tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35935973.post8849086523412179896..comments2023-07-25T02:39:44.615-07:00Comments on Bill Tieleman: Defence wins big in Basi-Virk disclosure application - Bornmann deal details, all RCMP notes to be producedBill Tielemanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03304971610140279157noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35935973.post-14459911301703210712007-06-06T08:47:00.000-07:002007-06-06T08:47:00.000-07:00Gerry, ... er, ... not entirely. There's still th...Gerry, ... er, ... not entirely. There's still the issue of what documents one is referring to? Those seized in December 2003, or others.Budd Campbellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04194826986794514558noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35935973.post-86832519291058720682007-06-05T12:48:00.000-07:002007-06-05T12:48:00.000-07:00Thanks for trying Bill. Here's the reference I was...Thanks for trying Bill. Here's the reference I was thinking of. It's from BC Mary's blog and was written by Robin Mathews after that court hearing.<BR/><BR/>I am quoting:<BR/><BR/><I>"In a few moments of almost digression, George Copley and Valerie Anderson, apparently representing the Province, appeared. Their appearance concerned documents reviewed, or privileged and declared irrelevant and documents apparently involving client privilege (as I understood their interventions). McCullough, for the Defence, intervened and said all the documents were the responsibility of the Special Prosecutor, that he was claiming "standing" in the court for Copley who, in effect, has no standing, and the documents should simply be disclosed. The Court appeared to agree with the burden of the statement by Defence."</I><BR/><BR/>Robin, despite his generally-jaundiced view of the courts, has been a very accurate reporter on this file. I believe, although I'm not able to access my files from this computer that a further confirmation of what I've posted here also was printed in either the Globe (Mark Hume) or possibly the Sun.<BR/><BR/>I'll check back later.<BR/><BR/>And you can see, from that, Budd, why I took the position I did at Tyee.<BR/><BR/>gwAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35935973.post-75626613484172267122007-06-05T11:30:00.000-07:002007-06-05T11:30:00.000-07:00But you can be assured that the government's instr...<I>But you can be assured that the government's instructions to Copley will not be to give up privilege on some key BC Rail documents. </I><BR/><BR/>This is the point I have been trying to make. Indeed, generally speaking, there doesn't seem to be a regular system in place for releasing BC Cabinet documents even after 25 or more years as there is at the Federal level. <BR/><BR/>Perhaps the BC Cabinet has been run in such an amateurish, seat of the pants fashion that there are no interesting or historically relevant documents to reveal?Budd Campbellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04194826986794514558noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35935973.post-80400717846290624302007-06-05T11:06:00.000-07:002007-06-05T11:06:00.000-07:00Thanks for the kind comments.George Copley is lega...Thanks for the kind comments.<BR/><BR/>George Copley is legal counsel for the "Executive Council" - i.e. the BC government. He is responsible for dealing with issues of cabinet privilege and parliamentary privilege regarding release of documents in court.<BR/><BR/>I'm sorry, I can't recall anything of significance regarding a Copley appearance at an earlier court date.<BR/><BR/>But you can be assured that the government's instructions to Copley will not be to give up privilege on some key BC Rail documents.Bill Tielemanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03304971610140279157noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35935973.post-21069241812084496192007-06-05T10:50:00.000-07:002007-06-05T10:50:00.000-07:00Nice report Bill. Can you remember what, exactly, ...Nice report Bill. Can you remember what, exactly, George Copley did when he appeared before the Judge in late February or early March?<BR/><BR/>I have some vague recollection that he addressed the judge after one of defence counsel vouched for him. Do you know if it related to government documents he had vetted for various legal and FOI reasons?<BR/><BR/>I can't help but think that the Premier's oft-repeated refrain about 'disclosure subject to FOI' in the House this past couple of weeks had some sinister implication.<BR/>gwAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com