Tuesday, February 19, 2008

Basi-Virk defence disclosure application alleges massive failure of Crown to disclose RCMP, other evidence in BC Legislature Raid case

UPDATED 5:25 p.m.

A defence disclosure application in the BC Legislature Raid case alleges that massive amounts of evidence from the RCMP investigation and other sources has still not been disclosed to the defence in contravention of an order by BC Supreme Court Justice Elizabeth Bennett.


The January 4, 2008 application by lawyers for David Basi, Bob Virk and Aneal Basi - the three ex-BC government aides facing corruption charges - was only made public today through the court registry.

The document - attached in full below in JPEG form - click on each page to see in larger format - cites a litany of missing RCMP officers' notes, wiretap transcripts, computer emails, questions about a deal with key Crown witness Erik Bornmann, a former provincial lobbyist and much more.

The remedies sought by the defence demand full disclosure of the missing information, including such items as a briefing note prepared for former RCMP Commissioner Giuliano Zaccardelli; complete inventories of all materials in the Ottawa and Vancouver RCMP headquarters offices and full details of the Bornmann deal.

However special prosecutor Bill Berardino said Monday in court that he has complied with all but eight items requested by the defence and is working to provide those shortly.


The application also alleges that a witness statement was destroyed by investigators, that calls between David Basi and prominent Vancouver lawyer Lyall Knott were taped in possible violation of the Charter of Rights and demands release of a witness statement giving an “opinion of two witnesses on the condition of anonymity.”

The allegedly destroyed witness statement came from a Darryl Black and the defence says it learned of the circumstance from a project room review of the RCMP's "IPOC" or Integrated Proceeds Of Crime files. There is no indication as to who Black is or what his possible connection to the case could be.

36 comments:

BC Mary said...

.


Bill,

A million thanks! First to Robin Mathews for his persistence in demanding these documents be released to the public, then to you, Bill Tieleman, for going to the trouble of making them available online.

I'm only at page 6 but my eyes are out on sticks: e.g., the chummy reference to a videocassette statement of "Jas" Bains (Jasmohan Bains, cousin of Dave Basi, and believed to have been the west coast's Mr Big) ... and the police interest in the telephones of Minister of Finance, Gary Collins, nearly 4 months before they even searched the Legislature ...

This is a trial crying out for TV cameras in the courtroom so that British Columbians can follow these important issues.

I understand the request for TV coverage must come from the courtroom lawyers to the presiding judge.

Reading these horrendous problems, I'd think that the Defence team would welcome this kind of support.

.

Anonymous said...

Bill,

This is outrageous what does the Special Prosecutor say about this?

Is he going to fight this?

Paul Gill said...

The RCMP destroyed a statement of somebody named Darryl Black?

Para 45!

What is going on with the RCMP? Allegations of destruction of evidence are quite serious and leads to questions of other missing documents.

Gazetteer said...

May favorite point so far is #76 which is request that:

An Order that the Special Prosecutor provide the witness statement described by the Special Prosecutor as "an interview with a member of the public who provided the RCMP with his opinion of two witnesses on the condition of anonymity".

Is that a whistle I hear a blowin'?

.

G West said...

Yep! I think so Gazetteer - I've been barking up that tree for some time.

I thing that's the same member of the public that Berardino is trying to have testify with a bag over his or her head under the terms of the Supreme Court's decision in the so called 'named person' case - the self-same argument the judge rejected and which the Spec Prosecutor has now taken to appeal.

kootcoot said...

Bill, by chasing these documents down, scanning them and making them available you have performed a true public service and I THANK YOU much!

I'm sure Wild Bill isn't as pleased but then I wouldn't want the public to know either, if I had been so remiss in pursuing the public's interest when that is supposed to my responsibilitiy. The RCMP don't look like prize pigs either and I've only skimmed the pages so far as I was making copies for my files.

Gazetteer said...

GW--

Wonder if somebody's Spidey-Sense is tingling?

.

Anonymous said...

Bill I hope this application by the defence finally puts to rest the absurd notion that somehow basi and virk are delaying this thing or they were involved in some massive drug conspiracy. I have read the application (thank you for posting it) and its clear they are demanding more information from the boys on horseback who were falling over themselves talking about the "cancer of organized crime" in the days after the raids. Its funny how the boys on horse back stopped talking about that! If I were a cynic I would suggest maybe, just maybe they have screwed up yet again and here we have one more glaring example why this sick organization needs to be reformed from top to bottom, broken up into a thousand pieces!

What a sick joke this has become!

Anonymous said...

Berardino needs until May 5 2008 to comply with this disclosure application that was filed on January 4, 2008 - 5 months!

Come on what is going on!

Anonymous said...

A few weeks after Zaccardelis shameful resignation,Dec'06.,two senior rcmp and one senior csis agent were questioned,Jan'07 ??? As reported by John Daley. No further bulletins since? Any updated news, I suspect there's a relation to closed investigations & missing doc's.

kootcoot said...

Was it really that long ago (Dec 2006) that Zaccardelli resigned from his position as head Horsey Guy? It's amazing how long the stench persists! I think some fresh air and daylight are indicated. It works for my dirty laundry.

The commenter above who points out the absurdity of Wm. Berardino needing until May to comply with the disclosure request so happily published here is right. But doesn't anyone else feel that it is suspect that the request even had to be made this January, over FOUR years after the original warrants were issued and the Raids were executed. Look up obfuscation in any dictionary, British, American or Canadian, for appropriate vocabulary to describe what appears to be (or not be) going on here.

Anonymous said...

To Anonymous 7:12

You were too kind in your description of the boys on horseback. I would have used words like corrupt, arrogant, contemptuous of basic civil rights, out of control and last but not least pathetic!

There are some good people in the rcmp unfortunately the bad apples in the barrel have tainted everybody. I am looking for a story about a mountie who blew the whistle on his own. What was his reward, he was singled out and fired over some made up bs. When I find the story I will post it here for all to see.

Anonymous said...

Special Prosecutor admits that disclosure has not been met by stating that he is complying with this latest disclosure application?

Didn't he argue last year that he has completed full disclosure and that the defence was full of nonsense but now he is agreeing to comply with everything but 8 items?

There is no mistaking that he along with the RCMP are the root cause for all of this delay.

A cynic may be tempted to say that it is deliberate...

BC Mary said...

.
It's worrying when people seem satisfied with merely blaming somebody ... first the Special Prosecutor, then the RCMP.

I guess it's natural to try to work out why things happen. But on the other hand, how can people inexplicably convince themselves that organized crime is NOT involved?

One of the items requested by the Jan. 08 defence application for disclosure is the "videocassette statement of Jas Bains" ...

That's Jasmohan Singh Bains, thought in 2003 to be the newest Mr Big in West Coast drugs trafficking. I believe he comes up for trial in 2008.

Bains is Dave Basi's cousin, who is alleged to have telephoned Dave Basi at work -- at the BC Ministry of Finance -- 26 times during the summer of 2003.

So people shouldn't be so quick to scoff at the idea that organized crime might get involved ... or be so quick to ridicule the RCMP for investigating.

Meantime, I think we'd be doing ourselves a big favour if we could persuade Justice Bennett to activate TV cameras in the courtroom so as to better inform ourselves about these things.

.

Anonymous said...

"One of the items requested by the Jan. 08 defence application for disclosure is the "videocassette statement of Jas Bains" ...

If the defence lawyers are requesting this information Mary, don't you think quite possibly they too are eager to find out how the rcmp made the leap to organized crime being involved in this mess? Maybe I am naieve but it seems to me the defence lawyers are asking for information about an accusation that was so incredible at the time earning national headlines that all of a sudden it has quietly slipped off the radar. As for the intelligence or lack thereof of the rcmp look no further than some of their spectacular failures in the Arar case or the "we don't have any irregularities in our pensions" scandal. They investigated Glen Clark, charged him and engaged in a massive campaign of misinformation and character assassination does that mean he was guilty of something or a criminal? I could be wrong but what defence lawyer in their right mind would be digging for information if their clients were involved in "organzied crime".

Wouldn't they be trying like mad to cover this up, hide it from the public and bury it as fast as they could.

I have seen enough to know this, the rcmp couldn't find a moose in a 6 inch snow drift!!

Wayne said...

Mary do us all a favor and please call the rcmp and tell them to stop hiding information so we can get this trial going. You seem to have a lot of faith in their abilities. Good luck, you will need it.

Anonymous said...

.
Wayne:

I'm suggesting that it does no good to merely cast blame. Bad, ba-a-ad RCMP, for example.

Sure, I'd like to drop-kick Ol' Bill Berardino through the goal-posts a time or two, but even if I could, what's the point.

Stated differently, however, I'd like to see Justice Bennett cite him for Contempt of Court regarding documents she ordered him to disclose, and months later, he hasn't done so.

Whether or not I "have a lot of faith in their [RCMP] abilities" is neither here nor there.

What I don't understand and perhaps you can explain it, is how people can leap to the firm conclusion that organized crime was NOT involved in Case #23299. Wouldn't it be smarter to just check that out?

BC Mary.
.

Anonymous said...

Mary, if there is Organized Crime involved maybe you could explain why the charges do not reflect those early allegations of "cancer at the highest levels..."

Deep Throat said...

Mr. Premier, Clarke Roberts here.

Oh…hi Clarke and just so you know about the Basi /Virk trial…"I am not following it very closely...the prosecutors are…doing their job, I'm sure the defense is doing their job...and I won't have anything at all to say about it until it is complete...That has been my position from the outset".

Mr. Premier that’s exactly what I am calling you about! I just got off the phone with Wally Oppal and he couldn’t believe that you talked to Michael Smyth about the Basi / Virk trial. He is really %$#@* at you. How in the heck do you think he can now go back into the Legislative Assembly and deflect questions addressed to you on the Basi / Virk trial based on the argument that the matter is before the courts and that, therefore, the members of Executive Council will not answer any Opposition questions related to the Basi / Virk trial. He told me he is considering his options and that he just may sit there next time and let you explain your actions to the Opposition!

…Just a minute Clarke…I got Martyn Brown and Coleman running around my office like chickens with their heads cut off…would you guys get out of here…and before you do pass me the scotch…I am talking to Clarke Roberts…who do you think I am talking too?…sorry about that Clarke…now what were you saying?

Mr. Premier I also can’t believe that you would tell Michael Smyth that you “…had no personal involvement in the case.” And yet that you talked to Allan Seckel recently because, “It is interesting to know what's taking place on occasion," And as such, you ““…asked [Seckel] within the last couple of weeks, 'What's going on?' He said, 'The judge has got all the documents. The judge is making the choices. That's what's happening.' I said, 'Fine.'””

Mr. Premier, you know that what you said to Smyth simply is not true. The judge does not have all the government documents that the defense is requesting. You know that…so why did you say it? And why in the heck did you suggest that you recently talked to Seckel about the case when you also know that you have had numerous meetings with him on the matter. Why did you feel compelled to say anything? Now you have really “opened up the can of worms”.

Mr. Premier…once again I must counsel you that you have a cancer in your Office that you must expunge it immediately…you must let Coleman and Brown go before it is too late.

Mr. Premier…Mr. Premier…are you there Mr. Premier?

Wayne said...

Mary, are you asking me to understand the mindset of a group of people who thought Glen Clark was corrupt, Maher Arar was a terrorist, there was no pension scandal, Ian Bush shot himself in the back of the head, Sgt. Pepper was defending himself, documents entitled "do not disclose", cozy relationships with campbell and the executive director of his party, missing files, missing emails, mysterious hard drives, no politicians are under investigation - oops gary collins was kinda sorta oh yeah before the raids he was etc. etc. etc.

You are asking the impossible. I can't "dumb down" my thinking to such a low level.

BC Mary said...

.
Wayne,

I haven't even been discussing the RCMP, you silly man.

I do understand the power of precedent (in law), but I don't understand why you bring in cases which have nothing to do with BCRail or Basi Virk Basi. Those are not precedents.

It's like saying that Willie Pickton was a pig farmer, therefore every pig farmer is ... well, you know. And you know it isn't true.

And btw, I'm not "asking you to believe" anything. I'm just hoping you'll think things through for yourself.

If (god forbid) you target a segment of society with a relentless campaign that they're all bad, bad, ba-a-ad people, well, it's clearly not going to have good results.

So maybe we could stick with the topic here. OK?

.

BC Mary said...

Have you seen this interesting web-site: http://www.rcmpwatch.com/


It includes Mark Hume's columns. An excerpt from Hume dated May 2007 says:


... The defence says details on a "deal" the Crown struck with Mr. Bornmann have not been released, despite a June court order that that information be disclosed.


So it's time to ask: isn't this "Contempt of court"? Why hasn't Justice Bennett cited the Special Prosecutor for ignoring her court order for 9 months?

.

Eyes Wide Open said...

It seems to me the topic is the sheer utter incompetence of the rcmp. I too want to know why they are withholding documents and marking them not for disclosure". Perhaps you can answer that Mary. If you read the comments carefully anonymous states very clearly "there are good people in the rcmp". Unfortunately for all of us Mary your tirades clearly suggest that by virtue of the fact basi and virk were investigated and charged they must be guilty. Go back and check your own words. This is your analysis. You also can't seem to shake this "organized crime" fixation you have. I harken back to a famous slogan from the 1984 presidential campaign when Mondale said to Hart during the nomination process "where's the beef"?? I echo the sentiments of others on this blog, if you have so much faith in the rcmp please do us a favor and ask them to release the documents we know they are hiding. You may want to start this process with an explanation of the "do not disclose" document that makes reference to tipping off campbell about an investigation. Once they answer that question you may then want to ask them why they have consistenly disobeyed the judges order to disclose information. I would like to quote the judge, she stated "disclosure is a constitutional right". Maybe you could give the rcmp "an idiots guide to the law" which will help them understand the constitution, the rule of law, the charter of rights, the fact that people are "innocent until proven guilty" all mundane boring topics that I am sure the rcmp finds inconvenient and a nuisance.

What seperates us from banana republics in the third world is the rule of law, a law that applies not only to the citizenery but to the people empowered to enforce it!

I think Wayne said it best when he stated "good luck".



Even Bill Tieleman has made reference to questionable rcmp conduct in this case that must be addressed. It seems to me the defence lawyers are eager to get these jokers on the stand and ask them some tough questions.

G West said...

Very nice piece deep throat.

I have a sneaking suspicion that there have already been 'several' of those conversations.

Clarke Roberts does a little turn on CBC Victoria every Friday morning with Bob Plecas and Elizabeth Cull - sort of the Victoria version of the Cluffmaster's Monday morning round up of Erin Airton, Rafe Mair and Moe Sihota.

Clarke is always very quiet on the very occasional program that mentions Basi/Virk - pretty much restricting his comments to the fact that he represents Gary Collins who is not a 'suspect' and just a potential witness.

I get the feeling, from his tone of voice, that he's not at all comfortable when the subject comes up. In fact, he seemed positively joyous yesterday when all the conversation centred around the Campbell ‘green’ plan.

Curious, innit?

kootcoot said...

Anon-0-Mouse who sez:

"If the defence lawyers are requesting this information Mary, don't you think quite possibly they too are eager to find out how the rcmp made the leap to organized crime being involved in this mess? Maybe I am naieve but it seems to me the defence lawyers are asking for information about an accusation that was so incredible at the time earning national headlines that all of a sudden it has quietly slipped off the radar."

I'm not sure what anon is trying to say with the above. But if he is suggesting that the lawyers for BBV are casting too wide of a net to confuse the issues, he is dead wrong. Basi et. al are entitled to see ALL evidence arising from this investigation that led to their criminal charges. Especially, of course, any such information that would tend to exonerate the defendents.

Mary has a good point, to a point, in her insistence that casting blame on Wild Bill, the Equestrians and Justice Bennett doesn't solve the problems indicated by the Raids themselves and the ensuing Potemkin Village Court proceedings.

On the other hand one can't deny the incomplete list of just recent Mountie sins of incompetence or worse, compiled by Wayne. So let's just say the credibility of the RCMP is less than perfect at the present time, in BC and across Canada.

Mr. Wild Bill certainly can't deny the validity of criticism of his role so far either. He has apparently uttered statements IN COURT that don't pass the truth test, i.e. stating that all documents had been disclosed over a year ago. I have to admit that Mr. Berardino's exposure to charges of making false statements are greatly reduced by his avoidance of even appearing in the courtroom during many of the brief and rare instances that this matter even gets onto the docket.

Justice Bennett shouldn't feel immune to justifiable criticism either. Sometimes I wonder if she attended class in law school when they discussed "Contempt of Court."
At least that would explain why she hasn't felt the need to use the power to declare parties in contempt. If certain parties in this trial don't hold her court and her "orders" in contempt, they certainly do a wonderful job of making it appear that way.

I figure if the pie fits the face, then the face may as well wear it. Somehow, somewhere, somebody (or bodies) are responsible for the travesty of justice that this whole affair has been so far. It isn't as if those documents, tapes etc. are hiding out in locked safes and refusing to come out. Somewhere behind the curtain decisions are being make to throw sand in the face of the defense and at the same time all the people of British Columbia. Decisions have been made from during the investigation itself (like the Who's a Target? game) up to today that don't appear to further the interest of justice.

kootcoot said...

BTW, I forgot to mention how much I enjoy deep throat's dialogs between Mr. Roberts and Mr. Campbell. Maybe they could be saved and published as a small book, someday..........

It's kinda like Saturday Morning Live from British Columbia. (blog form)

earseyeswideopen said...

I want it to be made clear that I am NOT 'eyes wide open' at 6:25 pm above.

For whatever reasons someone would use an identity so close as to appear to be my comment, I am NOT amused.

I chose my blogger identity a long time ago & ask that that person above please select another name to post under.

Gary E said...

earseyeswideopen. Don't worry about the spin doctors who try to use a similar name. Most of us can catch it anyway. They tried that on me over at Marys place so I added The E. Now I can catch them every time.

As for the rest here, I tend to beleive the theory that both the Special Prosecutor and the RCMP are at fault here. ALL I repeat ALL the evidence gathered by the RCMP should have been turned over to the special prosecutor after the vetting by the judge that issued the warrants. The special prosecutor should be demanding this evidence just as the defense is. And to the person who posted that there should be contempt charges. I fully agree. Those charges should have been filed within a monthe after I sat in court in April 2007 and Justice Bennett said that the "public interest is paramount". But alas something happened in the background that the rest of us have not been privy to. So now no one is getting any info.

Finally to Bill. Thanks ever so much for posting these pages in jpeg. I have yet to read it all but there is some very interesting info here as some have already posted.

BC Mary said...

To the real "earseyeswideopen", a tip of the tuque to you!

You've been a great supporter and it's hard to imagine the mind of somebody trying to pose as you, in order to attack others.

Nor could the choice of your particular User Name have been an accident. I believe it was meant to deceive. As such, it's a valuable example of the ethics which allows people to accept money do this kind of thing against their fellow citizens.

Mr Media Monitor did fool a few people. But only for a while. Now we know what it was all about. But as yet, we don't know WHO did it.

It's untrue and harmful, where the imposters claim that:


Mary your tirades clearly suggest that by virtue of the fact basi and virk were investigated and charged they must be guilty. Go back and check your own words. This is your analysis.


Everybody who actually reads my work knows that I have never said or even suggested that Basi or Virk "must be guilty" and again, I think this is a rotten thing to say about me, or about Basi and Virk.

Enough.

.

BC Mary said...

.
At Bill's suggestion, I will post (below) the Feb 24 item from my web-site at http://bctrialofbasi-virk.blogspot.com/



Impersonators. Imposters.

It's Sunday and after the brief kerfuffle on Bill Tieleman's blog yesterday, I'm still thinking about anonymity and what it means.

For bloggers, I like to think it's a protective measure, shielding friends, neighbours, relatives, employees from embarrassment or repercussions if they want to give voice to some true thoughts or speculation on a number of subjects. The way I see it, anonymity in blogger-world is a good thing because it can lead to freer speech and deeper thoughts.

I especially like anonymity with a User Name -- not for personal identity -- but so that we can follow each train of thought. Like for PG, Kootcoot, Lynx, etc.

[The Legislature Raids] web-site receives excellent contributions from completely Anonymous contributors. I read them all before they are posted and if any comments fail the smell-test, they are deleted.

One of my favourite commentors is earseyeswideopen. Special note: that's ears and eyes, both wide open. This person has been a loyal supporter of [my] web-site, has given us valuable information, and has encouraged our efforts to follow the issues surrounding BC Rail.

So yesterday I knew something was wrong when I encountered eyeswideopen [Special note: that's "eyes" only] on Bill Tieleman's web-site. Check that again: eyeswideopen. Did you think it was our old friend? Some people did ... even though it isn't quite the same User Name, was harshly critical of the RCMP, and has a generally nasty tone. Such as:

"... Mary your tirades clearly suggest that by virtue of the fact basi and virk were investigated and charged they must be guilty. Go back and check your own words. This is your analysis ..."

Nobody who reads my blog, The Legislature Raids, could believe that accusation to be true. Readers know that, from Day One, I have deleted any comment if it even suggests guilt. So obviously this imposter doesn't read [my] web-site but (my guess) is only following orders.

You might call that an imposter. Or an impersonator. Or a Media Monitor - someone who is on salary to distribute propaganda. Their "job" is to manipulate the truth, for some unknown person's specific purpose. In other words, to double-cross the very citizens who might well be paying their salaries.

Don't tell me not to bother with these people or their messages. Or, stated another way: please don't imagine that there's only one, two, ten, or 50 of these Media Monitors operating in B.C.

Don't tell me that political parties always do this. Try to understand that there were 185 new "Public Affairs Officers" appointed in September 2006 under Order-in-Council #656 ... in addition to the ones added later, and the ones already on the provincial government payroll. At a guess, let's say 300 people whose salaries are paid by the BC taxpayers. What are they all doing?

We know, for example, that Dave Basi was staging phone-in and heckling campaigns for the Minister of Finance, Gary Collins. We know that Basi reported at least once by telephone to the premier on these successful enterprises.

This isn't even political campaigning, bad as that would be if done by government employees on the public payroll. No, this is worse, if in fact government is trying to control the free domain of public thought.

And yesterday's example suggests that this rotten system of thought-control is still functioning in B.C. Pity.

The real earseyeswideopen had the last word yesterday, here on Bill Tieleman's blog:


earseyeswideopen said...

I want it to be made clear that I am NOT 'eyes wide open' ...

For whatever reasons someone would use an identity so close as to appear to be my comment, I am NOT amused.

I chose my blogger identity a long time ago & ask that that person above please select another name to post under.

:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

PS: And thanks again to you, Bill.

.

John said...

I have been reading the exchanges on this thread and decided to check a few facts.

Mary the heading on your blog reads as follows;

"Police raided the B.C. Legislature 4 years ago investigating drugs trafficking and the Campbell government's controversial sale of B.C. Rail. Three ministerial aides were arrested. Eight new pre-trial hearing dates for Dave Basi, Bobby Virk & Aneal Basi are scheduled between Feb 29 and May 5 at The Law Courts, 800 Smyth Street, Vancouver. Do you agree that TV cameras should broadcast proceedings on the government TV channel so all can follow what happened to BCRail? - BC Mary."

Since you never miss an opportunity to tell us how accurate and ethical you are perhaps you could revisit the heading of your blog. Fact, no ministerial aide was ever arrested when the bc legislature was raided. Let me repeat that, no Ministerial aide was arrested when the legislature was raided. The only Ministerial aide ever arrested for drug related activity during the campbell regime was and continues to be Marshall Smith. Check your facts and correct the record!

Second Fact, where did you get "three Ministerial Aides" from? Only Dave Basi and Bob Virk were Ministerial Aides, the other person Aneal Basi was a low level staffer in the Communications Branch of the Ministry of Transportation. Nobody ever heard his name or knew he was involved until the day charges were laid. Once again check your facts and correct the record!

Now if you can get your facts right on these two points I will then go back and happily point out other glaring examples of misinformation if indeed, let me repeat that, IF INDEED there are any other examples.

kootcoot said...

Hey John, if you could spare some time from your campaign to impugn the ethics/integrity/intelligence of BC Mary. What are you going to point out next? Perhaps that she has been using the word "is" improperly somewhere?

You act as if this really is relevant:

"Fact, no ministerial aide was ever arrested when the bc legislature was raided."

Watch them angels dance on the head of that pin. No one was ever really arrested (as in do the perp walk to the joint), but eventually both Basis and Virk were charged. I found it inexplicable that Mr. Campbell immediately suspended Dave and Bobby, but treated them differently, even though "he knew nothing about what they may have been doing." Well that is approximately what he said!

As to who is a Ministerial Assistant and who isn't, I imagine someone like yourself (apparently employed by government to create straw men over here)would be much more familiar with "governmental titles/Job Descriptions that Mary or others who actually contribute more than confusion and nonsense to the discussion of issues.

You close by offering your critique of future postings and accusing Mary of making up facts.

"Once again check your facts and correct the record!"

And if Mary does this, you will be kind enough to point out anything else YOU feel is in error.

Just who should Mary, I or others go to to "check our facts?" Well, CanWest and their fabulous fleet of
"newspapers" can't be accused of exposing the unwashed public to much in the way of "facts," or that a trial is even (ever so dysfunctionally) going on sporadically.

If we had a press that covered "real" substantive issues, or a government that believed in an informed public, instead of hiding from us what they do in OUR NAME, or a Justice System in which we could feel like the "Special Prosecuter" was working representing OUR interest, then your hash of a hit on BC Mary would deserve consideration.

So maybe I will make a challenge to you (and maybe you have the ear of he who can implement my wishes) to ensure that there are "facts" available for the public to, like transcripts of hearings and un-redacted (or minimally) documents

So Mr. John, start spilling the "facts" and we will greatly appreciate not having to guess and/or make up stuff. But find the meat, you embarrass yourself by parsing words to create a spin.

I would also need to look this up, but I'm pretty sure that David Basi WAS charged with cultivation in the last four or five years. However it is also my understanding that it was a tenant who was operating independently and un-beknownst to Landlord Dave. Or at least the is the official story of why those charges weren't carried through.

John said...

Kootcoot

First of all, I am NOT a government staffer or in the employ of the government. Secondly what you dismiss as trivial is in fact serious. I have no vested interest in this case but I do believe it is incumbent upon everybody to be responsible. The accused aren't sub humans who can be treated with disdain and scorn. There is a principle in our system that people are "innocent until proven guilty".

It is misleading and incorrect for Mary to state "three ministerial aides were arrested". This did not happen. You seem to find this to be a trivial point, I disagree with you. This makes the reader think these people were brought out in shackles and handcuffs and led to the police cruiser. What nonsense.

As for their titles, once again lets stick to the facts and let the facts speak for themselves. There were two ministerial aides and one communications staffer. The facts are clear. Thankfully we have sites like Bill Tieleman where the facts are reported and the hysteria and conspiracy theories all take a back seat to the facts.

kootcoot said...

John, I'm sorry you feel compelled to argue such obscure and ultimately irrelevant points, without even expecting to be paid for the hack job. I guess there are amateur hacks too!

To many people being "arrested" or being "charged" is a minor distinction. I would think that the defendants in this case might be remanded, if they couldn't have put up bail. Would they be arrested then? Parsing words - maybe you should be a shyster lawyer, not that all lawyers are shysters, but you seem pre-disposed to shysterness.

Again, the exact job descriptions or titles of two Basis and one Virk, are also minor and has no real bearing on anything. Obviously the accused have the right to be considered innocent, unless the charges are proven. A much bigger problem with this case is the growing suspicion that the accused are not the real culprits. They are very likely falling on their swords for higher ups whose influence they were able to buy or lease for connected shoppers. Basi, Basi, and Virk, fall guys for railroad thieves.

BC Mary said...

.
John,

Many thanks for pointing out a phrase which you feel gives offence in the banner of my blog.

Just to explain a bit ... I change the banner frequently so that the dates, times, and places of each hearing are readily available for everyone to see.

The blogger template allows 500 characters only. So time after time, it's necessary to trim, compact, reduce the information to fit within the 500 limit.

So things like job descriptions get compacted, the goal being to give a new reader some clue as to who is involved, without taking up all the space.

If you are close to the Basi and/or Virk families, I can well imagine how every mention of this case is hurtful to you, and becomes exaggerated. I've made a sincere effort to avoid that, and have gone to bat many a time with commentors eager to say unkind things.

If you have something constructive to add, I welcome your comments at The Legislature Raids. Why not give us your point of view, or your inside information.

But first, let's get this straight: are you the same person who chose the User Name of "eyeswideopen"?

.

kootcoot said...

One last word to Genius Parser John!
as to:
"I have no vested interest in this case but I do believe it is incumbent upon everybody to be responsible."

Is it also incumbent upon CanWest to be responsible? You know what I mean, like perhaps treat the happenings in BC Supreme Court with at least the same level of importance and Britney's latest haircut!