Tuesday, December 04, 2012

RailGate Paper Trail....Show Us The Indemnity Agreement!


We now know that a false affidavit was filed in BC Supreme court, by a BC government attorney, that stated that the government did not possess billing details for one of the Railgate defendent's lawyers.

Billing details that were, presumably, part of how the six million dollar figure was arrived at that was the indemnity 'deal'.

You know, the 'deal' that suddenly ended the Railgate trial in October of 2010 just as BC government officials and appointees were getting hammered, day-after-day-after-day on the witness stand.

And just before the former Finance Minister was to climb up on the stand and clear his name.

Or some such thing.



Given this business with the patently false affidavit, how do we know that statements from other BC government officials about how the indemnity 'deal' actually went down, for whatever reason, are also true?

You know statements, for example, that indicated that there was no prior inducement for the accused to plead guilty in return for no jail time AND renumeration for their attorney fees as part of an indemnity 'deal'.


Given all that went down between December of 2003 (i.e. the date of the original 'Raids on the Legislature') and October of 2010 one would think that the accused (and their attorneys) would never have agreed to anything without an agreement.

Presumably, in writing.


Ian Reid is arguing that such a written agreement is what Auditor General John Doyle and [now] independent MLA John Van Dongen really want to see, if it exists:

...Two obstacles stood in the way (of an indemnity agreement): the prosecution’s sentencing demands and the government’s indemnification policy.

The sentencing demands were easy. They got changed: jail time turned into house arrest. But restoring an indemnification that dissolved the moment a guilty plea was entered proved much more tricky. It required an offer that was made on paper that had to be agreed to and signed by government representatives and the accused.

It meant a paper trail. Which is what John Doyle and John van Dongen are going after...

And, in my opinion at least, if such a written agreement really does exists it is something that all British Columbians (and all of British Columbia's proMedia) should be demanding to see.

I'll have more on who said (and/or wrote) what, when, for the record,  with respect to the indemnity deal process later (because, believe it [or not!], there is actually some pretty important stuff from government [and former government] officials that is on the record, for real)....



North Van's Grumps said...

Richard M. Butler vs Auditor General of BC

Before: The Honourable Mr. Justice Greyell

Vancouver, B.C. June 30, 2011

Snipped, obviously:
[20] It is useful to review how this issue developed. Again, it is useful to start with the role of Mr. Butler who is likely in possession of or has access to most, if not all, of the documents sought on this motion. I will borrow liberally from the facts set out in the Auditor General's application, as those facts are not disputed by either the Attorney General or by Messrs. Basi or Virk.

North Van's Grumps said...

We forgot about this source, for the above... an Index to BC Justice on Basi and Virk etc....

kootcoot said...

"if such a written agreement really does exists it is something that all British Columbians (and all of British Columbia's proMedia) should be demanding to see.:

proMedia, not so much, they prefer PABlum certified PR releases to copy and paste as they hold the BC liaRs feet to the fire and tenderly massage them, top and bottom!

RossK said...






And the deafening silence on the 'affidavit' story, now 48 hours after the fact, proves your point I guess.