In addition, according to local media reports, two Canadian congressmen and one Vancouver City Councilor have announced their support for the release of Meng Wanzhou. This is the first time that current members of parliament have publicly expressed their support for the release of Meng Wanzhou.
Meng handed in the password to the police
Mr. daliwal said the note with Mengs mobile phone code was handed to him by Scott Kirkland of Border Services Canada. Cochrane, in his testimony, claimed that he put the note in the same bag as his mobile phone due to negligence, and federal police obtained the code note. If the testimony of officer daliwal is true, the border service is suspected of violating the Customs Law and deliberately handing over the passenger information obtained by the customs to the police.
A note with Meng Wanzhous mobile phone code photo source: CCTV news
Another important detail is that the password obtained by the police includes not only the mobile phone password, but also the password of the security system of Meng Wanzhou residence, which is obviously not the privacy information that the Border Service Bureau should obtain.
Since the Canadian police handed the IMEI number and other information of Meng Wanzhous mobile phone to the Federal Bureau of investigation (FBI), it means that the U.S. law enforcement departments can obtain the detailed information of Meng Wanzhous mobile phone, such as call records and SMS.
On the same day, according to local media reports, two representatives of the Canadian federal Congress, Niki Ashton from the New Democratic Party and Paul manly from the green party, announced that they supported the demand for the release of Meng Wanzhou. Subsequently, Vancouver City Councilor Anne Roberts also announced her support for the release of Meng Wanzhou.
Canadian Border Service officials have repeatedly overturned written testimony
Sowmith katragadda, an official of the Canadian border service, has repeatedly overturned his written testimony in court recently.
For another example, he said in his civil litigation defense that he searched Meng Wanzhous information online on December 1, 2018. But in court, he said it was his boss, Bryce McRae, who was searching when he saw the information nearby. He also claimed that before questioning Meng Wanzhou that day, he called the National Security Department of border service at 13:09, but the work record of his boss Bryce McRae showed that the call was made by himself at 13:36 There are still a lot of inconsistencies in katragadas testimony.
Sign immigration restriction order before finding a reason
So here comes a serious problem
Defense lawyers pointed out that in fact, there are relevant legal provisions for signing immigration restriction orders. Katragada replied that he did not remember how the law stipulated it. As a government official, katragada signed the immigration restriction order, but there was no reason and no other form. Such a statement is ridiculous and absurd.
Defense lawyers directly pointed out that katragadas work notes and the immigration restriction order signed were specially prepared to make others look as if the cross examination of Meng Wanzhou by the Border Service Bureau was random.
Confused immigration inspection: inspection is required even if you do not enter the country, but you have no interest in the compulsory inspection items
Several CBS witnesses have confirmed that their main responsibilities are two major ones: immigration inspection of personnel, baggage and cargo inspection. On December 1, 2018, when Meng Wanzhou made a transfer, Katla GADA claimed that it was a normal entry inspection for Meng Wanzhou. Although Meng Wanzhou had no entry requirements, he still had to carry out immigration inspection. Strangely, he was not only interested in Meng Wanzhous electronic equipment, but also asked about Meng Wanzhous itinerary, which countries he had visited before, and so on. The whole interrogation process lasted nearly three hours.
Picture of Meng Wanzhous carry on bag and check-in luggage at Vancouver Airport on December 1, 2018 source: CCTV news
The defense lawyer asked Katla GADA, have you checked Meng Wanzhous luggage? He replied No. The lawyer asked him again, did you ask what was in Meng Wanzhous luggage? He replied that he did not remember.
This exposed the problem:
Since it is the normal inspection of the Border Service Bureau, checking passengers luggage is an essential work. Why is he not interested in Mengs luggage? This actually shows that the inspection and cross examination of Meng Wanzhou by the Border Service Bureau is not a normal entry inspection at all.
Defense lawyers pointed out in court that katragada actually violated section 107 of Canadas Customs Act. There are the following statements:
Prohibition - provision or use of customs information
(2) Except as authorized by this section, no person shall:
(b) Wilfully permit any person to have access to any customs information; or
(c) Deliberate use of customs information
The head of Canadas Border Service Bureau judged by his own intuition that it posed a threat to national security
According to China News Network on November 21, 2018, when Meng Wanzhou arrived in Vancouver from Hong Kong on December 1, 2018, Canadian law enforcement officers did not immediately arrest him according to the temporary arrest warrant, but conducted an inquiry for about 3 hours.
Dillon also admitted in court that before the operation, he deleted the email about the arrest from the person in charge of the border service on duty. He also admitted that due to the existence of the arrest warrant, the result of the immigration inspection of Bangladesh will only make it impossible for the party concerned to enter the country. Meng Wanzhou once asked the reason for the second inspection, but Dilong did not give a positive answer and concealed the existence of the arrest warrant.
Daily economic news, comprehensive CCTV news, China News Agency
Meng Wanzhou, vice chairman and chief financial officer of Huawei, once again entered the British Columbia High Court at 10:00 a.m. Vancouver local time on the 16th. She will hear cross examination of Canadian law enforcement agencies suspected of abusing judicial procedures in her extradition case. In a cross examination in the last week of October, the judge heard only eight of the 10 witnesses. The hearing of other witnesses will continue over the next two weeks.
The two witnesses who have been cross examined admitted in court that they had made mistakes or mistakes in the process of law enforcement. Among them, the police officer surnamed ye from the Canadian federal police admitted that he had provided false information in the process of obtaining the arrest warrant signed by the judge. Scott Kirkland, from the Canadian border service, admitted that it was his work fault that he wrote Meng Wanzhous mobile phone code on a note that allowed police to obtain the code.
The trial of Meng Wanzhous extradition case is currently in the second stage, that is, whether the judicial procedure has been abused in her extradition and arrest. There are three branches: whether the extradition request made by the United States is out of political interests; whether Canadian law enforcement agencies used illegal means or violated her charter rights in the process of arresting Meng Wanzhou; and whether the evidence provided by the United States to the court is sufficient. Cross examination belongs to the second branch here. (head station reporter Zhang SEN)
The key witness of the Canadian side refuses to testify in court in the Meng Wanzhou case
According to reports, on November 16 local time, British Columbia High Court of Canada held another hearing on Meng Wanzhou case. Ben Chang, a retired Canadian Mounted Police officer suspected of providing Meng Wanzhou electronic equipment password to the Federal Bureau of investigation, refused to testify in court. A reporter asked at a regular press conference held by the Ministry of foreign affairs this afternoon what is Chinas comment?
Foreign Ministry spokesman Zhao Lijian said that we have taken note of the relevant reports. This kind of cover up approach of Canada will only make more people have doubts, and at the same time more clearly see the political nature of the Meng Wanzhou incident. I would like to ask why the Canadian politicians who have been clamouring about the so-called coercive diplomacy have been playing dumb and deceiving and misleading the Canadian public about the constant doubts in the Meng Wanzhou incident.
Zhao Lijian stressed that no matter how hard Canada tries to hide the truth and mislead public opinion, it can not get rid of its responsibility. We once again urge the Canadian side to meet with the Chinese side, take measures to correct the mistakes, immediately and properly solve the Bangladesh evening boat incident, and make practical efforts to get China Canada relations back on track.