The New Lawlessness (subscribed to, I allege, by Gordon Campbell, Stephen Harper, and Ed Stelmach in Canada) is nothing more than a seamless alliance between governments and huge private corporations to elude law – where corporate interests are pursuing unregulated pollution, cheapest exploitation of resources, get-rich-quick manufacture of fraudulent securities, dubious ownership transfers, sales of non-existent commodities – or, in fact, any action or design that previously would be (and now should be) criminal in private corporate behaviour intended to enrich Corporation ‘principals’ at the expense of the public.
Accompanying those developments is the increased use of “policing” forces to protect “democratic” leaders from their own people [G20 in Toronto, for instance].
What are the accused in the Basi, Virk, and Basi case accused of – fundamentally? They are accused of breaking an oath of confidentiality. That includes, especially, confidentiality in all the matters dealing with the corrupt transfer of BC Rail to CNR - which was engaged in by top government and private Corporation officers, I believe.
The job of the accused was to be completely loyal to a highly sophisticated betrayal of the people of British Columbia. They were sworn – I argue – to uphold “The New Lawlessness”, not to uphold the law.
Their alleged crime was not primarily against lawfulness as we know it. It was not primarily against the people of B.C. and Canada. Their alleged crime – it would seem – was to betray their corrupt masters and – in doing so – to give away the fact that “The New Lawlessness” is in operation.
After the alleged breach of confidentiality [the alleged “breach of trust”], the matters of bribery and money laundering [in the case] followed.
Why – the question has come up again and again – why would the top people allegedly corruptly transferring BC Rail to the CNR go after three order-in Council appointees for, allegedly, cutting out a piece of profit for themselves as part of the whole dirty deal?
Why would those top people take the risk of exposing their own gigantic, shady sleight-of-hand to remove BC Rail from the ownership of the people of British Columbia?
Why were the three accused the only accused in the huge, highly dubious (even, I believe, criminal) transaction?
Because – the answer may be - the three accused men were, allegedly, double-crossing “the bosses” and were allegedly taking “The New Lawlessness” in the most natural direction. They were not primarily - reasonable Canadians may believe - violating the trust of the people of British Columbia and Canada. They were not primarily violating the trust of elected representatives in a democratic society. No. They were violating – it may be argued – a sordid (and perhaps criminal) pact entered into by top government officials and top private Corporate actors.
The three accused had to be stopped in their tracks and taught an enduring lesson.
Could it be that something went wrong? Could it be that the improper appointment of William Berardino as Special Prosecutor was not simply a dumb mistake of “the Club” – shutting its eyes and appointing one of ‘the boys’ without wrong intention?
Could it be that “the Club” purposefully appointed Mr. Berardino to shield its members and never thought William Berardino’s qualifications would be examined?
Could it be that “the Club” never expected a Defence team that would see through “the fix” that was in to transfer (improperly) BC Rail to CNR, and that Defence would attempt to expose a major criminality in the transfer?
Could it be that the dogged persistence of the Defence had to be dealt with?
Could it be that Madam Justice Elizabeth Bennett (first judge on the case) was ‘allowing Defence too much room’ - and had to be removed, pushed upstairs to the Appeals Court?
Could it be that the case needed a judge ‘more understanding’ that the case is a simple one, concerning only three allegedly bad boys, allegedly engaging in breach of trust, bribery, and money laundering?
Could it be that the steam-roller of “The New Lawlessness” is being driven over Basi, Virk, and Basi and their three Defence lawyers?
Could it be that the extraordinary determination of the presiding judge to enforce the draconian ‘publication ban’ is not at all extraordinary - but a necessity to keep the role of Gordon Campbell and his associates in the BC Rail Scandal as contained as possible?
Could it be that she was promoted to Associate Chief Justice (after being appointed to the Basi, Virk, and Basi case) to give force to her in-court rulings? Was her promotion a natural elevation as a result of her unfailing judicial excellence?
Could it be that her plain refusal to deal with the wrongful appointment of William Berardino as Special Prosecutor is of the same character? Is Mr. Berardino key to the scenario that three bad (brown) boys in a little private corner, seeking private gain, allegedly set to work to betray trust in an operation otherwise spotless, white, and upright?
That, it would seem, is the story ‘the Club’ tells. The Attorney General of B.C. refuses to deal with the wrongful appointment of Mr. Berardino. So do the top judges of the B.C. Supreme Court. So did Stephen Owen, appointed to “review” the whole process of Special Prosecutor appointments (reporting on July 8, 2010). So does the presiding judge on the Basi, Virk, and Basi case. So does the Mainstream Press and Media – resolutely.
And so – finally – does the Canadian Judicial Council.
The Canadian Judicial Council - to which I complained (May 17) of Associate Chief Justice Anne MacKenzie’s refusal to recognize an obligation in the matter of the (wrongful) appointment of William Berardino – replied (Aug 6). It’s finding is “that if Mr. Berardino’s appointment in the matter of R. v. Basi, Virk & Basi violates any legislation, as you have alleged (and Chief Justice Wittmann expresses no opinion in this regard), this is not a matter of judicial conduct and does not fall within the Council’s mandate to review.”
TAKE NOTE: the Attorney General, Michael de Jong, refuses to reply to my request that he address the wrongful appointment of William Berardino; the top B.C. Supreme Court judges refuse to answer my letter (Associate Chief Justice Anne MacKenzie included) asking that they address the wrongful appointment.
The Mainstream Press and Media refuse to address the wrongful appointment. The Honourable Neil C. Wittmann, Chief Justice of the Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta, answering for the CJC REFUSES TO ADDRESS THE WRONGFUL APPOINTMENT.
To show the faultless purity of the Canadian Judicial Council, the letter from the Council says: “Because your complaint involves a member of the Council, an additional step has been followed in accordance with the Complaints Procedures. Your complaint, and its proposed disposition by Chief Justice Wittman, have been reviewed by an outside counsel, namely Mr. Jacques J.M. Shore of the law firm of Gowling Lafleur Henderson LLP. After a careful review of this matter, Mr. Shore has indicated his complete agreement with Chief Justice Wittman’s decision about your complaint, as well as with the reasons contained within this letter.”
In my respectful opinion the Canadian Judicial Council (a club within “the Club’) – like all the others – absolutely refuses to address the fact of Mr. Berardino’s wrongful appointment and the fact that it invalidates the trial in which he is acting as Special (Crown) Prosecutor, and the fact that the presiding judge cannot with impunity know that and close her eyes to it.
But Associate Chief Justice Anne MacKenzie does know it, and she is closing her eyes to it … with the blessing, now, of the Canadian Judicial Council (of which she is, it just happens – a member).
The situation is so ridiculous it has to exist for a reason. I suggest it could not exist in a society under the rule of law. But what about a society under the rule of “The New Lawlessness”?
Could it be …?