Last week in the Railgate trial, Mr. Martin Brown was highly obfuscatory on the matter of the 'interim' Fairness Advisor's Report which was rushed to release just days before the big deal with CNRail went down way back in the fall of 2003, and then was by BC Liberal Party Lickspittles to wash away any and all 'taint' that was raised by non-CN Rail bidders that ran away scraming that the fix was in.
Here is an example of Mr. Brown's obfuscation for a compliant proMedia nation from Neal Hall in the VSun last Friday:
....(David Basi's lawyer Michael) Bolton also showed another Vaughn Palmer column, published Nov. 19, 2003, which detailed how The Vancouver Sun had received a copy of a letter from CP Rail to the premier's office, complaining about a lack of fairness in the bidding process and withdrawing its bid.
In response, the government released a "fairness report" from consultant Charles River Associates, which concluded the bidding process was "fair and impartial."
Bolton suggested to Brown that the fairness report authors did not contact CP Rail or another bidder, OmniTrax, and instead wrote a "phony report" to justify CN as the winning bidder.
"I don't accept that," Brown said. "I don't believe that for a second. It reflects the highest level of integrity."....
Interesting that, don't you think?
Mr. Brown just did not accept Mr. Bolton's, and this is Mr. Neal Hall's of the VSun's word, 'suggestion' that the Fairness Report's authors did not contact CP Rail or other bidders that complained about the fix being in.
Well, given all that....
Here is a very specific question for Mr. Hall, and/or his Editors, and/or others at the VSun staff who may or may not be following up on Mr. Hall's stuff:
And if they have, indeed, looked at that report, have they read the following very, very explicit passage that does not 'suggest' anything:
Pre-trial publication bans are one thing.
But that Fairness Report' has been used to wave away the 'fix was in' allegation repeatedly by Mr. Brown during his cross-examination by the defense in the real trial, with the jury present.
Thus, there is absolutely no excuse for this "he said/she said" crap from the proMedia without follow-up when the source material is right there for them to peruse so that they can state, unequivocally, based on the documentary evidence, that what Mr. Brown said when he responded to Mr. Bolton's "suggestion" was flat-out wrong.
And if Mr. Brown can be so flat-out wrong about such a fundamental aspect of this case, why should we, the public, and/or the jury, believe that he can be right about anything at all?
For the record, I and others in the 'cult' first wrote about the 'interim' Fairness Advisor's report way back in 2007, as described here......