Six Million Dollar Basi-Virk Agreement: "A Complete Release From Liability And....Indebtedness."

Who'sCultish
NowVille

The written documentation on the six million dollar deal has been released, and Jas Johal of Global News has the story (and the actual paper).

I will get to a whole lot more later but tonight I would like to get to the heart of the matter right off the top before the spin starts to crank tomorrow.

Specifically, I would like to point out that it a letter to the lawyers for Mr. Basi and Mr. Virk that was signed by then Assistant Attorney General Richard Fyfe on Oct 14, 2010 explicitly indicates, in my opinion at least, that there was a 'prior inducement' for the defendants to subsequently plead guilty:

"...The Province and your clients, Dave Basi and Bob Virk wish to enter into arrangements to provide Mr. Basi, his wife Iderjit Kaur Basi ("Mrs. Basi") and Mr. Virk with a complete release from liability, and a complete release of supporting security, for and with respect to repayment of Mr. Basi's and Mr. Virk's indebtedness under the Indemnity Agreements, in return for certain consideration including as described herein and in the attached.

You have advised that each of Mr. Basi and Mr. Virk intends to plead guilty in the BC Rail Proceedings on the count(s) and terms as required by the special prosecutor, and Mr. Basi intends to plead guilty in the A.L.R. Proceedings on the count(s) and terms as required by the Special Prosecutor..."

Now.

Why does this matter?

Well, it turns out that the BC Liberal government and former BC Liberal Government Attorney General Mr. Geoff Plant have long maintained that there was no 'prior inducement' offered to Messr's Basi and Virk.

Case in point....Here is what Mr. Geoff Plant wrote, on his personal blog, in the Spring of 2012 on the matter:

"...The defendants pleaded guilty. What is clear is that there was no legally binding deal. There couldn’t be. The waiver of recovery of fees was not and could not be an inducement to plead guilty. As a matter of law they were not connected. But that was of course the outcome. It was done very, very carefully, to make sure the rules were followed..."

Myself and Paul Willcocks did not agree with Mr. Plant's conclusion, which was apparently based on a written statement written by then Deputy Attorney General David Loukidelis.

Here is the question I posed to Mr. Plant at the time:

"Mr. Plant first you state the following: 'The defendants pleaded guilty. What is clear is that there was no legally binding deal. There couldn’t be. The waiver of recovery of fees was not and could not be an inducement to plead guilty. As a matter of law they were not connected. But that was of course the outcome. It was done very, very carefully, to make sure the rules were followed.'

Then, in the next sentence you state:'But it was understood that with guilty pleas, the claim to fee recovery would be waived.'

Now.

Based on those continguous statements, perhaps you could help me 'understand' the following:

If it was 'understood' that guilty pleas would subsequently lead to the waiver being granted, does it not logically follow that there was, for all intents and purposes, a prior 'inducement' regardless how 'carefully' things were done to make sure 'the rules were followed'?

Thanks."


Fortunately, Mr. Plant was good enough to respond, for the record:

"Ross K,

There was no "prior inducement". The offer of pleas was made first and entirely independently. The discussion about the fee waiver happened afterwards, and involved government, not the special prosecutor."

Mr. Willcocks then weighed in:

"Sorry, but the hairs are being split too finely. If there were genuine guilty pleas arranged in negotiations with the special prosecutor in place, then there was no need to break the policy on indemnities. The guilty pleas would have been secured, the trial ended and the taxpayers could have recovered at least some of the $6 million.

If they weren't in place, then the $6 million was indeed a prior inducement because it came before the guilty pleas were actually secured."

So.

It would appear that both Mr. Willcocks and myself were correct because Mr. Fyfe's letter indicates that the government was offering to provide the defendants with a 'complete release' from 'indebtedness' (eg. release the defendants from the obligation to repay the government loans that had been provided to pay legal costs if they were found guilty) BEFORE the guilty pleas were actually secured.

****

Now, of course, there are other ways you, dear reader,  may wish to describe a 'prior inducement' .

Regardless, no matter how you choose to phrase it, the fact of the matter is that, based on the documents just released by Mr. Johal of Global News, dangled a financial incentive in front of Messr's Basi and Virk to plead guilty. As a result, the BC Rail trial came to a screeching halt just before major BC Liberal government players, including former Finance Minister Gary Collins, were set to take the stand.

Which means that now, more than ever, we need a full public inquiry into the entire matter of the BC Rail sale/not sale that is not limited in scope in any way.

OK?


______
I, for one, sure wish our good friend Mary was here tonight so that we could all talk this over with her....


.