RailGate Re-Renumerated - The first $30,000 Is NOT New News

TheCircleGame
Liberal-A-Go-GoVille


Earlier today we commented on Gary Mason's potentially explosive 'suggestion' that the secret witness in the RailGate case has information about $30,000 that went missing when Mr. Erik Bornmann was the president of the B.C. Young Liberals Association way back in 1997.

Now, please do not be confused.

Because this $30,000 is not the same $30,000 that Mr. Bornmann and his partner in the Liberal-connected Lobbyshop known as Pilothouse, Brian Kieran, allegedly gave to the co-accused, David Basi and Robert Virk, in 2003 as a bribe for insider info regarding the sale of BC Rail.

But what's even more bizarre is that it turns out that the missing $30,000 from 1997, is NOT NEW news.

In fact, RailGate go-to-guy Bill Tieleman wrote about that missing $30K way back in early 2004 in the pages of the Georgia Straight:

In July 1997, the Vancouver Sun reported that Young Liberals were the subject of a police investigation when $30,000 raised for federal convention costs went missing......

{snippety-doo-dah}

Erik Bornman had been president of the Young Liberals during the time the money was raised, while Jamie Elmhirst, one of Bornman's colleagues at Pilothouse Public Affairs Group, a Victoria-based PR and provincial lobbying firm, took over as (president of the BC Young Liberals) after (previous president Jim) MacLaren's departure. Elmhirst is a former Gordon Campbell aide who also worked for federal Environment Minister David Anderson, as did Mark Marissen.

(clarifying stuff in brackets mine)

So.

How do all the big league editors and producers 'round Lotusland that have been pretty much ignoring this story like like them apples, not to mention list of names?

Eh?


____
Please note: Bill Tieleman's original column contained a mistake pertaining to the outcome of a pre-RailGate court case that, it turned out, was not directly related to the missing $30K. This was clarified at the bottom of a follow-up column by Mr. T. and that is the reason for the snippety-doo-dah in the exerpt from the original 2004 piece cited above.
Regardless, can't wait to read Mr. T's take on this latest development over at his place.
And don't you think, perhaps, that this latest development makes Mr. Norman Spector's rant from a few months ago appear to be even even more suspect?
And thanks to one of Mary's Anon-O-Mice for pointing us towards Mr. T.'s original story that we had missed on the first pass through the Google-Cache this morning.

.