Mendacity

Even if Campbell does take the stand, it has become quite clear over the years that the man simply can't be trusted to tell the truth.

But he'll be under oath!

Yeah right! Didn't he swear an oath upon taking office?

Last week in BCSC was a good beginning

.
The questions asked by Defence lawyer Kevin McCullough are the questions we've all asked, over the past 6 years. And what a relief it was, just to know that those questions were spoken right out loud and clear. And to read about Martyn Brown's vapid responses.

I suppose it makes perfect sense that the Accused would say "It was the devil made me do it." I just never expected it. Wow. Talk about collateral damage ...

6 years of stonewalling takes a toll on us. I never expected to be cheering for one of the Defence team. I thought OUR guy was supposed to be the Crown Prosecutor.

Well, who cares? All we ever asked for was the truth and it looks as if Kevin McCullough is going to get at the truth for us. Thank the merciful gods. Go, McCullough!

New Question: WE could've had Kevin McCullough as OUR Special Prosecutor. How come our Special Prosecutor in BC's most important trial ever, is a limp dishrag of a litigation lawyer who had never prosecuted a criminal trial in his long career and was not at arm's length from the AG's staff. How'd that happen?

Breaking the law?

The thing about proving allegations against Brown is that he destroys all personal records including email and voicemail, despite Government laws and regulations that require those to be kept for a significant period of time. There is proof of that.

In the material on the NDP caucus website there are disturbing emails to Brown regarding Kinsella's plays on this file but nothing to be found in Brown's own emails. Gone like the wind despite the requirement to keep records like that for ten years.

Campbell has no obligation unless required

Campbell does not have to testify unless requsested by the Prosecutor to back up statements and even then Campbell can refuse. It would take a Writ of Summons to make Campbell appear.

As for the idea of an emergency sitting of the legislature to enact some kind of law that would prohibit him from testifying, that's getting into the stilly levels.

Even the BC Liberals wouldn't be idiotic to pull that one off, and it would be highly unsual to waste Legislature time to enact a law that covers one person. Campbells does not have any immunity from being ordered to appear. If ordered to do so, he sees the court from the witness stand like everyone else.

Intermodel at BC Rail

I worked at BC Rail or 25 years and I watched Campbell and his crew destroy BC Rail. Intermodel (transportation of goods by piggy backing trailers on flat cars) is a perfect example. We did a booming business in that area yet it was sold off so now trucks on the highways have to deliver those goods. The railway collected up the old rolling stock and destroyed it to get rid of the old inventory while buying new box cars, flat cars etc to replenish the inventory. Brand new locomotive engines were purchased shortly before CN was given BC Rail. Remote controls were implemented so yard engines didn't require enginemen saving the new owners even more money. Staff in different management areas were let go, some without more than a couple hours notice. [UNVERIFIED ALLEGATION REMOVED. -MODERATOR.] It was common knowledge around the railway that CN was going to be the successful bidder when all the dust settled.

This is all personal information and I can't give anyone official documentation to back it up but even the lawyers defending Basi and Virk can't that information. But I worked right there on the ground and watched it happen.

I was there when Campbell got defeated in 1996 because he said he would sell BC Rail and I saw the reaction not only among railroaders but all over town to his idea. The alarm cost Campbell the election and Brown was in the mix. It's no coincidence that 4 years later Campbell says he won't sell BCR and the same players are still involved. It was a successful company for over 20 years until Campbell took charge and destroyed the company in order to sell it.

Trial postponed til May 31.....

one of the defendants had a fall and injured himself.

Fell ill, didn't fall

Sorry should read "one of the defendants has fallen ill"

Well Shut My Mouth

Harper puts a gag order on aids [UNVERIFIED ACCUSATION REMOVED. -MODERATOR.]

Leaves you wondering if Heed's gang got the same message.
I read somewhere the defence strategy was making the Basi and Virk trial all about Campbell. I got news for this writer its not the defence that has made it all about Campbell but the premier himsself as he runs a tight ship but loose lips sink ships.

The defense conundrum.

.If Campbell is called to testify,even if it is under oath, given the man's record, is he believable? Maybe after submitting to a lie detector...

Lure Campbell

Just offer a company directorship and he's there!

Hmm

This is more than a little interesting:

It says something, but it does not leave the impression in the reader of unalloyed 'truth' nor the feeling that one has the whole story.

What do the words 'initiated a call' actually mean? We are in the territory of ‘that depends upon what your definition of ‘is’ is’….

There is a strong hint of duplicity about a statement framed in such equivocal terms.

BROWN does not say:
I never spoke to Bob Virk during the period in question. [UNPROVEN ASSUMPTION REMOVED. -MODERATOR.]there may even have been, as the defence suggests, ‘negotiations’.

He doesn't even contend that he didn't CALL Bob Virk. HE simply says he didn’t ‘initiate’ a call to BOB VIRK. The call, or calls in question, may have been ‘initiated’ by someone else. In fact, when Brown called Basi and Virk the day after the ‘raids’ he was making a call ‘initiated’ by his boss – Gordon Campbell.

If he did it once – he could have done it more than once.

[STATEMENT ASSUMING UNPROVEN ALLEGATION REMOVED. -MODERATOR.] He may even have made calls to Bob Virk about other matters that were not covered specifically in the 'words' McCullough used to frames his question(s).

This statement is phrased in a way to create the 'impression' of veracity, to maintain deniability and to give the sense that the jury is listening to an honest man.

One hopes the jury takes the time to appreciate the matter that's actually subsumed behind McCullough' question and the level of duplicity that Martyn Brown's response may hide.

[UNSUPPORTED CHARACTERIZATIONS REMOVED. -MODERATOR.]

Snake oil salesmen sweat!

bottles of it soon available!

Did he or didn't he?

"BROWN does not say:
I never spoke to Bob Virk during the period in question. [QUOTE FROM PREVIOUSLY EDITED ALLEGATION REMOVED. -MODERATOR] there may even have been, as the defence suggests, ‘negotiations’"

There is no specific evidence that he did.

A default position speculation on part of one observer that has yet to be supported by evidence that might be in one of those banker boxes you see in the court room.

I'd like to see evidence that clearly and specifically shows that he did call Bob Virk which will prove a statement to be correct, rather than
getting into bacteria on the hairs splitting.

Gordo doesn't know what

Gordo doesn't know what truth means. Can ou imagine him testifying , doing his arm waving. My God it could bring us all to tears. He's looking for a job somewhere else and soon he will retire to spend ore time with his family. That is if they will spend time with him

And for some people...

...even if his (Campbell's) statements were factually found to be incorrect or untrue, they still would vote for the guy. Right boy?

Nope.

"...even if his (Campbell's) statements were factually found to be incorrect or untrue, they still would vote for the guy. Right boy?"

[OFFENSIVE COMMENT DIRECTED AT ANOTHER COMMENTER REMOVED. -MODERATOR.]

Simple answer? No.

If he made statements that were actually by evidence presented that clearly and explicitly
showed that his statements were found to be false,
misleading, or in fact not true, then for me, I would not vote for Gordon Campbell as an MLA.

I couldn't vote for the guy personally as I do not live in his riding anyway.

On luring Scambell

Just toss a trail of loonies ;)

Scambell is not alone

Historically there has not been a premier of this province that has not fallen to the pressures of the rich and powerful. With maybe the exception of "Amore' De Cosmos". The sale of B.C. Rail is yet another feather in the cap of our corrupt political system.

Grania Wrote: McCullough has scared the pants off Harper....

You better believe what this guy says. Why would Harper and Campbell be so buddy buddy if they both didn't believe in the same anti democratic agenda. The only part of democracy they need from you is your vote and they'll take it from there thank you very much! Your vote is the last thing they'll want from you and you won't believe what you'll get in return. Just look at what Campbell has done for British Columbians and you'll get a sense of what Harper has in store for Canada. It will be similar to what George Bush did with America with the help of the Religeous Right. All he had to do was have an agenda that appealed to them and that's what Harper is cultivating now. Harper even wants to spy on these forums possibly at the expense of the tax payers so he can tell tax payers that certain things that are posted here are mis-information. The problem with this is that you will have liars telling us what the truth is. Don't let Harper sneak in because he's done enough dammage with a minority. Think what the possibilities are if he gets a majority.

Basi-virk trial

Campbell will never testify cause he doesn't know how to tell the truth.

Even if he did..

Even if Campbell does know how to tell the truth,
few people here would accept it.

Just as many like myself did not accept Glen Clark's assertion of the costs of the Pacificats when he came up with that ridiculous figure of his.

"and they said it couldn't be done. Well, here's the proof, right here!" he said at the christening
of the first one

Yeh right, Glen.

Now what in blazes have Pacificats got to do with this?

[CALLING OTHER COMMENTERS "TROLLS" IS A PERSONAL AND OFFENSIVE REMARK AND WILL BE REMOVED. -MODERATOR] Imagine still defending Campbell based on Fast Ferries. Is that all you have to defend the liberal liars in politics? Didn't you accept Campbell's assertion that the olympics would only cost, what wasit? $600 million? [EDITED.]

Of course they're assumptions

That's why I phrased them using words like:
'...we can be fairly certain...'?

And, '...he may well know'?

As for the final suggestion, Brown himself admitted it was 'normal politics' to use deceptive means to throw softball questions at the premier, did he not?

Furthermore, they are assumptions based upon the actual words and the record of the witness - not to mention the work he's done to centralize all control and decision-making in the Premier's Office.

We know he called the accused after the police raid and we know he was speaking for the Premier at that time... Defence counsel McCullough has speculated that similar calls "may" have been made subsequent to the raid itself and, on the basis of the precise words used by the witness on the stand - which I quoted at the top of the comment - that suggestion, while not yet proved, is certainly out there for discussion in the media.

In fact, it is the subject of news stories, legitimate speculation and editorial opinion.

In my view.

Even the rat...

scenario would be more than most people in bc could hope for,in the chummy little world of bc judiciary our betters who run this crooked little operation will see to it that the ruling elite will be protected and if the great unwashed sense it`s all cooked behind closed doors , well, who cares?

The Virk and two Basis were

[UNPROVEN ALLEGATION REMOVED. MODERATOR.] I suspect, though, that it occurred to them to cover their butts a little bit - they probably preserved some evidence of the others' involvement. The lawyer knows that he has what it takes to support the scenario he is building. It would seem that the judge knows it too.

Camero409

I think the evidence coming out of the trial, especially the donations to the Liberal Party from CN, backs up your view of events.

[EDITED. -MODERATOR.]

"[ORIGINAL COMMENT EDITED.] Imagine still defending Campbell based on Fast Ferries."

Did I actually defend Campbell in my statement?

I provided the statement from Clark to illustrate that other politicians can stretch the truth, and has happened in the past.

"Is that all you have to defend the liberal liars in politics? Didn't you accept Campbell's assertion that the olympics would only cost, what wasit? $600 million? Yeah right Boy."

[CHARACTERIZING OTHER COMMENTERS AS TROLLS IN ORDER TO SHUT DOWN DEBATE IS NOT ALLOWED IN THIS FORUM. -MODERATOR.]

Nothing new there.

Nothing new there.

As I said using any red herring from the past to justify Campbell's actions is what you did. Then you dodge and weave and do your rope'dope with a lot of copy and paste what other conclusion can be drawn. You have six posts on here, I have three. Only the last one was directed at you as is this one. So what does that make you?

Caution may be the order of the day

Most of us are enthralled with the possibility of this trial relegating the BC Liberal party to the trash heap. So far, we have not heard anything that accomplishes this. Mr. McCullough's questioning of Martyn Brown was, at this point, nothing more than innuendo. Whether he has evidence to back up his questioning is not at this point evident. As the trial progresses this may change, but for now that is all conjecture.

Although this trial revolves around the sale of BC Rail, the reality is that it is really about corruption supposedly perpetrated by the defendents in relation to the sale. As such, speculating on what information will be brought forward, and by whom, is folly.

Speculation may be a fun exercise, but it may be prudent to wait until there is actually some meat on the bone.

puh-leese

You call that bait?
There is no honour among that band of thieves; so that won't be any form of 'motivation'.
The same goes for worries about a tarnished reputation; why would that suddenly be of any concern?
If any lawyers really wanted to bait Campbell, they'd use something he'd jump for. Lara Dauphinee. Who is already removed from this charade.
Sport fishing for the people?

And If Mr. Campbell Were To Take The Stand....

...Would he also be asked to clarify and/or elaborate on some apparent longstanding Family Ties?

.

There has to be some proof.

I hope Kevin McCullogh has some sort of paper trail that confirms telephone calls were made to Bob Virk. I hope they got the phone records showing incoming calls to Virk, outgoing calls from Campbell and outgoing calls from Brown. Then I'd like to see the defence ask Mr. Brown to explain those calls. That would be great.