- Stephen Rees photoLuring Campbell to the BC Rail Corruption Trial Witness Stand
Virk lawyer's bold courtroom allegations are strategically designed to prompt the premier to testify. Will he bite?
Tuesday May 25, 2010
By Bill Tieleman
"The only real lawyers are trial lawyers, and trial lawyers try cases to juries."
- Clarence Darrow, lawyer, 1857-1938
The jury trial of three former B.C. Liberal government aides facing corruption charges started last week with a defence lawyer's shocking allegation that Premier Gordon Campbell spoke with defendant Bob Virk before he was indicted but after police raided the B.C. Legislature.
Virk's lawyer Kevin McCullough went even further than that in cross-examining Campbell's chief of staff Martyn Brown.
He also alleged Brown spoke with Virk and alleged that both Brown and the premier assured Virk his silence would be rewarded.
At the time Virk had been suspended with pay from his job as ministerial assistant to ex-transportation minister Judith Reid, while co-accused Dave Basi had been fired quickly from his job as ministerial assistant to then-finance minister Gary Collins right after the police raid for evidence on Dec. 28, 2003.
The Crown charged Basi and Virk with breach of trust and fraud for allegedly leaking confidential government documents about the $1 billion privatization sale of B.C. Rail to lobbyists representing one of the bidders in exchange for money and benefits. Aneal Basi, a former government communications aide, faces money laundering charges connected to alleged payments to his cousin Dave.
The disturbing allegations against Campbell and Brown, it must be stressed, were not supported by McCullough introducing any evidence.
But the combative veteran defence lawyer knew exactly what he was doing with Brown -- setting up a potential situation where Campbell himself could be called to testify in court.
Premier's lose-lose predicament
McCullough left Campbell with a lose-lose choice. He could agree to take the stand as a witness in order to dispel the allegation the premier had spoke to Virk and made promises after the raid, therefore becoming subject to rigorous questioning.
Or Campbell could let the unsubstantiated allegation go untested, leaving a politically damaging claim without a response in court.
Neither option could possibly appeal to the beleaguered Campbell, who is already battered by his planned July 1 Harmonized Sales Tax imposition that has generated an enormous negative reaction, with over 500,000 people signing the Fight HST citizens Initiative petition led by former B.C. premier Bill Vander Zalm, and a massive budget deficit that was six times larger than he claimed before the 2009 election.
Campbell is facing a 12 percentage point deficit in the latest Mustel Group poll, which shows the B.C. Liberals at just 32 per cent, the New Democrats at 44 per cent, the Green Party at 13 per cent and the B.C. Conservatives at 7 per cent.
And even though an exasperated trial judge Anne MacKenzie, associate chief justice of the B.C. Supreme Court, at one point instructed the jury during a McCullough argument to "ignore what he's saying" the lawyer is executing a strategy clearly designed to exonerate his client, potentially at Campbell and his party's expense.
Fierce courtroom combat
"Did you know that Premier Campbell was telling Virk that the [B.C.] Liberal Party would take care of him and he was to keep his mouth shut?" McCullough asked Brown.
"No," Brown answered.
"Are you sure about that evidence?" McCullough asked Brown, who has been Campbell's top political aide since before the 2001 provincial election when the B.C. Liberals came to power.
"I'm not in a position to comment on somebody else's actions but I would be shocked, completely shocked, if that was the case, because I don't believe it happened," Brown said.
Brown also strongly rejected an allegation by McCullough that he telephoned Virk monthly after the raid until December 2004, when Virk was charged and fired, or that he assured Virk that "he just needed to play the game."
"That is absolutely untrue," said Brown. "I never, ever, ever initiated a call with Bob Virk. And I never said anything along those lines."
McCullough also roasted Brown with allegations that political dirty tricks, including Dave Basi paying people $100 each to counter-protest a demonstration against fish farms and stacking radio talk shows with B.C. Liberal-friendly callers were orchestrated directly out of the premier's office.
McCullough alleged that Mike McDonald, a member of the premier's staff in 2003, organized the farmed salmon counter-protest with Basi.
Brown initially denied McDonald worked in Campbell’s office -- until McCullough showed Brown a document indeed listing McDonald as working for the premier on "outreach and special projects."
Brown admitted his error but said he would never sanction dirty tricks like the fish farm salmon demonstration.
"I can't imagine paying people to go to an event. It's not something I would do," Brown testified, adding later: "That's not who I am and it's not who the government is."
"I've worked in this business for 22 years; I've served under five leaders, three premiers. I'm told I'm the longest-serving chief of staff in the country. It's just not something I would do. It's rare in political life that any inappropriate conduct isn't outed," Brown said.
More than 40 witnesses
McDonald, also a former B .C. Liberal government caucus communications director, is married to Campbell's former senior deputy minister from 2005 to 2009, Jessica McDonald.
Jessica McDonald is not on the Crown's witness list but two other former deputy ministers to Campbell are -- Ken Dobell and Brenda Eaton.
If Brown's experience with a cross-examination that continues Tuesday is any evidence, neither Dobell nor Eaton nor ex-cabinet ministers and others can be looking forward to testifying.
But for political observers, this trial has already proven to be fascinating and captivating with the appearance of only the first of more than 40 witnesses.
NOTE: A publication ban prevents The Tyee and other media from posting information not presented before the jury in this trial, including the arguments and rulings in pre-trial court hearings.
.
23 comments:
NEWS FLASH - just after posting this column I have learned that the trial has been postponed till Monday May 31 due to the illness of one of the defendants, Aneal Basi.
Doesn't surprise anyone.
People are getting sick of the Basi Boys and Virk.
Thanks for the bulletin, Bill.
If only this important trial was being televised, we wouldn't even notice ... and Aneal Basi could be safely tucked up in bed slurping hot lemon drinks while watching every minute of the trial proceedings.
Everyone could watch. And we should be watching ... because it's important.
So why don't they do it ... instead of hiving off for a week to wait for destiny to unfold, by which time Berardino will have boils or something.
But I suppose taking a week off is one way of demonstrating (childishly, if you ask me) to Kevin McCullough that the supreme power lies in the hands of the judge.
.
I am thinking the crown's witness list will dwindle after this and that is why the questioning of Brown must be as extensive as is possible in case matters won't get a chance to be raised later.
Every question that might be asked of any of the players on his team must be asked of Brown.
He is the coach after all, and may have been calling the plays.
"If only this important trial was being televised, we wouldn't even notice ... and Aneal Basi could be safely tucked up in bed slurping hot lemon drinks while watching every minute of the trial proceedings. "
Wrong. The accused have to be present in court to hear statements as the court case progresses.
"Everyone could watch. And we should be watching ... because it's important."
It is important, but would not want U.S. style Court TV.
So why don't they do it ... instead of hiving off for a week to wait for destiny to unfold, by which time Berardino will have boils or something.
Because all parties have to agree to it, the Judge, the lawyers for the Crown and the Defence. You wouldn't see anything like the OJ Simpson trial. That was a circus. Even Sony noticed the monitor on the Judge's desk. The embossed "Sony" name was eventually
painted over in black marker so people could see the manufacturer.
Best to keep to the current system.
There are reporters there, and there are others who blog and others who provide nothing more than links to newspaper articles
already written.
I will warn posters that any comments alleging wrongdoing on anyone's part in a libellous fashion will not be published here. I have just had to reject such a comment.
To Anonymous 2:25,
You have a false idea of what's possible in televising an official scene ...
such as the Legislature Debates, for example. Fixed camera. Closed circuit. No jeezly advertising permitted. NOT like the O.J. Simpson fiasco.
Something could be figured out. I can't imagine anybody (on the list you provided) objecting to letting the public see and hear the proceedings. The same way quiet way we can watch Debates in the Legislature.
I think it could be a definite improvement in public awareness, don't you?
.
.
Well, did anyone hear Gordo's slip of the tongue today? "I won't comment on the Basi jerk, I mean Virk case?" Guess we know what his opinion of the trial is.
"You have a false idea of what's possible in televising an official scene ... "
Wrong.
"such as the Legislature Debates, for example. Fixed camera. Closed circuit. No jeezly advertising permitted. NOT like the O.J. Simpson fiasco. "
If you look at the way courts are covered in Washington State, they
are handled differently than the OJ
case, and not what I would want to see here.
"Something could be figured out. I can't imagine anybody (on the list you provided) objecting to letting the public see and hear the proceedings."
Any number of people on that list would object, the judges, the lawyers for a plaintiff, the lawyers for the defence, and in this instance the Crown.
"The same way quiet way we can watch Debates in the Legislature. "
Legislature is different than the courts.
"I think it could be a definite improvement in public awareness, don't you?"
Not really. If people are really that into it, rather than the drama and in the instane of this trial, they can go to court themselves, or simply read Reasons for Judgement. Court proceedings
are for the most part boring.
If you have televised Canadian Court TV, the trial lawyers would get more into acting dramatically than they do now. Many are bad to take as they are now.
If you look at the televised procedings you'll see some acting
in particular how DeJong conducted himself at the end of question period following the end of debate on the HST. Pathetic, and even Carol James is getting into over the top dramatics.
Keep the courts a respected institution and not an entertainment show.
Cases such as Virk and Basi are rare in B.C. so one dramatic political case such as this one is hardly an example as to why courts should be televised.
Some bloggers and opinion makers have already decided what is happening in court even before it actually happens. That's comical.
"Well, did anyone hear Gordo's slip of the tongue today? "I won't comment on the Basi jerk, I mean Virk case?" Guess we know what his opinion of the trial is."
Guess one or two are getting far too deep into the trial. Focusing on things like that are examples of getting into the silliness.
Will Campbell bite???
Frankly, I don't know anyone with an understanding of politics who actually thinks he might. The damage is already done, and the Liberals have a strategy to start the repairs ... a leadership race.
I'd put my money - and that's not much - on Coleman!
He's only cop in their midst without similar allegations against him. And as a long-time NDP voter, I think he's done a decent job on the housing file.
RE;8:20
You're wrong about Coleman!
As someone who has sat in and listened to Martyn Brown testify to the goings on in the BC Government under Campbell it certainly is not flattering. Allegations around political dirty tricks and that is fair game are the reason that this government is so out of touch.
To all the PAB staffers out there - don't spin the yarn, you may also face the music one day.
Lara Dauphinee as the deputy chief of staff to Campbell may also have some questions posed by the defence....
Anon 8:16,
You're kidding, right? No cameras because people should just go into the courtroom themselves.
Like, all 4 million of British Columbians, who used to own Canada's 3rd largest railway? Right. Unless we can afford a trip to Vancouver and 8 weeks in a hotel, the whole lot of us can just sit quietly and wait.
You have reached a verdict already, so you think people should be content with not knowing the piddling details about how a publicly-owned railway could just slide into private pockets, that way.
We should just sit quietly, bags over heads, waiting for the Reasons for Judgment which, my friend, are available AFTER the trial is finished. How democratic is that.
and wtf does this mean, where you say "and in the instane of this trial, they can go to court themselves,"
What kind of society are you advocating, anyway? Let me guess: "Dorks R Us", is it?
.
"You're kidding, right? No cameras because people should just go into the courtroom themselves."
Or read the Reasons for Judgement or follow that written by reporters
or just sit a case and listen and learn.
"Like, all 4 million of British Columbians, who used to own Canada's 3rd largest railway? Right."
Ownership of BCR isn't the point.
"Unless we can afford a trip to Vancouver and 8 weeks in a hotel, the whole lot of us can just sit quietly and wait. "
Or you can read about it in the paper, or find out on TV as it progresses or read blogs about the case as written by Bill here. I've been following the progress of the Basi/Virk case from Bill's excellent writings. Top quality stuff. Much better than BC Mary's. Why can't you?
"You have reached a verdict already, so you think people should be content with not knowing the piddling details about how a publicly-owned railway could just slide into private pockets, that way. "
Did anyone say that?
"We should just sit quietly, bags over heads, waiting for the Reasons for Judgment which, my friend, are available AFTER the trial is finished. How democratic is that."
Quite democratic. In some countries that Reason for Judgement for cases is not publicly available, let alone being made online.
:and wtf does this mean, where you say "and in the instane of this trial, they can go to court themselves,"
Lots of people do.
What kind of society are you advocating, anyway? Let me guess: "Dorks R Us", is it?
If that's the case, we have our Regional Vice President right there, since he came up with the name to go on the Society Registration.
He can be in charge of marketing.
Bill:
The Defence will request that the Premier go on the witness stand and he will fight it all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada.
Something tells me that Lara Dauphinee, Maui, the Premier's unfortunate lapse in judgement are all going to be front and centre as the trial resumes on Monday.
Reserve your seats now, this is going to be the hottest ticket in town!
Can't go to the well twice on the same issue. Isn't the secret informer Gordon Muir Campbell?
Bill:
Can the Special Prosecutor explain this?
http://www.publiceyeonline.com/index.htm?p=2
I think all of this (the above item and others below) is really excellent work - there's little I would quibble with.
Having not attended the no-publication sittings in the case I can't say for sure yet whether there is an email trail or even wiretap recordings to substantiate the defence lawyers' suggestions that others were coaching Basi and Virk but I do suspect there must be based on the defence lawyers' actions and statements.
But even if there is no such proof you can assume Basi and Virk eventually will testify that there was such coaching, and circumstantial evidence suggests there must have been some such guidance from persons above Basi in the pecking order.
I DO know that Campbell has been well aware of efforts to sway public opinion, such as flooding open-line radio shows with pro-Campbell calls after his drunk-driving arrest in Maui.
So in any case it's now safe to assume that Campbell's political future is over, at least in provincial politics.
Scene 1
The place: The Premier’s Vancouver downtown office.
The setting: The Premier, Allan Seckel, Martyn Brown looking out the window towards West Vancouver.
The time: Sunday, June 6th, 2010, 6 p.m.
Martyn, I just don’t understand why they don’t like me…after spending my life in their service.
Well, I am sure Mr. Premier if they knew you like Allan and I know you, then I am sure that they would like you. We know how dedicated you are to the well being of the people of this Province. We know how much you care.
Well, thanks Martyn…thanks for your expression of support…and I know how difficult things have been for you…lately…and, and as I have said to Allan I am sure there is nothing behind those “dirty tricks” allegations or that slanderous attempt to besmirch the Sale of BC Rail to CN…I know everything will work out well for you. Well…I think you guys can go now. I think I will stay and read for awhile. You know, I am reading Richard Nixon’s memoirs…you know, of course, that he was a very misunderstood leader…and of course, everyone remembers China but did you know that he created the EPA…imagine that…Martyn can you close the blinds for me before you go…and pass me my drink…oh and Allan, I’ll need that legal opinion on “executive privilege” on my desk by tomorrow and I will send you by my private e-mail some thoughts I have on how we can publicly highlight my recent trip to China.
Scene 2
The place: In the foyer outside the Premier’s Vancouver downtown office.
The setting: Allan Seckel and Martyn Brown looking down at their shoes.
The time: Sunday, June 6th, 2010, 6:08 p.m.
You know you may be next Martyn…
Yes I know…and by-the-way and speaking of the Premier’s recent interest in the life of Richard Nixon, did you know that Alexander Haig removed all the firearms from the White House during the “final days”.
Yes...I know Martyn.
Scene 3
The place: Martyn Brown outside the Hotel Vancouver, George Copley at home in his office.
The setting: Allan Seckel and George Copley talking on the phone while Martyn Brown paces and George Copley sits back in his chair with his feet up on the desk.
The time: Sunday, June 6th, 2010, 6:21 p.m.
George, how is the “executive privilege” opinion going? Yes, I know that the legal precedents we are citing are “bull^#@+”! No, he is not ready to be told that yet…just write the opinion as we agreed…just get it done!
Bill:
On another “totally unrelated” subject, I was interested to see the message below from Can West (oops, Vaughn Palmer) to the Premier. Clearly, even Can West’s (oops, Vaughn Palmer’s) support has its limits. First time that I have see Can West (oops, Vaughn Palmer) in a public forum state them in such a forceful way to the Premier.
http://communities.canada.com/vancouversun/print.aspx?postid=669192%20%20%20
Post a Comment