Right on, great news !

Better late than never i say.

It's all bulls&^t. you can't tell me that the then Commanding Officer of E divisiion wasn't briefed on Sheremetta's testimony back in 2004 when he provided it! Any high profile case involving a police officer would catch the CO's attention. How do you spell scapegoat?

Oops! I have to correct the report. Toronto RCMP already conducted an RCMP Act investigation and expanded it to a criminal investigation. They have already filed a report to Crown Counsel, recommending charges. Sheremetta committed Perjury by falsifying accounts of his training. The RCMP wants him out, and has taken steps to cease payment of his salary.

The Sun-Province-Colonist vomit-spew gang print such rubbish that accounts filtering from those disgraces to journalism should be verified.

Should senior officers have been able to match Shermatta's record with his testimony? Yes. So why didn't they? Cop brass indulge Perjury under the cover of "independence." Ensuring that Shermatta didn't deliver false testimony, would be taken in perverse, police occupatonal-culture as "interference." Read: interference with cop-cult usurpation of the rule of law.

Again, BC cops deliver work product of: 1 incarcerated person per year; 1 convicted person per year; 1 charge per 20 substantiated crime complaints given to those worthless slugs by their masters: the public who pays their salaries, and gets garbage-in-garbage-out reports. Cops should be charged with Fraud every time they cash a pay cheque.

Too bad the TV generation who sees fictional cops solving a couple of crimes a week, is immune to fact-penetration of their digitally degraded brains. If the Zombie-class had a shred of critical faculty, then they could decipher the following Provincial Court case report of judicial clown, Maria Giardini, that was issued today on the PCBC website.

http://www.provincialcourt.bc.ca/judgments/pc/2007/03/p07_0384.htm

An off-duty slug intimidates a person known to police, and then takes off after him. The target then swings a sword at the assailant. Two off-duty slugs then attempt an illegal arrest, and box in their victim with their cars. Meanwhile, working cops arrive and the off-duties inflict a beating on their target, leaving the working cops to serve a subordinate role. Given independent witnesses to intimidation, false arrest and excessive force, investigating cops recommend charges and Crown registers same. Cops who negate plausible denial, negate coverup and whitewash. Otherwise the criminal conduct would have been allowed.

http://www.provincialcourt.bc.ca/judgments/pc/2007/04/p07_0401.htm

Giardini - a former Administrative Law drone for big business - saw to it that a fellow member of the above-the-law class, defeated justice. Fellow cops are now free to inflict intimidation, false arrest, and excessive force with absolute impunity. Tax payers shell out tens of millions each year to pay salaries to these creeps, while they sit feet up at home under administrative leave.

Is it a crime to defend onself in face of false arrest? A rare Defence-Bar judge says otherwise:

http://www.provincialcourt.bc.ca/judgments/pc/2002/05/p02_0585.htm

The stacking of the BC Bench with Administrative Law drones, as conducted by AG Oppal and his AL pal, Don Brenner (CJ, Supreme Court of BC), is THE major unreported news story in BC. Of unreported cases, 9 out of every 10 Charter defences in Vancouver Courts, are admitted by overturned under Charter Section 1 grounds, viz the "reputation of justice." Holocaust-Legalization was creeping in BC; now it is galloping.

Canadians cannot be a free people as long as we are slaves to wild animals in judicial robes and the blue slugs who enforce the Court-Code.

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1083685

Please cut and past links; I forgot to add tags. By the way, an action ("Kotai v BC Ferries, et al") in the "Queen of the North" sinking case went before the Supreme Court, late December. Who decided the Motion? Chief Judge Donald Brenner!!! I researched 181 published cases involving Brenner when he was an attorney, cum judge. I had to go back to 1974 to find a case where he represented a private individual. As a judge, I have yet to find a single case where a private individual benefited from a Brenner decision. He intervened to shield fellow judge, Koenigberg from California justice after she deposited money claimed against her Ukranian nationalist boyfriend in her own account. He intervened to squelch an application for legal aid, in defence of the "natural justice" that Administrative Lawyers despise. He interferes in EVERY single aspect of BC law. I have recorded dozens of questionable decision rendered by Brenner. All benefitted corporate or government entities.

"It's all bulls&^t. you can't tell me that the then Commanding Officer of E divisiion wasn't briefed on Sheremetta's testimony back in 2004 when he provided it! Any high profile case involving a police officer would catch the CO's attention. How do you spell scapegoat?"

He is being investigated for false testimony during the recent coroner's inquest.

He is in no way a scapegoat. He wrapped the noose around his neck so tightly that they can't undo it.

Give it a rest, Truth.
Reasonableman: Do you not think that the RCMP didn't employ the services of some communications strategist prior to all this coming out?
Sorry for the typo...about the date. When exactly did Sheremetta utter the phrases at the hearing that have landed him in hot water???

ah..ok...jan 27, 07. Now if the RCMP did an investigation and the CO has called for a hearing, then they are under the wire...for the limitation of action with regards to the code of conduct.

Yes, lot's of people are going to have to go down for this one :)
Sheremetta was never working alone with getting through the inquest. Once he sees the RCMP are no longer on his side period we'll hear lots of shocking things from his mouth i'm sure.

:)

Suspended with pay? Well in my day, folks, we called that a holiday.

Yes, but (gotta love the buts sometimes) they are working on changing that to suspended without pay I believe.

"B.C. Solicitor General John Les said a special unit is unnecessary because every in-custody death is investigated by the coroner and those testifying do so under oath."

This was said in comment about the Ian Bush case from Houston.

Hmmmm....wow seems to me he is lying...good thing he wasn't on the witness stand saying that.


So now i'm left wondering how much of the testimony given by officers in the Ian Bush case is false? Besides the obvious of course. The testimonies given need to be gone over again and again in this case. I have a feeling there are a few simple words that were spoken by officers on the stand that are staring us right in the face that even the RCMP can't deny are false.

I have said it before many times, and I will say it again!
If you want to see justice done,these cases must be kicked right up to Premier Campbell's and AG Wally Oppal's offices.
The only thing that has any hope of making a difference is public pressure, because the only thing these guys understand is VOTES!
If they think the tide is against them and they can't fix it with spin,they WILL change their tunes.
There is a stink in our justice system that is enough to gag you,but beware of sacrificial lambs created to appease the public.
Shermetta and Koester are not the only ones who are dirty, and hopefully,they will not be able to hide that much longer.
They had to have had support from above to pull it off.
All we can do is hope it is not over, and by letting these cases fade away,we are allowing that to happen.
I believe they will try to drag it all out as long as they can, in hopes that we will all forget.
Shermetta will go down for this,or at best, he will no longer be a cop!
Keep the heat on!!

Yes, keep the heat on.
I was reading this morning and one thing popped out at me. (talk about staring us in the face) I noticed some reports said the video recorder was turned off and other reports say it was on but had no tape in it.
Is there a way to get a copy of all the testimonies to see if both versions were said under oath?

This one has bothered me right from the begining...
So my question would be...who removed the tape, and when,and WHY??
I don't think enough time was spent of this little oversight!
If there was in fact a conflict in testimonys,then somebody should be finding out exactly why?