Lone Wolves All. by Robin Mathews, March 2019

One Wolves All

The fact that the Canadian Mainstream Press and Media is almost wholly mismanaged and misused might be symbolized or characterized in a recent column by (what I call) one of media's most direct voices from The Deep State.

The Deep State is the seemingly faceless organization which is showing a little of its face in the SNC-Lavalin attempt to overthrow Canada's Rule of Law. The Deep State has already had legislation passed across the Western World that exempts [in fact] criminals in Big Corporations from facing Criminal Charges.

Not a bad day's work, you might say.

Margaret Wente, seeming to want to clear up the "confusions" of intemperate people, works to create what I say is a huge, false rewrite of history and fact.  For some reason (and we will see the reason pretty clearly) she suggests that anti-Muslim acts in the West are carried out solely by insane individuals, "lone wolves all".  They are people who choose whatever extreme belief is there to act upon.

Working the phrase lone wolves all into her Globe and Mail column of March 23, 2019 (0ll), Ms. Wente seems to want to silence all those disorderly and suspect people who suggest major powers and State institutions (even cooperating)  create Islamophobic Events in order to mislead whole populations.

Of course, Ms. Wente uses the Christchurch, New Zealand massacre of the innocent (which a few claim was a highly organized State-operative-involved False Flag) to underscore her main point that some appear to be exaggerating the extent of Islamophobia in the West.

It would be pretty hard to do that if one is referring not only to the people's but to governments and Deep State-connected others.  Look at fact and history.

The Soviet Union crashed and burned in the late 1980s, and in the early 1990s, a new 'enemy of the West' was produced in the USA by Samuel P. Huntington who put forward the theory of the (necessary) 'Clash of Civilizations', especially Islamic and Christian civilizations.

That idea fed (and undeniably related to) 9/11 (2001) and to the on-going and totally fake war begun in 2003 against Iraq and Afghanistan  to be followed by Libya, and then Syria, and the trapped Palestinians, etcetera.  (So much for Ms. Wente's 'one wolves all').

We don't have to go along, at all, with the researchers who insist the destruction of the new York Trade Towers in 9/11/2001 had nothing to do with Muslim terrorists.  We can believe (or pretend?) Islamists were involved. Even so, no sane human beings say anything else than the (pretended) cause of the War in Iraq (possession of weapons of mass destruction) was completely and wholly fraudulent and fabricated out of thin air!  There was no reason to go to war against Iraq.

That fact substantiates a multi-State Islamophobia in the West.

Building upon highly organized, multi-State Islamophobia (and some say) creating and assisting fake Islamic Terrorist Acts by phoney Islamic mad people 'lone wolves all' (to quote Ms. Wente), Western States in 'the Club' have been (many of them), and are anti-Muslim, 'Islamophobic', in their open or in their clandestine policies.

To her everlasting shame (in co-ordination with all the Mainstream Press and Media) Ms. Wente erases (by ignoring) a major, proved, fraudulent Islamophobic Terrorist Event constructed within the Canadian State in order to teach Canadians Islamophobia!

A large number of RCMP personnel "acting from the headquarters office in Ottawa and the B.C. centre" went to work in 2013 to entrap, to criminalize, to try, to convict, and to jail (probably for life) two wholly innocent (and entrapable) recent converts to Islam supposedly manufacturing a terrible Islamic Terrorist Event.  The purpose had to be to influence Canadians against people of Muslim faith.

Fate, however, intervened in the shape of two competent Defence lawyers for the pair and a B.C. Supreme Court judge who could see through the whole, intricate, massively expensive Fraud.  In 2016 B.C. Supreme Court justice Catherine Bruce struck down the jury finding of guilty.  That's how close the RCMP was to a successful criminal entrapment of innocents. And in December, 2018, three judges on the B.C. Appeals Court supported Justice Bruce's findings unanimously.

(You will not have learned of this, as you should have done, by any serious treatment of the subject in Canada's completely sold-out Mainstream Press and Media: see Ms. Wente's column, for instance.)

Who ordered the RCMP to fake a Major Islamic Terrorist Event at the B.C. Legislature grounds?  Why has no one in the RCMP been charged with Criminal Conspiracy?  What countries allied to Canada would be pleased to have a fake Islamic Terrorist Event in Victoria, B.C. succeed?  What kind of people are willing to entrap innocents, criminalize them falsely, and jail them, almost forever?  Surely Ms. Wente will have answers to all of those questions and more you wish to ask.

Surely she will publish a series of columns in the Globe and Mail to make sure the truth is widely known and to explain why no obviously criminal RCMP people face charges for crimes that ordinary Canadians would, without question be facing with the harshest punishment that the Canadian Rule of Law can mete out, waiting for them upon being declared guilty.


Robin Mathews

Arrest of Meng Wanzhou: Why here in Vancouver? Why not Mexico? The US has a Extradiction Treaty with both countries

The US should have waited until Meng landed in Mexico ..... instead of arresting her here in Canada

**************

 US   Mexico  Extradition Treaty

 Letter of Transmittal

The White House

March 22, 1979

To the Senate of the United States

With a view to receiving the advice and consent of the Senate to ratification, I transmit herewith the Treaty of Extradition Between the United States of America and the United Mexican States , signed at Mexico City on May 4, 1978

*************

US Canada Extradition Treaty

 Letter of Transmittal

The White House

March 22, 1979

To the Senate of the United States

With a view to receiving the advice and consent of the Senate to ratification, I transmit herewith the Treaty of Extradition Between the United States of America and the United Mexican States, signed at Mexico City on May 4, 1978

********************

Canada International Extradition Treaty with the United States

December 3, 1971, Date-Signed

March 22, 1976, Date-In-Force

STATUS:

Treaty signed at Washington on December 3, 1971.  An agreement amending the treaty effected by exchange of notes signed at Washington on June 28 and July 9, 1974.  Ratification of the treaty, as amended, advised by the Senate of the United States of America on December 1, 1975.  It was Ratified by Canada on February 2, 1976.  Ratifications exchanged at Ottawa on March 22, 1976.  It was Proclaimed by the President of the United States of America May 6, 1976 and Entered into force March 22, 1976.

Article 1

Each Contracting Party agrees to extradite to the other, in the circumstances and subject to the conditions described in this Treaty, persons found in its territory who have been charged with, or convicted of, any of the offenses covered by Article 2 of this Treaty committed with the territory of the other, or outside thereof under the conditions specified in Article 3(3) of this Treaty.

Article 2

(1) Persons shall be delivered up according to the provisions of this Treaty for any of the offenses listed in the Schedule annexed to this Treaty, which is an integral part of this Treaty, provided these offenses are punishable by the laws of both Contracting Parties by a term of imprisonment exceeding one year.


(2) Extraditions shall also be granted for attempts to commit, or conspiracy to commit or being a party to any of the offenses listed in the annexed Schedule.

(3)  Extradition shall also be granted for any offense against a federal law of the United State in which one of the offenses listed in the annexed Schedule, or made extraditable by paragraph 2) of this Article, is a substantial element, even if transporting, transportation, the use of the mails or interstate facilities are also elements of the specific offense.

ARTICLE 3

(1) For the purpose of this Treaty the territory of a Contracting Party shall include all territory under the jurisdiction of that Contracting Party, including air space and territorial waters and vessels and aircraft registered in that Contracting Party or aircraft leased without crew to a lessee who has his principal place of business, or, if the lessee has no such place of business, his permanent residence in, that Contracting Party if any such aircraft is in flight, or if any such vessel is on the high seas when the offense is committed.  For the purpose of this Treaty an aircraft shall be considered in flight from the moment when power is applied for the purpose of the take-off until the moment when the landing run ends.

(2) In a case when offense 23 of the annexed Schedule is committed on board an aircraft at any time from the moment when all its external doors are closed following embarkation until the moment when any such door is opened for disembarkation, such offense and any other offense covered by Article 2 committed against passengers or crew of that aircraft in connection with such offense shall be considered to have been committed with the territory of a Contracting Party if the aircraft was registered in that Contracting Party, if the aircraft landed in the territory of that Contracting Party with the alleged offender still on board, or if the aircraft was leased without crew to a lessee who has his principal place of business, or, if the lessee has no such place of business, his permanent residence in that Contracting Party.

(3) When the offense for which extradition has been requested has been committed outside the territory of the requesting State, the executive or other appropriate authority of the requested State shall have the power to grant the extradition if the laws of the requested State provide for jurisdiction over such offense committed in similar circumstances.

ARTICLE 4

(1) Extradition shall not be granted in any of the following circumstances:

(i) When the person whose surrender is sought is being proceeded against, or has been tried and discharged or punished in the territory of the requested State for the offense for which his extradition is requested.

(ii) When the prosecution for the offense has become barred by lapse of time according to the laws of the requesting State.

(iii)  When the offense in respect of which extradition is requested is of a political character, or the person whose extradition is requested proves that the extradition request has been made for the purpose of trying or punishing him for an offense of the above-mentioned character.  If any question arises as to whether a case comes within the provisions of this subparagraph, the authorities of the Government on which the requisition is made shall decide.

(2) The provisions of subparagraph (iii) of paragraph (1) of this Article shall not be applicable to the following:

(1) A kidnapping, murder or other assault against the life or physical integrity of a person to whom a Contracting Party has the duty according to international law to give special protection, or any attempt to commit such an offense with respect to any such person.

(ii)  When offense 23 of the annexed Schedule, or an attempt to commit, or a conspiracy to commit, or being a party to the commission of that offense, has been committed on board an aircraft engaged in commercial services carrying passengers.

etc. etc. etc. to Article 18

****************
Global Affairs Canada:
 E101323 - CTS 1976 No. 3

SCHEDULE

1. Murder; assault with intent to commit murder.
2. Manslaughter.
3. Wounding; maiming; or assault occasioning bodily harm.
4. Unlawful throwing or application of any corrosive substances at or upon the person of another.
5. Rape; indecent assault.
6. Unlawful sexual acts with or upon children under the age specified by the laws of both the requesting and requested States.
7. Willful non-support or willful abandonment of a minor when such minor is or is likely to be injured or his life is or is likely to be endangered.
8. Kidnapping; child stealing; abduction; false imprisonment.
9. Robbery; assault with intent to steal.
10. Burglary; housebreaking.
11. Larceny, theft or embezzlement.
12. Obtaining property, money or valuable securities by false pretenses or by threat of force or by defrauding the public or any person by deceit or falsehood or other fraudulent means, whether such deceit or falsehood or any fraudulent means would or would not amount to a false pretense.
13. Bribery, including soliciting, offering and accepting.
14. Extortion.
15. Receiving any money, valuable securities or other property knowing the same to have been unlawfully obtained.
16. Fraud by a banker, agent, or by a director or officer of any company.
17. Offenses against the laws relating to counterfeiting or forgery.
18. Perjury in any proceeding whatsoever.
19. Making a false affidavit or statutory declaration for any extrajudicial purpose.
20. Arson.
21. Any act done with intent to endanger the safety of any person travelling upon a railway, or in any aircraft or vessel or other means of transportation.
22. Piracy, by statute or by law of nations; mutiny or revolt on board a vessel against the authority of the captain or commander of such vessel.
23. Any unlawful seizure or exercise of control of an aircraft, by force or violence or threat of force or violence, or by any other form of intimidation, on board such aircraft.
24. Willful injury to property.
25. Offenses against the bankruptcy laws.
26. Offenses against the laws relating to the traffic in, production, manufacture, or importation of narcotic drugs, Cannabis sativa L., hallucinogenic drugs, amphetamines, barbiturates, cocaine and its derivatives.
27. Use of the mails or other means of communication in connection with schemes devised or intended to deceive or defraud the public or for the purpose of obtaining money or property by false pretenses.
28. Offenses against federal laws relating to the sale or purchase of securities.
29. Making or having in possession any explosive substance with intent to endanger life, or to cause severe damage to property.
30. Obstructing the course of justice in a judicial proceeding, existing or proposed, by:
    1. dissuading or attempting to dissuade a person by threats, bribes, or other corrupt means from giving evidence;
    2. influencing or attempting to influence by threat, bribes, or other corrupt means a person in his conduct as a juror; or
    3. accepting a bribe or other corrupt consideration to abstain from giving evidence or to do or to refrain from doing anything as a juror.

********************

The United States maintains diplomatic relations – but does not have extradition treaties ... with China.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_extradition_treaties


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extradition_law_in_the_United_States

Diplomatic Treaties

ONGOING GENOCIDE caused by JUDICIAL SUPPRESSION of the EXISTING ABORIGINAL RIGHTS

Ongoing Genocide caused by Judicial Suppression of the Existing Aboriginal Rights

                                           Part Two
 by Robin Mathews

                                               We turn away, easily, from injustice done to others.

Anyone in Canada who can read should read this book by Bruce Clark.  It opens up such important aspects of history and politics and justice in Canada that it should be required reading by all those in the country who can read. At least two points of focus are present in Bruce Clark’s Ongoing Genocide. Perhaps the most important is the betrayal of the Constitution and laws growing from it by the Courts in Canada and the Legal Establishment in order to impose upon the indigenous peoples an arbitrary and illicit regime that has and does lead to their deracination, alienation, social isolation, unnecessary illnesses and very high levels of suicide.  (Quite apart from robbing them of their real status in law and in the courts.)

Part One of this column, devoted to the subject, reviewed the process by which “as an unvarying constant” the judicial and legal Establishments in Canada have created an illegitimate regime of judge-made law that goes unchallenged and that contradicts the clearest Constitutional statements and flowing from them -  the precedents upon which the fabric of justice is (normally) maintained.

Part One also proposed that bastardized law and adjudication are not confined to indigenous matters but are very frequently almost as a parallel and so, perhaps, in some sort of relation  the rule of actions in the Higher Courts whenever  Established Power, criminal government, and/or large Corporate Power come into contention with the Constitution (and, therefore come into the realm of Canada’s judicial and legal Establishments).

What needs also to be focused upon is Bruce Clark himself, his struggle to gain justice for the indigenous peoples, his having been cited for Contempt of Court, imprisoned, and disbarred and, therefore, prevented, ever again, from engaging in the practice of law.

The reason he was disbarred is simple and in perfect harmony with the large betrayal of the Constitution and laws properly growing with and from it.  The assembly undertaking the adjudication of his status agreed that Clark was serious, articulate, informed, and skillful in his presentation of fact and argument. Brought against him at some point was an allegation that his unpopular opinion had been answered (already) forty times!  If it had been answered even once (by, of course, a judge) a record would be available: none exists. That his position was prevented from being articulated in any way recognizable by the Court is quite another matter. Being denied the right to articulate the position for the court to consider is quite another condition.

And so “with the greatest regret of course” and only because he would not accept the fraudulent denial (and attempted erasure) of the Constitutional realities concerning the indigenous peoples Bruce Clark was, regretfully, disbarred from the practice of law: because of the finding that the solicitor is ungovernable (p. 98)

His story is known by many familiar with indigenous history in Canada.  It is not unknown among judges and lawyers across Canada.  And yet there is no movement among bright young lawyers (or bright old judges!) to re-visit the persecution of Bruce Clark and to seek justice in his case.  Seeking justice apparently has very little to do with the lives and the professional conduct of the members of the Legal and Judicial Establishments in Canada.

Unfortunately, in his description of the usurpations of the Constitutional identity of Canada’s indigenous peoples, Bruce Clark cannot do anything else but point to the (knowing) participation of the Judicial and Legal Establishments in that process.  Judges (and lawyers) have to know when judge-made law is usurping the Constitution and Constitutionally-empowered law.

Populations (not just Canadians) respond to knowledge of serious injustices done to others with remarkable calm.  History has many astonishing precedents. In the 1630s Galileo was forced by the then all-powerful Roman Catholic faith to recant his proposition that the earth moved around the sun and was not the centre of the solar system (or, indeed, of the whole universe). We laugh, now, about the foolishness of power at that time forgetting, perhaps, that Galileo was punished for life and forced to live under continuing house arrest.

In time, perhaps, Canadians will laugh at the stupid Canadian State, the stupid judicial and legal Establishments which engaged in the destruction of Bruce Clark’s career as a lawyer, permanently punishing him (like Galileo) for speaking the truth.

But for anyone with the smallest sense of fair-mindedness and a shred of belief that justice can win out in Canada, justice for Bruce Clark sometime in the future is not good enough.  Where is the lawyer or the judge who will begin, now, the movement to erase the astonishing injustice and indignity visited upon Bruce Clark? Surely there is one man or one woman in the legal and judicial Establishments willing and able to take on that task.  Unless of course being a member of either of those Establishments absolutely rules out such a possibility.

 Contact: Robin Mathew

Ongoing Genocide and Its Shadow World. by Robin Mathews, March 2019

Ongoing Genocide and Its Shadow World.   

Part One

     Contact: Robin Mathew                                  

Electromagnetic Press has produced a new book by Bruce Clark, scholarly expert and hands-on activist in the matter of North American indigenous peoples history, philosophy, and “especially“ the reality of their present legal being, their rights, and their status in the activity of the higher courts.

Central to his argument, Bruce Clark makes clear that the constitutional and (therefore) luminously obvious thread of law (and precedent) leading from the eighteenth century (especially from the Royal Proclamation of 1763) defines the independent and autonomous legal being of today’s indigenous people living on unceded land, land not having been subjected to voluntary sale or other voluntary alienation.

In the very simplest terms, it may be said, Clark observes, that all the courts of Canada [the USA presents another jurisdiction “equally malevolent” all the legal and judicial Establishments of Canada magisterially choose to violate the Constitutionally constructed law and the precedents developing from it and so  violate the rights and persons of indigenous peoples in Canada. Apart from the Constitution and precedents growing from the eighteenth century, the government of John A. MacDonald, Canada’s first prime minister, created the Indian Act and the Residential Schools structure seen by many as (whatever may have been intended) genocidal actions continuing into the present.  And the Province of B.C. passed (ultra vires) a law alienating indigenous land from indigenous control. Thus we have the title of Bruce Clark’s most recent book: Ongoing Genocide caused by Judicial Suppression of the Existing  Aboriginal Rights. (www.electromagneticprint.com)

That primary fact is worth repeating: Bruce Clark alleges the Courts, the Legal, and the Judicial Establishments in Canada act, concerning the indigenous people, in open contempt of the Constitutionally constructed Rule of Law in the country we designate by the name Canada of which those Establishments are a part.

Bruce Clark’s book is made up largely of essays published in Dissident Voices over the past ten years or so. As a result, certain key arguments and presentations of historical and legal fact are repeated in a way that gives them exceptional force.  The historical structure of both the undeniable independence of North America’s indigenous population and the unbroken violation of that status by the ‘settler populations’ is presented in a way that throws light upon the real functioning of the whole Canadian society. Bruce Clark tends to see indigenous legal fact and history as unique, and (in important ways) it is.

But it may be wrong to suggest that the ‘habit of mind’ employed to produce a complete reshaping of law and the ‘judge-making’ of a false reality into which all indigenous matters are placed is unique to what would have been called a few decades ago ‘Indian Affairs’.

One is sorely tempted to make comparisons “which are visibly there“ between the treatment of Canada’s indigenous people under a ‘mangled Rule of Law’ and the attempts (which have already been successful in other ‘democracies’) to vacate gigantic corporations (SNC-Lavalin, and its kind) from criminal prosecution and deliver them to a gray area of what Roman Catholics might call ‘Penance and Absolution’. Indigenous people are mangled in a Corporate-inspired expression of greed and larceny, Clark suggests, transmuted into judge-and-Legal-Establishment-made law.  Corporations like SNC-Lavalin have ‘special’ legislation created for them alone, so that no individual in their ranks will face adjudication under a common Rule of Law ever ... because deferred prosecution agreements will remove them from any universal Rule of Law and its meaningful punishments.

What the Justin Trudeau Liberals passed (semi-secretively) in a budget package of legislation (one of the famous Omnibus bills: 2018) is, I suggest, an attempt to legitimize a special approach, a special jurisdictional and juridical handling of alleged violations of the Rule of Law in Canada which will place large private corporations in a special category subjected to special treatment.  That (according to Bruce Clark) is what has been done, negatively, (without any visible legislation) to the indigenous people of Canada by judge and court-made illegitimate precedent. And instead of lightening the load pressing upon the indigenous people, the dimension of the law which they are forced to inhabit assures that, for instance, a fake (powerless) right of consultation usurps their right of full, independent being. When they appear in a Canadian court, they are subjected to a regime that is unique, and nowhere ratified Constitutionally.

Bruce Clark reports his own dramatic confrontation with Established Power (as distinct from ‘legitimate power’) during which time he was declared in criminal contempt, was jailed for a time, and was disbarred permanently from the elegant and prestigious practice of law in Canada.

His book confronts us with reality. Canadian judicial and legal structures deliver injustice frequently and institutionally often enough to cause major concern to Canadians because of persistent and determined [improper] legal and judicial action undertaken to disallow the clear, independent status and power of the indigenous people and to saddle them with a right of [dependent] consultation.  As a result no action taken by indigenous people can (in the Canadian courts) be adjudicated with respect to their real, historically founded status, Clark argues.  And so they are cheated of justice in every case.

Moving from indigenous reality to provide a comparison in the Nuttall/Korody case (concerning an RCMP faked Islamic Terrorist Event at the B.C. Legislature grounds on July 1, 2013) years of injustice were forced upon the two falsely accused innocents, but both Defence lawyers and B.C. Supreme Court judge, Justice Catherine Bruce, extracted the two from the false accusations by a highly organized RCMP Force.  Justice Bruce wrote a superb judgement exposing the RCMP’s alleged criminal behaviour.  Her judgement was upheld by three B.C. Appellate Division justices in late 2018.

And then: nothing. Nothing. The Crown, the federal Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, the Minister of Justice, the Attorney General of British Columbia, members of the British Columbia legislature in all Parties, members of the Mainstream Press and Media have maintained stoney silence, failing to demand that criminal charges be laid against every RCMP officer and any other Canadian involved in the entrapment, the preparation of a false criminal case, the incarceration, and the trial of the innocent two and demanding full and complete restitution and compensation to the two victims for what is almost certainly a criminal conspiracy by RCMP officers and unnamed others.

What is plain in the matter is that the extraordinary work of Defence Counsel and Justice Catherine Bruce “to prevent the success of major, highly organized criminal activity by the RCMP” is something that Mainstream Power in Canada wishes to mask, to ignore. I would suggest that parallel to the false judicial and legal actions in Canada that create a completely contained corrupt world of law for indigenous people that Bruce Clark argues exists, there also exists in matters involving what may be called the instruments (and the people) possessing real power in Canada  (outside of indigenous issues) - a consistently corrupt legal/judicial administration is at work to prevent action taken to assure that The Rule of Law in Canada prevails. The falsely staged Islamic Terrorist Event at B.C.’s Legislature grounds which viciously victimized two innocent Canadians (and which ALL of the responsible authorities in Canada are trying to ignore) is only one lamentable example.

Though many, many instances might be brought forward to underscore that truth, no case can be more instructive, perhaps, than the huge, multi-million dollar, nearly ten-year history involving the corrupt transfer of BC Rail to the CNR and a more than three year trial (2007-2010) of what I choose to call victims chosen to mask the major wrong-doing and the major actors undertaking the wrong-doing who should have been the accused in the case.

The imperfect Wikipedia entry (avoiding the major archived independent website on the issue) about the BC Rail Scandal, employing only ‘acceptable’ Mainstream Press and Media sources, fails to report the absolutely primary fact. Much, much about the scandal can be argued about ‘but not the finding late in the trial’ when Madam Justice Elizabeth Bennett had been promoted off the trial to Appeals Court; and the choice was made by Associate Chief Justice Patrick Dohm (he announced that he had made his choice in my presence) of Justice Anne MacKenzie to complete the Supreme Court trial.

In late 2009 it was revealed that the Special Crown Prosecutor - appointed in 2003 and (therefore, normally) associated with RCMP investigations, with the preparation of charges against Dave Basi, Bobby Virk, and Aneal Basi, and then with fulfilling the role as primary Crown actor in the trial of the three accused, that he was named Special Crown Prosecutor in clear violation of the legislation creating and declaring the terms of such an appointment.

Stated simply ‘such an appointed person must be free of any possible bias’ and the legislation says in addition ‘must be free of the possibility of even the perception of bias’.  The Special Crown Prosecutor in the case against Dave Basi, Bobby Virk, and Aneal Basi was for eleven years partner and colleague of the Deputy Attorney General and for seven years partner and colleague of the Attorney General from whose office his appointment was made as Special Crown Prosecutor under the premiership of Liberal Gordon Campbell at whose feet was laid the whole impetus for the so-called sale of BC Rail to the CNR: and, therefore, also, at whose feet were laid many of the allegations of impropriety in the case. (The Attorney General was, of course, a member of the B.C. Cabinet headed by the premier, Gordon Campbell.)

The revealed fact of the illegitimate appointment of the Special Crown Prosecutor in the Basi, Virk, and Basi case rendered, in my judgement, everything about the case null and void, without legitimacy erasing every action in the process.  I wrote to the Chief Justice of the British Columbia Supreme Court and the Associate Chief Justice as responsible in the matter.  In two correspondence attempts to have them assume their responsibilities in the matter, they refused.  I wrote to the judge on the case, and she refused to act in any fashion in relation to the improper appointment and the improper presence in her courtroom of an illegitimately appointed Special Crown Prosecutor.  I wrote to the Canadian Judicial Council, the top appeal body concerning the behaviour of the judiciary in Canada. (The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada is the nominal head of the CJC.) I asked them to name the judge on the case as acting improperly in the matter of an illegitimate Special Crown Prosecutor acting in her Court.  The Canadian Judicial Council refused to acknowledge any improper behaviour on the part of the judge on the case.

The picture that appears of the legal and (especially) the judicial Establishments in that short accounting leaves little more to be said.

The brutal findings by Bruce Clark and, indeed, the brutal treatment he, himself, has been subjected to point to a Rule of Law relating to the Indigenous Peoples that needs complete overhaul in fact - complete restructuring. But, alas, in its shadow world - the world in which the Legal and Judicial Establishments act in areas other than those concerning indigenous persons and the rights of their communities “the actions of what must be called the Legal Establishment and the Judicial Establishment “ mirror, I suggest, with depressing regularity, the same dismissal of Constitutional reality.  And they replace it, I believe, with ‘assumptions of purity’ that are used to protect the political and corporate powers enriching themselves and increasing their power at the cost of fundamental justice. The Rule of Law, and the will of the people are blind-sided by the unanimity of evil-doers and their supporters in the Mainstream Press and Media.  That fact suggests the so-called Criminal Justice System, meaning the operation of the Legal and the Judicial Establishments in Canada (including the treatment of indigenous people) must be swept aside. The structure must be trashed. The whole fabric of law and justice “especially as it is practiced within the system in Canada - must be completely reconstructed.

BC Auditor General Bellringer's next task? BC Liberal Minister of Finance having used internal auditor for Partnerships BC report

Internal Audit

Report on - Government of B.C.

"More than half of the contract files reviewed did not contain adequate documentation."

https://www2.gov.bc.ca/.../british-columbians.../services.../internal...services/internal-a...

Table of Contents. Section. Page No. Abbreviations . ..... Internal Audit and Advisory Services evaluated Partnerships BC's governance, mandate, roles and ..

*************************

 That should have resulted in a FULL Audit of Partnerships B.C. in 2015

 ***********************

Video of Question Period

Wednesday, May 13, 2015

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 26, Number 5

Blain, Larry and  Partnership BC

Question Period: Leader John Horgan asks about conflict-of-interest ...

Oral Questions

CONFLICT-OF-INTEREST

CONCERNS REGARDING LARRY BLAIN AND PARTNERSHIPS B.C.

J. Horgan: Yesterday we were discussing in question period the conflict of interest that was unearthed with Michael Graydon, the former chair of the B.C. Lottery Corporation, and we reviewed the conflict-of-interest rules. The minister assured us that a review was done.

According to the conflict rules for members of government boards…. This is what the document says: “A director should not use his position with the organization to pursue or advance their personal interests.” It seems a reasonable proposition. I think most British Columbians would be assured that government is doing their level best to ensure that insiders don’t get special treatment.

So it’s with some satisfaction, I suppose, that I bring another issue to the floor for the minister and the Premier to respond to. That’s one Larry Blain, who would be known to the government as the transition coordinator of the 2001 Liberal election victory and later went on to become the CEO, and later the chair, of Partnerships B.C.

My question to the Premier is: did Larry Blain comply with the rules, as I just articulated them, with respect to members of government bodies ensuring that they were not in a conflict of interest?

Hon. M. de Jong: Let me say this, first of all, about the organization, one that we are immensely proud of, Partnerships B.C., which has really set the standard in Canada for the advancement of 3P procurements. Let me further say this about Mr. Blain and the time that he spent involved with that organization, which was a key time. His contribution to the advancement of 3Ps was incredibly important. The success of those programs speak for themselves in terms of the countless projects that were delivered on time and on budget.

Madame Speaker (Linda Reid): The Leader of the Official Opposition on a supplemental.

J. Horgan: A ringing endorsement from the Minister of Finance.

Mr. Blain’s career at Partnerships B.C. began when he was appointed the CEO in 2003. He remained in that position until the fall of 2010, when he stepped down as CEO and then became chair of the board. Then, five days later, Partnerships B.C. awarded a $95,000 contract to a company called Aardvark Insights.

Now, Aardvark Insights has one company director, and his name is Larry Blain. So that means, as I read it, that the chair of Partnerships B.C. and the board gave a contract to a contractor named Larry Blain. The chair of the board is also named Larry Blain. Perhaps the Premier or the Minister of Finance can clear up if that is, in fact, one and the same person.

Hon. M. de Jong: There are very clear guidelines in place that apply to Crown agencies, Crown corporations, that stipulate the circumstances under which procurements for both services and products must occur. We expect all agencies, Partnerships B.C. included, and all leaders within those agencies to comply with those guidelines.

Madame Speaker: The Leader of the Official Opposition on a further supplemental.

J. Horgan: Partnerships B.C., in defending what, in my opinion, is the indefensible, said that Mr. Blain recused himself from board meetings whenever they were discussing issues that he might have been consulting for on behalf of Partnerships B.C. So we did an inventory of the contracts that were let to Mr. Blain and the projects that he was working for. It seems odd to me that he would have recused himself from more meetings than he actually chaired, because he had so much involvement in each and every one of the projects.

As the minister outlined, Mr. Blain really was Partnerships B.C. It was his idea. The Liberals created Partnerships B.C. because he said it was a good idea. They paid him a princely sum — if princes are paid modest millions, a princely sum — over the course of a decade, and then, to put a cherry on top, when he stepped down from his service to the people of British Columbia and moved from the executive suite into the chairman’s suite, he gave himself a contract. That rings conflict of interest.

To the Premier: is this the type of government that she’s going to continue to run, one where insiders can give contracts to themselves?

Hon. M. de Jong: The code of conduct and the expectations of the government are clear. They require all agencies and the leadership within those agencies to comply with the very strict requirements around the procurement process.

[1415]

The standard actually extends beyond that. Not only are the requirements complied with to ensure that there is no conflict but also that there not be any appearance of conflict. That is the standard that we expect of all agencies. That is the standard that we expect of all those who lead those agencies.

C. James: The Finance Minister said this is about appearances and appearances of conflict. Well, appearances of conflict are all over this entire story. As a consultant for Partnerships B.C., Larry Blain advised other Crown corporations on various projects. In fact, in late 2011 B.C. Hydro billed Partnerships B.C. for work done by Aardvark Insights on Site C. One of the directors of B.C. Hydro was — wait for it — Larry Blain.

So just to recap, Partnerships B.C., chaired by Larry Blain, contracted with Aardvark Insights, owned by Larry Blain, which did consulting work for B.C. Hydro, governed by Larry Blain. Can the Minister of Finance tell us how, possibly, conflict-of-interest rules could have been followed with these intertwined relationships?

Hon. M. de Jong: The member may or may not be aware that the internal audit in the advisory services division conducted a review, as it has of a number of Crown agencies. It does so with the specific objective of ensuring that proper processes and procedures are being applied across the fold, including the procurement process.

Whilst one can suggest that by recusing and taking steps that are provided for that that is a means of ensuring that the procurement process is properly followed, the standard that we set and expect of agencies and the leadership within those agencies goes beyond that. There must not, not only not be a conflict; there must be no appearance of a conflict.

Madame Speaker: Victoria–Beacon Hill on a supplemental.

C. James: Let’s take a look at the B.C. Liberal standard. Between 2003 and 2010 Larry Blain was paid nearly $4 million as the CEO for Partnerships B.C. Then, as the chair, he billed $188,836 in fees and expenses. But that’s not all. Mr. Blain also served on the boards of the Transportation Investment Corporation, Powerex and B.C. Hydro, which paid him $264,000 for his services at the same time. So between director fees and expenses and Partnerships B.C. consulting contracts, Larry Blain received $621,000 from taxpayers over four years, all wearing different hats.

Can the Minister of Finance explain how Larry Blain was able to keep all of those various roles and reporting relationships appropriately separated?

Hon. M. de Jong: First of all, I think it bears emphasizing that the roles performed by Mr. Blain and the remuneration that he received were all in the public domain. So I would caution or at least observe that it would be inaccurate and unfair to suggest today that somehow this represents some kind of a revelation.

I will further say this about the work that Mr. Blain undertook on behalf of the province at Partnerships B.C. I can go through a list that begins with the Interior heart and surgical centre, the Cancer Centre for the North, the Canada Line….

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members.

Hon. M. de Jong: The examples of Partnerships-led projects that have set the standard for 3P procurement right across Canada, that ensured the taxpayers of British Columbia were well served, that saw those projects come in on time, on budget — sometimes ahead of schedule and under budget — is lengthy and one that we are very proud of in British Columbia.

[1420]

B. Ralston: There’s more. While wearing his Aardvark Insights hat and working as a consultant for Partnerships B.C., Mr. Blain also consulted for SaskBuilds, which is the Saskatchewan equivalent of Partnerships B.C. SaskBuilds paid Partnerships B.C. $150,000 to advise them on two long-term care and hospital projects, but it appears that Mr. Blain was also working as an independent consultant who obtained a contract directly from SaskBuilds for $18,000 on the very same projects.

The minister has spoken of no conflict and no appearance of conflict, so can he explain how Mr. Blain was able to work as chair of Partnerships B.C., as a contractor for Partnerships B.C. and a contractor with companies directly connected to Partnerships B.C. all at the same time?

Hon. M. de Jong: Well, let me say to the member and members opposite that I hope it’s no secret to them that the work undertaken by Partnerships B.C. garnered the attention of agencies right across Canada. We’re proud of that fact.

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Hon. Members.

Hon. M. de Jong: I should think that members would celebrate the fact that, for example, Canada’s furthest-northern airport sought advice from Partnerships B.C. on how to advance that procurement and construct the new airport in Nunavut. I don’t think there’s any secret. We’re very proud of the fact that Partnerships B.C. undertook their work in a way that garnered positive attention from not just across Canada but elsewhere in North America, and that’s a testament to the success of the 3P model here in British Columbia.

B. Ralston: Clearly, the Minister of Finance doesn’t want to grapple with the essence of these questions. When you wear as many hats as Larry Blain, things get quite confusing. He was working for SaskBuilds as a contractor. He’s working for SaskBuilds as a partnerships B.C. consultant and also serving as the chair of Partnerships B.C. He expensed trips to Saskatchewan in April, June and October of 2013 to Partnerships B.C.

The question to the Minister of Finance is multiple choice. Did Larry Blain bill Partnerships B.C. for his travel to Saskatchewan as (1) the chair of Partnerships B.C., (2) the president of Aardvark Insights, his company, contracted by Partnerships B.C. or as president of Aardvark Insights, consulting directly for SaskBuilds?

Hon. M. de Jong: The answer and the commitment remain the same, and the expectation remains the same — that agencies, Crown agencies, operating in British Columbia will do so and uphold the highest possible standard with respect to conflicts of interest and perceived conflicts of interest. That is the expectation of the agencies themselves and those that lead them.

K. Corrigan: What the minister is demonstrating is having absolutely no understanding of the importance of the separation of public and private in British Columbia. You’d think that Partnerships B.C. would have gone to great lengths to make it clear how Mr. Blain’s contract work was separate from his role as board chair, but when you look at the contract we obtained under FOI, what stands out is how utterly vague it is.

In 2010 Partnerships B.C. gave a half-page description outlining the services they expected, and after that, nothing. They amended the contract five times to increase the total value to $219,000 but never described what was expected for that money.

Does the Minister of Finance consider it to be best practice that Mr. Blain was given a four-year-plus consulting contract with no description of the services to be provided?

[1425]

Hon. M. de Jong: Well, what I have learned over the years is to be a little bit suspect about the documentation and the selective quotation from documentation that we are inclined to hear from the opposition in this chamber. I am more inclined to, at this stage, rely upon the findings of the internal audit review and report that was conducted with respect to Partnerships B.C. If the member has additional information that she wants to provide to me, I’m happy to look at it.

Madame Speaker: The member for Burnaby–Deer Lake on a supplemental.

K. Corrigan: I have seen that audit, and it expresses concern about conflict of interest. After the Michael Graydon conflict-of-interest fiasco, the minister pledged to ensure that other Crown corporations and government agencies were operating according to the highest standards. He pledged to ensure that the public would not be forced to question whether people in positions of authority were working in their own interests or in the public interest.

Can the minister tell the House how many other government agencies have made cozy contracts like Partnerships B.C.?

Hon. M. de Jong: Well, interesting that we learned in the supplemental question that the hon. member opposite has seen the report, or claims to have seen the report, and chooses to ignore the portions of the report that focus specifically on the issue that she has raised and indicate that those issues were generally well managed. The member can selectively try to present a story here.

I will repeat for her what I have said a few moments ago. The standard expectation of every single member of this government is that the highest code of conduct, as it relates to every feature of conducting public affairs, will be upheld by the agencies of government and by those who lead those agencies. That has been the case and will continue to be the case under this government.

 *****************
Auditor General Search Results:   Partnerships B.C.

 What to expect from a Financial Audit

 *****************

BC Legislature Hansard:

 Blain, Larry

Comments on school district projects (Corrigan) 8465
Transition from CEO position and potential conflict of interest (Corrigan) 8445 (de Jong) 8443-6 (Horgan) 8443-4 (James) 8444 (Ralston) 8445

*********************

By Andrew MacLeod 22 Apr 2008 | 

The Tyee’s Legislative Bureau chief in Victoria. You can reach him here.

'How Many Bottles of Wine to Build a Hospital?' | The Tyee

https://thetyee.ca/News/2008/04/22/WineForHealth/

Apr 22, 2008 - After it was revealed last year that Partnerships British Columbia Inc.'s CEO Larry Blain and others had enjoyed much wine and good food at ...

 ..... instead of judging whether the expenses were appropriate, the auditors checked to make sure the amounts paid out matched the supporting documentation, the approved forms were used and “that items are paid in accordance with policy.” They also compared the agency’s policies to the provincial government’s.

However, they carefully noted, “The above procedures do not constitute an audit of Partnerships British Columbia Inc.’s corporate and staff expenses and therefore we express no opinion on these amounts or on any of its individual account balances.”

‘Not an explanation’

Finance Minister Taylor and PBC’s board of directors had agreed on the limited scope of the investigation, said Davies. “That is all that’s planned.”

“It’s not an explanation, based on what you’ve just told me,” said the NDP’s Ralston. “What certainty do you have the items are even selected randomly? If you’re selecting randomly, who selected randomly? You could select to avoid the most embarrassing ones.”

More explanation is needed, he said, but the government is unlikely to insist on getting one. “It’s pretty typical of the political protection they apply to Partnerships B.C. It’s a favoured agency.”
 ....................

************************

Sean Holman's Public Eye:  Larry Blain