It has been a year since Huawei’s CFO Meng Wasanzhou was arrested. Next month, the 20th, Meng evening boat event ushered in the highlight – the first extradition hearing will be held. In this case, U.S. prosecutors, known as “hands-on evidence”, and Canadian police, who describe themselves as “independent law enforcement,” tried to speak out for “justice” in the West. In fact, however, according to several court judicial documents and police officers’ law enforcement notes recently obtained by the Observer Network, the “Meng Night Boat Incident” is a typical case of “abuse of law enforcement power” and “procedural injustice” in both countries.
It is worth mentioning that the relevant documents related to the Meng Evening Boat case have been disclosed by the Canadian courts.
At that time, the Canadian law enforcement department in the arrest of Meng night boat process, not only in violation of the order of the national court, deliberately delayed the arrest of Meng evening boat for three hours. Within three hours, Canadian law enforcement illegally forced Meng to hand over his cell phone information and share it with the FBI.
Canadian law enforcement law enforcement processes are so flawed that even Canadian courts can’t look down. Just today (December 11), a British Columbia court in Canada found that there was an “evidence loophole” in its handling of the arrest of Meng, and agreed with the defense’s claim that the prosecution had “caught the wind”. The ruling, in Reuters’ eyes, was a judicial victory for the Meng Evening Boat team.
Three hours after Meng’s night boat disappeared, what happened?
1 day before Meng’s arrest (November 30, 2018), a Canadian court issued a temporary arrest warrant that explicitly requires the country’s law enforcement authorities to “immediately arrest” Meng. In accordance with the country’s law enforcement process, Canadian police are supposed to arrest Meng from the moment he enters Canada. In this regard, Janice Vander Graaf, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police officer in charge of the case, also mentioned it in her November 30 law enforcement notes. She even suggested that as soon as the plane landed, it was time to board a plane and make an arrest on Meng’s boat.
The arrest warrant document issued by the Canadian court on November 30 th, clearly stated that the “immediate arrest of Meng Evening Boat” was taken from a screenshot of the court documents in British Columbia, Canada.
Screenshot of canadian police law enforcement log clear “boarding enforcement” action from british Columbia, Canada, court documents
On December 1st, however, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police suddenly changed its plans and asked the Canadian Border Service to cooperate. The latter forcibly detained Meng for up to three hours on the grounds of “entry checks”. Observer.com found that during that time, the Royal Canadian Police Force, which had earlier received “immediate arrests” from a Canadian court, had not taken any notes.
It wasn’t until 2:15 p.m. that Meng landed in Canada and “disappeared” at the airport three hours later, and appeared in notes from officers from the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and the Canadian Border Services Agency. In terms of their respective statements, royal Canadian Mounted Police notes show that Meng was transferred to another room after “customs checks” and arrested by the Royal Canadian Police seven minutes later, while Canadian Border Services enforcement officer Scott Cochrane was arrested. Kirkland) later explained in the form of an affidavit: “Customs checks” ended at 14:11 on the same day and Meng was taken to another room (arrested by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police).
Screenshot of Klander affidavit Taken from British Columbia Court File
It should be noted that the “search” of Meng’s boat by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and the Border Service during this three-hour operation was in fact not in accordance with the legal process. According to the Canadian Border Services Agency’s official website, the agency must provide an explanation if it is to detain the subject. In addition, the agency must allow the arrested person to use the mobile phone to request legal aid.
The Canadian Border Services Agency website makes it clear that when the right of detention is required, reasons are required and the right to request the presence of a lawyer is indicated
But law enforcement notes from Scott Kirtland, a law enforcement officer with the Canadian Border Services Agency, show that Meng and his entourage were seized the first time after disembarking the plane and were not eligible for contact. In addition, Huawei’s lawyerrevealed in a Report in the Guardian in March that Canadian law enforcement had not informed Meng of the reasons for his detention when he detained him.
Guardian report screenshot
Meng’s mobile phone is the focus of the search
First of all, it must be clear that Canada was under pressure from the United States from the outset of the “Meng Evening Boat Incident”.
On December 1, 2018, at 10:40 a.m., the Royal Canadian Police, Graf, made it clear that Meng’s mobile phone was the focus of the search when he failed to make an arrest. ” (We) will find the phone, which will be seized at the request of the FBI,” she wrote in her notebook. “
Graff notes clear Canadian police eye Meng’s mobile phone as the target picture from the British Columbia court file screenshot
On the other hand, The Canadian Border Services Agency official in charge of “arresting” Klander wrote in his notes: “The seizure of two mobile phones … is the case.” (from) Meng night boat and so on. Klander’s work notes even revealed that Meng was forced to hand over the password of her mobile phone that day, and that she included Meng’s mobile phone password in the log. The password is encrypted.
Canadian law enforcement has made it clear that two mobile phones were seized at the time, and screenshots of court documents in British Columbia, Canada.
And notes of the seizure of Meng’s mobile phone were confiscated by the Canadian Border Services Agency and then submitted to the Royal Canadian Police. “The bag of the confiscated mobile phone was handed over to the Canadian Border Services Agency,” the rspca d’Ath, the royal police officer, Ross Lundie, wrote at 11 am on December 1, 2018, when the Observer noted that no arrests had been made. Canadian Border Services agency official Klander then put Meng’s cell phone in a bag.
Screenshot of Canadian police hand over pre-prepared bag to Canadian border control, British Columbia court file
And that just speaks for itself.
A temporary arrest warrant issued by a Canadian judge required Canadian police to make an immediate arrest of Meng, but at the airport, Canadian police witnessed and even supported an illegal search of Meng’s boat by Canadian Border Services officers. The description of “onlooker law enforcement” is also described in the notes of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, Graff.
Where’s Meng’s mobile phone information? United States
Canada’s attorney general, David Lametti, confirmed in October that Canadian police had indeed made an arrest at the request of the U.S. Department of Justice. However, in an eight-page written statement, he stressed that Canadian authorities had only collected information on Meng’s mobile phone and had “not shared information with the United States”.
Reuters reported screenshots
But the first-line law enforcement officers’ law enforcement records show that at the request of the United States, Canada will Meng Night boat mobile phone information and the United States was shared.
On the fourth day of the arrest, on December 4, 2018, Royal Canadian Mounted Police Officer Peter Lea confirmed that he had spoken to FBI Agent John Sgroi at around 7 a.m. On the phone, the FBI asked Canadian police to provide cell phone information about the detainee. In addition, at 9:39 a.m. that day, Royal Canadian Mounted Police (Ben Chang) sent an email to his colleague Peter Dhaliwal saying he had spoken to FBI Agent John Sgroi, who made the same request. Ben’s e-mail was also copied to his colleague Ria.
Ben sent an email to the FBI and copied a screenshot of a phone call with his colleague Ria, who also spoke to the FBI from a court file in British Columbia, Canada.
At 3:25 p.m., Royal Canadian Police Officer Dariwal applied to Canadian law enforcement for evidence containing information such as Meng’s mobile phone serial number. It is worth mentioning that the application is labeled “Priority”.
At 1:20 p.m. on December 12, 11 days after Meng’s arrest, royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) Graf clearly wrote in his law enforcement notes that the serial number of Meng’s electronic device had been submitted to the U.S. side. At this point, Canadian law enforcement completed the submission to the U.S. side of Meng’s electronic devices – and this is also contrary to the Canadian prosecution’s so-called “not shared with the U.S. side” argument.
Graf confirms filing with FBI of Meng’s electronic device, screenshot of court documents in British Columbia, Canada
In the face of such a loophole law enforcement, Canada also has introspection. At a preliminary hearing in a Canadian court in September, Canadian prosecutors admitted for the first time that it was “wrong” for its Border Service to deliver Meng’s mobile phone password to Canadian police.
Canadian prosecutors admitted in September that the incident of the police on the border control unit’s submission of Meng’s mobile phone to police was “wrong” in a screenshot of court documents in British Columbia, Canada.
Observer.com noted that Canadian prosecutors simply denied wrongdoing in their enforcement process, but did not explain whether the Meng’s charges were reasonable. The U.S. side ignored the legality of the Canadian procedure, on time to the Meng night boat extradition procedures – as the focus of the case, “Meng night boat incident” the first extradition hearing will be held.
“Canada needs to prove that it is an independent country”
As China’s ambassador to Canada, Cong Peiwu, said recently, Canada not only has no right to blame China, but should also reflect on the treatment of Meng’s late boat. Not to mention That Canada’s capture has seriously damaged China’s bilateral relations with Canada. Just after the annual meeting of the Home Trade Council, most delegates told the Observer that Canada was currently under pressure from the United States.
Goldy Hyder, president and chief executive of the Canadian Business Council, said Canada needed to prove itself as an “independent nation” to strike a balance between China and the US. “We, as Canadians, need an independent foreign policy. “
In addition, Canada seems to be under pressure from the United States to provoke international trade frictions. The Washington Post reported in June that Canadian Prime Minister Donald Trump had expressed support for U.S. President Donald Trump’s U.S.-Canada-Mexico trade deal. In exchange, the latter said, “I’m willing to do everything that helps Canada.” “
Washington Post screenshot
What’s good for Canada? In the case of Canadians, it is a call for a new and independent foreign policy for the Government of Canada. Don Donavan, publisher of The Ottawa Life and former chief of staff to Canada’s Labor Department, told the Observer that the Canadian government’s decision against Huawei in December was “wrong”. “All walks of life in Canada have benefited from Huawei’s growth. “There are a lot of people in the Canadian government who want to resolve the trade conflict between China and Canada, ” Donovan said. “
The United States is still agitating Canada to demand so-called “consensus” on Huawei’s affairs as a means of maintaining a “small partnership”. In the case of Huawei, Canada, which also supported Huawei’s stay a few years ago, changed its attitude towards Huawei in an instant after a “lobster dinner” with the United States and its allies “conspired to kill Huawei”. But more recently, there have been serious disagreements within the Five Eyes Alliance, a Western intelligence agency, over Huawei.
In an interview with the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation on November 4th, Rice, a former U.S. national security adviser, again “advised” Canada not to use Huawei’s 5G products and technologies. In January, the Canadian government, under pressure from the U.S., said it had “months” to complete its 5G security assessment of China, according to the Observer.com. In April, Scott Jones, director of the Canadian Cyber Security Centre (CCCS), said the security review was “nearing completion.” In May, however, Bloomberg reported that Canada appeared to be no longer in a hurry to make a public statement on whether to block Huawei’s 5G.
So far, the Canadian government has not rushed to set the tone on Huawei. Bloomberg thinks the Five Eyes alliance is already divided.