Jeff J. Brown
Sixteen years on the streets, living and working with the people of China, Jeff
Downloadable SoundCloud podcast (also at the bottom of this page), Brighteon, iVoox, RuVid, as well as being syndicated on iTunes, Stitcher Radio, (links below),
• Brighteon Video Channel: https://www.brighteon.com/channels/jeffjbrown
lMPORTANT NOTICE: Technofascism is already here! I’ve been de-platformed by StumbleUpon (now Mix), Reddit and Parler. I am being heavily censored by Facebook, Twitter and YouTube. It’s only a matter of time before they de-platform me too. Please start using Britghteon for my videos, then connect with me via other social media listed below, especially VK, Telegram and WeChat, which are not part of the West’s MSM Big Lie Propaganda Machine (BLPM).
Note before starting: this is Number Two of a four-part exposé covering Meng Wanzhou and Huawei. Here is the first one,
Also, while Canada really gets taken to task here, injustice and “legal” corruption are hallmarks across Eurangloland, including my two countries, the USA and France.
Calling Perry Mason.
When I was a child growing up in the United States, there was the incredibly successful courtroom drama television series, Perry Mason (1957-1966). British Columbia (B.C.) native actor Raymond Burr brilliantly played the eponymous part of a criminal defense attorney, who relentlessly sought truth and justice for the wrongly accused. During each weekly episode’s trial, Perry’s bloodhound secretary and private investigator would doggedly find evidence to refute the gullible, headline seeking, Los Angeles District Attorney D.A., who only wanted a guilty verdict. As the courtroom drama proceeded, witnesses for the prosecution and defense were called to testify in front of the keen-to-know judge and jury of peers.
When it looked like all was hopeless and Mason’s innocent client was surely going to wrongfully go to the electric chair, he would ensnare the prosecutor’s star witness in a web of lies, then go to his briefcase to dramatically pull out heretofore just dug up proof of his client’s innocence, often leaving the real culprit – on the witness stand breaking down in sobbing tears, or screaming in rage from the gallery – as the camera panned in on their tormented, you will burn in hell face. Perry Mason would then pass by the prosecutor’s courtroom desk, offering the D.A. a drole, reassuring riposte, to set up next week’s episode. This went on for nine years and 271 shows.
Meng’s Wanzhou’s world.
Unfortunately, Huawei CFO Meng Wanzhou, still under 24/7 guard and house arrest in Vancouver, B.C., now for two years, doesn’t have Perry Mason as her defense attorney, nor does she live in that fictitious “above politics” and “justice is blind” world. Too bad Raymond Burr’s mesmerizing, B.C. screen bravado can’t magically free Ms. Meng from her Sino-Canadian-American geopolitical predicament. Where is Perry Mason’s slam dunk evidence when you need it? Meng can only hope that it does not take 271 trips to the courtroom to finally get there. While nine TV seasons is a stretch, her whole potential U.S. extradition hearing could drag on for several more years, if it gets that far.
Canada’s pathetic Examination of Discovery.
Before 1963’s U.S. Supreme Court Brady v. Maryland decision, (government) prosecutors could withhold evidence that proved the innocence of the defendant. Thereafter, pretrial discovery became – some would say idealized – standard operating procedure (SOP), since countless cases over the interim have shown Brady to be violated. In Canada, this SOP is similar, called Examination of Discovery and given the realpolitik of all judicial systems, is just as compromised.
Behind the “rule of law” fig leaf, Canada offers its government and prosecution lots of avenues to avoid evidential discovery. Codified after the 1991 Canada Supreme Court case, R. v. Stinchcombe, in 2014 Canada finally passed its Principles of Disclosure (https://www.ppsc-sppc.gc.ca/eng/pub/fpsd-sfpg/fps-sfp/tpd/p2/ch05.html). Section 5 is entitled Exclusions, and here is where Meng Wanzhou finds her predicament. You don’t have to be a lawyer to see that sub-sections entitled, 5.1. Police informers, 5.2. Reply evidence, 5.3. Ongoing investigations, 5.4. Investigative techniques, 5.5. Cabinet confidences, 5.6. International relations/national security/national defence, 5.7. Solicitor-client privilege, and 5.8. Work product privilege, make a mockery of Canada’s Examination of Discovery.
This is how the B.C. Supreme Court could, with a straight face, give Meng’s attorneys pages and pages of documents that are so redacted and blacked out as to be nearly meaningless – and how many more were never revealed thanks to Section 5? With very broad and vague evidentiary exclusions. Section 5 makes it easy for the B.C. Supreme Court, judges, prosecutors, Canadian Border Services Agency (CBSA) and Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) to play off of each other. Thus, they can “legally” hide any cooperation and collusion amongst themselves, including with the US’s Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and Department of Justice (DOJ).
Canada’s Medieval Extradition Act.
Furthermore, to add insult to injury for Meng Wanzhou, Canada has what is considered to be one of the most pro-extradition laws in the world. Its Extradition Act can be branded medieval. The United States didn’t even have to offer sworn testimony. Canada will simply accept a foreign representative’s word as “presumed reliable evidence”,
Trust me, she’s a witch!
On top of all the massive exclusions in Section 5 discussed above, Canada’s 1999 Extradition Act lowers the bar even further, making is perfectly suitable for the star chambers of the Spanish Inquisition (https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/E-23.01/page-1.html),
- Prosecutorial evidence can be hidden.
- Political interference is allowed.
- The accused cannot question the foreign representative who,
- hasn’t even had to swear to the truth.
- The defendant can be denied presentation of evidence or proof that they are innocent.
Pope Sixtus’ Grand Inquisitor, Tomás de Torquemada would blush at such lenient terms for conviction.
Rigged evidence is fine in Canada – just ask Hassan Diab.
Canada’s Extradition Act is routinely branded as a legal disgrace, as the case of Hassan Diab shows (https://www.cjpme.org/mend_5_2). This Lebanese-born, Arab Muslim, Ottawa university sociology professor was arrested by RCMP in 2008 at France’s request, on a supposed 1980 “synagogue bombing” case. In 2011, the Canadian judge overseeing his extradition stated that the evidence was “convoluted, very confusing, with conclusions that are suspect”; furthermore “the prospects of conviction in the context of a fair trial seem unlikely”. In plain words, the judge knew Diab was being railroaded in a framed-up case.
Nonetheless, Canada’s Extradition Act gave him no option but to order sending Diab to France. In 2012, apparently bowing to the same law, the Minister of Justice approved Diab’s extradition. There, he was imprisoned for three years, including solitary confinement, whereupon the evidentiary fraud was exposed and he was released to return home (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hassan_Diab_(sociologist)). He and his family are now suing the Canadian government for $90 million, but ten years of their lives have already been destroyed and cannot be gotten back (https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/article-hassan-diab-sues-federal-government-over-extradition-to-france/).
Meng is on the same Canadian judicial conveyor belt to perdition.
In effect, Meng is guilty until proven innocent and there is not much she can do to support her case. If the B.C. Supreme Court decides that she should be extradited, Meng is in one of the worst countries in the world to keep it from happening. The US DOJ can even show fraudulent evidence, commit perjury and Meng’s judge has to accept is as “presumed reliable evidence”.
Pictured above: PowerPoint pages #6 and #16 from the Huawei presentation that Meng Wanzhou gave to HSBC in 2013 in Hong Kong, showing the company’s full compliance to the USA’s unilateral sanctions against Iran. How convenient they were omitted by US DOJ’s request to Canada to apprehend her. Meng Wanzhou + Huawei Online Library https://lanbro-my.sharepoint.com/:f:/g/personal/jeff_brownlanglois_com/EkpOzf7mU99Auh7mRWdknpoBNgAAZM4w-Y8WjFG4Z-_sPA?e=Sehm2u (Editor's note: This link has been removed.]
Some journalists have pointed out that the US DOJ omitted two key pages, #6 and #16 from Meng Wanzhou’s infamous Huawei-prepared, 2013 HSBC PowerPoint presentation (https://news.cgtn.com/news/35417a4d31514464776c6d636a4e6e62684a4856/index.html), which DOJ used to support their demand for her extradition. It was these two slides which clearly showed that Huawei was not violating USA’s unilateral sanctions against doing business in Iran (the whole presentation can been seen in the Online Library below). Yet with Canada’s Extradition Act, this kind of rigged evidence, just like for poor Hassan Diab, is perfectly acceptable.
Diab’s travesty of justice is one of the most well-known, not to mention Meng’s, nevertheless, there are a number of others. The Extradition Act has been on the books for 21 years and counting, while being branded by many Canadian legal scholars as “wrongful” (https://digitalcommons.schulichlaw.dal.ca/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=scholarly_works). Therefore, Diab’s nightmare story fully projects to Meng Wanzhou’s case, meaning she will almost certainly be extradited to the United States if Canada decides as such, and there is almost a 100% chance of that happening, given Canada’s (il)legal foundations backing it.
She can ask the Minister of Justice to halt it and then take it to the B.C. Court of Appeals, like Diab did in Ottawa. His appeals were rejected on both counts. When Diab then went to the law of the land, the Supreme Court of Canada, they refused to hear it, sealing his Kafkaesque fate. Not only its Extradition Act, but the geopolitical nature of Meng’s case is even more high profile than Diab’s. Given Canada’s well-known servile role as a weak vassal state in the hierarchy of USA-led Western empire, can we expect anything more promising for Meng Wanzhou?
Six other countries refused to capture Meng – but not imperial vassal Canada.
Knowing that all Canadian extradition cases can be a grotesque mockery of fairness, transparency and due process, one almost has to wonder if the United States bided it time until she traveled there, to have Meng apprehended/kidnapped. However, it has been reported that US DOJ had previously asked six European and Latin American countries to do the same thing, yet they all refused (https://asiatimes.com/2020/10/why-canada-must-release-meng-wanzhou/), including staunch American allies (https://news.cgtn.com/news/2020-12-08/Freeing-Meng-Wanzhou-is-in-best-interests-of-U-S-China-and-Canada-W2VF0KQQKc/index.html). This thereby confirms Canada’s ever–obsequious role as a US flunkey. My northern friends, with painfully wry smiles hanging on their faces, euphemistically call their country “Little Brother”.
For Meng, to say that Washington holds all the cards, including as many jokers as it wants to add to the pack, is a gross understatement.
As researched and shown in my previous exposé (https://chinarising.puntopress.com/2020/10/30/exclusive-huawei-sting-operation-exposed-jeff-j-brown-in-covertaction-magazine/), the Yankee fix seems to have been firmly in place in Canada from the get-go. At the initial extradition hearings, following her CBSA and RCMP capture/kidnapping at Vancouver Airport on 1 December 2018, her lawyers pro-offered their first of now four claims for abuse of process, which, given its medieval Extradition Act, is the only avenue defendants in Canada have to fight the foreign request.
Meng’s four claims of abuse of process – #1: Arrest at airport was illegally conducted.
The first claim of abuse of process entails Meng’s arrest. Since court hearings and testimony of CBSA and RCMP officers just ended, this one will be discussed later in this exposé.
Abuse of process #2: the Canada-US Extradition Treaty should matter.
Their second claim for abuse of process pointed out that under the Canada-US Extradition Treaty (see Online Library below), a defendant cannot be sent to the USA, if the crime they are accused of is not applicable in Canada, stating,
46 (1) The Minister shall refuse to make a surrender order if the Minister is satisfied that (a) the prosecution of a person is barred by prescription or limitation under the law that applies to the extradition partner.
In extradition law, this is known as double criminality.
The US charged Meng and Huawei of committing fraud with HSBC Bank for violating America’s unilateral sanctions against Iran. There was only one problem. Canada had already rejected USA’s Iran sanctions, and in fact was doing lots of business with the Islamic Republic (https://financialtribune.com/articles/domestic-economy/97923/irans-non-oil-trade-with-canada-tops-110m). There could be no fraud if there were no internationally recognized UN sanctions.
Even with Canada’s Kafkaesque Extradition Act, this abuse of process really hit the double criminality mark and should have been all the evidence needed to send Meng on her merry way. So, B.C. Supreme Court Associate Chief Justice Heather Holmes, who is presiding over her case, had to dig deep – really deep – to deny it. Her May 2020 ruling (United States v. Meng, BCSC 2020, 785, see Online Library below) excavated an obscure, 1905 B.C case, which approved the extradition back home of an accused US bigamist, where he was living north of the border with his “secret” wife.
The B.C. judge, Lyman Duff, 115 years ago admitted defendant George Collins’ bigamy was not an extraditable offense. Nevertheless, in San Francisco Collins had purportedly lied during a civil court processing. Perjury is crime in Canada. Ergo, in convoluted language, Judge Lyman ruled that Collins should be returned home, where he was sentenced to 14 years in prison. Using similar tortured logic, Justice Holmes opined,
First, economic sanctions laws such as were in place in the US at the time of the ATP (Authority to Proceed) are not part of Canadian law but they are also not fundamentally contrary to Canadian values in the way that slavery laws would be, for example.
You know you are desperate when, in 2020 you have to invoke slavery to justify your reasoning.
Further reducing Canada’s judicial independence and global sovereignty to a spineless blob, the justice stated,
Canada’s law of fraud looks beyond international boundaries… Ms. Meng’s approach to the double criminality analysis would seriously limit Canada’s ability to fulfil its international obligations in the extradition context for fraud and other economic crimes.
To make matters even more embarrassing, Holmes really got her judicial panties wound up in a twisted knot, claiming,
The essence of the alleged wrongful conduct in this case is the making of intentionally false statements in the banker-client relationship that put HSBC at risk… The U.S. sanctions are part of the state of affairs necessary to explain how HSBC was at risk, but they are not themselves an intrinsic part of the conduct.
Notwithstanding, even if Meng and/or Huawei had lied to HSBC, which evidence shows to be untrue, it would be a simple, professional matter between the two commercial parties. Lying to your customer/supplier may be dishonest, but it is not a crime. These kinds of disputes happen all the time in the business world, ending in cessation of relations and/or arbitration, nothing more.
In throwing out Meng’s abuse of process #2, Justice Holmes spoke like a supine, imperial lackey.
Abuse of process #3: Meng’s arrest was a political seizure. Even the Canada-US Extradition says so.
Meng’s next claim of abuse of process was filed in July 2020 and went after the politicization of her case.
On 11 December 2018, just days after Meng’s apprehension, US President Donald Trump said he’d be happy to use her as a bargaining chip to win a better trade deal with China. (https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-huawei-tech-exclusive/exclusive-trump-says-he-could-intervene-in-u-s-case-against-huawei-cfo-idUSKBN1OA2PQ). He told Reuters,
Whatever’s good for this country, I would do… If I think it’s good for what will be certainly the largest trade deal ever made – which is a very important thing – what’s good for national security – I would certainly intervene if I thought it was necessary… They (Chinese President Xi Jinping’s staff) have not called me yet. They are talking to my people. But they have not called me yet (about Meng’s case).
Again, this should matter. The Canada-U.S. Extradition Treaty states in Article 4.1.c.,
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.
“If questions arise” can let the USA decide, if deferred to, and knowing Canada’s kowtowing inability to exert its sovereignty, this is not promising for Meng.
Even still, Canada’s Extradition Act says the same thing,
46 (1) The Minister shall refuse to make a surrender order if the Minister (of Justice) is satisfied that, (c) the conduct in respect of which extradition is sought is a political offence or an offence of a political character.
Does the US capturing Meng, to extort her to reveal commercial secrets, and demanding her extradition to extract trade concessions from Huawei and/or the Chinese government, look like “of a political character” to you? It sure does for me, or is Meng simply on the wrong side of geopolitics? In a country where “rule of law” truly meant something, the above would be cause for concern. But in Canada, it is just hollow, glorified rhetoric. Justice Holmes, likely under intense imperial political pressure to toe the line, has yet to render a decision to Meng’s second claim of abuse of process.
Abuse of process #4: Meng’s seizure violates commonly accepted international law.
The fourth claim of abuse of process was just submitted right after the termination of the CBSA and RCMP testimony hearings, which ended the third week of December 2020. Contextualizing two news releases (https://globalnews.ca/news/7532554/meng-wanzhou-extradition-new-argument/ and https://cfjctoday.com/2020/12/18/mengs-lawyers-outline-new-branch-of-argument-in-extradition-case-documents-2/),
This claim takes a global perspective. International law doesn’t allow a government to criminalize the conduct of someone who isn’t a citizen outside its own jurisdiction, where there is no genuine connection to that country. HSBC is incorporated in the United Kingdom, Meng is a Chinese national and the alleged misrepresentations on unilateral US sanctions were made in Hong Kong. There is no connection between Meng’s alleged conduct and the United States. The bank’s clearing of U.S. dollars was not a “reasonably foreseeable consequence” of Meng’s actions. None of Meng’s alleged conduct occurred in whole or in part in the U.S., nor did it have any effect there. Consequently, the United States’ assertion of jurisdiction is unlawful. (Meng’s) prosecution is premised on foreign financial institutions using U.S. correspondent banking services in violation of U.S. sanctions, for which (Meng) is not responsible. Such charges give effect to U.S. economic policy abroad and are thus contrary to common international law (emphasis mine).
All of this is true and it should matter enough to get Meng released, but remember we are in medieval, vassal Canada. The other chink in this claim is that Western countries in general and the USA in particular routinely flout international rules, regulations, laws, UN resolutions and the United Nations Charter of non-interference in other countries’ domestic affairs. Sadly, it seems that exceptionalism and extraterritoriality is about all they do, again the USA making most of the headlines, even attacking and sabotaging its own imperial allies. With the USA as self-nominated, imperial globocop to invade, occupy and plunder the world’s weaker states, steal and pirate assets, sanction and embargo thousands of entities and people across the globe, why would a measly common international law get in its way, while continuing to bully and browbeat sycophantic Canada?
Canadian legal scholars have weighed in, saying that Meng’s abuse of process #4 should be taken directly to Canada’s Minister of Justice, as the Extradition Act gives this cabinet level post the power to refuse sending someone on, with adequate evidence (https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2020/07/24/huawei-execs-latest-argument-to-stop-extradition-would-be-better-made-to-justice-minister-experts-say.html). Worryingly for Meng, in spite of the judge in Hassan Diab’s case saying the evidence against him looked phony, the Justice Minister at that time, Rob Nicholson, still sent him to his doom in France. If gutless Canada cannot even say “no” to second tier imperial wannabe France, can we expect the current head of Justice, David Lametti to stand up to their southern master?
Now back to Meng’s abuse of process #1, illegal arrest.
One has to keep from guffawing at the extensive court hearings which took place at the B.C. Supreme Court, on and off in November and December 2020. Not even redoubtable Perry Mason could win, with all the CBSA and RCMP officers falling back on the infamous Nixonian, “I didn’t do it” and numerous permutations of those hoary chestnuts, “I don’t recall”, “I forgot”, “He said–She said-I did not say”, “I have no idea”, “It was not me”, “Everything done was ‘reasonable’, ‘normal’ and ‘routine’”, “Coulda-Woulda-Shoulda”, ad nauseam. To wit,
1. Meng has been a legal Canadian resident since 2001, but yes, her three-hour pre-arrest grilling and seizure of all her and her travel companion’s electronic devices, “was just a routine border check” (https://www.rt.com/news/507098-canadian-border-police-wikipedia-huawei/).
2. Be sure to take careful notes like all good law officers are trained and expected to do, yet we repeatedly got, “I regret not taking any notes”, “I should have taken more notes”, “My boss told us not to write anything down” and “Emails were my recordkeeping”, when Meng’s lawyers have been denied multiple internal CBSA-RCMP-FBI email communications, or what they got was heavily redacted to near uselessness (https://www.courthousenews.com/canadian-border-chief-denies-ordering-records-blackout-in-huawei-cfo-detention/).
3. CBSA used FBI-supplied anti-static bags to seal up all that of the seized hardware, while we heard, “The FBI wasn’t a factor” (https://www.scmp.com/news/china/diplomacy/article/3110611/canada-border-officer-says-he-cant-recall-who-wanted-passwords).
4. This, while turning over to RCMP all those e-goodies, with the passwords extracted from Meng before her arrest, and it was, “Gosh, we’re really sorry what happened and it was a heartbreaking mistake” (https://www.scmp.com/news/china/diplomacy/article/3110611/canada-border-officer-says-he-cant-recall-who-wanted-passwords).
5. The FBI repeatedly called “veteran” CBSA Passenger Operations Chief, Nicole Goodman, but the latter promised she didn’t divulge anything.
6. RCMP Sergeant Ross Lundie conveniently failed to make any mention of the FBI is all of his notes, nor in his legal Will Say. Notwithstanding, numerous emails from RCMP Financial Crimes Unit clearly stated that he was the key contact for the FBI. Cornered by Meng’s cross-examining lawyer, Richard Peck, Lundie had to confess, “At the end of the day, I was identified as a contact in the case, and she (the local FBI legal attaché) contacted me for updates”. I wonder what all was not written down? What did Lundie want to hide (https://biv.com/article/2020/12/rcmp-officer-meng-arrest-denies-being-point-contact-fbi)?
7. CBSA Superintendent Sanjit Dhillon, “Became suspicious about Meng being a spy and Huawei undermining the Canadian government, after checking her out for only 5-10 minutes on Wikipedia”. This, in spite of Wikipedia being notoriously inaccurate and full of disinformation, due to trolls and censors. I guess Dhillon forgot about Dr. Taner Akcam. CBSA consulted Wikipedia when Akcam arrived in Montreal in 2007. Based on fake slander presented therein, he was detained by CBSA for several hours. Ready to throw him in jail, it took high-level Canadian government officials to get him released. Too bad Meng does not have any of those connections. How many other hapless travelers have been railroaded into wrongful convictions, based on CBSA and RCMP consulting Wikipedia? If you have a Wikipedia page and plan on traveling to Canada, beware (https://www.rt.com/news/507098-canadian-border-police-wikipedia-huawei/).
CBSA border agent Sowmith Katragadda just couldn’t recall key evidence during his court hearing-o.canada.com
8. CBSA border agent Sowmith Katragadda told one of the lawyers representing the USA in Meng’s hearings, that during her three-hour pre-arrest “immigration” grilling, CBSA’s National Security Unit demanded that she be asked for more information. Katragadda conveniently could not recall the questions and of course took few notes, only remembering getting a list of all the countries Meng visited (https://www.scmp.com/news/china/diplomacy/article/3110611/canada-border-officer-says-he-cant-recall-who-wanted-passwords).
Do we laugh, cry or both? Is this what passes for the West’s greater than thou, chest-thumping “rule of law”? Poor Meng. I’d much rather be tried in a Chinese court any day of the week.
Incredibly, Meng’s farcical Keystone Cop hearings hit even further bottom.
Incomplete to the point you have misled…?
CBSA’s Vancouver Passenger Operations Chief Nicole Goodman was apparently feeling troubled about her withering, hours-long cross-examination by Meng’s lawyer, Mona Duckett. Continually being challenged about the truthfulness of her testimony, Goodman frequently choked on her words and broke down in tears.
As a father who raised two children and someone who had to question many students during my years of teaching, this kind of behavior is not a good sign!
Judge Holmes had already instructed Goodman to not discuss her testimony with anyone, which is exactly what she did.
Outside the courtroom, Goodman’s unease seems to have driven her to ask an uninvolved government attorney about her testimony, and whether it included privileged information. This got back to the Mr. John Gibb-Carsley, a Canadian government lawyer representing the USA in Meng’s case, who was then compelled to inform Justice Holmes, Meng’s legal team and Canada’s amicus curiae, Mr. Anil Kapoor, a Toronto lawyer who has top secret clearance and is tasked with making sure nothing concerning national security is divulged.
Upon hearing what happened, Holmes told Goodman to go have a “brief chat” with Kapoor, who spent 70 minutes alone with Goodman, to get her story straight. Coming back out, Kapoor gave Goodman wiggle room a mile wide, saying she should “completely and truthfully answer to the best of her recollection”, and it was up to counsel to raise objections (emphasis mine), which, not surprisingly is exactly how it played out.
Ms. Duckett got Goodman back in the witness chair, zeroing in on her being, “incorrect or misleading because you were not being complete or truthful” – in other words lying.
Goodman came back with an equivocating, “Incomplete”.
Duckett retorted with, “Incomplete to the point you have misled”?
Thereby, deus ex machina, Diba Majzub, another Canadian government lawyer working for Uncle Sam, objected.
Incredibly, this US objection was granted by Justice Holmes, claiming Duckett’s question entered into “litigation privilege”, for several civil lawsuits filed by Meng and Huawei.
Because Meng’s lawyer asked if Goodman had lied?
Meng’s team had no choice but to agree that Kapoor would again meet with Goodman, known as massaging the testimony, and gatekeeper Kapoor would decide what to tell both law teams what he learned from Goodman. Of course, the USA team couldn’t be bothered, as they certainly had all the evidence that Meng’s side was and is still being denied. We can assume that Kapoor cherrypicked Goodman’s evidence into one long non sequitur, while the prosecuting members worked hard to keep from grinning. Then again, maybe they did (https://www.scmp.com/news/china/diplomacy/article/3113462/meng-wanzhou-hearing-disrupted-illicit-contact-between-witness).
And it must be asked, did Nicole Goodman directly disobey Justice Holmes on purpose? Was she put up to it? Her testimony up to that time sure seems to demonstrate that she was lying and/or withholding evidence, information that could have been very valuable for Meng – maybe to the point that she would have to be set free. Meng’s attorney, Ms. Duckett clearly had Goodman on the ropes for the knockout punch. Instead, the way it played out, Duckett’s haymaker was strangled into nothingness.
Even with Superman, Hulk and the Fantastic Four on his team, Perry Mason would probably lose this one.
The case against Justice Heather Holmes.
As if to underscore Canada’s less than stellar legal system, the Canadian Committee for Constitutional Courts (CCCC), a group working to clean up the country’s judicial corruption and cronyism, lists Justice Heather Holmes as a crooked judge (https://canadiancourtreform.blogspot.com/2015/09/recent-developments-in-canada-prove-our.html). This is what the CCCC has to say about her,
When (Austin) Cullen was made a Supreme Court judge he arranged to take with him another girlfriend from the Crown Counsel’s Office, namely Heather Holmes, who, along with Elizabeth (Bennett) can be relied on to do dirty justice in cases that need to be fixed, such as the recent case where Justice Heather refused to allow a litigant to have access to court documents that would have disclosed how the system of justice in British Columbia is rigged from the inside and who is behind it the (sic) rigging. Heather was protecting criminals and she knew it and she was doing it with the approval of Austin Cullen. The criminals in the court system are determined to protect themselves.
Credence is accorded these claims, as Mr. Joe Adam at email@example.com is not hiding behind anonymity. Another related website and its main page are even more scathing of Justice Holmes (https://elizabethbennettbc.blogspot.com). More so, British Columbia seems to have a reputation for dirty justice, as several websites cover this subject,
- Dead Judges Don’t Lie – 13 Dead Judges Linked to One Lawsuit Suddenly Drop Dead
- The Criminal Conspiracy that Destroyed BC lawyer Karl Eisbrenner
- The Robert Stark Story – Janitor In Search of Justice
- The Shawnigan Lake Water War
- The Water War Crimes – Canada’s Biggest Scandal
- Is British Columbia Justice Elizabeth Bennett A Corrupt Judge?
Sour grapes or something to consider? Canada surely has hundreds of judges presiding over cases across the country. The fact that out of all of them, Meng’s judge is accused of being crooked is not reassuring. Did the US DOJ make sure Holmes was the one chosen to take on Meng’s case, knowing that she is compromised? It’s very possible.
Meng Wanzhou is unfortunately caught in the vortex of a perfect geopolitical, imperial storm. Her fate will be decided in the final extradition hearing this spring, projected to be wrapped up in May 2021. This is where her team will present and argue the three remaining claims of abuse of power left in their legal quiver.
Unless of course, Justice Holmes, in subsequent, interim court rulings, peremptorily throws more claims out.
As we usher in 2021, the Chinese Year of the Cow, Meng Wanzhou’s will certainly not be one full of milk and honey. Based on of the evidence gathered in my two exposés, I predict that – and it really pains me to say this, because I realize the injustice of it – Judge Holmes will rule Meng suitable for extradition to the USA. At that point, Meng can only drag out her appeal for as long as possible, hoping for a change in the geopolitical landscape, or a noble, sovereign-minded Canadian government that can say “NO!”, at least this one time, to Uncle Sam.
This of course would all come to naught, if the USA calls off the extradition dogs in the meantime.
Hey, I wonder if Perry Mason’s clients ever had to go through any of this? I guess I’d have to watch nine years of boxed set DVDs to find out, but I seriously doubt it.
Meng Wanzhou + Huawei Online Library.
Forthcoming exposés by Jeff J. Brown.
#4: The “Two Micheals”, Kovrig and Spavor
Do your friends, family and colleagues a favor to make sure they are Sino-smart:
PRESS, TV and RADIO
About me: https://chinarising.puntopress.com/about-the-author/
Bitchute videos: https://www.bitchute.com/channel/REzt6xmcmCX1/
Brighteon videos: https://www.brighteon.com/channels/jeffjbrown
Sound Cloud: https://soundcloud.com/44-days
Stitcher Radio: http://www.stitcher.com/podcast/44-days-publishing-jeff-j-brown/radio-sinoland?refid=stpr
Websites: http://www.chinarising.puntopress.com ; www.bioweapontruth.com ; www.chinatechnewsflash.com
Line App/Phone/Signal/Telegram/WhatsApp: +33-6-12458821
Why and How China works: With a Mirror to Our Own History
The battle against the Big Lie killing the world will not be won by you just reading this article. It will be won when you pass it on to at least 2 other people, requesting they do the same.
If you find China Rising Radio Sinoland's work useful and appreciate its quality, please consider making a donation. Money is spent to pay for Internet costs, maintenance, the upgrade of our computer network, and development of the site.
Just use the donation button below (yes, click on Sylvester the Kitty)—OR, just as easy, SCAN our QR code!