Showing posts with label corruption. Show all posts
Showing posts with label corruption. Show all posts

Saturday, October 23, 2010

William Berardino, or how biased and corrupt can a British Columbia Special Prosecutor be?

Anyone else outraged about the Basi & Virk BC Rail corruption scandal?

In the latest twist Bill Berardino, the Special Prosecutor of the case (who is in many ways `special`), brokered a deal that would have the accused Dave Basi and Bob Virk plead guilty to charges of corruption, and then foot the bill ($18 million and counting) to us, the taxpayer.

Does that pass the smell test to you?

Not to Getting It Right!

This Bill whose idea it was to send us the $18 million dollar bill, Mr. William Berardino, why doesn't he have these two criminals pay for it, or at least a big part of it?

Perhaps there's a better explanation of why Bill's ruling has sent Basi and Virk home smiling:
Rumour has it (it`s actually all over the internet) that Mr William Berardino isn't exactly that "free from any political interference whatsoever," as some would have us believe. William Berardino is exceptionally well connected with the BC Liberals government, especially for someone who is supposed to be impartial:
Weird, eh? Sorry for repeating myself here, but the main reason for hiring an independent Special Prosecutor is his independence. Now this guy is clearly not independent, far from it. Mr. William Berardino has been buddies with the BC Liberals political elite for years. And those BC Liberals are exactly the same club of people that Basi and Virk were working for!

You would think that a not-so-independent Special Prosecutor would at least try to act as carefully as possible to not (cough) appear biased, right?

Not this joker.

In May 2005, about 1.5 years after being asked for the case, William Berardino's own firm Berardino's & Harris donated $500 to BC Liberal candidate and future Attorney General Wally Opal.
Berardino [said] he was asked to attend a fundraising breakfast for [Oppal]. He said the donation has no impact on his handling of the case.
That might well be true, but spending meals with and giving donations to a BC Liberal and future Attorney General while being a prosecutor on such a massive corruption scandal involving BC Liberal aids, let's just say such blatant mingling with BC Liberals doesn't look good for any prosecutor, and definitely not for a Special Prosecutor.

An investigation by the BC Law Society (not particularly independent themselves, and known for whitewashing the misconduct of their own members) concluded (surprise, surprise) no (legal) misconduct had taken place. But on the real issue here, conflict of interest, the BC Law Society was silent and never commented.

Let me repeat it again: obviously, donating moneys to one of the parties (yes, the BC Liberal Party had hired Basi and Virk) under investigation is a serious conflict of interest (apparent or otherwise).

Wait, there's more:

The latest blunder happened only days ago. William Berardino was caught informing the BC Liberal government about a possible plea deal:

Read the Times Colonist (before they covered up this detail):
"But when special prosecutor Bill Berardino made the B.C. government aware on Oct. 5 that he had proposed to let the two men plead guilty, it fell to the deputy minister of finance, Graham Whitmarsh, and Loukidelis to figure out whether they would actually have to come up with the money, Loukidelis's statement read."
Paul Willcocks has excellent comment on the above (emphases mine):
Why would the special prosecutor "make the government aware" of his plea offer?
[If] the special prosecutor is briefing the government of his plans, he is no longer independent. 
Telling the government of plans to seek a plea bargain, for example, invites interference. Either by proposing a different strategy or, as in this case, offering financial inducements to encourage a guilty plea.
Well said, Paul.

So how biased and corrupt is William Berardino, this Special Prosecutor of the BC Rail corruption case? Hard to say, but let's just say William Berardino did very little to avoid the (cough) appearance of bias, which is supposed to be the main reason for hiring a Special Prosecutor.

No doubt in my mind that some other, more sinister reasons have played its part in hiring William Berardino as a Special Prosecutor.

What idiot did make the decision to hire Berardino, someone that is so well connected to the BC Liberals? What? Geoff Plant, the former Attorney General and BC Liberal? Oh, now I see why this is called the BC Rail corruption trial.

I rest my case.

Recall in the fall? You bet ya!

Read more:


Saturday, August 08, 2009

Best comment of the day: BC HST is good for corporations, bad for the rest of us

This from "blurredbyitall":

What Hansen should have said was that $1.9 billion of the corporate sector's share of paying for public services and infrastructure (that they use too) will be loaded onto already-overburdened BC citizens/taxpayers. The Liberal's communications machine will be cranking out spin til we drown in it.
Yes, that's the best way to sum the BC HST up. Read all the comments here:
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/british-columbia/story/2009/08/07/bc-statistics-canada-unemployment-hansen.html#socialcomments

LINKS
- CBC: Gordon Campbell's BC Liberals are flirting with the rich and fucking the rest of us, again.


Monday, December 08, 2008

Harper is liar; national outrage confirms he needs to be removed

Given that Ed Broadbent hasn't been sued by Stephen Harper yet (and we all know Harper loves to sue over "nothing"), we can now be confident to assume that Harper is, yes, a liar.

In Ed Broadbent's own words, "They lie. I repeat. They pay people to lie about other people, and destroy things."

Don't believe it? Here's Ed Broadbent on the CBC:


h/t BCer in Toronto

LINKS:
- Wikipedia: Ed Broadbent
- BCer in Toronto: Harper is a liar
- Why Harper should be in jail

Monday, June 23, 2008

Do the Nader challenge (video)

Have you done the Nader Challenge?

Which Presidential candidate would eliminate the billions of dollars in corporate welfare we pay every year to the ethanol industry?

"Obama!"
Wrong. (According to today's New York Times, Obama actually has very close ties to corn ethanol industry - an industry that Ralph Nader has called "a multifaceted monstrosity radiating damage in all directions of the compass.")

Many people still consider Obama the progressive candidate in the race.

He's not.

He's just another corporate candidate.

Who's the progressive in the race?

Ralph Nader.

To drive home the point, today we launch The Nader Challenge.

Check out the video here.

Who favors single payer national health insurance?

Obama!

Wrong.

Nader/Gonzalez.

Who favors cutting the bloated, wasteful military budget?

"Obama!"

Wrong.

Nader/Gonzalez.



Thursday, June 05, 2008

Stephen Harper the briber...(reloaded)

...when will he be removed from office?

That post on the Cadman bribery was written March 6th, almost 3 months ago.

It's about time the opposition starts beating the drum for removal of this corrupt government. The Bernier scandal is one thing, but the Cadman bribery really shows how corrupt this current government is. And it's coming all the way from the PMO.

Thursday, March 06, 2008

The NDP and the Cadman bribe: "Tommy Douglas must be spinning in his grave like a lathe"

Not my words, but those of Don MacNeil:

Tommy Douglas must be spinning in his grave like a lathe.

The former leader of the New Democratic leader, chosen as the Greatest Canadian of all-time, would be shocked to find out what his party under Jack Layton has devolved into.

This week the New Democratic Party of Canada has decided it will not support an Ethics Committee investigation into the Chuck Cadman Affair.
Yes, yes, we know this. Anything else about the NDP?
Pat Martin, an NDP representative on the House of Commons Ethics Committee, says the Cadman affair is not “a good fit for the ethics committee” and that the Royal Canadian Mounted Police should investigate.

Pat Martin and the NDP may be the last people who still have faith in the Mounties. The Liberals have also asked the RCMP to look into the matter as well, but have also proposed it go to the Ethics Committee. The Bloc Québecois support the Liberals but Jack Layton and the Conservatives oppose public committee hearings into allegations of bribery leveled against the prime minister.
I agree, it's weird for the NDP to fully trust the RCMP. By the way, on other corruption files the NDP had no problem handing it over to an ethics commission first. Double standards for sure.
The Cons motives are obvious. The same could be said about the Liberals and Bloc but the puzzling thing to some is why the Dippers aren’t willing to get to go along.

The conventional wisdom has the NDP in league with the Harper Gang in trying to silence the Chuck Cadman Affair, because they are afraid the only beneficiary, politically, of the whole scandal will be the Liberal Party and the New Democrats would rather be complicit in a cover-up than risk being hurt politically.
Indeed, we can't trust the NDP on the Cadman file. Shame on the NDP!
Pretty strong language, I agree, but then again it’s a pretty strong topic. This has the makings of the greatest Canadian political scandal since the Pacific Scandal that brought the end to the first Conservative government of John A. Macdonald.

So the question (again) is why is Jack Layton running interference for Stephen Harper? If the answer turns out to be for purely personal partisan gain than Layton and Martin have hands as dirty as they allege the Harper Gang’s are.
Exactly! Dirty hands are appearing everywhere I look.
Also the NDP are coming off a bribery scandal their own.
Really?
One where they had to apologize in the House of Commons and pay a cash settlement to a Liberal candidate in the last election that they accuse of trying to bribe one of his rivals. The story was a complete fabrication by a NDP candidate and the party paid a heavy price, both financially, and what would be more important to Tommy Douglas, to their reputation as being the conscious of the commons.

It might be something they want to avoid as the Cadman Affair may do collateral damage to Jack Layton’s political objectives.
Read the whole story: It's not too late to build a better world

Stephen Harper the briber: when will he be removed from office?

It's time for our elected members to act. Canada is currently being governed by a Prime Minister who has been caught bribing. How much longer will it take before he's being removed from office, one way or another?

Leave your estimated number of days in the comments section; thank you

Sunday, March 02, 2008

Harper's ordering of Cadman bribery is a criminal offence

Doesn't Harper know that ordering the bribing of an MP is a criminal offence?

Just read the Criminal Code of Canada, section 119:

Corruption and Disobedience

Bribery of judicial officers, etc.

119. (1) Every one is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding fourteen years who

(a) being the holder of a judicial office, or being a member of Parliament or of the legislature of a province, directly or indirectly, corruptly accepts, obtains, agrees to accept or attempts to obtain, for themselves or another person, any money, valuable consideration, office, place or employment in respect of anything done or omitted or to be done or omitted by them in their official capacity, or

(b) directly or indirectly, corruptly gives or offers to a person mentioned in paragraph (a), or to anyone for the benefit of that person, any money, valuable consideration, office, place or employment in respect of anything done or omitted or to be done or omitted by that person in their official capacity.
Yes, you read that right, directly or indirectly. And although Stephen Harper did not bribe Chuck directly (which explains Chuck's denial that money was offered when conversing with Harper directly), he surely ordered two of his party members, Conservatives Tom Flanagan (close confidant of Stephen Harper) and Doug Finley (Director of Political Operations, Conservative Party of Canada), to do so.



The evidence can be found in the Zytaruk recording (mp3).

When the author asked Harper if "there was an insurance policy for a million dollars", Harper explained his own involvement with Chuck Cadman as follows:
Um, I don't know the details [...] but [several individuals legitimately representing the Conservative Party] were [...] convinced there [were] financial issues. [...]

I mean, you have this theory that it's, you know, financial insecurity and [...] if that's what you're saying, make that case but don't press it. [...]

But the, uh, the offer [of an insurance policy in return for Chuck's vote] was only to replace financial considerations he might lose due to an election."
"Make that case but don't press it", doesn't that sound like an order coming from the top? And that's an order for bribery.

LINKS
- Criminal Code of Canada
- Buckdog: Transcript Of Harper Interview With Author Zytaruk Shows Contradictions With Tories Current Claims
- Wikipedia: Chuck Cadman
- Wikipedia: Tom Flanagan
- Audio: Zytaruk recording
- The Turner Report: "Shame"