Constellation of hearsay misrepresents Bill Majcher's case

Friday was closing arguments for the Crown and Monday was closing arguments for the Defense. When summarising the Crown's final submission CBC said "As he laid out the Crown's final submissions, Ryan Carrier told Justice Martha Devlin that a 'constellation' of facts proved Majcher was laying the groundwork for what amounted to a campaign of extortion against a B.C.-based real estate mogul wanted by the People's Republic of China (PRC)." ROFL.

There's a constellation floating around in outer space but there are no facts in it. That's why Bill Majcher's lawyer called no evidence in the bogus trial against him. 

Ryan Carrier's closing argument sounded like yet another FBI crime fiction filled with sound and fury signifying nothing. Remember the Crown stunned the defense and ended early without calling it's star witness, Bill Majcher's friend Kim Marsh. 

The judge had previously ruled the search of Kim Marsh's home was unlawful. One would then assume if the Crown did have any real facts or evidence they would have called Kim Marsh and submitted that evidence through him. But they did not. That's because there was no evidence. Only dramatic allegations building a bizarre yet empty narrative. 

The streamlined case revolves around one claim. That Bill Majcher was going to talk to a fraudster on behalf of China. Yet he never did. They could have called Kevin Sun to testify but they did not so once again Ian Donaldson was correct. There was absolutely no evidence presented in court. At all. 

Instead their only evidence that he had committed a thought crime and was going to have a conversation with Kevin Sun was an email Bill sent to a colleague nine years ago.

Now let's back up and see what's really going on here. China wanted to start going after criminals who had been stealing from them. Just like Canada and America go after criminals under proceeds of crime legislation. Only in China's case, someone was actually stealing from them. 

If Donald Trump had asked Bill Marcher to help him find Ryan Wedding, would that be a threat to Canadian sovereignty? I think not. Lawlessness is a threat to Canadian sovereignty. Catching criminals is what the Mounties are supposed to do. They used to say the Mounties always get their man. That slogan reflected the RCMP's reputation for consistent determination in pursuing criminals. 

Bill Majcher was a patriot who formed his own company after he retired to help people catch criminals. Many former RCMP officers form these kind of companies. That's not in question. The crazy claims come not because of what he was going to do but didn't. They come from who he was going to do it for. He was going to help China find a criminal and somehow in their twisted little minds, that was in some inconceivable way a bad thing. 

"Sun was accused of stealing hundreds of millions of dollars from a Chinese bank, which he allegedly plowed into a Lower Mainland real estate empire." Well... BC Rail here we come.

"Supt. Peter Tsui claimed the Chinese wanted the RCMP to act on historic fraud charges against Sun, but Canadian police were ultimately forced to give them a hard no." 

Why the f*ck did they say no? You don't want to help China find someone accused of stealing millions of dollars from a Chinese bank and laundered it through Vancouver real estate? What about all those money laundering commissions? Was it because Kevin Sun stole the money for the Five Eyes? Why else would you refuse to investigate him?

So right at the get go we have an inherit problem. Why did the RCMP refuse to investigate Kevin Sun? That question still needs to be answered. 

In 2017 Bill Majcher sent an email to a colleague about an unamed fraudster which read "The fraudster is now a ... major real estate mogul in Vancouver and we have located over $100M of assets. The Chinese Police have opened a Task Force and standing by to issue a global arrest warrant." 

That's the email? Bill sends an email to a colleague saying China found a fraudster and are ready to issue a global arrest warrant. There is nothing unlawful about that statement. At all. This whole case and the whole narrative is literally bizarre. 

There's no criminal conspiracy. There's no foreign interference. If China, America or Australia issued an arrest warrant for an accused criminal, making that statement in an email is not unlawful. Again, no evidence. There is absolutely no evidence of Bill doing anything unlawful at all.  

Bill said "I am meeting an associate of the target tomorrow in HK [Hong Kong] to see if he can help negotiate a settlement as the Chinese want to use this as a precedent case to settle economic crimes quietly and expeditiously."

He never met the client directly but said he was going to meet an associate of the client to hopefully negotiate a settlement. How on earth is that a bad thing? This is so crazy. Bill offers to help negotiate a settlement. He does so hoping that would set a president in settling economic crimes quietly and expeditiously. This is what any law enforcement officer should try to do. 

The questions that remain are why wouldn't the RCMP help China do this and why on earth does the FBI think this was a bad thing to do? Was it because the FBI were involved with Kevin Sun and helped him launder the money he stole from a  Chinese bank? We know the CIA crashed the BCCI and a bank in Australia though arms dealing and money laundering. 

-------------------- ~ --------------------

Meanwhile back on the ranch, CBC is reporting that "The Crown has failed to prove William Majcher was taking steps to threaten an alleged B.C.-based fraudster at the behest of the Chinese government, a lawyer for the former Mountie told the judge overseeing Majcher's foreign influence trial Monday."

"Veteran defender Ian Donaldson concluded his submissions in B.C. Supreme Court with a call for Majcher's acquittal - telling Justice Martha Devlin that the Crown was asking her to take a leap of logic by imputing criminal motive to innocent actions."

"Donaldson told the judge on the final day of the trial that the Crown's case is purely circumstantial, based on a narrow reading of two paragraphs plucked from an email Majcher wrote to a colleague in 2017." Donaldson "noted that it's not illegal to threaten to sue someone, nor is it illegal to chase money through the courts on behalf of a foreign entity."