an earth shattering announcement that will prove definitively that making him richer will improve health care for all (all the rich folks, anyway).

Oh, and Vaughn, those elephants are REALLY heavy!

There's Court Orders,
and then There's Court Orders
With   

Back on June 4, 2007, almost three and one half years had passed since the unprecedented search and seizure of "evidence" from the offices of high level aides to the BC Liberal Government. Since December 28, 2003 the people of British Columbia as well as apparently the defendants and their counsel have had to beg, plead, submit applications and generally just hurry up and wait to learn what this case is about. Compared to the Glowball TeeVee video tape loop of the "raid" on Glen Clark's "illegal" deck and the Soprano types exiting the North Burnaby card room (perhaps enroute to a modern day St Valentine's Day Massacre or in search of a horses head for a friend), the void of information or follow up on this extraordinary event was simply stunnining.

A Nod to Franz K.

While comparisons to Guantanamo might be a bit far-fetched and over the top, the case definitely deserves to be called Kafka-esque. Besides the defendants aren't being water boarded and assaulted with loud Heavy Metal music and /or German Shepherds while they wait to learn about the evidence the prosecution theoretically has against them. Indeed as Gary Mason, former sports writer turned puff piece author, pointed out in his touching little story last Christmas, David Basi lives pretty happily in his nice Vancouver Island home, with his nice family and even gets to spend "quality/private" time with his nice wife on mornings when the nice children are nice enough to sleep in. Of course there is that nasty little black cloud hanging over him and his co-defendants that tends to spoil the otherwise idyllic sounding lifestyle. I have no doubt every resident of Guantanamo Bay or the un-named protagonist of The Trial by Mr. Kafka, would gladly trade places with Mr. Basi in the blink of an eye.

Disclosure/Discovery

Now disclosure by the prosecution (sometimes called "discovery") isn't a special favor to those charged with a criminal offense. Indeed, it is a normal step in any criminal (or civil) matter. Right along with habeas corpus, the accused and his counsel are entitled to see the evidence against them in order for them to prepare a defense, should they choose not to plead guilty. If this evidence is particularly damning and impossible to refute, this alone could lead to disposition of the case by some plea other than not guilty. The defense is also by law entitled to see any evidence uncovered by the police or prosecution, that tends to exonerate the defendant as well, but it is even more common for the prosecution to "accidentally" not disclose this type of information.

A Legal Scavenger Hunt

So in just over three and a half years the defense, and sometimes the public, has been able to learn, but not all at once, 75% - 80% of the information used to obtain the search warrants for December 2003 and to delve through piles and boxes of documentation stored at what is still an unknown (to me anyway) number of locations and "special rooms." To the casual observer the defense team might seem to be whiners, but when days, weeks, months and years go by and you still haven't been provided the materials necessary to defend your client, it really isn't whining. It's more a case of acknowledging that something is rotten about the case and/or the way it is being handled. As an added mysterious factor is the fact that Bill Berardino the "Special Prosecutor" seems to only appear in court half the time, give or take. If he was supposed to be at school, he'd likely need to take the grade over. Unsurprisingly, in this case anyway, there has never been any illness or other pressing "more important" matter mentioned to explain why the man chosen to represent the people of BC in this case finds his attendance at pre-trial hearings and such so un-necessary and goes missing so often.

Back to: June 4, This Year

Monday the fourth of June was the day that Justice Bennett ruled on the major application for documents filed by the defense. As Mark Hume put it in an article now buried deep behind the pay wall at the Globe and Mail:

A political corruption case that has been slowly unfolding in the Supreme Court of British Columbia took a dramatic turn Monday when Madam Justice Elizabeth Bennett delivered a disclosure order that was stunning in scope. {Snip} ...

“Every police officer or civilian who touched or spoke about this investigation, regardless of what branch of the investigation they were involved in and regardless of rank or role undertaken, will review every piece of paper he or she has and ensure that it is submitted to the Crown forthwith. This includes but is not limited to notes, briefing notes, continuation reports, e-mail and anything marked ‘not for disclosure.'”

The Meaning of Forthwith (in Lawyer Speak!)

Now I highlighted the word forthwith, because Justice Bennett used that word in her order. We've all seen what forthwith, prompt and other such words mean in the case of people like Betty K or Harriet Nanahee (the Eagle Ridge grannies), or even the BCTF when their strike action was designated "illegal" and in the space of one month the court blocked the picketers from collecting strike pay and fined the union itself a cool 1/2 million dollars, after the teachers had returned to work. These court orders were issued AND enforced in about three weeks with a small number of court sessions - sessions where things actually happened, though not necessarily in the teacher's interests.

Forthwith - In the Fourth Month?

Last week on the 22nd and the 24th the Crown delivered approximately 25,000 documents to the defense. So after four months of forthwith efforts to comply with Justice Bennett's "order," two or three days before the next court appearance the defense is buried in the equivalent of multiple copies of War and Peace, Anna Karenina and Remembrance of Things Past, though likely not as well written prose. I guess Mr. Berardino, who, by the way, was even there on Friday felt proud of his compliance in fact, if not spirit. According to our witness at the courtroom the invaluable Robin Matthews (from my previous post from him - Ankles Awash....):

Why? Didn't Defence want the material? Didn't they ask for it? In the witty words (?) of Special Crown Prosecutor, William Berardino quoted by Bill Tieleman on his blog, didn't the judge ask, in her order, for every scrap of paper. Ha. Ha.
Ha. Ha.

When is a Court Order just a "suggestion?" By last week there had been about 120 days since June 4. Would bringing the 25,000 pages of evidence to court on Friday have counted as "complying forthwith?" Of course it goes without saying that disclosure should have be completed even before June 4, 2007 or perhaps a stronger suggestion/order (demand?) could have been issued much earlier. After all much of the evidence was gathered on December 28, 2003, and the case is about, among other things, acts that took place even before December 2003.

Instructions to OUR ATTORNEY

Mr. Berardino, if I understand your role as Special Prosecutor, you, my esteemed fellow, represent ME and the rest of the people of British Columbia. However, it certainly doesn't appear that my interests and those of my fellow citizens in justice are foremost in your approach to this admittedly difficult job. It isn't a sign of mental instability or paranoia if one might suspect some other party's interests are the ones being looked after here. And I wouldn't dare use the term "Obstruction of Justice" here like an accusation, because that is a legally defined criminal act and IANAL. However the performance of my legal team these last four years in this case has been conspicuously free of any evidence of any attempts to expedite the search for truth and justice. If you and Ms. Winteringham were really my lawyers and I was picking up the tab directly, rather than just chipping in with the rest of the taxpayers, I would be looking for new and better representation, and considering filing a malpractice suit.

Ankles Awash,
Fast Falls the Eventide!

Robin Matthews put together a posting after the pre-trial hearing yesterday that appears at BC Mary's Legislature Raids Blog. After some more reflection on the happenings there he has composed this piece which will be published at Vive le Canada (Robin's Columns at Vive_le_Canada). I feel compelled to also post it here as I think Mr. Matthews brings a very honest and refreshing perspective to what is going on or not going on in Justice Bennett's courtroom. He also makes clear how non-important the whole issue is taken by our shabby excuse for a local press - the Canned West/GlowBall Cabal. Here then, in its entirity (with bolding added by the coot) is:

Ankles awash, they stand
on the deck of The Titanic singing
'AbideWith Me, fast falls the eventide'.
BC Supreme Courtroom 64, October 26, '07.

for vivelecanada.ca

All was not as it seemed in Courtroom 64 of the B.C. Supreme Court from 9:00 a.m. until 10:00 a.m. on October 26. The occasion - a pre-trial hearing concerning the corrupt sale of BC Rail by the Gordon Campbell cabinet -was so important Kirk Lapointe, Managing Editor of the Vancouver Sun, appears to have made another of his judgement calls - that news of the approaching trial isn't worth reporting. (Yawnnnn.) Besides, he needed plenty of room the next day for new president of the CMA - Brian Day - to argue for Private Health Care, the new crusade of CanWest press/media, it seems.

First the Vancouver Sun produced a huge environmental and energy supplement in which it made no mention of the (secretive and falsely reported) sell-out by Gordon Campbell of the rivers owned by the people of B.C. That's called cover-up. Now it has another huge edition on health - to sell covertly, it appears to me, Private Health Care. Brandishing Brian Day, it weighs in, slowly, subtly, persistently, as I read the paper, on the necessity, the inevitability of Private Health Care.

And, incidentally, the Sun avoids having to report on the October 26 heated pre-trial hearing in the BC Supreme Court in which Defence remarked that the latest, late, overdue material disclosed by the Crown might impact on members of the Campbell cabinetŠ. They were the people, remember, who - secretly and against solemn election promise, provoking accusations of fraud and breach of trust - sold the Railway owned by the people of British Columbia to a foreign private corporation.

Does Kirk Lapointe have orders not to report news like that? Who knows?

What was the other news out of Courtroom 64? That the Crown dumped 25000 pages of evidentiary material on the Defence just a few days before the hearing. Planned timing? A coincidence? Michael Bolton of the Defence team was his usual urbane self. Joseph Doyle was his usual tidy, organized person. Kevin McCullough, usually battering ram for the three, was as close to being apoplectic as a self-controlled Defence lawyer can be.

Why? Didn't Defence want the material? Didn't they ask for it? In the witty words (?) of Special Crown Prosecutor, William Berardino quoted by Bill Tieleman on his blog, didn't the judge ask, in her order, for every scrap of paper. Ha. Ha.
Ha. Ha. Now the contestation over the matters arising out of the corrupt sale of BC Rail by the Gordon Campbell cabinet is getting nasty. Now sides in the fight are becoming more obvious. From the beginning the role of the Prosecution (the Special Crown Prosecutor appointed, in fact, by the Attorney General) has been muddy. Isn't it fair to say Gordon Campbell doesn't want a trial? Isn't it fair to say the RCMP doesn't want a trial? (Why did the RCMP decide early that no elected official would be investigated?) We can assume, can't we, that Gordon Campbell doesn't want the investigation to be expanded? Isn't it fair to recall that the Special Crown Prosecutor was appointed in 2003 by the Attorney General of the day, Geoff Plant - who just happened to be a former colleague? Isn't it true the Attorney General has very close ties to the Supreme Court? And isn't it true that Wally Oppal was hand-picked by Gordon Campbell - plucked almost from the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court - to run for Attorney General? And isn't it true that Oppal spent many, many years as a colleague of most of the judges of the B.C. Supreme Court?

The role of the Crown as prosecution is complicated. It works with the RCMP in the laying of charges. The RCMP decided no elected official was under investigation. Who, in fact, made that decision?

To get at material involving, bearing upon, related to people not investigated (and, perhaps, who might be found deserving of accusation as distinctly related to the charges against the present accused) Defence has to call for disclosure of material that connects or may connect the presently accused to those othersŠ through continuing RCMP police reports, logs, messages, records of meetings, and the same with BC Rail officials and with members of cabinet, and so on.

Isn't it fair to say that all that 'beating the brush' has to happen because fundamental investigation and the scope of investigation has been faulty and incomplete? Isn't that something about which the judge seized with the matter should be wisely and astutely aware? If the connections Defence is apparently trying to make were contained in charges presented by the RCMP and the Special Crown Prosecutor against related people, wouldn't all this calling for disclosure be unnecessary? And shouldn't the judge - if that is the case - use her power to expand the investigation, and to assure relevant and rapid production of materials applied for by Defence?

Some observers - and I am one of them - have not been convinced Madam Justice Elizabeth Bennett has been sympathetic to those ideas. Indeed, in Courtroom 64 Kevin McCullough stated frankly that he believes the Crown has not complied with the order for disclosure by Madam Justice Elizabeth Bennett. (Over and over and over during the period when there was no court order, Defence alleged, and observers seemed to witness, a distinct failure on the part of the Crown to produce necessary material in a timely and cooperative way. And Madam Justice Elizabeth Bennett seemed to experience the tardiness with, usually, unruffled demeanour.)

McCullough's statement in Courtroom 64 is a serious statement. What was the response? Did Madam Justice Bennett want to know the substance of McCullough's claim? Not at all. In fact, we have to ask if she energetically bull-dozed the hearing away from that matter altogether. McCullough insisted. She declared the hearings were going to go on according to schedule. McCullough said, in effect, he couldn't take part because he couldn't possibly get through the material in time. Was she seriously trying to get the process to work? Or was she playing a partisan game?

What about the 25000 pages of material just released to the Defence. Think about it. Did the Crown say: "We want to try the three accused on the basis we set out and we don't want any interference - and we don't want any suggestion the list of the accused should be increased. The Defence doesn't like that. The Defence asks for disclosure of evidence that may be important to the conduct of the trial of their clients and which - incidentally - may pull in people we don't want anywhere near a courtroom. So we'll comply in every embarrassing way we can. We will stall. We will report imperfectly. And we will BURY the Defence in so much material a trial will never happen"? Is it possible the Crown could have thought and could have said those things? Who knows?

Madam Justice Elizabeth Bennett expressed her own surprise that so much material has been found to be released to the Defence. Was she really surprised? Why didn't she want to know how Kevin McCullough believes the Crown has failed to follow her order? Shouldn't a judge show interest and concern if a major party believes her order is being abused?

I don't like what I saw in Courtroom 64 on October 26. I don't like what was certainly the failure of major press and media to cover the event. I don't like even the reports that have leaked into secondary communication vehicles. Almost everyone connected to the matters arising out of the corrupt sale of BC Rail by the Gordon Campbell cabinet seems to be living in a dream. Don't the press and media see that this matter is about fundamental democracy in B.C. and Canada? Doesn't Madam Justice Elizabeth Bennett see that? Is the higher court system in Canada useless? Is it increasingly a front for behaviour leading to a repressive and oppressive social system in Canada?

When we are in the Supreme Court of British Columbia, are we in fact ankles awash standing on the deck of The Titanic singing "Abide With Me, fast falls the eventide"?

One Justice System for All?
Apparently Not!

Yesterday saw the occurance of yet another pre-trial hearing in what we have come to call the BC Rail Trial. As usual, nothing much actually occurred other than some bloviating served with a dash of bluster, yesterday mainly from Kevin McCullough, counsel for Bob Virk. According to Bill Tieleman (one of only two or three media representatives who consider this "improtant enough" to cover):

....tempers flared as defence lawyers, the Special Prosecutor and even Justice Elizabeth Bennett all expressed frustration at lengthy delays that have stalled the pending trial, which began with a police raid on the BC Legislature on December 28, 2003.

Kevin McCullough,...... told Bennett that current members of Premier Gordon Campbell's government may be affected when the new evidence is examined.

(The prosecution disclosed (or dumped) 25,000 documents on the defence this week, timely response to Justice Bennetts disclosure "order" in June - kc)

"There are certain documents that may have an impact on certain cabinet ministers and we may have to pursue those documents," McCullough said.

Justice Bennett was, or appeared to be, losing patience with the pace of disclosure and with the defence for pointing out the absurdity of waiting until a couple days before court to make 25,000 pages of docs available. Bill goes on to say:

When counsel for the defence suggested it might need more time to prepare its applications in light of the new evidence, Bennett warned that she would not consider moving the planned December 3 date scheduled in court.

"As long as everyone understands we're not moving the December 3 date - if I have to sit here in an empty courtroom myself, the matters are going to be heard" she exclaimed.

I guess Justice Bennett could accomplish as much as has been getting accomplished sitting by herself in the courtroom. But as Robin Matthews, who was also there points out:

Madam Justice Bennett has been slowly coming under question as a part of the delay mechanism. Where are her stern orders? Where are contempt of court charges for procrastinators? Why doesn't she make clear to herself if Crown is delaying - and, if so, take determined steps?

Robin goes on to make some suggestions as to why this might be so, for those reasons just hie thee on over to Robin's report (Courting disaster) from yesterday at Mary's place.

One other interesting note from yesterday's pre-trial event is that BC Rail itself sent a lawyer (Robert Deane of Borden Ladner Gervais)to observe the proceeding. I guess my biggest shock from that is that I didn't realize there even was a BC Rail anymore, or was that guy really representing CN, the RR that couldn't drive on the tracks?

On the Other Hand

In an earlier piece, For the rich and powerful, “Law” (?) . For the others, “Contempt” from the Court. Robin Matthews addressed the uncanny ability of the courts to expedite at hyper warp speed the protection of corporate interests friends of government society from the likes of criminals like Betty Krawczyk and the unfortunate, late Harriett Nahanee. Justice has once again acted with swiftness when it is apparently in the interests of whomever decides what is priority and what is not. In the Valley Voice, published in New Denver (available here soon* - Court Order puts end to Glacier Creek blockade)is the story of swift justice that waits for no man (or woman).

Glacier Creek is a ground zero of the current resistance to the government in Victoria running rampant over the interests of the local populace to support their dreams of privatization and NO local input. At the head of Glacier Creek is the proposed location of the mini (although less mini by the month) Whistler in the wilderness, Jumbo Resort. Also Glacier Creek is part of one of the famous "green" IPPS and is likely to lose up to 80% of its flow if the current plan to divert its water to Howser Creek and then generate power to ship eastward, in spite of the fact that the generation plant would be within very few miles of the grid to the west. Two relatively pristine watersheds, they have been logged, and the whole corridor over Jumbo pass are to be sacrificed so some corporate types can profit from what used to be a resource owned by the people of British Columbia. The corridor will be wiped out to construct the high power transmission lines eastward, even though the current grid is accessible at Marblehead and Meadow Creek.

This court order though mainly has to do with a blockade of a section of forestry road that crosses private land owned by Mick and Gabriela Grabowsky and is a public hazard due to landslide risk thanks to non-existent or poor maintenance by the MOF. The MOF refuses to indemnify the Grabowskys for liability in case of damages or injury from slides, yet insists on the right to have the road open to the public. The Grabowskys have been at their location, raising horses, since 1993 and interestingly never had any problems with forestry or other government departments until Jumbo Resort and the Howser/Glacier Creek IPP became real possibilities. To read more about the Grabowskys, their Rainbow's End Ranch and their battles with the MOF and such go to Eloise Charet's Waterwalk website. A brief excerpt follows, here.

Because of ill-considered actions taken by MoF and its contractors on Grabowskys' private property; because of the danger that the slide area stills poses to road-users and the uncertainty about who is legally liable, and because the promised written document detailing the August 2, 2007 'gentleman's agreement' between MoF and the Grabowskys was never delivered, a decision has been made by the Grabowskys to once again block Glacier Creek Road to all motor vehicle traffic.

On Saturday, October 13, a representative of Purcell Green (sic) Power a "100-page package of documentation and exibits that would be presented to the Supreme Court just three days later, on October 16." As a result the Court Order removing the blockade took effect the next day October 17, at 2:30pm. As Richard Caniell of the Valhalla Wilderness Society who has been trying to assist the Grabowskys put it in the Voice:

...the process was "abusive of the individuals served documents by the power company's wealthy lawyers" and a "particularly bad experience for the Grabowskys"

"Here is a guy, 15kms from the nearest highway, with no electricity or phone, who is given notice at 4 pm on Saturday that he is to be in court in Vancouver on Tuesday morning"

"...the court order not only prohibits anyone from "obstructing, preventing, impeding, restricting or interfering" with the work of the power company, but also from "encouraging, counseling or conspiring with others to obstruct..........etc., with the company's activities on the project land.

"People cannnot even talk to each other about this, and there was no opportunity to defend this in court"

So whom ever is in control of the justice process can apparently speed things up when it suits them, or so it would appear. Oh to see some of this kind of stern and swift justice applied to the BC Rail case, or is it because of who is affected?

But hardly anybody cared when they wanted to destroy the life style of the Gabrowskys, because most people aren't Gabrowskys. Then they decided to mess with the Wilsons, and there were more of them, but I wasn't a Wilson, so I didn't really care.........and so forth.

* October 10 issue is most recent yet posted as of today......to link to Valley Voice in general go here.

A Red Letter Day?
October 26

 

Tomorrow the trial that proceeds in slow motion if at all, is scheduled to proceed once again. Sometimes it seems difficult to even remember what the Basi/Virk-BC Rail Trial is all about. The unprecedented raid on the Legislature by the RCMP and Victoria Police was almost four years ago now and very little has happened. Twenty percent of the original search warrant is still with held from the public thanks to Patrick Dohm who is either protecting our sensibilities or perhaps protecting something or somebody else. Our wonderful Canned West Infotainment Corporation hasn't exactly be helpful in keeping the people of BC informed about this important matter, either.

Perhaps tomorrow something will happen. Perhaps it will be learned that indeed the Special Prosecutor and the RCMP have finally complied with the "orders" about disclosure. The way other slime is oozing to the top lately, it might be in certain parties' interest to actually let this trial proceed now, if for no other reason than to distract the public from other matters such as the following.

• Conflicts of Interest (you pick 'em)
  
  
• Questionable Land Deals
  
  
  
  • Western Forest Products - Jordan River
    
  • Pope & Talbot - Arrow Lakes
    (not posted yet - 25/10/07)
    
  • Raiding the ALR w/o due process
    
  
  
  
  
• Unregistered/Illegal? Lobbyists
  
  
  
  • Graham Bruce
    
  • Ken Dobell
    
  
  
• Convention Centre Over Runs
  (Fast Ferries on Steroids)
  
  
• Routine Train Derailments (2-3 per week)
  
  
• Daily Horror Stories in Health Care
  
  
• Organized Crime in BC - How High does it Go?
  
  
• Kevin Falcon, Bobble Head Abbot and Ding-Dong DeJong?
  
  
• Mark Marrisen and the Mrs.
  

In Case You Forgot

There are three defendants in this case.

HMTQ vs BASI, Aneal
HMTQ vs BASI, Udhe S.
HMTQ vs VIRK, Bobby S.

and the charges against them include -

Accepting bribe as a
government official

Breach of trust by public
officer

Accepting bribe as a
government official

Accepting bribe from
person dealing with gov't

Offering to influence
government official

Breach of trust by public
officer

Fraud over $5000

Then there is the part that seems to use up the months - HMTQ vs LIMITED ACCESS, in which the defense would like/have to see the following.

Disclosure applications
be/will be/were adjourned.

Special Prosecutor provide
call logs for
Authorizations P32 and P53
to defence counsel on
appropriate undertakings.

Disclosure of transcripts
and audio recordings of
calls intercepted pursuant
to P32 and P53 as set out
in Schedule "A".

Special Prosecutor provide
defence with suffficient (*sic)
information about the
vetting of the Phase V
disclosure such that
defence is able to: (a)
determine whether to
pursue disclosure; and (b)
make meaningful
submissions to the Trail
Judge with respect to the
validity of the Special
Prosecutor's or RCMP's
assertion of priviledge (*sic),
or other reason for
disclosure.

Special Prosecutor provide
paper copies of all
documents unvetted during
the Vetting Meetings to
defence counsel

Special Prosecutor review
all documents over which
the Provincial Government
claimed Cabinet
priviledge, and to which
ACJ Dohm determined were
not relevent (*sic) to the
investigation, create an
inventory of same, and
provide all document which
may be relevant to the
defence.

Special Prosecutor: (a)
review the Filing Cabinet
documents; (b) cree\ate (*sic..what?)
a descriptive inventory of
same; (c) provide a copy
of the said inventory to
defence counsel; and (d)
disclose all additional
Filing Cabinet Documents
that may be relevant.

* Do we thank J.C.Word Assist
Official Court Transcription Contractor for the
Attorney General of British Columbia?

So, to all of you that purport to work in the halls of justice, helping the wheels of justice turn - some of us are watching you - Especially you, Justice Bennett, and you, Special Prosecutor Berardino. Justice should be blind, but you don't need to poke your eyes out!