Pickton Inquiry Results Will be Explosive

Robert (Willy) Pickton is a monster who deserves to spend every day of his life in a dark, dank prison cell. His horrendous crimes have no equal in Canadian history and the image of Pickton on video tape casually admitting to forty-nine murders is bone chilling.

While some were relieved when the sordid criminal proceedings finally ended in 2007, to others the conviction of Pickton merely signaled the beginning of the next chapter- a public inquiry which has now begun, led by former Attorney-General and Court of Appeal Justice, Wally Oppal.

But it has not been smooth sailing for Mr. Oppal. Initially his appointment to head the inquiry was challenged by those who believed he was too close to government and as a former crown prosecutor and head of B.C.’s criminal justice branch, there existed a reasonable apprehension of bias.

There is no doubt some of the crown’s decisions in the Pickton case will face intense scrutiny. Why did the crown stay attempted murder charges against Pickton in 1998? The victim, a sex trade worker, was deemed by them to be an unreliable witness. In hindsight this decision was catastrophic because fourteen more women went missing between 1998 and 2002, when Pickton was arrested.

When the crown announced they would not hold a second trial for twenty other women whose DNA was found on Pickton’s farm, the families of these mothers, wives, sisters and aunts, were astounded there was no justice for their loved ones.

The fact that another trial would cost millions of dollars and Pickton was already serving a life sentence made the crown decision a sensible one that was lost on the remaining victims’ families. Their position was understandable but raised other questions- Would a trial have proceeded if Pickton’s victims had been middle-class white women?

The B.C. government’s latest decision not to fund legal assistance for four non-profit groups who were granted the right to participate in the inquiry is wrongheaded, particularly in light of the $5.2 million dollars that was doled out to Air India suspect Ripudaman Singh Malik, who later stiffed the government. The crown then spent thousands of dollars to get a court decision compelling Malik to pay, a case that ended up in the Supreme Court of Canada.

Not to mention the $6 million dollars provided to former government employees Basi and Virk for their defence in the BC Rail case.

I believe the harshest criticism will be levelled against the Vancouver Police Department and the RCMP, who have already admitted they made major mistakes, most notably their decision to ignore the warnings from highly skilled VPD officer Kim Rossmo, whose prediction that a serial killer was at work got lost in the internal animosity that enveloped the department.

You can expect the details of the botched police investigation to be sensational.

In the meantime, I hope the aboriginal groups who have now withdrawn from the inquiry will find pro bono counsel to assist them. Their participation is crucial to a full and forthright investigation into what went wrong.

Lawdiva aka Georgialee Lang

Advertisements

11 thoughts on “Pickton Inquiry Results Will be Explosive

  1. Crimony! It embarrasses me to see you put up such twitter commentary. You actually use pejorative to describe the penal conditions you would presumably like to see suffered by R W Picton, as if he had done you personal harm!

    Not quite, sista!

    Dare I to presume you are not of “aboriginal” birth? Not “homeless” either by chance or choice? Not a “crack” alcohol, or other, addict? Not a “whore”, or at least not commonly available for hire for sexual services?

    So! You would not commonly even faintly associate with such wretched females.

    But, you can adopt the pose when it suits you.

    And what about dear Willie, as you call him the greatest mass-murderer in Canadian history? Know him at all? Ever bother to check? Or, would you rather not risk breaking a nail?

    I know one person who was familiar with the family at the time. Says they’re straight up business people. Robert William was not, and is not, the sharpest tool in the Picton family shed. Love him as they might, none of his siblings would claim ‘intelligence’ as one of his prominent characteristics.

    “I’m just the patsy!” I recall LH Oswald saying, shortly before he was publicly murdered by a Mafia associate. Odd indeed that nobody has explained likewise how “not so sharp” Willie managed to attain the exalted title of the “baddest” killer.

    Were the male psyche not so lost on you, you might readily have recognized Willie’s taped “confession” as the blow hard, blowing hard. Normally, this type of bragging, however improbable, is followed by a chorus of “You’re the BADDEST, Willie! Buy us another round, and tell us MORE!”

  2. Georgialee, I found your commentary on the Pickton case informative and highly analytical of the unfortunate factors that contributed to a lack of justice for the slain women. You have done much in the way of offering your time, energy and legal expertise to women–of all ethnicities, including your pro bono clinic on the lower east side of Vancouver–and it’s unfortunate that certain individuals take pride in targeting your character as a weak attempt to question the logic of your argument. While it’s easy to be a critic on the outside, I admire you for having the courage to discuss this high-profile case as someone who is very much a leading member of the B.C. legal scene. As someone who judges a person by their actions, I admire you for your ability to “tell it like it is” and for your conviction.

  3. Hokey Dinah. I don’t know what got DWMillar’s knickers so twisted. His attacking of your post is somewhat displaced. Amy’s analysis of the post is more reality based. A Caucasian without a drug addiction can in fact have compassion for someone from another race with a drug addiction. Indeed they should. That dig was somewhat irrelevant.

    However, my concern with the inquiry is that it is in fact limited to the concerns you raised. For that reason I refer to it as the Red Herring Inquiry. For me the huge scandal is the Judge’s direction to the jury. Pickton could still be convicted even if he wasn’t the only offender as long as he was an active participant. I do believe Robert Pickton was guilty. I just don’t believe he acted alone and I’m not talking about Dinah Taylor. I’m talking about the bigger picture. The one that involves the big red machine.

  4. Tom and Amy

    Thank you for your supportive comments. Mr. Millar regularly posts his comments, none of which are particularly flattering!

    Tom, you need to expand on your “red herring” theory? Tell me more!

  5. OK, weepers! What I am ANGRY at is the perversion of law that exists in the “legal” “community” (i.e. organized criminal groups of lawyers) as a result of the idiotic “femmunist” ideology.

    For greater clarity, what I mean by “femmunists” are the half-witted and perverted FEMALES such as were present and participating in the now notorious “Women and the Law” “Symposium” that occurred around 1991 in Vancouver. It gave preference and prominence to LESBIANS and other sexually perverted ideas, and BARRED such rational female groups as “REAL WOMEN” FROM PARTICIPATING.

    Of course, such females as these (to include Kim Campbell, who signed off on the “Symposium’s” final published report – ask for it in your library- though they might have been thrown out 5 years ago, their evil work done) are leading the lunch at the public teat (hence the ‘mmunist’ I mockingly distort the invented word ‘feminism’ to allude to its underlying “communism” – its willingness to pervert democratic government with “guaranteed” Rights and Freedoms to a blunt instrument to use against the general population, in service of their demented ideology).

    And don’t forget, this so-called “symposium” was actually a lunatic lynch-mob, that barred Real Women from even speaking, because their reasonable truth would conflict with their plan in assembling the so-called “Symposium”. (From “sumpotes” – “fellow drinker” [in this case, of this ideological Kool – Aid]) In the end result, within 7 years of that wretched event, the proto-commies of the NDP published a great many illegal laws, in concert with the further “legal” gerrymandering of Law Diva professional associates, in Canada, and still continuing in implementing around the world (as a revenue generator for lawyers).

    “What illegal laws?” you gasp indignantly. For simplicity’s sake (and I count Law Diva and her purportedly legally knowledgeable supporters here, among the simpletons needing extensive explanation of the obvious), to use but one for an example, ALL HUMAN RIGHTS LAWS are forbidden by the Canadian Constitution.

    (You’ll just have to imagine me waiting patiently for the gasps, and cries of wretched indignation from chuckle-headed clowns to die down.) Yes. Sec. 2 of the Constitution of Canada (1982) states very early on in its composition (therefore, via primacy, most importantly):

    “Fundamental freedoms
    2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:
    (a) freedom of conscience and religion;
    (b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;
    (c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and
    (d) freedom of association.”

    AND, just so we’ll just know just for whom these are restrictions are imposed upon:

    “Application of Charter
    32. (1) This Charter applies
    (a) to the Parliament and government of Canada in respect of all matters within the authority of Parliament including all matters relating to the Yukon Territory and Northwest Territories; and
    (b) to the legislature and government of each province in respect of all matters within the authority of the legislature of each province.”

    BUT, YET!

    The government of Canada and all provinces in Canada have adopted and adapted to suit their purpose “Human Rights” legislation as if it were lawful to impose the restrictions the Canadian Constitution IMPOSED ON GOVERNMENT. So! The Human Rights laws are nothing more than TREASON.

    (Don’t bother smugly pointing out to me that treason is now restricted by legislation to punching QEII in the face, or worse. I know that was done to facilitate this.)

    However. Pardon me for reverting to actual law once again:

    “Primacy of Constitution of Canada
    52. (1) The Constitution of Canada is the supreme law of Canada, and any law that is inconsistent with the provisions of the Constitution is, to the extent of the inconsistency, of no force or effect.”

    Here are two things I know about prominent lawyers and their big mouths:

    Jean Chretien as Prime Minister of Canada, said: ‘I will never invoke the notwithstanding clause of the Charter.’ (i.e. sec.33 of the Constitution of 1982)

    Her Majesty, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada, Beverly McLachlin, from the extra-national immunity of a foreign country, lectured foreign law students around Christmas (2004?) that, “there are higher laws than the Constitution”.

    Again, pardon me for condescending to the intelligence of the readers here to explain. The Prime Minister has NO AUTHORITY to nullify ANY PART of the Constitution of Canada. Since he had, blatantly and repeatedly, transparently lied to the electorate, he was not called to the carpet for his treason, just retired to his law firm again, and still as a senior partner. Queen Beverly has not yet been called to account for her treason. Louis XIV had been scandalized for correctly stating “L’etat c’est moi”. No one (save, perhaps, moi) has yet scandalized Justice McLachlin for saying, “The Law is ME”, but there you have what she said, approximately when, and sort of where (South Africa?), and the treason of it.

    To say nothing of the half million dollars a year the taxpayer still has to pay for the insult of her appointment.

    Now, let me tell you this. A five-year-old could understand everything I have written ABOUT LAW above, and would have no choice but to agree that I have read and understand, and merely expressed, the simple and clear language of constitutional documents.

    The “legal” “profession” is composed chiefly of perverts. I believe it is now a majority of sexual perverts (i.e. lesbians and homosexuals -c.f. The Symposium of Women and the Law, as above), and where they are not openly lesbian or homosexual, they continue nonetheless to pervert meaning in language. Hence all this crap about the Human Right of homosexuals to marry. Lesbian lawyers behind it, except for a few additional homosexual lawyers to boot.

    The ultimate perversion of “marriage” is to apply it to homosexual “couples” as if legal.

    There is no need to worry about whether my underwear is “in a twist”. I was born righteous, and haplessly will remain that way as long as life persists in this persecuted body. The only thing that’s “in a twist” is the operation of law in the hands of lawyers in (inter alia) Canada. Do not think that I will desist from speaking the truth despite that delusions conveniently persist among its ‘legal’ authors.

    Debate me at your peril. Or! Do the old Women’s Symposium trick versus Real Women! BAR ME FROM SPEAKING!

    It’s will still be true! The Emperor has no clothes!

  6. Mr. Millar: Dude, this is a prime example why we shouldn’t be handing out crack pipes in Vancouver. A homophobe stalker of the law diva with a very strange hate for human rights. Wow. The freedom of religion is a human right. The freedom of association is a human right. The freedom of speech is a human right. None of those are treason, nor are they illegal according to the charter. Sorry if my gasp was a yawn.

    Jean Chretien lied? Heaven forbid. Not like Gordo Campbell ever lied about promising not to implement the gold plated pension or how Harper promised not to tax income trusts. Lying is what politicians do. What makes a lesbian or a homosexual a pervert and what makes heterosexuals except?

    A lesbian or a homosexual in a committed relationship is committed. Many heterosexuals are not. Heterosexuals can also be pedophiles. That I would say is perverted. All lawyers are perverts? No offence but I don’t like many lawyers myself yet to make that kind of an over generalized stereotype is rather absurd. It sounds like there is a long list of toxic issues festering in your puzzled mind sir.
    BTW none of that had anything to do with the subject of the thread.

  7. “Tom Jones”, is it? I take you for a colossal poser. Not a very bright (i.e. intelligent) one, either. Just dealing with your first paragraph, poser, get this:

    1) I am not yours to call “dude”.
    2) Crack pipes are not now, nor have they ever been ‘handed out’ in the GVRD, except perhaps by crack dealers. Your simple mind is easily confused. It is the handing out of sterile needles for self-injection that has been, and is, happening. That has caused some opposing public outcry, which is perhaps what stuck in your fractured mind.
    3) You should be aware, as someone who chooses to speak in public, that a “witticism” needs to be witty to be appreciated by your purported audience.
    4) I am not a “homophobe”, you twit, and you have no reason to call me such. The word you so carelessly used (again, twit!), means “fear of homosexuals”, and trust me, I fear very little. I despise homosexuals, because I am ALL TOO familiar with them. They are sexual perverts and should have remained on the DSM definition of mental afflictions, as well. Every one is a vanity. Polymorphous perversion is theirs but that is not a “right”. Not constitutionally, nor by statute law.
    5) Do tell how writing in opposition to pretentiousness and patent stupidity is “stalking”.
    6) I “hate” human rights? I said Canadian human rights codes are UNCONSTITUTIONAL. I acknowledge that you are intellectually retarded, but you persist in public speaking your gibberish, so I feel obliged to do my best to shepherd you towards the obvious truth.
    7) The Constitution of Canada in its first 32 sections defines the Charter, the inalienable rights and freedoms of all Canadians (all persons under Canadian law).
    8) The “Application of the Charter” s.32 declares that the Charter applies to every level, every aspect, of ALL government in Canada. NOT ITS CITIZENS (you twit!).
    9) “Human Rights” legislation seeks to impose Charter restrictions upon the people of Canada. The very rights, the “fundamental freedoms”, that are guaranteed by section 2 (among others) of the Charter. Again, “you twit!”
    9) The fact that your gasp is a yawn means that you should wtfu before speaking in public. You twit!
    10) Way to stand up for queers, socialists, and other ignoramuses! You are desperately stupid.

  8. Yo man you are rude and you are a stalker. That makes you a dude and a dud. Vancouver does have a plan to hand out free crack pipes: http://news.ca.msn.com/top-stories/free-crack-pipes-to-be-handed-out-in-vancouver-2

    You are a homophobe. You came off with a bizarre rant about the legal profession being composed mostly of perverts because they are mostly gay and the ones who aren’t support gay marriage. Despising homosexuals is what everyone else describes as a homophobe. You’re stalking the law diva and posting rude trash over and over again. You referred to a lunatic lynch mob when you yourself are, dare I say, a flaming lunatic yourself. Take the board out of your own eye. It is better to light one candle.

    You use name calling when someone proves you wrong. That is very juvenile. You said ALL HUMAN RIGHTS LAWS are forbidden by the Canadian Constitution. That is nonsense. The Charter of rights and freedoms is a list of human rights. It is very simple and when you resort to name calling when someone points out the obvious that simply means there is nothing left to discuss.

    “ Way to stand up for queers, socialists” you say? Indeed I shall. In Germany first they came for the Socialists: http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php?ModuleId=10007392

    The freedom of association is also a human right. Welcome to the real world.

  9. “Tom Jones”. Just the ‘nom de queer’ of a poser, I’m afraid. David Millar is the name my parent kindly gave me. I am loath to us any other. So, ….

    Unfortunately (if predictably) for you, you don’t follow your own links. Otherwise, you would not have proved me correct to say they never have, nor do they now, hand out crack pipes to crack addicts in Greater Vancouver.

    The fact that you would be aware of this tentative plan nevertheless to do this “later this year” kind of makes me think you are an ND Peeper. I am, unfortunately, as familiar with drug addicts as I am with homosexuals. I have nothing kind to say of drug addicts, either. Drugs are not the problem, the person is. Never met an addict that was not a sociopath. The drug ‘de jour’ is not important, the fact that they want it is, in fact, the only thing. The fact you will not give all your treasure (such as that may be) to them, to further their desire to feast on their desire, would mark you as worthless to them. And, subject to their unmitigated abuse.

    Again, I sense the stink of NDP is on you because your evident homosexuality (whether you are, in fact, male or female) finds comfort in the NDP’s all-too-healthy number of queers; and, your glib willingness to support this misguided “medical” move to sustain derelicts in their dereliction. Like a crack whore yourself, you would strip the taxpayer of their sometime hard-earned gains in order to sustain your sense of being a “more human” human than the most of us. A superior (albeit in your own mind), long suffering, being.

    I’m guessing the notion that “health care” workers handing out crack pipes is more of a political self-employment posture of existing, or potential, government employees than an actual health care strategy. Being a socialist, you would never grasp that. You are, I think, far more likely to keel over to an ideological argument than a logical one (and always, you with what you think is your ‘morally’ “superior” position).

    I have repeatedly cited the actual law to you, but you haven’t the brain to comprehend that I merely quote the actual law. You haven’t the wit to understand that (or the actual truth is unsatisfactory to you). If “equality at law” is one of the fundamental legal rights guaranteed to all persons by the Constitution of Canada, then special laws to “protect” homosexuals from “hate crimes”are patently unconstitutional.

    You are so perverted that you are unwilling (more likely unable) to comprehend that the chief oppressor of human beings has ALWAYS been the government (i.e. ANY government), and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (like the still abiding Canadian Bill of Rights before it) imposes restrictions only on the government, not any of its restrictions are imposed on the people.

    It takes “Human Rights” legislation to do that, and that is a crime. Or at least, of “no lawful force or effect”. (per s.52 of he Constitution of Canada (1982). (You twit!)

    Actual lawyers, such as I believe our “Law Diva” to be, do not engage in any argument with me. Particularly on matters of law, ‘though I am surely no lawyer. That is not to say they don’t understand me. They do only too well. I am bad for the legal business; The little child in the fable who cried out, “The Emperor isn’t wearing any clothes!”

    I an go on some about this. Forty percent of the legal trade is in “Family Law”. Perhaps you’ve heard the one about the “Goose that Laid the Golden Eggs”?

    However. This concludes my conversation with you, “Tom Jones”. Good luck with your most important mission, finding a brain.

  10. DM: Vandu does hand our free crack pipes. Now the City is planning on doing it. There’s nothing else for me to discuss. My position stands. You are a flaming lunatic and a hate monger. Good luck with that.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s