🚀 go-pugleaf

To: samuel@cs.ubc.ca (Stephen Samuel)
Subject: Re: Cram witness muzzled
Newsgroups: bc.general,can.legal,misc.legal,alt.conspiracy

In article <samuel-120694220502@samuel.home.cs.ubc.ca> you wrote:
: In article <2sr34d$kb0@cyberspace.com>, sarmad@cyberspace.com (sam sarmad)
: wrote:

: > Where did you hear about this case and it's history? I have not had an 
: > opportunity to fully read your 2 posts but from the brief look I had  I 
: > got the impression that there is a gag order and I have not seen or heard 
: > anything about it.  I do follow cases like that in the B.C. courts as I 
: > have had some interesting experiences of my own with certain attornies.

: No, there isn't an explicit gag order on it. It does, however seem destined
: to qualify for the "10 most underreported stories in Canada" list. Little
: wonder, though - If the story has a basis of truth to it, anybody with the
: resources to subvert (multiple) key positions of the BC legal system is
: likely to have the ability to keep it as quiet as possible.

: There has been some reporting of it, but the stories in the sun and
: province have tended to focus more on the rumors spread by cram's opponents
: that he is medically unstable, et. al. then they have on his allegations,
: and those of his clients (one of whom he was jailed trying to assist).

: There have, however been at least one decent story on this in the Georgia
: Straight, and there was a relatively sympathetic editorial in the Vancouver
: Sun (and an apparently vitriolic op-ed from the BC Law Society - one of the
: institutions that cram is sueing)

As I said I had a brief look. My family live in vancouver and I am 
Seattle visiting B.C. quite a bit.  Since I am not familiar with the 
whole thing I can not justly comment on this case.  I have, however, been 
personally been involved in a case in B.C. where there were perjured 
material filed by other parties, justice was subverted, etc. and it "went 
unnoticed" by the judge (sarcastic quotes since every one that has seen 
the stuff have shook their heads).  Guess who it involved before going to 
the court?  The Honourable Ted Hughes (who reported on Vander Z.).  Teddy 
the bear said that endangerment of human life by the police do not 
constitue complaints under the Police Act and REFUSED TO PUT IT IN 
WRITING.  He must have been tired of writing reports.  there are cases 
now pending to deal with their crap.  More may come in the U.S. courts.