Wednesday, October 20, 2010

RailGate Hardball....Does Gary Collins Still Want The Villa Del Lupo Wiretap Tapes Released?


The shim of a sham of a shim-shammying flim-flam of a trial is finally over.

To which I say.....Good Flippin' Riddance!

Because all Publication Bans are now off.

And here is something I want someone with the inside access in the proMedia to ask former RailGate Financier Gary Collins (or his legal 'counsel') right now, right this very minute (if they can, like, say, Ian Mulgrew, stop spewing the party line for long enough to do so):

"Are you, Mr. Collins, still demanding that the Crown Release the Villa Del Lupo Wiretaps, in full, that recorded your conversation with the head of OmniTRAX, in 2003."


Below is my pre-AnnieMac Pub-Ban post from May of 2007 on this matter:


Thursday, May 03, 2007

The Dobranos......




So, we thought this wee plot development, as reported by the Globe's Mark Hume, was interesting, from earlier in theweek:

Former finance minister Gary Collins yesterday called on the Crown to release any police surveillance material it has of him from a 2003 meeting with U.S. business executives concerning the government sale of BC Rail.

Speaking through his lawyer, Clark Roberts, Mr. Collins said if the police did tape his meeting with OmniTRAX Inc., a company that failed in a bid for BC Rail, it should be made public because it will only prove that he did nothing wrong while handling the $1-billion sale of the state-owned rail line.

"If there is any surveillance, Mr. Collins says it should be disclosed because it will completely reveal that he wasn't involved [in any wrongdoing]," Mr. Roberts said.

But at the time, when that came out Tuesday, we didn't know to do it with it.

I guess, maybe, now we know why the good Mr. Roberts was trying to force the Crown's hand. This, also reported by Mr. Hume, from yesterday:

Defence lawyer Michael Bolton underscored the political nature of Mr. Basi's job and the "intimate" working relationship he had with Mr. Collins by reading wiretap transcripts in which the two men discussed political dirty tricks.

In one conversation, Mr. Basi tells his boss that former B.C. premier Bill Vander Zalm and then North Vancouver Mayor Barbara Sharp were going to be on a radio talk show.

"I wanted to have the mayor of Squamish call in and just rip Barbara Sharp a new asshole. . . is that okay?" Mr. Basi asks.

"Yeah, absolutely," replies Mr. Collins.


That's some innocuous media manipulation huh.

Bill Tieleman got a quote from Ms. Sharp in response - and it is very interesting, indeed.

Sharp told 24 hours the alleged comments are "quite a shocker."

"What a terrible way to talk about people. I don't know what they were so upset with me about except that I was trying to keep B.C. Rail in North Vancouver."

In other words - it appears that it was the intent to whack any and all persons that actually wanted to keep BC Rail for British Columbians (don't forget that just last month, the last remaining remnants of BC Rail in North Van were sold to Enron.....errrr.....KinderMorgan).

But wait!

There's more - also reported by Mr. T.:

Later in the call Bolton quoted Collins to Basi: "I want you to keep this completely to yourself because there's only two of us who know about this."

Collins' spokesperson Clark Roberts left the court without speaking to reporters.

What a show!


We do have one question arising from this episode, however.

And that is......

Just who is paying the good Mr. Roberts to represent the former (and we stress former) public servant Mr. Collins?

Just askin'.

And to the best of my knowledge, the good Mr. Collins' has NOT signed a gag order like, say, Mess'rs Basi and Virk.....Unless, of course, that was part of the deal that gave the former RailGate Financier his rather short-lived bout of post-Ministerial peace and 'harmony'......



Ian Reid said...

Hey RossK,
Of course, we're paying Clark Roberts to represent Mr. Collins. Now here's my argument soon to be up on my blog: the genesis of this deal is in the voir dire of late June when the SP tried and failed to limit the defence's essential argument.

RossK said...

And that essential argument was backed by 'what' exactly, Ian?

(I'll look forward to the answer in your next post)