BASI-VIRK
Martyn Brown, Premier Gordon Campbell's Chief of Staff, told B.C. Supreme Court today that he was unaware B.C. Rail had operating profits from 1977 to 2000 before it was sold by the provincial government in 2003.
Brown also denied defence allegations that "the fix was in" to sell B.C. Rail after the B.C. Liberals were elected in 2001.
Brown came under heavy pressure in cross examination by Kevin McCullough, defence lawyer for Bob Virk - one of three former government aides facing corruption charges related to the 2003 sale of B.C. Rail for $1 billion to CN Rail.
"Are you aware that B.C. Rail had operating profits from 1977 to 2000?" McCullough asked Brown in a tense exchange.
"No, I was not aware. I'm aware of the problems they were having.....My understanding was they were saddled with debts, saddled with costs."
McCullough then made a strong allegation: "I'm suggesting the fix was in, B.C. Rail was to be sold,"
Brown replied vigorously: "I would emphatically to my knowledge deny that."
McCullough: "You told Mr. Virk that CN was getting B.C. Rail."
Brown: "No - wrong - incorrect."
McCullough: "You told Mr. Virk that the appointments [to the board] to B.C. Rail were Liberal appointments, that they were going to make it happen."
Brown: "Baloney! That's not what happened."
McCullough: "Was there a decision communicated by Gordon Campbell to sell off the assets of B.C. Rail within five years of being elected?"
Brown: "That's preposterous!....That is not at all what I believe to be the case."
McCullough: "Five years - that was the plan - to sell all the assets of B.C. Rail."
Associate Chief Justice Anne MacKenzie intervened: "You asked the question - the witness denied it."
Brown: "Denied my knowledge of it, your honour."
MacKenzie: "Thanks for the correction."
In response to questions about the role of then-B.C. Rail board chair John McLernon, Brown's memor was tested.
"I'm not sure when Mr. McLernon was appointed," he replied.
Then McCullough made another startling allegation.
"On or about September 19, 2003 did you task Mr. Virk to go forward to the media to try and prevent them from running a story that CN [Rail] would be a presenter at a CIBC World Markets conference?"
CIBC World Markets was handling the sale of B.C. Rail for the provincial government at that time - CN Rail was the successful bidder. The defence argues that CN was always going to win the bid and that their clients role was to make it appear an honest competitive bidding contest took place.
Brown responded to McCullough's allegation: "I may have but I don't remember that."
McCullough: "What reason would you have to do that?"
Brown: I can't speculate on the reason because I can't recall."
McCullough continued: "Do you know where the [B.C. Rail sale] Fairness Advisor - Charles River Associates - are located?
Brown: "No - I'd presumed they were B.C.-based."
McCullough: "Would it surprise you to know they were based in Boston?"
Brown: "No.....they were highly recommended by Chris Trumpy [former B.C. deputy finance minister] and others.
Virk and co-accused David Basi face breach of trust and fraud charges for allegedly providing confidential government information about B.C. Rail to lobbyists representing a bidder in exchange for money and benefits. Aneal Basi faces money laundering charges.
The trial continues Thursday afternoon - check back here for more updates.
.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
22 comments:
Ooooh, I can hardly wait. Great job Bill!
seems to me that this case has everything to do with unethical behavior from the top down,he seems to remember everything that he wants to.
Lots of "I don't recalls" coming from Brown. Protecting himself from perjury perhaps?
Thanks for a vivid report, Bill.
This kind of witness needs to be seen, watched, listened to ... preferably in court ... but it would help so much if we could observe the proceedings by closed circuit TV.
I've never seen anybody who gets paid so much, unable to remember anything about the work he was being paid to do. This, I really gotta see.
It's hard to believe Gordo's right hand man wasn't aware of the financial state of BC Rail. One of the few things he remembered it seems.Gordo sure can pick em, a close adviser doesn't seem to know much and for most everything else, he forgot.
Excellent Bill. Just was expecting.
Far more fascinating than the craptacular commentary from some supposed political expert opinionators.
"Don't recall" is a standard ruse. Either you do remember or you don't and for many it's selective.
What the heck kind of answer is...
"I may have, but I don't remember that..."
Could it be some sort of new fangled, highly assymetric non-non-denial denial straight outta the big beautiful book of Luntz (37th Ed.)?
.
Martyn Brown is unaware or can't recall conversations he has had because he has a button in his head that he presses to delete selective portions of his memory and he has used that button frequently in the past.
"Could it be some sort of new fangled, highly assymetric non-non-denial denial straight outta the big beautiful book of Luntz (37th Ed.)?"
More of a convulted answer, just like some of the convulted responses by commentators such as the previous one.
Focus on the details of the case, don't sweat the idiotic responses from Martyn Brown.
There's going to be far more idiotic answers to the defense lawyer's questions so worrying about each one will take too much time.
Fantastic! Brown was wilting, and this is the first of many questions he will have to answer. His answer, "I don't recall", will run out of steam. The truth will be pryed out. Taking gordo the impaler and his gang with him. One of the rats will spill his guts, lets hope it will be within our lifetime.
Continued great coverage Bill! Unlike the NW gang. To them, nothing is happeneing... yet.
Anon-Above @ 4:37pm--
Fair enough, but....
You don't find it pertinent that Mr. Brown appears to be going out of his way not to answer any questions definitively whatsoever?
Another case in point would the time Mr. Brown actually went out of his way to 'correct' the judge when she stated that he had unequivocally 'denied' an allegation by the defense.
Here is the end of that exchange, as quoted by Mr. Tieleman.
Brown: "Denied my knowledge of it, your honour."
MacKenzie: "Thanks for the correction."
.
B.C. Rail goes out with a whimper
Les Leyne, Victoria Times Colonist
Leyne writes an apologetic reading of the 'last' BC Rail annual report [.PDF / 39 pages] - we'll have to wait for a real reporter (like The Tyee's Will McMartin) to get a comprehensive analysis of BC Rail's dearth and death.
-----
Angus Reid has a new poll out today - not good news for Campbell and company.
Across British Columbia, 46 per cent of decided voters (-1 since April) say they would support the New Democratic Party (NDP) candidate in their constituency if a provincial election were held tomorrow.
The governing BC Liberals are second with 26 per cent (-3), followed by the Green Party with 14 per cent (unchanged), and the BC Conservatives Party with eight per cent (+3).
-----
The Vancouver Sun's official naysayer has a few words on recall and the nuts-&-bolts therein.
-----
So you don't like the judge's publication ban? Here's some 'sideways support' from Canada's Supreme Court.
"You don't find it pertinent that Mr. Brown appears to be going out of his way not to answer any questions definitively whatsoever?"
Not really. A person is coached by the lawyer to say only what needs to be said, not what others would like the response to be.
"Another case in point would the time Mr. Brown actually went out of his way to 'correct' the judge when she stated that he had unequivocally 'denied' an allegation by the defense."
Nothing wrong there. Just a clarification, which he is entitled to provide.
Here is the end of that exchange, as quoted by Mr. Tieleman.
Brown: "Denied my knowledge of it, your honour."
MacKenzie: "Thanks for the correction."
Again, nothing to get excited about.
Moving on to the next part of the case..
Most emotional and commendable exchange of the afternoon:
Bob Virk nodding his head in agreement with what Martyn Brown was saying on the stand and Associate Chief Justice Anne MacKenzie’s appropriate admonishment for having done so.
Luntz is undoubtedly Brown's avatar Ross K.
I suspect your interlocutor (let's call her Anon 4:37) is a little confused because she hasn't got a clue who Frank Luntz actually is or why a reference to his kind of 'education' would be entirely apt given the nature of Brown's "performance".
Far from being 'convoluted', your comment cuts to the heart of the matter...
@ 8:35
I think you mean nodding his head in disagreement.
Its bad enough we all got our law degrees out of a cracker jack box.
Let's not muddy the waters further, please.
"I suspect your interlocutor (let's call her Anon 4:37) is a little confused because she hasn't got a clue who Frank Luntz actually is or why a reference to his kind of 'education' would be entirely apt given the nature of Brown's "performance"."
Actually has nothing to do with the presentation of that particular witness. Seems to be more entertainment value for a commentator than anything directtly to do with the progress of the case.
Actually, I get your point Anon.
Clearly, you do not think that a non-stop string of non-denial denials from Mr. Brown means anything.
In contrast, I do.
We will see how this plays out later, particularly as it pertains to the calling of witnesses by the defense based on, for example, the premise that statements from other individuals will be needed to clarify Mr. Brown's decidedly muddy statements.
Thanks for making your point clear.
.
"Actually, I get your point Anon.
Clearly, you do not think that a non-stop string of non-denial denials from Mr. Brown means anything."
Unless it is specifically tied to evidence clearly shown to Mr. Brown during another cross examination, it does not.
"In contrast, I do."
One person's observation, but one
person's observation does not move the outcome of the case unless that
person is cross examining Mr. Brown
"We will see how this plays out later, particularly as it pertains to the calling of witnesses by the defense based on, for example, the premise that statements from other individuals will be needed to clarify Mr. Brown's decidedly muddy statements."
Exactly my point, but that may not be nessesarily the outcome since Mr. Brown is not the direct subject of the case, only an alleged participant in the chain of events involving the incidents
leading to the case in front of the court.
Thanks for making your point clear
Last series of questions on Thursday afternoon were around Christy Clark and her relationship with Erik Bornmann.
Martyn Brown testified that he had contact with Christy Clark regarding the search warrants at the Legislature and a connection to the police at her home.
Brown's testimony suggests that there is something more to Christy Clark's role in this case.
Also interesting was the defence raising questions about Brown's knowledge of Erik Bornman and his role in lobbying the former Deputy Premier.
This will be the focus for Monday - I am sure.
one down seven to go and maybe when that is achieved,we could really get to the truth of BC rail,hear that NDP,we want a full inquiry from the top down,courts rcmp and government,or we will recall you too!!and all the other crap this government did get ready to tear up illegal contracts after all scambell ripped up legal negotiated contracts.start wearing diapers you crooked bastards,and start recalling your memories all of you pukes that are about to take the stand a lot of people are watching now, msm whats taking you.
Lindsay McCray's name came up this week during questioning to Martyn Brown.
I think that there is much more to the links to current political staff for this trial.
Post a Comment