"The Three Brown Men" And An Intentionally Faulty Court Procedure.

                     "The New Lawlessness".  The BC Rail Scandal.  "The Three Brown Men",  and an Intentionally Faulty Court Procedure.

     An activity similar to a trial process in the BC Rail Scandal criminal accusations will resume on September 13.

     Associate Chief Justice Anne MacKenzie will, however, preside over what is tantamount to a theatrical farce.  The "three Brown men" accused by a Special Prosecutor who was wrongfully appointed (and who shouldn't be in the courtroom) must see the strange distortion of justice to which they are being subjected - by the full power of the state and the B.C. High Courts - as something much, much more alarming than theatrical farce.

     Whatever legitimacy the charges against the three Brown men might (in theory) hold, every scrap of legitimacy disappears in the light of the fact that those charges were formed and put in place by a Special (Crown) Prosecutor appointed in violation of all relevant legislation governing the position he fills.

     Canadians should ask themselves what kind of gross indignity is being perpetrated when three men are forced to sit, day after day, in a glass box - especially there for "the accused" , in full, open court, hearing argument and evidence about their guilt or innocence when the process they are being subjected to is illegitimate.  The judge knows the Special Prosecutor was wrongfully appointed.  She knows the Special Prosecutor cannot act in the case with credibility, cannot be fully believed.  Nothing can undo his scandalously wrongful appointment ... and his direct relation to the (then) Deputy Attorney General as of the Spring of 2007.

     Every responsible power has been informed about the wrongful appointment of Willliam Berardino QC.  The last to be informed, by means of Complaint, was the Canadian Judicial Council.  Acting for the Council (incidentally, in a Complaint against his fellow Council member B.C. Associate Chief Justice Anne MacKenzie!), Chief Justice Neil Wittmann of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench [Alberta's Supreme Court] , rejected the Complaint.  In his rejection he took pains to say he had formed no opinion about the wrongful appointment of Mr. Berardino!

     Chief Justice Wittmann chose, I suggest, to make that point clear - that he didn't look at the basis of the Complaint - so that he could not, at any time, be charged with knowing and approving of the wrongful appointment.  Dealing with the Complaint to the Canadian Judicial Council, he said, in effect, he would not look at the wrongful appointment of William Berardino as Special Prosecutor.  He took that position in the face of the fact that he was dealing with a Complaint that Associate Chief Justice Anne MacKenzie, presiding judge, would not deal with the fact William Berardino was wrongfully appointed and that Mr. Berardino should not be in the courtroom leading the Basi, Virk, and Basi trial.

     My Complaint claims that by allowing Mr. Berardino to continue in her court - knowing  that he was wrongfully appointed by people [friends?] intimately connected to Gordon Campbell's policies and actions in the BC Rail Scandal - she is involving herself in improper conduct.  Chief Justice Neil Wittmann rejected the Complaint - alleging it is not concerned with conduct.

     Chief Justice Wittmann is someone with whom I have become familiar.  He was in charge of the Calgary Court of Queen's Bench through almost all of what I believe was the slow, measured, torturous, illegitimate destruction of the Kelly Marie Richard dental malpractice case - from about 2002 until very recently.

      Possessing evidence of dental malpractice that I judge to be unquestionable (and scientifically recorded), Kelly Marie Richard has been prevented from ever being able to present that evidence in court.  The whole, many-years obstruction she faced, I believe, was undertaken to prevent the evidence being fairly weighed.  Under Justice Neil Wittmann what I allege was an improper "case management" process was undertaken.  By Justice Wittmann's appointment, judge after judge, I allege, furthered the destruction of the Kelly Marie Richard case and the destitution of Ms. Richard and her two sons.

     Involved in what I allege was, in fact, the protection of the large corporate insurer against the legitimate case of Kelly Marie Richard and her sons were the RCMP, some judges of the Calgary court of Queen's Bench, the dental professional body of Alberta, and the litigating lawyers for the insurer.

     I appealed to the (then) Chief Justice of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, without result.  I had a review of the RCMP involvement undertaken by the RCMP.  The "internal investigation" was so fraudulent I called upon RCMP Deputy Commissioner R.R. Knecht for remedy.  He cut off communication.  I appealed to the Canadian Judicial Council whose report I consider a sham. I wrote a letter to every MP in the House of Commons, and was ignored.  Stockwell Day, Public Safety Minister, refused to reply to communications.  I wrote the present Minister of Justice, asking for a Public Inquiry - and after receiving support letters from many, many people - Rob Nicholson refused.  I wrote to every MLA in Alberta, with almost no response, and no action.  The Attorney General of Alberta refused - in a very strange correspondence - to act in any way.

      If Justice Wittmann did, as I allege, engage in wrongful actions (among many others involved) in the Kelly Marie Richard case, the door was shut tight against any serious investigation or review.

      The Kelly Marie Richard case opened my mind to rule by "The New Lawlessness" in Canada.  Powerful corporations, in fact, govern the country and bend all institutions of citizen protection to lawless action on behalf of private wealth and power.

     I do not believe, for a second, that Stephen Harper is ignorant of the criticisms of Neil Wittmann in the Kelly Marie Richard case.  Nonetheless, he raised Wittmann to the position of Chief Justice of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench.

     Chief Justice Wittmann responded to the information that William Berardino was appointed wrongfully as, in effect, all other people in relevant relation to the appointment have done.

     Is there high-level collusion to protect William Berardino as Special Prosecutor in the Basi, Virk, and Basi case?  If so, why?

The Assistant Deputy Attorney General, Robert Gillen, stated to me, falsely I believe, that he couldn't comment on the appointment.  The Attorney General of B.C., Michael de Jong, refuses to answer correspondence on the matter.  The top judges of the B.C. Supreme court report they had nothing to do with the appointment and will do nothing!  The judge on the case, Associate Chief Justice Anne MacKenzie, refuses to reply when re-approached about the matter.  Stephen Owen, set up (in conflict of interest I believe) by the Attorney General to review the Special Prosecutor appointment process, refused to reply to my letter giving full information, and he reported in July to the Attorney General without mentioning the facts of the Berardino matter.

     Owen may have been influenced by the fact that he consulted one of Mr. Berardino's prosecution team, Janet Winteringham QC.  Ms. Winteringham can, doubtless, attest to Mr. Berardino's impeccable character and the the faultlessness of the Special Prosecutor appointment process - none of which is relevant in the particular case in question.

     As I have written, the three accused 'Brown' men must see the ridiculous 'White' proceedings into which they are locked as something distinctly other than theatrical farce.

     Think, too, of the jury members.  They are ordinary Canadians in the courtroom, having placed their complete trust in the presiding judge, Associate Chief Justice Anne MacKenzie.  Her position of trust requires that she tell the jurors everything they must know to make a fair and honest judgement about the accusations against Basi, Virk, and Basi.  But she is knowingly - possessing full knowledge of the wrongful appointment of Mr. Berardino - apparently hiding the fact from the jurors and asking them to conduct their assessment of the charges (Mr. Berardino caused to be laid) and the evidence (Mr. Berardino , in part, caused to be assembled) as if Mr. Berardino was correctly  and properly appointed.

     Because of his wrongful appointment, and the unfailing support he gets from the powerful, any Canadian may fairly believe Mr. Berardino was put in place to serve the highly political (and, perhaps, criminal) interests of Gordon Campbell and his associates.  Any Canadian may believe three Sikhs were settled on to be offered as accused in order to introduce racial stereotyping into the mix in order to provide a smokescreen for Gordon Campbell and his associates in the corrupt transfer of BC Rail to CNR.  Many white Canadians, presumably, would accept the stereotyping, believing the three Brown men would "naturally" be criminal, while a white man, Gordon Campbell, would, of course, not stoop to criminal actions.

     The minds of reasonable Canadians, I am sure, can barely deal with the facts of this situation.

     Add to what I have already written the additional fact that I have been refused journalist status in the case, though I have been reporting on it regularly for nearly four years.  Add that the four journalists who refused me accreditation - led by Neal Hall of the Vancouver Sun - refuse to report the wrongful appointment of Mr. Berardino.  Add that Associate Chief Justice Anne Mackenzie supports them in their rejection of my application (which would allow me to use a recording device in the courtroom and to examine all documents made 'public' and kept on file in Criminal Registry).

     Add that Associate Chief Justice Anne MacKenzie has had her law officer send me application forms for journalistic accreditation so that I may, so to speak, "appeal" the earlier decision.  The forms are complicated and bureaucratic and permit the presiding judge to continue to refuse me accreditation. I have no intention of submitting to further insult from the court or its officers on the matter.

     Add to those facts a primary one.  No journalist should permit himself or herself to be a servant of the court,  A journalist who does so places himself or herself in conflict of interest.  How can the journalist "please" the court and at the same time grant accreditation to someone the court dislikes?  The journalist can't.  And so - as in my case - the journalists of the Accreditation Committee declare themselves ready to be perceived as lackeys of the court.

     Consider the situation before us.  The accused in the BC Rail Scandal case KNOW they are locked in a trial in which the administration of justice is in a state of on-going violation - in order, the accused may fairly believe - to assure their conviction.  The jury is locked in a trial in which their trust in the process is complete and is being - unknown to them - betrayed.

     And what about Associate Chief Justice Anne MacKenzie?  With every additional support she receives from powerful people in responsible positions who refuse to face William Berardino's wrongful appointment, her credibility diminishes.  Indeed, as support from powerful people grows, it increases the suspicion that they intend to prevent justice from being done.

     Associate Chief Justice Anne MacKenzie came strangely to the position of judge in the Basi, Virk, and Basi case, seemingly propelled there after concerns expressed (as I see things) by Mr. Berardino and then-Associate Chief justice Patrick Dohm.

     On surface matters of jury sanctity, court processes, and the rigid (and I believe extreme) publication ban, Associate Chief Justice MacKenzie is a very Lioness guarding the administration of justice.  All the more reason that her refusal to deal with the wrongful appointment of William Berardino must lead many reasonable Canadians to believe she is knowingly bringing the administration of justice into disrepute.  With what end in view?

     Surely the three Brown men accused must wonder at what seems to be her judicial posturing.  They must know it denies them a fair trial.  And if they think that denial is - even in part - being maintained because of the colour of their skin, who can blame them?  And who can say they are wrong?

[Copies of this column are sent by post office mail to Chief Justice Neil Wittmann, for himself and the Canadian Judicial Council; to Chief Justice Robert Bauman and Associate Chief Justice Anne MacKenzie of the B.C. Supreme Court; to B.C. Attorney General Michael de Jong; to William Berardino QC for himself and the prosecution "team" - Janet Winteringham QC and Andrea MacKay; to Michael Bolton QC, and in his care, under separate cover to Dave Basi, accused; to Joseph Doyle, and in his care,under separate cover to Aneal Basi, accused; to Kevin McCullough, and in his care, under separate cover to Bob Virk, accused.]