Thursday, March 17, 2016

Prima facie

Prima facie may be used as an adjective meaning: "Sufficient to establish a fact or raise a presumption unless disproved or rebutted."

Listen to Dermod Travis of Integrity BC talking with Ian Jessop, then consider the definition shown above.

A note from Rafe Mair, the award winning broadcaster who remains unafraid of holding political feet to the fire:
If you rather enjoy sleazy politics with Liberal Party friends very handsomely rewarded indeed at public expense by a government that lies intuitively and constantly, wow do you live in the right province as this article demonstrate!

All others, read it and weep.

B.C. Liberals Have Mastered The Art Of Returning Donors' Favours, Dermod Travis, Executive Director, IntegrityBC

Recommend this post


  1. "Prima facia" the latin term, as defined above, opens the door, to the further definition and perhaps, a fundemental opening for prosecution of corruption in governance in this province. The definition of "organized crime" is " a monopoly over a source of revenue "allowed" by a closed group of people to systematically and in some cases, criminally benefit." Law commission of Canada, 1998.
    What are the lines that define "legitimate" transactions and "criminal" transactions, and therefore corruption?
    How can the RCMP, who are contracted to provide services to B.C., investigate and criminally charge members of a sitting government? Are they not in a conflict of interest, and in a contractual relationship, with what can only be described as an organized criminal entity, serving as a political party, and currently leading a so called "democratic" government?
    If they are not part of the solution, are they not part of the problem?
    Given that Quebec and its corruption enquiry, along with the indendent anti corruption squad, has had such great success in prosecuting former politicians and other criminal elements within the previous governments there, how do we establish just such a commission? John Horgan, are you listening? The evidence, as shown in this blog and others, is crucial in determining, the depth and intricacies of the malfeasance occurring, and to the scale of the corruption.

  2. The question of conflict of influence between BC Liberals and the RCMP was raised at the 2002 trial where former premier Glen Clark was absolved of charges. Rod Mickleburgh reported in the Globe & Mail.

    Trial probes RCMP conflict

    [begin quote]
    An RCMP officer with connections to top-level B.C. Liberals was involved in the decision to reopen a police investigation into former NDP premier Glen Clark, Mr. Clark's breach of trust trial heard yesterday.

    An earlier police probe had decided no further action was necessary.

    RCMP Inspector William Ard testified that he consulted Staff Sergeant Peter Montague about the matter and both agreed that a renewed police investigation was warranted into anonymous complaints about Mr. Clark's role in a casino licence application.

    Staff Sgt. Montague was twice asked by Liberal Leader Gordon Campbell to run for the party in the past.

    On the witness stand, Insp. Ard agreed that his fellow officer was also a "very, very good friend" of Liberal cabinet minister Gordon Hogg.

    Despite Staff Sgt. Montague's connections to the Liberal party, Insp. Ard said that he appointed him as one of two officers to investigate the allegations against Mr. Clark.

    Mr. Clark's lawyer David Gibbons questioned Insp. Ard about the decision.

    "Didn't it strike you as not a good idea to have somebody with political interests like Montague examining key witnesses? Didn't that strike you as a concern?" Mr. Gibbons asked.

    "Yes, it was [a concern]" Insp. Ard replied.

    Because his approach might not be as professional because of mixed interests," Mr. Gibbons suggested...[end quote}

    Robin Mathews wrote in Up To Their Armpits In Sleaze: The RCMP, And The BC Rail Scandal,

    "Peter Montague is recorded as saying (on a to-be training film at the site) that the RCMP are experts in 'disinformation' and 'smear'."

    During much of the Campbell/Clark transition, BC was negotiating a 20-year service agreement with the RCMP. That multi-billion dollar contract was a useful lever to ensure the police force kept BC Liberals happy. Now, the RCMP and the BC Government are arguing about who's paying for what at the new $1 billion plus RCMP headquarters in Surrey.

    In a different universe, two parties joined in an argument over hundreds of millions, even billions, of dollars would be seen to be in conflict. But, in British Columbia, few worry about conflicts and, when others do, a good friend is asked to resolve the issue by finding no conflict ever existed.

  3. We then have a previous incident that can only be described as suspicious circumstances in a supposedly "concluded" investigation.
    The message is clear. The contractural relationship, with regards to a 20 year contract, places the RCMP, in a potential conflict, with investigating BC Liberal party corruption. How and when will the ability of the RCMP to actually investigate corruption, in this government be conducted, and will the investigation be impartial? As can be seen above, in Glen Clark's case, the RCMP, could not possible conduct an investigation, given party connections.
    An outside Investigative Police agency, will have to be brought in to investigate BC Liberal members, ministers, and potentially party financial supporters, to properly conduct a "non biased, non conflicting" corruption investigation. The appearance of a politically compromised Police authority, being incapable of investigating a "rogue" possible criminally infiltrated government, is obvious from the above Glenn Clark case and commentary provided.



This is an archive only of items published before April 22, 2016. These and newer articles are available at:

If you read an article at this blogger site, you can comment on it at the new site.

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.